Sitting of 5 February 1990

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

  Pensioners
  Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional support he is proposing to give pensioners in Britain.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The Government attach a high priority to the needs of elderly people. The success of our policies resulted in a 23 per cent. real terms increase in average pensioners' total net income between 1979 and 1986.
  Mr. Vaz: Nothing that the Minister has said will give any comfort to the millions of pensioners throughout the country who are struggling hard in difficult economic circumstances. What words of comfort has the Minister for a constituent of mine, Mrs. Houlton, a pensioner who has had to return to work as a part-time cleaner in order to pay for her television licence? Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for her Department providing additional financial support to help pensioners pay for standing charges and television licences, which in many cases are essential for their entertainment?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman will know that concessionary licences for pensioners are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I remind the hon. Gentleman that our policies are aimed at improving the total income of pensioners. However, our measures of October 1989 directed an extra £200 million towards older, poorer and disabled pensioners. That resulted in help for some 2·6 million people, 100,000 of whom were given help for the first time through income support and housing benefit.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I welcome the Minister's statement on the rise in pensioners' incomes, but may I ask her to take particular care in considering pensioners who have worked and saved hard all their lives and who are living in their own homes and not receiving social security benefit? Many of them are living on less money than pensioners next door, who have not followed that course of action and are living on social security.
  Mrs. Shephard: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, but the Government consider that £8,000 as the capital
  626
  limit for housing benefit and £6,000 as the capital limit for income support strike about the right balance between protecting less well-off people and the taxpayer.
  Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister consider giving support to pensioners who wear contact lenses because they have had cataract operations and who have to pay between £3 and £4 for lotions? Some of them need three or four lotions. Those lotions are not cosmetic but necessary aids. A pensioner who visited me last week was experiencing great difficulty. She had free prescriptions until 12 months ago but can no longer get them. It appears that they are discretionary and that discretion is not being exercised as it should.
  Mrs. Shephard: As the hon. Lady knows, it is difficult for me to comment on an individual case. In certain circumstances help is available for prescriptions for people on low pay. I should be glad to look at the individual case if that would help the hon. Lady.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' incomes from savings changed over the period (a)1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' incomes from savings changed over the period (a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Between 1974 and 1979, pensioners' income from savings fell by 16 per cent. in real terms. Between 1979 and 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, it rose by 64 per cent. in real terms.
  Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures demonstrate a massive increase in pensioners' income during the decade that the Conservatives have been in office, compared with when Labour was in office? Does he further agree that the unique benefit that accrues to British women, whereby they get a pension on their husband's contribution, and other related benefits, means that the British pension is one of the best in the European Community?
  Mr. Newton: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments on both counts. The improvement in the income that pensioners derive from their savings has been an important ingredient in the overall increase in the total average net income of pensioners, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred in her earlier reply. That has been accompanied by our measures to help those who do not have the advantage of income from savings—[Interruption.] As to European comparisons, I see that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are in characteristically simplistic mood. As emerged from my exchanges with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in the debate last week, many European countries do not pay married women a pension on their husband's contribution. It is a major advantage of the British system that it does.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Although most pensioners have done quite well under the present Government, and certainly a great deal better than they did under the

  627
  previous Labour Government, is it not the case that one group has done much less well? I refer to those who must exist only on a state pension. Were not the Government absolutely right last year to introduce their package for poorer pensioners, which was specifically targeted at that group?
  Mr. Newton: Yes. Our policy specifically acknowledges that not all pensioners have the advantage of increased occupational pensions and of the improved income from savings to which I referred. We deliberately sought to direct extra help to those most in need.
  Mr. Frank Field: Although the Secretary of State clearly has no difficulty in confusing some of his supporters about what has really happened to pensioners' living standards, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that most pensioners know that under the previous Labour Government, those among them dependent on state benefits enjoyed a real increase in their pension of 20 per cent., compared with only 2 per cent. under the present Government?
  Mr. Newton: In recent weeks, the hon. Gentleman and I have had several exchanges about that. As I have adverted to on more than one occasion, the hon. Gentleman himself recently wrote an interesting press article in which he acknowledged precisely the type of points that I made in my previous answer, and suggested that his own party's policies did not focus sufficiently on the needs of pensioners whose only income was a state pension.
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman constantly makes great play of the increase in pensioners' real overall incomes over the past decade. Will he confirm that the poorest one fifth of pensioners have received no real increase over the past decade? As to the remainder, will he further confirm that the two biggest factors in increasing their incomes have been high interest rates—which increase the return on investments, but at the expense of mortgage misery for millions—and, above all, the maturing of the state earnings-related pension scheme, which was a Labour Government scheme that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor tried to destroy?
  Mr. Newton: I cannot confirm the latter. The two most striking features have been the growth in income from occupational pensions and the growth in savings income, which compares with a decline in savings income under the previous Labour Government. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, it has been emphasised frequently in recent debates that far fewer pensioners are now in the bottom one fifth of income distribution. That figure has fallen from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 24 per cent. now.

  Long-term Disablement
  Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the measures he is introducing to help long-term sick and disabled people who are disabled from birth or early in life.
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): On 10 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced major improvements in social security help for people disabled from birth or in early life. Our proposals include increasing severe
  628
  disablement allowance for nearly 25,000 disabled people later this year; a new disability allowance for people of working age and below, to improve help with the extra costs of being disabled; and a new disability employment credit to make it easier for disabled people to take up jobs.
  Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the cost of providing those benefits to the long-term sick and disabled, at more than £8 billion, is now twice what it was in real terms 10 years ago? Will he further confirm that the measures taken last October and in January were targeted at those vulnerable groups? Will he give an assurance that he will continue working with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to ensure that improvements are achieved for those vulnerable groups and that progress is made towards an effective disablement income for those unable to earn for themselves?
  Mr. Scott: I confirm that my hon. Friend is correct to suggest that there has been a real terms increase of virtually 100 per cent. in expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled, which is projected to rise to some £12 billion by the end of the century. I believe that those proposals are well targeted and, as I said in my answer, they will be of particular help to those who are disabled earlier in life, and who do not have an opportunity to build up a contributions record, an occupational pension or savings. We shall continue to monitor the system, to see what improvements may be made in the future.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: What are the Government's plans for very severely disabled people with high care costs, and for the more than 4 million pensioners who are disabled? Can the Minister assure the House that existing benefit levels will be protected for attendance allowance and mobility allowance claimants? Is he aware that all the main national organisations have now combined to condemn as disgraceful Ministers' response to the poverty uncovered by the Government's own surveys of disability?
  Mr. Scott: There has been a real increase in the level and extent of benefits since the Government came to office. I acknowledge that the role of carers—those who care for the disabled—will come under increasing scrutiny as time goes by, but through increasing earnings disregard, invalid care allowance and the introduction of the carer's premium, we have recognised that. Of course, we shall continue to uprate the higher level components for both care and mobility in the disabled allowance, and that will extend its coverage further down the scale of disability.

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has as to the number of pensioners who are benefiting as a result of the abolition of the pensioners' earnings rule.
  Mr. Newton: We estimate that when the earnings rule was abolished, up to 400,000 stood to benefit immediately. In addition, all future pensioners will benefit from the freedom to choose to continue in work and receive their state pensions.
  Mr. Evans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's good news, which shows the Conservatives' commitment to pensioners. Notwithstanding what the Opposition say,

  629
  pensioners incomes have increased by 25 per cent. Now that pensioners have the choice to carry on working, will my right hon. Friend ensure that all pensioners everywhere know of the change so that they can carry on working if they wish?
  Mr. Newton: We mounted a substantial exercise last year to tell those whom we thought might be affected. Information about the abolition of the earnings rule is part of the standard pack that we send to new and prospective pensioners.
  Mr. Madden: May I ask the Secretary of State a simple question on behalf of a widow pensioner constituent? Could he live on £46·20 per week? That is the amount that she is expected to live on. She asked the Prime Minister the same question on 8 November last year and has not so far received a reply.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I need more details. In particular, I need to know whether the figure that he quotes includes housing benefit, because in many cases, the figures used to describe people's social security incomes totally ignore the help that they get with housing costs.
  Mr. Hind: The abolition of the earnings rule for pensioners will be a relief, but the introduction of the community charge will cause a great deal of hardship to some pensioners, particularly those who receive a small pension. Will my right hon. Friend study the situation in relation to housing benefit and see whether he can assist? In Lancashire we are faced with a 16 per cent. increase in expenditure by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which will mean an extra £300 on the community charge. The Government's calculated level of £264 means that there will be no relief on the extra £300 that many households will have to pay.
  Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake completely to offset the effects of irresponsible expenditure policies by Labour local authorities. Community charge benefit, which is now replacing rate rebates, is more generous because it has a lower taper rate, and I hope that that will help some of my hon. Friend's constituents.

  Social Fund
  Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of low and medium-priority claimants to social fund offices he expects to receive social fund grants in the final quarter of the current financial year; and what guidance has been issued by his Department to local offices.
  Mr. Scott: Applications for social fund loans and grants are decided by social fund officers exercising their discretion having regard to the individual circumstances of the particular application. It is not therefore possible to estimate the proportion of low and medium-priority applications that will be met during the remainder of this financial year. Guidance to social fund officers is contained in the social fund manual, a copy of which is in the Library.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the news that 100 social fund offices have been extra money to deal with some of the claims. Is it not a fact, however, that some offices are
  630
  instructing officers to consider only higher-priority groups? Is not some flexibility required, especially in view of the recent adverse weather conditions?
  Mr. Scott: Some offices are in that position, but others are still able to pay claimants at all levels of priority. We shall be monitoring the position very carefully, and we have shown that we are already doing that by increasing the number of officers to 106, at an extra cost of some £3 million.
  Mr. Flynn: The Minister mentioned a responsible spending policy, but he need not look beyond the social fund to see what everyone else has recognised—that it is a fraudulent fiasco. Those in the greatest need are excluded altogether because of the loans demand, and many others may not receive any grant at all: it is a question of luck and of where they live, because it depends on how much is left in the local budget. Many offices have had to exclude whole categories of claimants from the scheme because their budgets are too low. In the face of soaring demands, inconsistencies, chaos and injustices, how can the Minister plan to cut next year's social fund in real terms?
  Mr. Scott: We shall announce the allocations for next year in due course. I am confident that the social fund is a considerable improvement on the single payments system that preceded it; it contains some flexibility, perhaps best illustrated by the fact that, of the loans that have been refused this year, no fewer than 25,000 have been met by an award of community care grant.

  Departmental Service
  Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of recent improvements in the speed of service provided by his Department; and to what he attributes such improvements.
  Sir John Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of recent improvements in the speed of service provided by his Department; and to what he attributes such improvements.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer question 6 together with question 20.
  Ms. Short: No. That is outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a matter for the Minister; questions are sometimes linked in this way, although it is unusual.
  Mrs. Shephard: Since the Government reforms were introduced in 1988, the social security system has become simpler for claimants to understand and easier for staff to operate. As a result, there have been very real all-round improvements in standards of service to the public. In 1989–90, the average time taken to clear income support claims, and the average time that income support callers spend in our offices, have both improved by 24 per cent. compared with average processing and waiting times before the reforms.
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend's answer will be warmly welcomed throughout the country. May I, however, draw to her attention a problem of which I have been informed

  631
  by the Chelmsford Children's Society? A Catch-22 has developed. The problem of homelessness has been accentuated because of the time that elapses between the submission of an application for housing benefit and the receipt of the benefit, because it takes so long to process an application. Can my hon. Friend's Department do anything to speed up the process and eliminate the problem?
  Mrs. Shephard: I think that my hon. Friend will know that the administration of housing benefit is the responsibility of local housing authorities, which are expected to clear housing benefit claims within 14 days. The undue delay that my hon. Friend mentions should not take place. It is unacceptable that housing authorities should prevent vulnerable groups from receiving money made available to them by the Government.
  Sir John Hunt: To what extent is the welcome improvement in clearance times due to the operation of the Freeline service that is being increasingly used, particularly by those who find it difficult to put their problems into writing? Has not that been a helpful innovation?
  Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Freeline service now receives 1 million calls a year. That includes a service in a number of ethnic languages.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Minister realise the humiliation that her Department is heaping upon claimants for both mobility allowance and attendance allowance? The position of many of them will not improve. However, renewal of their benefit seems automatically to be refused. They have to wait months for their appeal to be heard and sometimes they have to go much further than that before their just demands are met. There is no point in saying that the time taken has improved. Their humiliation now is much greater.
  Mrs. Shephard: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that there has been a considerable improvement in waiting times for administering those benefits. I shall give him the details of those improvements if he cares to write to me.
  Mr. Pike: Is not the Minister concerned about the great poverty and difficulty that many people suffer due to the time that it takes to hear appeals? That may not be the responsibility of her Department, but will she exert every pressure to ensure that appeals relating to all forms of benefit are dealt with as speedily as possible?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the time taken before appeals can be heard and settled causes great distress to claimants. We shall continue to review any improvements that it might be possible to make.

  Children (Benefits)
  Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the percentage of take-up of means-tested benefits for children; and what is the percentage take-up of child benefit.
  Mr. Newton: We estimate that, overall, around 90 per cent., by value, of income-related benefits are claimed, and that nearly four out of five families with children eligible for income-related benefits make a claim. Take-up of child benefit is virtually 100 per cent.
  Mr. Knox: As the take-up of child benefit is higher than the take-up of means-tested benefit, does not my right hon. Friend agree that many poorer families with children are suffering because of the failure to uprate child benefit?
  Mr. Newton: No, I do not think that I would. It would be impracticable, at least in my judgment, to raise child benefit to a level that would give the same amount of help to low-income working families as is given by family credit. To that extent, whatever the level of child benefit, we should need a benefit such as family credit. We are determined to make it as effective as possible.
  Ms. Short: Surely the question is whether the Government wish to help children and to encourage mothers who wish to work to do so. If that were the Government's intention, they would increase child benefit. Instead, they have cut it and given away the money in tax cuts to the rich. That is forcing large numbers of people, women in particular, to live on benefits when they would like to work. That is the result of the cut in child benefit and it is the Government's deliberate policy.
  Mr. Newton: As the hon. Lady knows, I simply do not agree with her. The fact is that family credit encourages a large number of families, both the mothers and the fathers, to work when circumstances might otherwise discourage them from doing so. Help is being given to 50 per cent. more people at very nearly twice the cost of the previous benefit.

  Long-term Disablement
  Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what proportion spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has increased over the last decade; and how he anticipates recent announcements will affect such expenditure over the next three years.
  Mr. Scott: We have increased spending on benefits for people who are long-term sick or disabled by almost 100 per cent. over the past decade. The improvements in help for disabled people that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 10 January will increase spending by an extra £88 million net in 1990-91, £141 million net in 1991–92 and £214 million net in 1992–93.
  Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer demonstrates a powerful commitment over the past 10 years to give more help to those to whom the taxpayer is most anxious that help should be given? Will he take this opportunity to emphasise the Government's continuing desire to give more help and to improve the benefits for sick and disabled people, which can happen only in a successful, free enterprise economy?
  Mr. Scott: We have clearly demonstrated our commitment by increasing expenditure in real terms every year by £370 million during our period in office, as against £220 million under the Labour Government, using the same basis for those figures. We are not resting on our laurels. Additional money will be spent every year on the long-term sick and disabled for the rest of this century.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that the extra expenditure on disabled people which arises from the Secretary of State's recent announcement will peak in three years' time at £300 million a year but will fall steadily

  633
  over the rest of the decade to nil? Will he further confirm that Government figures show that his recent announcement will massively cut benefits to disabled people by £9 billion each year over the next 25 years? Is not this yet another notorious example of the Government cutting the incomes of the most vulnerable sections of society to fund tax cuts for the rich?
  Mr. Scott: To reiterate what the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped, there will be extra money each year for the rest of the decade—
  Mr Meacher: And after that?
  Mr. Scott: That is a long time ahead. We have altered the balance and structure of benefits especially to help those who are disabled early in life or from birth and we have acquired some freedom for manoeuvre in the long term. The country will judge our record of improving benefits for disabled people against that of the previous Labour Government.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the good work that he has done while he has held his present responsibilities, but will he give an assurance that in future expenditure the needs of sufferers from multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, which are the concern of dedicated societies in Cambridge, will be given the consideration that they deserve?
  Mr. Scott: Those who suffer from motor neurone disease will be one of the principal groups who will benefit from clause 1 of the Social Security Bill, which is currently making slow progress through the House. Both the groups that my hon. Friend mentioned are likely to benefit from the age-related additions to severe disability allowance and from the disability allowance that we shall introduce in due course

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the cost of providing care in voluntary and private residential nursing homes in the south-east of England.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We have received a considerable number of representations from a variety of interested organisations and individuals, including hon. Members.
  Mr. Bowden: Does my hon. Friend agree that prices in the south-east are inevitably higher than in many parts of the country, and that as a result of the level of maximum payments set by the DSS some people who are unable to afford those prices are being forced out of residential homes and back into hospital? That cannot be good for the National Health Service or for the individuals concerned.
  Mrs. Shephard: I remind my hon. Friend that the help provided over the past 10 years through income support has helped many thousands of people to make their own choices about the residential care that they want. It has never been the intention of the Government, nor could it be of any Government, to meet all residential care costs, no matter how high. We have provided an additional £100 million for 1990, thereby increasing the help available for about 200,000 people. Obviously, the system is not perfect,
  634
  which is why the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill deserve my hon. Friend's careful consideration.
  Mr. Eastham: Has the Minister had a chance to read correspondence that I sent to the Department on behalf of the citizens advice bureau operating in the Manchester area? It pointed out that the money given by the Government is inadequate to support old people in residential homes, to the extent that their pocket money is being used to make up the deficit. When will the Government introduce a realistic figure and realise that the northern areas suffer as much as the southern counties?
  Mrs. Shephard: I must repeat that, with effect from April, the Government will make available an additional £100 million. That will mean a £10 increase for all claimants in residential homes, except for the mentally ill. But, because the system is not perfect, changes are on the way.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Sir George Young:To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions have risen since 1979.
  Sir Trevor Skeet:To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions have risen since 1979.
  Mr. Newton: With permission, Mr. Speaker, and I hope without the previous opposition, I will answer question 12 together with question 16.
  Between 1979 and 1986 pensioners received a 56 per cent. real increase in income from their occupational pensions.
  Sir George Young: Is not it increasingly irrelevant to use the level of the state retirement pension as a barometer for the living standards of pensioners? Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing regularly, alongside average industrial earnings, the average incomes of pensioners?
  Mr. Newton: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, because the first part of his supplementary question is absolutely right. It is increasingly important to consider what is happening to pensioners' incomes as a whole. On average, the increase has been substantial.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: The important consideration is the real percentage increase in the total earnings of pensioners, as Ministers have said, and although the number of occupational pensions has increased greatly over the years—thanks to the Conservatives—will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that a small section of the public still depend on state pensions only and that they are being crushed under their burdens?
  Mr. Newton: We have very much borne that in mind. As one of my hon. Friends said, it is precisely for that reason that about £200 million of additional state money was steered through the income support and housing benefit system to those least well-off pensioners as recently as last October.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State recognise that those pensioners are struggling? Does he agree that it would be wrong to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that the average

  635
  incomes of people on occupational pensions should be used to determine Government policy? As has been said before, the people who are suffering are those who have to live on the state pension and nothing else.
  Mr. Newton: That was not what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton suggested, and it was certainly not what I agreed with. The income of pensioners is an important and relevant fact in judging the balance of public policy. It is one of the things that led us to believe that it was right to make special increases for the least well-off pensioners, using the state's resources.
  Mr. Winnick: How does the Minister explain the position of pensioners who have written to me, some of whom have a total income of no more than £54 a week, out of which they pay £10 or £12 a week in council rents? Councils have told me that they have no alternative but to charge such rents because of the Government's policy on housing benefit. Why should constituents on small incomes, such as those to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I have referred, have to live lives of poverty and deprivation largely because of the Government's policy on pensions and housing benefits?
  Mr. Newton: The pensioners to whom the hon. Gentleman referred are precisely those who benefited principally from the Government's measures last October in respect of income support and housing benefit. That was the right thing to do.
  Mr. Favell: If one talks about a pensioner living on the basic pension alone, it sounds as though he is poor. Is it not a fact, however, that a person on the basic pension who has no occupational pension and no savings is entitled as of right to income support and to housing benefit if he needs help towards the costs of his accommodation?
  Mr. Newton: Yes. A pensioner who had only the basic state retirement pension would certainly, unless he were living in someone else's household, be helped by income support and housing benefit.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the social fund payments by (a) grants and (b) loans for the current year in London and the comparative expenditure for the last full year of single payments.
  Mr. Scott: Information on social fund grants and loans expenditure by local office and on single payment expenditure for 1987–88 is in the Library.
  Mr. Corbyn: It is good of the Minister to tell us that the information is in the Library. Will he kindly explain it to those people who could formerly have received direct payments for furniture and cooking facilities in their new flats and now either cannot get them or can get only loans, which they must repay out of their benefit? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that, through this change in the system, he has cut the money available for very poor people on moving into new flats? Will he announce proposals to end the iniquitous loan system, convert the loans into grants and return to the
  636
  system of statutory grants payable to all people, rather than leaving payments to the discretion of local social security offices?
  Mr. Scott: No. I believe that the social fund is working well, flexibly and fairly, and providing help in a number of ways that were not possible under the old single payments scheme. About 1·6 million interest-free loans and more than 318,000 community care grants have been made since the scheme began. The system was judged by the Social Services Select Committee to be good and, indeed, imaginative.
  Mr. Dykes: As there are still too many stories of hard-pressed officials in offices all over the place acting oppressively, rather as they used to in the 1920s and 1930s, is the Minister satisfied that the new system is being operated properly and humanely to the benefit of claimants?
  Mr. Scott: I certainly believe that it is. The staff in our social security offices have welcomed the discretion available to them in operating the social fund rather than being trapped by the precise nature of regulations under the old single payments scheme.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the working of the social fund loan scheme.
  Mr. Scott: We continually monitor the working of the social fund. Since the scheme began, more than 1·5 million loans and more than 300,000 non-repayable grants have been awarded at a total cost of over £300 million to the end of December 1989.
  The pattern of demands has varied between offices and some have experienced greater pressure on their budgets. We recently made available a further £3 million for the current financial year for offices facing the heaviest pressure, and 106 offices have received additional allocations.
  Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister accept that there is still concern that the social fund is operating according to financial criteria rather than the needs of the individuals concerned? In view of the comments today, will he review the need for single payments for those with the most severe financial problems and in any case review the six-month time bar for reapplication?
  Mr. Scott: The provision of the extra £3 million shows that we are monitoring the position carefully. We have also commissioned the social policy research unit at York university to monitor the workings of the social fund to see whether it is achieving its aims. We look forward to receiving that unit's report in due course.

  Ordination Candidates
  Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the impact on the commissioners' income of the trend in the number of candidates for ordination.
  Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners):

  637
  There is no clear trend in ordinations sufficient to suggest any significant change in the balance of the commissioners' expenditure in future years. The 1988 figure for male ordinations was the highest since 1971, while the relatively low figure expected for 1990 is likly to be partly balanced by the increased number of women entering the ministry.
  Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of people seeking ordination is less than the number of people about to retire? Does he agree that as the balancing factor is the number of women entering the ministry, it is high time that they were able to become fully frocked priests or priestesses?
  Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend seeks to draw me on a matter which is still, so to speak, sub judice in the General Synod of the Church of England-whether women should be fully ordained into the priesthood. That has not yet been determined. I therefore take note of my hon. Friend's point without comment.
  Mr. Frank Field: Would the Church Commissioner allow me to comment—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the—what is it?
  Mr. Winnick: The Church of England.
  Mr. Speaker:—but he must ask a question.
  Mr. Field: The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) asked a question welcoming the advent of women priests. Given that on most occasions Opposition Members do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, may we register cross-party agreement on this point?
  Mr. Alison: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point—perhaps I should call him my honourable brother, to vary the theme—about the cross-party support for the ordination of women. Nevertheless, the matter remains to be decided in the General Synod and the final vote must await the next General Synod elections. The next General Synod will have the final and definitive say on this matter.
  Mr. Couchman: When is the Clergy Ordination Measure, which will allow the ordination of those who have been divorced or whose spouses have been divorced, likely to come back to the House?
  Mr. Alison: I hope very much that, subject to the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, the Clergy Ordination Measure will return to Parliament probably in the week beginning 12 February.

  Bolsover Parish Church
  Mr. Skinner: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, whether he will make a further statement on the subject of the subsidence payments for Bolsover parish church; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Alison: I understand that the terms on which the British Coal corporation will make an ex-gratia payment have now been settled and the way is clear for the corporation to pay over that money to the parish. The fact that British Coal decided to make an ex-gratia payment technically ruled out the Church Commissioners having any jurisdiction in the matter, but British Coal still wanted
  638
  an undertaking that the Church Commissioners would not make a claim against British Coal under the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957, and we have willingly given that undertaking.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I first took up the case in the House, I did so on behalf of Bolsover parish church because it was without a vicar? British Coal refused to acknowledge the subsidence under any circumstances. As we have had limited success, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that British Coal, which is sometimes laggardly in making such payments, gets on with the job so that the new vicar can receive the money?
  Mr. Alison: I shall happily send a dual message from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and from myself, as I represent Selby, to British Coal telling it to get cracking on the payment. I have no doubt that the new incumbent at the parish church of St. Mary and St. Laurence, Bolsover will wish to contemplate adding the name St. Dennis to the church's title.
  Mr. Leigh: As the Church Commissioners are to be relieved of the burden of dealing with subsidence to Bolsover parish church, may I urge on my right hon. Friend that consideration should be given to helping the members of the Russian Orthodox Church who have been—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not aware that they have a church in Bolsover.
  Mr. Leigh: It is very significant and in tune with what we are discussing—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I do not believe that that has anything to do with Bolsover or with coal subsidence.
  Mr. Haynes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Church Commissioners have caved in? They should have fought for what the parish church in Bolsover deserved. I have been past that beautiful little parish church many times. The way in which the Church Commissioners have caved in will not help our constituents whose domestic property has been destroyed by the coal industry. The people are not getting a fair deal and the Church Commissioners should be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. Alison: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's comments about Bolsover parish church and his admission that he has been past it several times, 1 am not sure whether his regular passing by has not been the cause of the subsidence.

  Archbishop of Canterbury (Office)
  Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what contribution the Church Commissioners have made to the work of the Archbishop of Canterbury's office; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Alison: The commissioners' contribution is a financial one. They pay for the archbishop's supporting staff and their equipment.
  Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest report from the Archbishop of Canterbury's

  639
  advisory group on urban areas—"Living Faith in the City"—is a great deal more constructive and less hysterical than Opposition Members and the previous report entitled "Faith in the City"? The new report states that the Government are trying to target aid to those who need it most and are succeeding. Will my right hon. Friend commend those who produced the report, but ask them to go a little further and make some of the Church Commissioners' assets of £2·3 billion available to those who suffer from poverty?
  Mr. Alison: Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the new version of "Faith in the City", called "Living Faith in the City". I am very glad that it pays proper credit to the Government's considerable work in improving conditions in inner cities. The weakness in the report is its failure to make sufficient comment on the modest level of giving by parish churchgoers and church members in the Church of England. Barely £2 a week on average comes from church folk in the Church of England—scarcely more than they spend on their weekly newspapers. Until the Church of England gives a lead to its own members, it must be circumspect in urging too much expenditure on the Government.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who are authors of the report also said that the tale of the inner city is still a tale of two cities and that there must be a fundamental transfer of resources by the Government as well as by the Church from the rich to the poor? Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate that message to the Church Commissioners and ensure that they communicate it to the Government?
  Mr. Alison: It is precisely because of the reference to the transfer of resources—I speak as a churchman who puts money in the parish plate every week—that it seems to lie ill on the Church of England to be too vigorous in its request for expenditure by the Government on the inner cities. The contribution from church members to the Church's own resources is extremely modest-£2 a week on average, which is probably less than 2 per cent. of personal disposable income-and nothing vigorous is said about that in the report.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Edward Leigh, and try to keep it in order this time.
  Mr. Leigh: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will consider asking the Church Commissioners to make representations to the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury to help the community of the Russian cathedral in exile, who have been evicted from the parish church that they have occupied for 30 years? Their church has been turned into offices. Is there no way in which, somewhere in the Anglican community, a church can be found for those people? It is not good enough that Archdeacon Derek Hayward, the secretary of the diocese, says that the Church has no duty to find an alternative. Is that a Christian attitude?
  Mr. Alison: I have great sympathy with the campaign that my hon. Friend is waging on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church in London. As he knows, responsibility for the redundancy of the church from which they have been evicted is not directly for the Church Commissioners. If the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church would like to write either to myself or the Church Commissioners
  640
  seeking help in securing further premises elsewhere in the Church of England, we shall certainly do what we can to help, but it must be without commitment until we have seen full details of their needs.

  Terrace (Refreshment Facilities)
  Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the cost of taking down the refreshment facilities on the terrace of the House; on what date this work was undertaken; when those facilities will be re-erected; and if he will make a statement.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The marquee was dismantled earlier this year and will be re-erected during the Easter recess. The total cost of that work, including storage charges, will be about £13,500.
  Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. and learned Friend heard of the grand old Duke of York, who marched his men to the top of the hill and marched them down again? Why are the authorities spending £13,000 on taking down the refreshment tent on the terrace and then putting it up again, when that money could be well used for many other purposes in the House? Perhaps the money could be spent on improving cooking facilities for the staff who produce food for the cafeterias, and improving the food in the Members' cafeteria itself, which is pretty awful.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the rather sweeping judgment in my hon. Friend's last half-sentence, although I agree that there are always better potential uses for money if we did not need to use it for something else first. If the marquee were to remain permanently, we would need planning approval from the city council and approval from the Royal Fine Art Commission. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has frequently thought about that. There is no leave to have the marquee there at present. The Services Committee has asked the House authorities to investigate the feasibility of keeping the marquee up from Christmas this year until Easter 1991, when the new parliamentary building will be available. However, that will still require appropriate permission from other authorities.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why was not permission requested? Is it not appalling that £13,000 is being wasted when we all know that the staff in the Members' Dining Room are grossly underpaid, many of them taking home little more than £100 a week? Is it not true that hon. Members would be perfectly prepared to pay more for their lunches and dinners if they knew that the staff in the Members' Dining Room would be paid properly? Should not something be done about it?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Again, the hon. Gentleman presents one aspect of the question with characteristic enthusiasm. Of course, there are legitimate questions to be asked about the organisation and terms of employment and rewards of those working in the Refreshment Department. The marquee must be maintained and refurbished in any event. It might well have cost more to do that on site than to dismantle it and have it done properly elsewhere. It might have been subjected to greater wear and tear. This work is costing £13,000, which is a

  641
  modest proportion of the total cost of the marquee, and had to be done anyway. The hon. Gentleman's questions certainly deserve and should be receiving continual consideration by the Catering Sub-Committee and others.
  Mr. Rathbone: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the improvement in the standards of catering in the House have not been matched exactly by an improvement in the facilities on the terrace? When the marquee is re-erected, could we avoid a return to the pink monstrosity that has existed for the past year, and have instead a straightforward marquee which is simpler, nicer and less expensive to take down and re-erect?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake to achieve that transformation at the speed that my hon. Friend has requested. It must be accepted that the current design, although widely admired by some, is not universally popular—but it is likely to return in the year ahead.

  Visitors (Access)
  Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Lord President of the Council what further plans he has to improve visitor access to the Palace of Westminster.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is little that I can add to the reply that I gave the hon. Gentleman during business questions on 25 January, when he raised this issue in the context of early-day motion 379.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House examine seriously the question of visitors' access to the building? Is he aware that much of the building is given over to corporate entertainment, while members of the public who want to meet hon. Members or listen to debates have to queue outside in the rain and are denied access to refreshment facilities unless accompanied by an hon. Member? For those with disabilities, it is a nightmare just trying to enter the building, never mind getting around it.
  Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduce changes to ensure that public access for the disabled, which is required in public buildings throughout the country, applies to this building and to ensure that the public are no longer subject to the humiliation of queuing in the rain to meet hon. Members or to listen to debates? Will he make this a genuinely public open. building, so that people can see what goes on in their names and what they are paying for?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no lack of good will in respect of those legitimate points. Regarding access to the line of route, the hon. Gentleman will know that proposals have been agreed to provide shelter for those awaiting admittance at the Norman Porch and. to double the screening facilities to speed up access there. He will know also that consideration has been given to the improvement of access for the disabled, but there are very real limitations on what can be done in a building of this size.
  There is a strong case for improving the catering facilities available to visitors, as well as to hon. Members. However, it is unlikely that any significant change can be made until the extra catering accommodation becomes available in phase 1 of the new buildings.
  Mr. Andrew McKay: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that month after month hon. Members from both sides of the House have expressed concern about
  642
  members of the public who come to look round the Palace of Westminster? They start the line of route at the Norman Porch entrance and have to wait outside in the wind and rain. We have been continually fobbed off by the House of Lords authorities as to why an awning cannot be provided. There should be a permanent awning. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that our constituents will not have to wait outside in the wind and rain, as that seems quite unreasonable?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already told the House what is happening. Proposals have finally been agreed for the provision of shelter for those awaiting admission at the Norman Porch and to speed up the means of access there. However, the completion of those facilities cannot be undertaken immediately, although it is hoped that they will be ready by late spring.
  Dr. Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is no better evidence of this building's inadequacy to fulfil the needs of a modern legislature than the long queues of constituents waiting to gain access? Often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, these people have to wait in appalling conditions. Almost daily, people who may have travelled for many hours have to queue, without access to toilet facilities or even to a cup of tea. Is it not time we had a thorough review of the use of all the facilities in this building? If such a review is not taking place already, will the Leader of the House consider putting one on the agenda for the next meeting of the House of Commons Commission?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am delighted to have such widely expressed support for this insight into the inadequacy of the conditions in this building. Having acknowledged that fact, however, one must say that the most overwhelming inadequacy is the sheer limitation of the size of the site in the centre of a very crowded capital city. Work is taking place on the new buildings on the other side of the road, but phase 1 of that contract is not due for completion for some time yet. I am ready to join hon. Members on both sides of the House in support of as wide-ranging a review as would make sense, granted the limitations of time and space.

  Question Time
  Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will bring forward proposals to improve accountability of Ministers at oral questions.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman appreciates as well as anyone that Ministers are fully accountable to Parliament. I shall consider with interest any recommendations arising from the Procedure Committee's forthcoming inquiry into questions for oral and written answer which would make Question Time more effective.
  Mr. Allen: The Lord President had 14 days in which to think of that scintillating and witty reply. Would he care to examine whether the period of 14 days could he reduced, or completely abolished, so that Members might be able to ask questions of the day on the day? If that is too radical a suggestion, will he look at the length of notice that Members have to give and perhaps reduce it to two

  643
  days so that those Ministers who at present cannot brief themselves might be briefed and so that Members on both sides might ask questions that are topical and relevant?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the relevance of the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman, or even on their topicality. However, I can say that, as he knows very well, the problem arises largely from the number of
  644
  questions being tabled in a range of different ways. The problem of managing that would make it very difficult to take on board the particular new ideas that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Happily, the whole topic is being considered by the Procedure Committee, which will now derive the benefit of the wisdom and input of the hon. Member himself.

  Points of Order
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of which I have given you notice, and concerns the possibility of your having had any request for a statement from the Ministry of Defence on a wider inquiry into the Colin Wallace affair. Over the weekend, a number of individuals have indicated their willingness to testify before any such inquiry on a wide range of matters relating to this case—far wider than the scope of the inquiries, both internal and external, that were announced by the Secretary of State. Mr. Michael Taylor and Mr. Peter Broderick in particular have spoken out in defence of their former colleague. They have expressed their willingness to come forward and testify on his behalf. Quite clearly, the publication of a book on this matter by Mr. Anthony Cavendish is imminent.
  Public anxiety will now be fed by a series of unconnected reports. Would not it be preferable for the House to be told that a proper and wide-ranging inquiry was to be established so that we might clear away the rumour and innuendo that surround this sad business?
  Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement on this matter today. We had a long run on it last Thursday.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have informed the House that you have not received any information from the Government that they want to make a statement, but the Leader of the House, who is responsible to the House on such matters, is here. Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, I have a quotation from Michael Taylor, a former Army information officer, who said this weekend:
  "I can support everything Colin Wallace says and can confirm that the Clockwork Orange operation did include the smearing of British politicians&I remember the Clockwork Orange files well as I regularly had to check their location and access control."
  Further evidence was given by Peter Broderick, former head of Army information, Northern Ireland, who suggested that the smear campaign was aimed at Ministers in both the Heath and Wilson Administrations.
  Those are two leading officers who were then in Army intelligence and have now come forward with further information. The Leader of the House should respond to those accusations and meet the demand for a full inquiry. This matter will not go away; the House will continue to press it. We should have a statement, even if it is a short one, from the Leader of the House today.
  Mr. Speaker: None of these are matters on which I can make a pronouncement. They are not matters of order in the House or for me, but for the Government.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time today we had 75 questions to the Department of Social Security; there are sometimes 200, 300 or 400 questions, if they are directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We operate a system under which a Minister can say that he will answer a question together with another. Today, 12 and 16 were taken together, which seems reasonable, but some of the questions are planted anyway and today a Minister said that he would take together questions 6 and 20. Bearing in mind that even
  646
  allowing for some Members not being here today, we got only to question 17, how are we to arrive at a fair system of Members putting down questions and having them answered in sequence? Ministers are able, as they so often want to do, to cover themselves—I would do the same if I were a Minister, which is hugely unlikely—but why should we allow questions to be taken together and keep out other Members who have been lucky enough to come up in the ballot?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should make his comments to the Select Committee on Procedure, because it is considering that very matter. The hon. Gentleman is right: those matters should be looked into. The House may have noticed that I have endeavoured to speed up questions so that we can get further down the Order Paper. I regret that this inevitably means that fewer supplemetary questions are called but it is fairer to those with questions on the Order Paper. I hope that hon. Members who feel that they should have been called but have not been will not write to me about it, because I now receive about a dozen letters a day.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned, as I am sure you are, about the manipulation of Question Time by the linking of questions. Every time a Minister seeks to link answers, he or she does so "with permission". Will you, Mr. Speaker, refuse that permission in future, so that Question Time is not manipulated to suit the Minister, often by the use of planted questions way down the Order Paper beyond the point that we would normally reach?
  Mr. Speaker: The form of words "with permission" is a courtesy of long standing. It does not mean that my permission has been granted. The hon. Gentleman should make his points to the Select Committee on Procedure. I do not disagree with them.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the important consideration is that excessive linkage too far ahead is not justified if there is another question slot starting at 3.10 pm or 3.20 pm.
  Mr. Speaker: Again, the hon. Gentleman should make his point to the Select Committee, not me.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You heard earlier about the question of Colin Wallace. Perhaps you will also have noticed that on Friday the Secretary of State for Defence sent a letter to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on the sequence of events arising out of answers to questions put to him the previous day, when you were present. You will recall that the Prime Minister said that she brought the matter to the House immediately and that the Secretary of State for Defence said that he had brought the matter to the House straight away. Yet in answer to my question, he said that the document was first discovered early last year. The letter that he has now sent to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East contradicts that. It says that a document was found in early 1989 and another was found in July.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know, and the hon. Gentleman can put those questions to a Minister or to the Prime Minister tomorrow, if he is fortunate enough to catch my

  647
  eye. I cannot be responsible for letters sent to hon. Members, although, as a courtesy, I have received a copy of the one to which he refers.
  Mr. Skinner: What I want you, Mr. Speaker, and the House to understand is that we were given misleading answers last Thursday by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. It is not proper to try to cover up the tracks by sending a couple of letters to a couple of Back-Bench Members of Parliament. The Government have a duty to tell the House why and when they misled the House. It is a contempt of the House of Commons.
  Sir David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, you said that we had a long run on this subject on Thursday. That is correct. You know as well as the rest of us that since then further information has come to light. We are entitled to press the Government for a statement. If they do not make one, may I make an unusual request? I hope that you will not reply too quickly on the matter of privilege to those who raised it. More may yet emerge. Will you confirm that, if the matter is referred to the Select Committee of Privileges, it would be in order to put a resolution before the House to change the membership of that Committee so that the Members who are involved in the affair can give evidence?
  Mr. Speaker: That would be in order, but it is hypothetical. I consider all matters, but particularly matters of privilege, with great care. I have yet to carry out further investigations.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whatever our general view about the matter, I hope that every Member accepts that it is clearly unsatisfactory for us to continue in this way. The only opportunity for hon. Members to raise these issues seems to be in points of order to you. You cannot produce the responses. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has listened to the points of order today. I hope that he will ensure that we have another statement, ideally from the Prime Minister, on this subject and that he will provide in Government time a debate on these matters so that we can fully and properly explore all the issues by questions and answers with the Ministers involved, rather than simply pursue the matter in points of order to you, Mr. Speaker, each day after questions.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I was going to agree wholly with what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said. Is it something different that I might be able to answer?
  Mr. Aitken: Yes. Through you, I should like to place on record the fact that the unease about the good name of the House of Commons is not confined to Opposition Members. As the Government have nothing to fear from making a full statement on the matter and as it is clear that several matters have come to light since last Thursday, or Friday, could we, through you, urge the Government to reconsider the position?
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member will have been heard. There is nothing more to be said on that matter. We should move on to the important debate on the Royal Navy.

  Royal Navy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  3.34 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make an application under Standing Order No. 20, of which I gave you notice.
  Mr. Speaker: I should be surprised if the hon. Member had not received a message from me telling him that I could not hear his application under Standing Order No. 20, because it did not meet the criteria of the Standing Order.
  Mr. Madden: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that there was some recent controversy about your acceptance of Standing Order No. 20 applications. I submit that a debate in the Standing Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill is no substitute for an opportunity for all hon. Members to express their views on a matter of national importance. I ask you to allow me the opportunity to make my application.
  Mr. Speaker: As the hon Gentleman well knows, I cannot give my reasons in the House. The very matter that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise under Standing Order No. 20—that I should grant a debate taking precedence over the business of today or tomorrow—is already being discussed in a Standing Committee. It would not be possible for me to grant such a debate that would, as it were, pre-empt that.
  3.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): I am pleased to have the opportunity to open our annual debate on the Royal Navy. Before talking about the Navy itself, however, I should first like to say a few words about the developments in East-West relations which form the backcloth against which the Navy continues to discharge its duties in the defence of the United Kingdom and our NATO allies.
  During recent months, we have witnessed an astonishing series of revolutions in eastern Europe. Most have been peaceful, but that in Romania tragically cost many lives. Those revolutions are unfinished business—the old order has largely been swept away but a stable, structured new order has yet to emerge. In the Soviet Union we are also seeing great changes where, at least in part, the Government there provided the initial impetus and are now having to deal with the forces that have been unleashed. When 300,000 people march to the walls of the Kremlin, the whole world sits up and takes note.
  These developments have elements in common. Throughout eastern Europe, the people themselves have been the motive power of change. Theirs was a reaction against massive failings in their societies, but, not surprisingly, there is still no clear vision of the ways in which the political structures of those countries, their economies and their societies are to be rebuilt. The same is true of President Gorbachev's policy of perestroika. The ultimate outcome of recent events is thus still unclear and, while we welcome the resurgence of democratic values in the East and are helping the eastern countries with
  650
  economic aid and encouraging trade with them, the uncertainties that we face mean that our optimism about reducing tension between East and West must be tempered with caution.
  We have made immense strides towards greater security in recent years—progress which would have been unimaginable only a few years ago. Senior military officers from both East and West, for example, have just finished a seminar in Vienna where they exchanged information about the strategies and plans of their own countries and the alliances to which they belong. Much of the credit for the improvement in relations between East and West is due to the resolution of NATO, whose determination to maintain adequate defences while offering dialogue with the East has been so clearly vindicated. Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, please note.
  The Royal Navy has played its part in this improvement. Last year, for example, saw the reopening of Royal Navy contacts with the Soviet Union. In May, HMS Bristol paid an official visit to Leningrad as part of the Dartmouth training squadron's deployment to the Baltic, and received a warm welcome.
  In July, the United Kingdom was host to the Soviet Minister of Defence, General Dmitri Yasov, an event without precedent. During his visit, General Yasov was taken by helicopter to see HMS Invincible at sea, a memorable experience that I had a month earlier. During his time on board, the general saw Invincible's aircraft put through their paces and met members of the ship's company, thus seeing for himself how life aboard a major Royal Navy ship was lived. He was clearly impressed, not least by the morale and professionalism of our sailors.
  The Royal Navy has also renewed contacts with eastern European navies. In June, after leaving Leningrad, HMS Bristol paid a visit to the Polish port of Gdynia, while at the same time HMS Achilles visited Rostock in East Germany. Two months before, in April, the Polish warship Warsawa had paid a visit to London. Ship visits have a very useful role to play in lessening tensions between East and West, and they will, we hope, continue.
  I turn to the ever-active field of arms control. In nuclear arms control, good progress continues to be made in the Start talks between the United States and the Soviet Union. While recent bilateral discussions on chemical weapons between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the agreement that followed, represent an important step towards ridding the world of those weapons.
  A further major element in arms control will be agreement to limit conventional forces, and encouraging progress has been made in the talks currently taking place in Vienna. The imbalance in those forces in Europe is the most important security problem facing us. We want to see the Soviet Union dismantle for good its massive capability to mount a surprise attack against the NATO countries in Europe. The Soviet Union, for its part, has accepted that its conventional superiority should be removed. It accepted the figures proposed by the West in March last year for tanks and armoured troop carriers, and last July for helicopters. On artillery, the differences may now be more technical than substantive. However, much work still must be done in Vienna to translate a wide measure of agreement into a clear, firm, binding treaty.
  There have been suggestions from some quarters that NATO should take the initiative in maritime arms control. That is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. Calls from the East for maritime arms control ignore NATO's

  651
  continuing dependence on reinforcement and resupply shipping from the United States in the event of war. The Warsaw pact, on the other hand, is a land-based alliance with overland lines of communication. It does not depend on the sea and does not have the same logistic considerations as NATO.
  Nor should we forget that the United Kingdom, as an island nation, depends more than most on the sea for its economic well-being and security. Some 94 per cent. by weight of our trade around the world is carried in ships, and on any one day, 300 ships are working in British ports, with the Dover straits probably the world's busiest seaway. We also have an important fishing industry. There are more than 50 oil and gas fields in the North sea, accounting for 3 per cent. of our gross national product and 12 per cent. of our industrial investment.
  What, then, would be the Navy's role in the event of a conflict involving NATO forces? Many of the forces needed could be moved by air, but reinforcements are of limited use without fuel and equipment—the bulk of which would have to be moved by sea. In peacetime, western Europe needs up to 1,000 shiploads of food and raw materials a month to sustain it. In war, it would need 800 shiploads to meet military needs alone. So NATO's defence strategy continues to depend, among other things, on its ability to keep open those sea lines of communication.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Have the figures that the Under-Secretary of State gave been updated in the light of the length of a war that is now anticipated? One is no longer talking in terms of a surprise attack, so would not the figures be different over a longer period of hostilities?
  Mr. Neubert: The figures that I gave have no relevance to the length of notice of a war or of the conflict itself. They refer to the needs of this country and of NATO in the event of a land-based conflict. It is to that vital task that a large share of the Royal Navy's resources, along with those of other NATO nations, is committed. We should not forget that the Soviet Union continues to invest heavily in modernising its maritime forces and that the production rates of some classes of Soviet vessels have risen over the past two years.
  The Royal Navy has—and will have for the foreseeable future—a vital part to play in NATO's ability to counteract the potential threat that those forces represent. The Royal Navy contributes continuously to NATO's standing naval forces in the Atlantic and in the Channel, and it provides a destroyer or frigate for the on-call force in the Mediterranean, which this year celebrates the 20th anniversary of its first activation. We also make a major contribution each year to NATO's naval exercises. Last September, 34 British warships and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels took part in the major NATO maritime exercise, Sharp Spear, in the shallow seas. The Royal Marines also took part in a number of important exercises, including their annual Arctic warfare training in Norway and Exercise Dragon Hammer—a NATO amphibious exercise in the Mediterranean.
  In the event of war—which is less likely now, but we still have to plan for it—the Royal Navy would contribute some 70 per cent. of NATO's ready maritime forces in the
  652
  eastern Atlantic and Channel areas, and would play a vital part in NATO's strategy of forward defence. It would be involved in the interception and containment of Soviet naval forces well to the north, in the early deployment and protection of the joint United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force to reinforce NATO's northern flank—to which we contribute 3 Commando brigade Royal Marines, special amphibious shipping and helicopters—in the provision of anti-submarine defence of NATO's striking fleet Atlantic, and in the defence of reinforcement, resupply and economic shipping in both the Atlantic and European waters.
  The Royal Navy will also continue to have a special role, by virtue of the Polaris squadron, soon to be replaced by Trident, in deploying and protecting the United Kingdom's strategic deterrent. This commitment makes it the only European navy to assign forces to all three legs of the NATO triad—strategic nuclear, sub-strategic and conventional.
  The Royal Navy's primary NATO role is antisubmarine warfare, which is crucial both to deterrence in peace and maritime operations in war. The nature of submarine operations gives the aggressor the advantage. Such operations will always be difficult to monitor, so the Navy must remain able to conduct anti-submarine warfare surveillance, throughout our areas of interest, in support of the deterrent in peace and, in periods of rising tension, to alert our forces to the likely whereabouts of enemy submarines before war breaks out.
  The primary potential threat remains that posed by the Soviet submarine force. Not only is that numerically strong, but the Soviet submarine is also becoming ever more capable. The most important aspect of this improvement lies in noise reduction techniques. We can also expect Soviet submarines to have effective towed array sonars, and modern cruise missiles will be more widely fitted; and as submarine performance improves, we can expect decoy and counter-measures techniques to do so as well. Submarine-launched missiles and torpedoes are likely to grow in range and complexity, so we will need more capable air defence and torpedo counter-measures systems.
  Submarines operated by nations outside the Warsaw pact are also becoming more numerous and more capable. Sophisticated conventional and nuclear-powered submarines deploying an arsenal of torpedoes and missiles of various ranges could pose a potent threat in almost any area of the globe.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I am happy to hear the Minister talk about the Soviets' improved capability, particularly in the area of sonar, because, presumably, that will make submarines such as Trident, which are of course much bigger than existing submarines, easier to track. Does that therefore not make Trident pretty useless?
  Mr. Neubert: We do not come to that conclusion. We have been trying to picture a scenario in which development involves measures and counter-measures, and we are determined to keep ahead of the threat and in technology. That is what I am describing.
  We put the highest priority on maintaining an effective ASW capability. Without that, the Royal Navy could not provide adequate defence for the NATO forces it would protect or offer a reasonable prospect of keeping sea lanes open.
  Mr. Keith Speed: A key component of the anti-submarine offensive in the decade ahead will be the Merlin anti-submarine helicopter. Could my hon. Friend give a firm assurance that that is going ahead on track, and will enter Royal Navy service?
  Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend has unquestioned authority on this subject. This debate takes place against the background of a report which the Defence Select Committee brought forward on Friday. Will he allow me to answer his question later in my speech?
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Soviet submarine threat, will he confirm that there has been no reduction in the Soviet Union's submarine building programme?
  Mr. Neubert: I made that point earlier. We are seeing the development of the most modern equipment, and we have to take account of that in our plans for the future.
  A high-quality ASW capability is also a prerequisite for the security of our strategic nuclear deterrent. An effective ASW capability can best be achieved by a combination of maritime assets. Royal Navy frigates, conventional and nuclear submarines, helicopters and Royal Air Force maritime patrol aircraft all work in unison as an integrated ASW force.
  If we are to provide the best possible ASW defence, to counter the sustained massive investment by the Soviet Union in its submarine force—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed)—and to keep pace with the growing capability of other maritime nations, improvements to our ASW platforms, sensors and weapons must continue to maintain our effectiveness, and I can assure the house that that is our firm intention.
  The Royal Navy and Royal Navy Reserve also make an important contribution to the direct defence of the United Kingdom by protecting our coastal waters from the threat of mines, while the Royal Navy Auxiliary Service, the Royal Marines and their reserve help to defend our ports and anchorages and key points. Within home waters, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines also help to safeguard our offshore installations, while the Royal Navy search and rescue service saves the lives of many members of the public each year.
  The Royal Navy also supports the Royal Ulster Constabulary by patrolling the Province's coastline, and Royal Marines Commando units have regular roulement tours in the Province. While considering the Navy's commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom, we must not forget last year's tragedy at the Royal Marine school of music at Deal, when, on 22 September, 11 Royal Marine bandsmen were killed and another seven injured when a bomb planted by terrorists exploded. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing continuing outrage at that callous act of murder, and deep sympathy for those who have been bereaved.
  We cannot afford to overlook the threat to British or western interests that could arise worldwide outside the NATO area. The Royal Navy continues to maintain a presence in the Gulf, the Caribbean, the south Atlantic and Hong Kong. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will, I hope, be able to expand on the Navy's duties and achievements in those areas later. The House will remember, for instance, the magnificent
  654
  assistance given by HMS Alacrity and RFA Brambleleaf to Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis in the aftermath of hurricane Hugo.
  To meet that wide range of challenging tasks, the Royal Navy has as fleet of some 200 vessels and a highly capable force of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, which we are continuing to modernise and update as necessary. The Government have ordered some 67 major vessels since 1979, at a total cost of over £7·5 billion. That very large procurement programme is clear and irrefutable evidence that we remain committed to a strong and balanced maritime capability, and to retaining the appropriate mix of forces to achieve that: the strategic nuclear deterrent; a surface fleet of three carriers and about 50 escorts; retention of an amphibious capability; the proper combination of nuclear and conventional submarines: the modern aircraft, weapons and sensors that the platforms need to fulfil their roles; and, not least, men and women of the high quality and motivation that make the Royal Navy such an outstanding service.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, however events unfold in eastern Europe—even if the unthinkable happened and the British Army withdrew from the Rhine—nothing could affect this country's traditional reliance on maritime defence, and that, indeed, those events might reinforce it?
  Mr. Neubert: That is undoubtedly true, and has, I hope, been the consistent theme of my speech. We shall need a naval capability as much in the years ahead as ever before.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great advantages from which we have benefited in all that we have done with the Royal Navy in recent years is the excellence of our technology? We have often gained a march even on the Americans by spending less money. One particular advantage had been the sea systems controllerate, which has been especially useful for underwater defence; it has worked closely with both the Navy at Portland and the Admiralty research establishment.
  For the past two years, the staff of the controllerate have been anxious about whether they will be staying in Portland or, in the case of those working with surface vessels, in Portsmouth. Is it not about time that we rewarded those people for doing such an excellent job by telling them that their jobs will remain where they believe that they can do them best—in Portland and Portsmouth?
  Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for his constituency interests and for his constituents who work for the sea systems controllerate. I hope that we shall be able to respond before too long with firm plans for the future of the three controllerates, because their work is vital to us.
  The new classes of vessels joining the fleet and on order are more sophisticated, capable craft than those that they replace. Our escort fleet is much younger, on average, than those of our allies or Warsaw pact countries. Our ships now spend less time in refit so that operational availability is improved. We are doing much more than merely allowing things to tick over.
  The programme to replace Polaris with Trident in the mid-1990s continues to schedule and to cost. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced to the House last week the revised estimate for Trident.

  655
  For the fourth year running, this showed a fall in the real cost. At £9,380 million, the current estimate is, in real terms, over £1-5 billion less than the original 1982 estimate. This fall does not include the large savings arising from our decision to process United Kingdom missiles at Kings Bay, Georgia. The proportion of Trident spending estimated to fall in the United Kingdom now stands at 69 per cent., the highest recorded so far.
  Two Vanguard-class submarines have already been ordered from Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited, where their construction is well advanced. We hope to order the third in the spring and to issue the tender for the fourth submarine later this year.
  The United States missile programme is also going well. The programme of ground-launched missile test firings was completed last year. Six successful flights of missiles fired from a submerged submarine have now taken place, showing that the causes of the two early unsuccessful flights have been remedied. The United States Navy is on schedule to deploy the Trident II D5 system for the first time in March.
  The vast bulk of the procurement budget goes on the conventional equipment programme. At its peak, the Trident programme is due to absorb less than 11 per cent. of the equipment budget and should on average take up less than 3 per cent. of the total defence budget across the procurement period. It remains outstanding value for money. As the programme progresses, some £4·7 billion has been committed so far, of which about £2·7 billion has been spent.
  Trident remains by far and away the most effective means of providing a credible deterrent. No other use of the resources to be spent on Trident would provide a level of deterrence approaching it. Finally, it is worth noting that maintaining a British nuclear deterrent sustains many thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom which depends on it.
  As the House will recall, in December I announced the order for three more type 23 frigates, bringing to 10 the number of this class ordered. HMS Norfolk, the first of class, was accepted from Yarrow Shipbuilders in November, and is one of two new first-of-class ships delivered to the Royal Navy in 1989.
  HMS Norfolk is undergoing an extensive series of first-of-class trials to prove her many new systems and equipments. For her primary role of anti-submarine warfare she is fitted with both towed array and bow sonar. Her anti-submarine weapon is the ship or air-launched Stingray torpedo. Her surface armament includes Harpoon missiles and, for naval gunfire support, a 4·5 in gun. For self defence, she has the first fit of the new vertical-launch Sea Wolf missile system. She has an extensive range of the latest sensors and communications equipment, and a new computer-aided command system is being developed. Another new feature is the combined gas and electric propulsion system. Rolls-Royce Spey gas turbines are used for medium and high speeds, while the GEC diesel-electric drive minimises underwater noise during ASW operations and gives high endurance at cruising speeds. Also noteworthy is the fact that the type 23's complement of about 170 is about 50 fewer than a Leander and 100 less that a type 22.
  656
  The type 23 is designed to operate the ASW variant of the EH101 helicopter and can also operated Lynx or Sea Kings. The Defence Committee published on Friday its report into the EH101 helicopter. I thank the Committee for its report and welcome it. I agree with the Committee's assessment of the importance of this helicopter for the Royal Navy. The programme is now proceeding well despite some earlier slippages and technical difficulties.
  We are naturally keen to get the EH101 into service as early as possible, but I welcome the committee's recognition in its report that it would be wrong for the Ministry of Defence to commit itself to production until it is fully satisfied about the performance of the helicopter and its cost. We share the Committee's concern about the original contractual arrangements, which we intend to improve by negotiating a maximum price with Westland for its share of developing the airframe and by appointing a prime contractor next year to be responsible for the overall performance of the helicopter, including all its mission system equipment. Our proposed new arrangements will ensure that, when it enters service with the Navy, the EH101 will be the most advanced and capable anti-submarine warfare helicopter in the world.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: As the Select Committee report pointed out, the programme is a year behind and will cost perhaps £1 billion more than expected. Will my hon. Friend say a word about staff targets, which seem to change almost faster than traffic lights? Time after time they offer a windfall to defence contractors and are a licence to print money at public expense. Are there plans to change the way in which the Procurement Executive determines staff targets before development and research is undertaken?
  Mr. Neubert: That was an extraordinarily sceptical view of the procurement process. Everything that has been said in the debate underlines the fast-moving technology involved in defence equipment. One must take into account the continuing changes in the threat and the need to counter it. We therefore seek to get the best possible value for money and the most effective operational response. That will always be a matter of judgment, and it cannot be fixed in time, because any major project will take several years to develop. It would be folly not to take account of changes that occur in the interim.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Minister completely dodged the conclusion of the Select Committee report that the Ministry of Defence's delay, and indecision and its changing of the targets substantially caused the overrun in cost and time. Does he realise with what sense of deja vu I must yet again say that the Government are doing serious damage to a national product—the Westland helicopter—through this delay and indecision? Will he give an undertaking that the decision to put out to tender the mission systems integration on Merlin will not cause one extra day of delay, given that the type 23 frigate is already four years late? Has he any idea what he is now placing in jeopardy? He is placing in jeopardy serious possibilities of transatlantic orders for the EH 101 from the Canadians, Westland's capacity to manage the system effectively, making the best use of taxpayers' money and the defence of Britain's sea lanes, of which he spoke so eloquently a few moments ago.
  Mr. Neubert: If I were one of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents working for Westland, I am not sure that I would find that helpful. Such comments at this stage can only damage the company. That is not the Ministry's view of the position. I am sure that the House will understand that when a Select Committee publishes a report it is normal procedure for due time to be given to consider it. Out of courtesy to the House, and as the report is said to be relevant to the debate, I have today given our first response; a more formal considered response will be given in due course. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman waits for that.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The Minister must come clean. Is it not true that when this plane was first proposed its specifications were not tight enough to put a maximum cost on it? I understand that discussions are being held on its final cost, but is it not true that, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said, yet again the goal posts have been moved? The companies involved do not know what the final specifications are. How can a maximum cost be placed on the plane when the Ministry of Defence has not given a final specification?
  Mr. Neubert: As I said, these are matters for current negotiation. There is no question of reaching a conclusion across the Floor of the House this afternoon on a matter for negotiation between the Ministry of Defence and the company concerned. I think that it would be in everyone's best interests if we left it at that.
  Our force of destroyers and frigates stands at 48 vessels, of which 44 are available for operations immediately or within a short period. We remain committed to a force of about 50 and we plan to order sufficient ships to meet that commitment. We have ordered three more vessels in each of the last two years, and we hope to invite tenders for a further batch of ships later this year.
  The other first-of-class ship accepted in 1989 was HMS Sandown, the first of five single-role minehunters ordered for the Royal Navy. We hope to invite tenders for a further batch in the near future. We are confident that this vessel has the best capability of any minehunter in the world. Her sophisticated variable depth sonar is ahead of any elsewhere in the world. She can operate throughout continental shelf waters and can manoeuvre and maintain station close to a mine in those exposed waters using its vectored thrust propulsors. She has an automatic ship positioning system which is essential to deal with mines under all weather conditions and her computerised command system, Nautis, provides the means of planning the many activities needed to co-ordinate the operation of sonar, ship and weapon systems. Having been on board her only last Thursday, I am very pleased, and not at all surprised, at the interest that has been shown in this vessel by other navies, seeking minehunting capabilities.
  The Royal Navy can be proud of these two new classes of ship. Three other new classes have also been ordered by the Government—the Vanguard and Upholder classes of submarine, and the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. These five new classes account for 23 of the 67 major vessels that we have ordered since 1979 and further orders of all five classes are planned. I should also mention that two vessels of the Trafalgar class hunter-killer nuclear submarine are being built at VSEL in Barrow and HMS Chatham, the last of a class of 14 type 22 frigates, was accepted from her builders in November.
  658
  We are also now considering tenders for a new aviation support ship. This vessel will provide dedicated helicopter lift in support of the United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force. We hope to be able to make an announcement later this year. Equally important to the amphibious capability are the assault ships, HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. As the House knows, we have been considering the results of studies into how best to maintain this element of the amphibious force, either by ship life extension or new build. We shall be able to reach a final decision on this important question only after full and detailed examination of the complex issues involved.
  Following our decision to withdraw from the NFR90 project, it remains our plan to procure an anti-air warfare escort ship to come into service at the turn of the century to replace the type 42 destroyers, and we are now considering how best to meet this requirement.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: My hon. Friend has recently reviewed the major naval procurement programme of the 1980s. Will he reflect on the fact that the two major operational commitments during that period were the battle in the south Atlantic and, more recently, the Armilla patrol's participation in the affairs of the Gulf war? When considering the procurement of these further ships, especially frigates, in the 1990s, will my hon. Friend take into account the great importance of assessing in advance possible out-of-area roles so that this dimension is given due weight, as well as the traditional NATO tasks?
  Mr. Neubert: My right hon. Friend brings valuable ministerial experience to this matter. We shall certainly take full account of his point. We shall consider all options. Collaboration has not been ruled out, should suitable opportunities emerge. The House will recall that, in December, I announced that, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations with the other participating nations, we will be joining the project definition phase of the local area missile system variant of the family of anti-air missile systems, linked to our plans to procure a new generation AAW escort.
  Further fleet nuclear-powered submarines are planned; feasibility studies into this future generation of submarines are drawing to a successful conclusion and planning for the next phase of the programme is under way.
  We are updating our existing Sea Harrier aircraft, and plan to procure a number of the FRS2 version. Our sensor capability and weapons system will be modernised arid improved as necessary and appropriate.
  All this represents a continuing programme of major investment by the Government in the Royal Navy. Our policies will leave the Navy well equipped for the many and varied tasks that it has to face.
  Despite the remarkable changes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, our overall maritime strategy will continue to be appropriate for the foreseable future. 'The Royal Navy is as necessary today to our peace arid prosperity as it ever has been.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister acknowledged earlier that there have been great changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and that a number of treaties that will reduce the nuclear capabilities of both sides are in the offing or have already been signed. Why does the Minister propose to maintain—or even expand—expenditure on naval forces, when he admits that there is no perceived enemy?
  Mr. Neubert: I have not admitted anything of the sort. The hon. Member cannot have done me the courtesy of listening to what I have had to say, as my whole speech has been dedicated to emphasising the continuing role of the Royal Navy. Maritime forces continue to be needed to contribute to the security of our homeland—the hon. Gentleman's and ours—to provide, deploy and protect our strategic deterrent and, with our allies, to provide vital protection to our reinforcements and resupply in time of tension or conflict.
  In short—let me spell it out for the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—Britain's economic well-being, security and worldwide interests depend on the freedom of the high seas which the Royal Navy is committed to maintaining. The Royal Navy's tasks remain as challenging as ever. Its role will be as crucial as before and its unique contribution to the defence of our freedom deserves the appreciation and support of the House.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Roland Boyes: I echo the Minister's condemnation of those who perpetrated the horrendous bombing at Deal. The Opposition take this further opportunity to offer their sympathy to the parents, friends and other loved ones of those who were killed or injured.
  I shall follow the Minister in prefacing my remarks with a few comments on the far-reaching changes in eastern Europe and the changing nature of the perceived threat in view of those changes. The talks between Presidents Bush and Gorbachev, while not producing any historic new agreements, nevertheless showed that relations between the two super-powers would continue to improve.
  The changes in eastern Europe have been staggering. The breaking down of the Berlin wall inevitably led to the end of Communist rule in the DDR and raised a whole series of questions about the reunification of Germany. The important and complex question appears to be about the pace of change rather than the principle of change.
  Change has happened where it was expected and where it was unexpected. During the past few years, Poland and Hungary have been changing. The efforts of Solidarity in Poland had had a profound effect and resulted in a non-Communist Prime Minister heading a Polish Government. There were also changes in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, but none were so dramatic as those in Romania. After decades of rule by the Ceausescu dynasty, the dictatorship fell in just a few days and Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife were shot. The uprising of the population was instrumental in achieving a change that hon. Members on both sides of the House hope will lead to a multi-party democracy.
  Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyes: No. I want to make progress first.
  This weekend we read in our newspapers of possible changes—I put it no higher than that—in the Soviet Union itself. Gorbachev faces mountainous economic and nationalist problems. A large demonstration was held in Moscow at the weekend. The BBC commentators to whom I listened as I travelled down to London this morning said that the demonstration in Moscow could not be compared with the ferocity of the demonstrations in Romania.
  660
  The changes and liberalisations have implications for the Warsaw pact, which no longer exists as a monolithic unit. At the moment we cannot know the nature of the relationship between the Soviet Union and other members of the Warsaw pact. However, we can predict that it is unlikely that the Poles, Hungarians and others would take part in a united invading force. That has implications for NATO.
  If there is a major threat from the East, defence spending has some justification. However, if we agree that the threat no longer exists, the corollary is that defence spending can be cut. Cuts have been made in France, Germany and the United States. As the United Kingdom has welcomed the changes and the march to democracy in the Eastern bloc, the logical step should be cuts in the United Kingdom's defence budget. However, the Prime Minister is clearly sticking to her cold war tactics.
  Mr. Leigh rose—
  Mr. Boyes: We face increases in spending instead of decreases and that does not make sense.
  Mr. Michael Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyes: If the Government have a genuine desire to keep President Gorbachev in power, it could be expressed by less provocative military activity. At the moment Gorbachev continues his balancing act, but we do not know how long he will be secure in his present position. Gorbachev has captured the imagination of many people as a result of his statements calling for a more stable and peaceful world. However, he could be replaced by the Yeltsin or the Ligachev wings of the party.
  Over the weekend the press reported that the Communist party hopes to loosen its grip on the USSR. The Sunday Times said:
  "The Soviet Union could take a first, momentous step towards free elections this week when Mikhail Gorbachev launches a radical programme to end the Communist party's monopoly of power."
  Today's Evening Standard carries the headline "
  Gorbachev: It's change or die."
  However, there are comments from the two wings of the Communist party and it is obvious that President Gorbachev must perform a balancing act. The Evening Standard reports:
  "Mr. Yeltsin told the throng that the party had 'one last chance' to change or it would be swept aside."
  A number of people in the demonstration over the weekend held up banners which, the Evening Standard reports, showed that
  "the people understood the need for more energetic reforms but expressed concern…that the enemies of perestroika had stepped up their efforts.
  Many of the banners denounced conservative figures such as Yegor Ligachev."
  Mr. Leigh rose—
  Mr. Mates rose—
  Mr. Boyes: I make it clear that I will give way only a few times.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is cantering round eastern Europe. We know all about that. Will he get back to the Royal Navy? I will put to the hon. Gentleman the same question as I put to my hon. Friend the Minister, and hope that I will get a similar response. No matter what

  661
  happens in eastern Europe, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that no review is being carried out in the Labour party of its stated commitment to maintaining current ship levels in the Royal Navy?
  Mr. Boyes: The hon. Gentleman said that I was cantering round eastern Europe, but I said that I was going to say a few words—as the Minister did—about that to set my remarks into some context. If the hon. Gentleman waits, I will answer his questions.
  Mr. Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyes: No
  The situation in the Soviet Union is unpredictable, although I believe that the changes, with or without Mr. Gorbachev, are now irreversible. It is clear that the Warsaw pact will not be reconstructed quickly enough to allow it to attack the West.
  I now refer to the important point of my speech and the first major disagreement with the Government.
  Mr. Mates rose—
  Mr. Boyes: Opposition Members welcome progress on chemical, nuclear and conventional forces, which were mentioned by the Minister. However, we diverge on NATO maritime arms reductions.
  Mr. Mates rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.
  Mr. Boyes: It makes no difference what the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) is. I shall give him an opportunity to intervene later. I am making my speech in the manner and at the pace that I want.
  I challenge the Government's wholly negative attitude to naval arms control. Whether their obstructionism is yet another example of the workings of the so-called special relationship, or whether it is simply the Prime Minister's prejudiced nationalism, one cannot tell. But Britain, which could have a central role in reducing the danger of war at sea and cutting forces on all sides, has a Government who are being as obstinate as usual.
  When the Foreign Secretary went to Washington last September to see the United States Secretary of State, James Baker, he was supposedly to explain Britain's position on Soviet naval arms control proposals. He agreed with the United States' position, and the answer was a straight no. Part of the problem is that the Soviets have been insisting that naval arms control negotiations should take place within the forum of the conventional forces in Europe talks. That makes it easy for NATO to say no, as it is patently true that, by including naval forces, we would add enormous complexity to negotiations which, so far, are going rather well. Attempts to trade off Soviet ground force superiority against NATO naval superiority are unlikely to have a positive outcome.
  The problem of an inappropriate forum is a convenient cover for the real reasons for British and United States opposition to naval arms control. They simply do not want to give up the power and status that come from having large, capable and influential neighbours. Hawkish naval analysts now say that we should simply wait for perestroika to do the work of cutting the Soviet navy rather than negotiate mutual cuts. That way, they argue,
  662
  the West gets a reduced Soviet maritime threat while avoiding any cuts in its own forces. That view is short-sighted.
  If we really want to help Gorbachev to succeed, and if we really want to reduce East-West tension and put an end to the obscene and obsessive levels of armaments on both sides, we must take some bold steps towards demilitarising international relations. If NATO truly believes that Soviet Union attack submarines are a serious threat, why not take up their offer of scrapping 100 of them in exchange for the United States scrapping five, six or seven of its aircraft carriers? At least the United States might then have a say in which attack submarines are scrapped or limited, whereas leaving it to the other side's budget decision can hardly be described as a rational approach to arms control.
  The strategic arms reduction talks, which are once again showing promising signs of movement, must still deal conclusively with the problem of sea-launched cruise missiles. The United States says that limits on them are impracticable because it is not possible to verify which are nuclear-armed and which are conventionally armed. That is a predictable plea, as those weapons were deliberately built to obscure the difference between the two versions. The intention was to force the Soviets to track all SLCM-armed ships and submarines just in case they might be carrying the nuclear land attack version.
  What of the verification problem? Last summer, scientists from the United States natural resources defence council and the Soviet academy of sciences conducted experiments on board the Soviet Slava cruiser to see whether nuclear warheads could be detected by gamma ray and neutron detectors. The tests, including some from a helicopter up to 70 m away, showed that it was possible to detect which weapons were nuclear and which were conventional.
  Last November, three prominent United States physicists published in Science a paper which proposes yet another way around the verification problem. Their solution involved non-intrusive verification, thereby overcoming the United States navy's objection that it did not want Russians crawling over its ships.
  It is notable that, as long ago as 1973, the United States observers could tell that Soviet ships entering the Mediterranean during the middle east war were not carrying nuclear weapons, whereas those leaving the Mediterranean were. If the capability existed then, why does the United States say that it does not exist now? Perhaps the answer is simple. The Americans have the technology and they know that the Soviets do not. As long as the United States continues its "neither conform nor deny" policy, that forces the Soviets to track every vessel. Why should the United States navy give up its enormous tactical advantage?
  Those are not just super-power questions. An often forgotten part of Britain's maritime forces is the stock of nuclear depth bombs carried by Royal Navy helicopters and by Royal Air Force Nimrods. At the best of times, that capability was a questionable military ability. There are no conceivable circumstances in which British independent maritime tactical nuclear capability could be used to military effect. Dropping a nuclear depth bomb would make our own, as well as Soviet, anti-submarine warfare impossible for many miles around. Modern

  663
  conventional torpedos are just as effective at destroying submarines. The use of nuclear depth bombs runs an enormous risk of further nuclear escalation.
  Sir Anthony Buck: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the previous Labour Administration were right to update the nuclear deterrent by modernisation and the introduction of Chevaline without telling the House? Has he talked to his friends? Has Labour party policy completely altered? Does he now say that Britain should never have its own nuclear deterrent? Is the Opposition's policy now completely unilateralist? Has the hon. Gentleman reconciled that policy with his predecessors on the Labour Front Bench who updated our nuclear deterrent without telling the
  Mr. Boyes: I shall answer the point on nuclear depth bombs, which arose among what seemed to be a series of accusations and questions. I am not responsible for what happened in the years before I entered the House. The disposal of these senseless weapons would be an eminently suitable course. Nor would it be a dangerous precedent. The United States navy unilaterally retired 1,100 of its naval tactical nuclear weapons last April, recognising that they no longer had any practical military purpose. The distinguished admiral, Sir James Eberle, said:
  "I have never encountered circumstances where I would be tempted to seek approval for the use of these tactical naval nuclear weapons".
  Vice-Admiral Henry C. Mustin, former deputy chief of naval operations in the United States, said:
  "The concept of a nuclear war at sea is a concept whose time has passed."
  Many people complain about the West losing the arms control public relations battle to Gorbachev. Scrapping our nuclear depth bombs could be a way of fighting back as they are militarily useless, morally abhorrent, obsolescent and costly to maintain. What better time to get rid of them? However, there may be a glimmer of light. At the Malta summit at the end of last year, Mr. Gorbachev called for a ban on tactical nuclear weapons on surface war ships. President Reagan's former chief arms control adviser—no faint-hearted liberal—described the proposal as "very positive and constructive".
  Another prominent figure recently to emerge in favour of cuts in naval nuclear weapons is the former chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Crowe. Before his retirement last October, he was a powerful advocate of increasing military spending, but now he states publicly that a ban on naval nuclear weapons can only be good. Most hearteningly, he admits that his view shifted after a series of talks with his Soviet counterpart, Marshal Akhromeyev, last year and after a series of extensive visits to Soviet military facilities, which showed him at first hand the reality of the changes in Soviet military posture and expenditure.
  For those interested in how much personal experiences can shake the most solid institutional prejudices, I strongly recommend a reading of Admiral Crowe's revealing personal account of his visits to Soviet naval facilities on the Black sea. This was published in the "United States Naval Institute Proceedings" last October, just before the admiral retired.
  I appeal to the Minister to follow Admiral Crowe's example and reconsider his so far entirely negative policy
  664
  on naval arms control. The Secretary of State should heed the words of the commandant of the royal naval college at Greenwich, who said recently:
  "Given imagination, vision and courage, there is potential for sensible consideration of maritime arms control regimes and advantages too."
  That was published in the Council for Arms Control bulletin in August 1989. Many people would like to think that warships on the high seas are a breed apart, somehow immune to changes in land-based military postures. That position is now untenable. We should be working to ensure that we have a maritime policy that is appropriate to the international climate, is affordable, and enhances security.
  On maritime strategy, I am again unable to go down the same route as the Minister. One of the principal features of current Royal Navy posture is the forward maritime strategy. As the House will know by now—although not by reading Government documents on the subject—the Royal Navy's principal task in wartime is to provide anti-submarine support to United States navy carrier battle groups that will steam into the Norwegian sea to mount offensive air operations against Soviet naval bases in the Kola peninsula. The offensive operations dictated by this strategy are extremely costly. They demand highly complex ships fitted with the most sophisticated electronics, hardened against nuclear and chemical attack, bristling with self-defence weaponry, loaded to the gunwales with ammunition to sustain high rates of fire, and surrounded by an armada of other vessels on, above and below the surface, all dedicated to the survival of the capital ship.
  Because these offensive operations involve fighting possibly lengthy battles at sea many hundreds of miles from the United Kingdom, the logistics chain is also massive and highly costly—huge fuel and armaments depots, such as the new multi-million-pound depot at Crombie in Fife, and expensive new vessels for refuelling and re-arming combat ships in the most hostile conditions at sea. We have gold-plated navies that swallow up vast sums of taxpayers' money, line the pockets of the arms manufacturers, and use highly advanced technology which frequently does not work. The disaster of the shooting down of an Iranian airbus by the USS Vincennes was a classic example of technology gone mad: of billions of dollars spent on a system that encouraged the crew to believe in its infallibility—with tragic results.
  The other consequence of our adherence to a forward maritime strategy is neglect of our own coastal defences. Not only are the ships not there, since they spend their time hanging on to the coat tails of the United States carrier battle groups flexing their muscles off the Kola peninsula, but even if the Royal Navy spent more time round our coasts the ships that we have now would be quite unsuitable. Nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines are useless in shallow waters, and even the new Upholder class diesel submarine has been designed as a mini hunter-killer, making it unnecessarily complex for coastal tasks.
  Fears have been expressed by a number of senior NATO military men that budget cuts in the United States will lead to the United States navy reducing its commitment to forward defence. The Dutch navy chief of staff recently used this argument as a platform to propose a greater European naval role in the north-east Atlantic to make up for United States withdrawals. Substituting

  665
  European forces for United States forces in this way sounds desirable, but we must be careful to understand just what such a proposal would mean. The Dutch navy—like our own—is shaped as much by its historical role in protecting a far-flung empire as by a realistic assessment of the present-day threat. As a result, the Dutch have a navy out of all proportion to the size and international political role of the Netherlands.
  Understandably, Dutch naval chiefs want to keep it that way. The all-European force suggested by Admiral Van Foreest would be, in effect, nothing more than a reinforcement of the status quo. He argues so himself:
  "This would fit well with United States forward maritime strategy…In the event of a crisis, our main task would be to keep the Norwegian sea clear for the United States strike fleet."
  What we need is not a change in the nationality of the people carrying out the United States maritime strategy but a change in the strategy itself, in keeping with the changes in Soviet posture and with our own security interests and ability to pay.
  The Labour party opposes a forward offensive maritime strategy for Britain and NATO in the eastern Atlantic. It was inappropriate and dangerous from the start, but we must now take account of the effects of massive political and military changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union on the maritime situation, just as everyone in NATO, except this Government, has been seriously reassessing strategy in relation to central Europe.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes it sound as though the Labour party is again becoming wedded to what happened when it was last in power—doing away with all the aircraft carriers. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that these capital ships cost too much to protect. We had to call them through-deck cruisers to get away from the Labour party's policy of doing away with aircraft carriers. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that, during the Falklands war and in all the other emergencies in which the Navy has been involved, the Harrier air force has been required. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is now Labour party policy to do away with aircraft carriers and with our Harriers? The logic of his argument is that that is how the party wants to go.
  Mr. Boyes: It would be interesting to know what the Government—the hon. Gentleman's party is in power and is making the decisions—are going to do about Fearless and Intrepid. The hon. Gentleman should have addressed his question to the Government if he was really interested—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State intervenes from a sedentary position. He knows full well that his Government have had many years to make a decision about these matters but have never done so.
  Mr. Speed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyes: No.
  Some people now argue that the impending conclusion of a CFE agreement, combined with budget-led withdrawals of United States troops and the greater warning time now available to NATO of any Warsaw pact attack mobilization—if we assume for the moment that such an organisation as the Warsaw pact will continue to exist—means that more stress should be placed on naval forces and the forward defence of sea line communications between north America and Europe. I wonder whether this is just a rearguard action being fought by fans of the big
  666
  Navy strategy. In the event of a crisis, our main task would be to keep the Norwegian sea clear for the United States strike fleet. What we need is not a change in the nationality of the people carrying out the strategy, but a change in the strategy itself, in keeping with Soviet posture and with our security interests and ability to pay.
  Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—[interruption] He is very good at giving way for points that he knows will be relevant. My hon. Friend talked about the strategy in the Norwegian sea. Does he agree that that strategy can be summed up thus: the Royal Navy goes in, takes on the Russians and gets blown to pieces, and the United States Navy goes in afterwards and does the mopping up? Our fleet takes the brunt. Is not that the strategy that the Government have adopted?
  Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend, as usual employing superb language, describes exactly what might happen in the event of such an incident.
  Let us consider this matter in the cold light of day, untrammelled by memories of empire or an overblown sense of the power of the red ensign. War between East and West is less likely than at any time in the post-war period. Every other week, the Pentagon 'issues or leaks a new assessment which shows what nonsense the idea of a Soviet-led attack on western Europe is—I am sticking to capabilities, not intentions, as that is what the hawks always tell us to do.
  In those circumstances, if the Warsaw pact geared itself up to attack, its forces would be incapable of sustained combat. There would be a short war, not the long war assumed by the proponents of strong naval escort forces in the eastern Atlantic and a forward maritime strategy. There would be no point in bottling up the Soviet fleet in the Barents sea to stop it sinking convoys en route to Europe with war supplies because there would be no convoys; the war would be over before the cranes had finished loading them in the United States ports.
  I have always believed that a substantial element in the forward maritime strategy, particularly in its United States embodiment in the period since 1980, was a desire by naval commanders to give their sailors more action in peacetime. A navy which never comes into contact with its supposed enemy is one that does not believe in itself enough, is not combat ready and, more importantly, is bored.
  The forward maritime strategy has brought a great deal more excitement into many sailors' lives. There have been cat-and-mouse games between submarines under arctic ice, intelligence-gathering missions close to Soviet territorial waters and mock air attacks on Soviet strategic bases, turning away from Soviet air space only at the last moment. Much as I respect the Navy and its personnel, the time has come to behave more rationally and coolly on maritime issues, stop the threatening and provocative exercises and dangerous postures and address the possibilities of naval arms control in a serious and co-operative mood.
  I shall now say a few words about Polaris. Over the years—
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Is the hon. Gentleman going to read all that?
  Mr. Boyes: No. The Minister speaks from a sedentary position. I respect the hon. Gentleman and do not expect such behaviour from him. I have not spoken for anywhere near as long as the Minister did.
  Over the years Ministers and Ministry of Defence officials have issued a number of statements that no Polaris submarine has ever been detected or tracked on patrol. The impression has always been created that Polaris operates in an entirely independent and self-reliant manner, using stealth to avoid detection, rather than relying on other systems such as aircraft and hunter-killer submarines to provide anti-submarine cover.
  In the 1988 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", a new role for the Royal Navy appeared: protecting the deployment of our strategic deterrent. In the 1988–89 defence estimates, that role was seemingly promoted to become the foremost of the Navy's three tasks, coming before containment of the Soviet northern fleet and the protection of reinforcement shipping. That was an amazing revelation because it showed that Polaris was not self-reliant but required a major effort by other Royal Navy and Air Force units to protect it. As that is now stated officially in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", will the Minister come clean and say what level of resources are being expended on the protection of Polaris submarines on patrol? It has been the convention that the declared costs of Britain's strategic nuclear forces are limited to the capital and operating costs of the Trident and Polaris fleets. It now seems that we should add some of the costs of anti-submarine patrols by ships, aircraft, and other submarines, including part of the cost of building some of those vessels.
  This is a fundamental question: will the Minister explain clearly to the House why the role of protecting the deployment of the strategic deterrent was never mentioned in the annual Statements on the Defence Estimates until 1988, and now stands as the first of three roles for the maritime forces? Has Soviet open-ocean anti-submarine warfare advanced dramatically, in complete contradiction of the United States intelligence evidence which I quoted earlier? Have the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on Polaris refits in recent years failed to produce a boat that can operate independently without fear of detection? As the Minister failed to answer those questions when I asked them in a previous debate, will he provide an answer either in this debate or by letter?
  We now know that nine Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines, including Polaris, probably—I can rely only on what the Minister can tell me—have cracks in their nuclear reactor cooling circuits. The Minister has never come clean on the present position. Information that has come to my notice suggests a seriousness greater than the Government are prepared or willing to admit. HMS Warspite may have a fault that is unrepairable. There are several dangers in relation to the generation of submarines built in the 1950s and 1960s.
  I faxed a letter to the Secretary of State on 31 January 1990 in which I asked him seven questions, some of which related to assurances being given to the local population because of the possible danger if any major problem occurred while the boats were in dock. The Opposition believe that in view of the perceived seriousness of the problem, the prime importance must be the safety and security of crews working on the boats and the workers at the various dockyards who are carrying out the repairs.
  668
  In his book "Submarine versus Submarine" Commander Richard Compton Hall, MBE, RN said:
  "A total coolant failure in any nuclear plant is disastrous and inevitably leads to the melt down of the core. Western submariners are absolutely certain that these safety devices and back-up systems will never allow this to happen. The Russians said the same until Chernobyl."
  I do not know whether the Minister who is to sum up has been briefed about the questions that I asked the Secretary of State and whether we can expect an answer to each of the questions. A number of people need assurances about the condition of those submarines. My hon. Friends and I believe that some of the submarines—if they are in the state which I suspect them to be—should be taken out of commission and docked, along with HMS Dreadnought, until the Government at long last determine what to do with such boats.
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archibald Hamilton): I answered the hon. Gentleman's letter this afternoon. That letter should be on the board, and was there at 3.30 pm, I believe. If he wishes, I shall certainly repeat the message in the letter when I sum up.
  Mr. Boyes: One of my hon. Friends will get the letter for me, and I shall see what it has to say.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is discourteous of the Minister to send the letter only today and say that he will refer to it in his wind-up speech? That means that the rest of the House is denied the information in the letter. It leaves us in a difficult position, because if we go on asking questions we shall be told that we shall be given the answers at the end of the debate. It would have been far better if the information had been available to the House so that we could have pursued relevant questions in the debate, rather than muck about in the dark.
  Mr. Boyes: I now have one of the letters from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. It is right to read it on to the record. It says:
  "You wrote to Tom King on 31 January about nuclear powered submarines. I have been asked to reply.
  As I am sure that you appreciate, detailed information relating to the design and operation of nuclear powered submarines is classified. I cannot, therefore, comment on the specific nature of the defect which was discovered in one of our boats except to say that it had potential safety implications; that the necessary action is being taken to deal with it; and that, as a prudent precaution, we are inspecting other nuclear powered submarines as they come alongside from their operational tasks.
  Against that background I can give you the assurance you require about the safety of the personnel who are engaged in the inspection of those boats which are at present in harbour and of the population of the surrounding areas. I should emphasise that there has been no leak of radioactivity as a result of this defect; and that we have very high standards for our nuclear submarines both in port and at sea.
  I can assure you that the decision to keep submarines at sea on operational tasks, pending inspection when they return to port has been taken in the light of independent safety advice. The Royal Navy's submarines operate within tried and tested safety margins and we regard the safety of submarine crews as of paramount importance.
  You also asked about early decommissioning of Valiant and Resolution Class submarines. We see no reason for such action.
  In conclusion, the inspections we are carrying out are a prudent precaution; there has been no radiation leak or injury to anyone; the Government attaches the highest importance to nuclear safety; and our action is part of that policy.
  I hope this is helpful."

  669
  I thank the Minister for that reply. My only regret is that I received it in the middle of my speech. If it could be on the board at half past 3, it could just as easily have been available at a quarter past 3. I regret the way in which the Government treat the Opposition in replying to to a series of questions of which they were given considerable notice.
  People are worried about this matter. The Minister's letter was fairly bland and did not give the assurance required by Opposition Members and, more particularly, by the population where the boats are docked.
  We are equally concerned about submariners. Having read the Minister's letter, I am still of the opinion that some of the boats should be decommissioned and taken out of action. The evidence that I received over the weekend which is independent of the Government, suggests that the boats are not as safe and secure as the Government want us to believe. There are some serious faults in the submarines, people could be in danger and submariners could be at risk.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): That is insulting to the Royal Navy.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyes: No.
  I shall write a further letter to the Secretary of State asking for more detailed replies to some more detailed questions.
  The Secretary of State made a remark from a sedentary position about Royal Navy personnel. But I am directing my remarks at Ministers. I have as much admiration and respect for naval personnel as any Conservative Member and any Minister. I am not happy with the reply that I have received, nor with the time at which I received it.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister of State, either now or when he replies, to give an assurance that the operational power and skill on the boats will not have to be reduced as a result of the faults? When faults were found in civil reactors, it was necessary to run them at substantially below the originally intended capacity. Surely an assurance should be given that, as a result of the fault, submarines will not have to operate at below the originally designed capacity.
  Mr. Boyes: I agree with that. My hon. Friend asks an important question—[Interruption.] The behaviour of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, ill becomes someone in his position. We are discussing matters that are important to many people in the areas where the boats are docked. It was on behalf of those people that I asked the Secretary of State for assurances about the security and safety of submarines.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyes: No.
  These are important matters and this is the proper place for them to be aired and for Ministers to answer our questions. We must ensure that we have the full details. I shall write another letter to the Secretary of State. I hope that he will reply a little more quickly than he did to my previous letter.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the safety implications of nuclear reactor faults. Will he take
  670
  this opportunity to ask the Minister of State why, if there is no problem—as he stated in his bland reply to my hon. Friend—so many of the submarines have returned to port? There must be a reason. According to the Government's own standards, they are leaving the country defenceless. If that is not the case, the submarines were no use in the first place. Does he agree that we must be given a reason why so many vessels returned to port?
  Mr. Boyes: Yes. I am sure that the Minister has noted my hon. Friend's point, and that he will answer it.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyes: No, I want to conclude now. I understand from a Conservative Whip that many Conservative Members wish to speak in the debate. I shall take no more interventions from either Conservative or Opposition Members.
  I wish to make several points about changes in the Soviet navy. I have outlined some of the reasons why there is a clear need for a change in maritime strategy. Perhaps it is most important to consider what has happened to Soviet naval forces. Again, last year's Statement on the Defence Estimates was no help. Of rather more value Was last year's edition of "Soviet Military Power", the Pentagon's annual glossy booklet, usually designed to boost congressional support for a higher defence budget. I draw the attention of the House to some of the highlights of the booklet on Soviet maritime forces:
  "20 major Soviet Navy surface combatants have been scrapped since 1987, and only a few of these have been replaced…Backfire bombers have finally been deployed with the Soviet Northern Fleet, more than ten years after the RAF was predicting their imminent appearance off the north of Scotland; Soviet naval activity outside home waters has declined 15 per cent. since 1985. Warsaw Pact methods for replenishment at sea are 'slow and primitive', such that major surface ships could not fight for prolonged periods; production rates for the latest surface ships and submarines have declined."
  Before Conservative Members tell me that the Soviet navy is smaller and more capable and efficient as a result, I shall quote from page 111 of "Soviet Military Power";
  "Trends for the last five years have favoured NATO's naval forces. The Pact navies have been growing smaller, as fewer but more capable ships replace older models. NATO naval forces, however, have maintained their size. They also have been upgraded significantly in antisubmarine warfare, antisurface warfare and air defence capability…NATO navies also have engaged in integrated training exercises to improve their ability to conduct combined operations. The trend for the next five years will likely see NATO maintain its quantitative and qualitative edge in naval forces."
  That is not just an American view. In the 1988 Statement on the Defence Estimates, it was grudgingly admitted that Soviet out-of-area deployments had declined over the past two years, but that was explained purely as a measure to make the Soviet Navy more operationally effective. In the small print, however—always worth reading in documents designed mainly for public relations—we find that Warsaw pact major surface warship production has been running at half the rate of NATO's, not counting France and Spain which have significant warship building programmes. The rate of production of attack submarines has been almost identical in East and West over the past 10 years, and production of the Soviet Union's newest nuclear-powered attack submarines was "below levels previously sustained". Those statistics are from the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988, vol. 1, page 62.

  671
  Certainly, the Soviet Union continues to pour money into new submarines and now has a third aircraft carrier under construction. Despite that investment, more than 60 per cent. of the Soviet submarine fleet is more than 20 years old, and 30 per cent. is more than 30 years old. The United States navy says that the Soviets have only 30 submarines which could be described as modern, first-line anti-submarine platforms—that is about the same number as the United States Los Angeles class fleet.
  Two years ago the director of submarine warfare for the United States navy rejected claims that the Soviet Union's latest nuclear-powered submarine, the Akula class, was superior to the Los Angeles class. He told Congress:
  "Today's United States submarine force is unquestionably the best in the world."
  In terms of new carriers, Soviet officials have recently said that they expect heavy cuts in the navy's budget in the near future as perestroika starts to hit military spending. There is a large question mark over whether the third and largest Soviet aircraft carrier will ever be completed. The Pentagon itself rejects the idea that the other two will be used in any offensive role, but says rather that they will be used to improve the currently abysmal air defence cover of the Soviet Union's forward defences in the Norwegian sea.
  I do not believe in complacency. If the Soviets are as sincere about naval arms control as they appear to be, they must be prepared to give up those aircraft carriers. If Mr. Gorbachev has ever seen any United States navy documents about the cost of running vessels of that size, he must be pressing for cancellation.
  If the Soviet Union is sincere not just about reducing the size of its military force but about restructuring it in a defensive manner, what will be NATO's response? I sincerely hope that it will be different from the experience of Colonel Harry Summers, a former professor at the United States army war college. Last summer, he recounted how, in the late 1970s, he had listened to an admiral's briefing on the strategic rationale of the United States navy. Slide after slide depicted the Soviet naval threat and how it was being countered. At the end, the admiral asked an army general what he thought. "Very interesting", the general said, "but what you've just said is that if the Soviet navy sank tomorrow, we could do away with the United States navy." The admiral laughed. "You don't understand," he said. "If the Soviet navy sank tomorrow, I'd get me a new set of slides."
  There is a legitimate role for our Navy and the decline in Soviet naval activity should enable us to reassess what that role should be. When we form the next Government we shall conduct a wide-ranging and thoroughgoing review.
  I take this opportunity to praise all men and women of all ranks who serve this country on shore and at sea. The defence of our shores is essential, and we salute all the brave men and women in our forces.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) did not feel able to give way to me, because I wanted to ask a pertinent question. His attitude was in stark contrast to that of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who is always very courteous
  672
  in giving way in services debates. That characterises such debates. They may be robust but they are mostly to the point and we try to find things out. Some 52 minutes ago the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington spoke about what was happening in eastern Europe. I take no exception to that because we can only base debates on the future of our defence on what is happening on the other side.
  Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman said how out of tune the Government were and Mrs. Thatcher in particular—he named the Prime Minister—in not going the way of all the other countries in NATO. He said that we need defence cuts now. I tried to intervene because I wanted to ask him where we need defence cuts. Some 52 minutes later, we are no wiser. The hon. Gentleman wants defence cuts now but he is not prepared to tell us what should be cut, how that should be done and whether it will put any of our services, including the Royal Navy, at risk. We must take the hon. Gentleman's assertion, in the way that it was offered, as meaningless, because he was not prepared to be questioned on it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I congratulate him on that.
  Mr. Boyes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mates: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. The need for the hon. Gentleman to increase his knowledge has been more than adequately shown, and I hope that the Secretary of State will note that.
  In the past year, the Select Committee on Defence has continued to take an interest in the Royal Navy and last Session we published no fewer than four reports relating to it. We published a short report entitled "The Royal Navy's Surface Fleet: Current Issues", which monitored developments since we had compiled our major report on the future size and role of the Royal Navy in 1988. This time round we were able to report grounds for a little more optimism about the future of the destroyer frigate fleet than we had felt able to do in our earlier report, owing to the Government ordering three more type 23 frigates in 1988. Since that report, the Government have ordered three more from Swan Hunter and we warmly welcome that order.
  Nevertheless there is still no room for complacency. Last year we said:
  "There is still some way to go before a pattern of ship ordering is established which would guarantee that the escort fleet remains at 'around 50' ships".
  The ordering of three Duke class frigates is important, but I hope that the Minister will agree that of greater importance is the date at which they will be laid down—when work on them will begin—because that dictates the eventual date of entry into service.
  I have a slight fear that there is a growing gap between ordering and laying down. It is common ground that we need about 2·6 ships laid down each year. That is about one every five months and that is not happening. Of the three whose orders were announced in July 1988, the Iron Duke was laid down in December 1988 and the Monmouth in August 1989; I believe that Mont rose has yet to be laid down but should be shortly. It would be helpful if, when announcing the placing of orders, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement did last December, the dates of laying down

  673
  were also announced. It would be useful to hear from the Minister the laying down dates for Westminster, Northumberland and Richmond.
  We also published a report on the decommissioning of nuclear submarines. That is a very difficult subject and our report sought to set out the facts about decommissioning and the options open to the Ministry for disposing of old submarines. This problem will not go away. The Ministry's policy of wait and see has some merits, but decisions will soon be necessary as Dreadnought is joined by more and more of her sisters.
  The London dumping convention met in November and agreed to a ban on decommissioned nuclear submarines being dumped at sea, apparently against the wishes of the United Kingdom. The Ministry's immediate response, as reported in the press, suggested that there was still some possibility of the Government using sea dumping. It would be helpful to have on record the Minister's views of the implications for nuclear submarine decommissioning of the recent decisions of the London dumping convention. I make that request full of sympathy for the problems that confront the Department in respect of that difficult matter.
  Our 10th report last Session was on the procurement of the vertical launch Sea Wolf missile system and the type 23 frigate command system. Both demonstrate the difficulties of accurately estimating the costs and time involved in software-intensive projects. It is a matter for regret that the type 23s will go into service without a computer-assisted command system, which will inevitably reduce their operational effectiveness. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State can give a better indication of progress with the new project than could my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  Last Session, as in many previous years, we published a report on the progress of the Trident programme. During that inquiry, we visited Kings Bay in Georgia, where Royal Navy personnel are in training. We shall update our inquiry again this year. Last week, the Committee received the Secretary of State's annual report on Trident. We shall study it in detail, but we all welcome the continuing reduction in Trident's real cost and the fact that there is no slippage in the in-service date. That programme is one of which everyone concerned can be very proud.
  Just before Christmas, we visited the Falklands, and aside from seeing the good heart that everyone was in, with Christmas just coming—life is not easy, serving down in the south Atlantic—we had an entertaining evening on board HMS Penelope—the oldest frigate in the fleet by some way, having been commissioned in October 1963, when many of its crew had not yet been born. Last June, the Defence Committee was told that HMS Penelope could run on for a further four years, but I gather that the end may be nearer than that for her. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify the position in respect of that frigate and of the older batch 2A frigates—the Leander class frigates—in general, as they approach a quarter of a century of service. As last year's report points out, there are growing penalties in terms of cost, time and manpower in keeping those frigates running.
  While we were in the Falklands, we visited HMS Leeds Castle, which is an offshore patrol vessel more or less permanently stationed in the Falklands. Hers is not an enviable task, and in my judgment life for the ship's company—all of whom are on short-term postings—is not
  674
  made easier by what seems to be the Admiralty's policy of posting a very high proportion of officers and crew who have given notice of their intention to retire prematurely and who thus work out their time in the Falklands. That obviously presents problems of morale, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will reconsider its policy. I hasten to add that we were all the more impressed by the way in which all those on HMS Penelope went about their tasks.
  Last Friday, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Defence Committee published a report on the procurement of the EH 101 helicopter and the light attack helicopter, so that it would be available to right hon. and hon. Members today. The part of the report dealing with the anti-submarine warfare variant of the EH101, or the Merlin, is relevant to today's debate. I shall not run through all the Committee's observations, because I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will read the report for themselves, but I shall highlight a few of the points that it makes.
  The success of the project is, as yet, far from assured. The Ministry must be satisfied that the development programme has progressed far enough and well enough for the project's success to be likely before placing production orders. The Ministry plans to order only 50 aircraft initially despite its acceptance that the operational requirement for them remains at 74. It will be interesting to hear how the operational requirement has altered to justify the change in the number ordered—unless it is simply a budgetary matter, in which case it would be more honest if we were told that.
  It should be emphasised that a larger order could lead to a considerably lower unit cost than our estimate of about £40 million each for the 50 aircraft. We trust that if all goes well, an order for a second batch will follow the first. Again, the EH101 demonstrates the management problems inherent in international collaboration. If the trend towards greater collaboration and procurement is to continue, we must ensure that projects are tightly controlled.
  In case any misunderstanding should arise from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who seemed more concerned about his constituency than with the Navy's requirements, our report specifically states that problems of delay within the MOD belong to the past. The report observes, in paragraph 50:
  "MOD have in the past contributed to their own difficulties, as a result of their inability to bring themselves to a position where their philosophy for mobility on the battlefield of the '90s and beyond could be stated, and thus a firm requirement determined."
  That does not apply to the naval version of the EH101, but it does apply to the helicopter requirements of all our
  services over the next decade.
  Mr. Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman, who is of course Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, say how much money is known to have been wasted by the Ministry of Defence on the EH101 project so far? What is the projected overspend? How much money has been wasted by the Government?
  Mr. Mates: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman in his pejorative words. The project is over-cost and over-time, and the figures are set out in the report. That is a matter for regret, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister regrets it as much as we do. However, to say that the effort

  675
  has been wasted is to use a somewhat ignorant phrase. In the development of new weapons systems, what is waste and what is research? What is possible and what is not possible? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary acknowledges our concern, and his remarks reflected that. We are all concerned if a programme is late and running over cost—but it is not the first time that that has happened with new technology, and I fear that it will not be the last.
  I conclude with a couple of observations that are mine alone and have nothing to do with the Defence Select Committee. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington spoke of naval arms reductions, and although I agree with some of his remarks, he reached entirely the wrong conclusions. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman colours all his remarks with a fundamental anti-Americanism that does no justice to his arguments. To say that it is the Americans who are being bellicose is to ignore the fact that it is largely due to their efforts that CFE got going as well as it did. We should give the Americans considerable credit. A meaningful agreement on reducing troop numbers in Europe would not be possible without the co-operation of the Americans.
  As to naval arms reductions, it was inevitably right not to include them in the first round of the CFE talks. That would have caused delay and unbelievable complications, given that so many other problems that have nothing to do with Europe arise when the United States and the Soviet Union discuss their naval forces. The United States Navy keeps very nearly as many of its assets in the Pacific as in the Atlantic. The Soviet Union keeps a greater number of its naval assets in the Pacific, and that has nothing to do with the threats between NATO and the Warsaw pact. Their deployment there is due to other areas of instability in the Pacific rim, in which both super-powers have a legitimate interest.
  However, I do not believe that another round of arms reduction talks can be embarked upon without naval forces being mentioned. I hope that our Government will say that for talks to be credible over the next three, four or five years, talks must begin on how we can wind down those parts of the West and Warsaw pact navies that affect the East-West balance of power.
  A way must be found of keeping separate the need for stability in the Pacific rim, where the position of the Soviet Union and the United States grow more common rather than more different. As the Soviet Union encounters problems in its own territories, that trend may begin to be evident on the European scene. That is an exciting prospect. When we come to talk about naval reductions, once again it will mainly concern the Soviet Union and the United States. Although we should be present, supporting and participating, we must remember that we have to take care of places that could be under threat, where we have a legitimate interest, when we decide the future size and strength of our Royal Navy.
  If I had to try to predict where we shall be in 10 years' time—it will have to be general because it will probably be wrong—I would say that if present trends continue in Europe we are likely to have smaller ground forces and smaller air forces, but I doubt whether we will find any reason to have a much smaller Navy.
  For the past 40 years we have had to focus on the threat on the ground between a massively powerful Warsaw pact
  676
  and NATO. As that threat diminishes, the relative necessity to cope with threats out of area, on the fringes, will grow. I believe that the threat has almost gone from the central front, but we must now focus more sharply on the threat on the northern flank and, in particular, on the southern flank. For example, Turkey, which is a full member of NATO, borders the Soviet Union—and Armenia at that—Iran, Syria and Iraq. We have a common purpose to defend Turkish integrity and Turkey has a common purpose to defend the integrity of western Europe. We must not forget that a threat still exists there, and that there is uncertainty and unpredictability. When that threat comes from fundamentalist Muslims, we must over-insure rather than under-insure. We shall always have a task for the Royal Navy.
  I hope that the Minister will have something to say about amphibious replacements. I beg him to realise that, given that there may be reductions elsewhere, we cannot go through the next decade, when we will need more flexible, smaller armed forces, with our amphibious capability confined to roll-on/roll-off ferries after our two excellent amphibious carriers have gone. That prospect is not one that I would wish to contemplate.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. John McFall: It is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). He is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, and I have been a member of that Committee for the past two years. During that time he has been a fair, objective and excellent Chairman. Perhaps that glowing reference will ensure that he will remain the chairman of that Back-Bench committee for many years to come.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement opened the debate with a reference to East-West relations. I congratulate him on referring to the changes in those relations, but he gave no hint of the Government's stance other than saying that it would be more of the same.
  The Financial Times, in its front page on Saturday, had an article headed "Bush and Thatcher lead a chorus of approval". The article was not talking about defence cuts, but about South Africa. The Prime Minister was quoted as saying:
  "When people are going your way in a bold and courageous style we should give them encouragement to make them go further and faster."
  The encouragement that she gave to Nelson Mandela and to Mr. de Klerk was to invite them to 10 Downing street before the ink on any agreement was dry. However, that does not apply to her stance on defence, when she says, "Here and no further." That is a complete antithesis to her approach to South Africa, and it highlights the inconsistency of Government policy.
  What happened at the weekend? The Prime Minister called in the Foreign Secretary, according to The Observer, to reprimand him on his speech to the Conservative political centre at Wroxton two weeks ago. It says:
  "Mr. Hurd looked forward to a time when large cuts in defence spending would make money available for improving the 'quality of life'."
  But the article also said that the Prime Minister
  "does not believe that defence cuts are inevitable."
  So the Foreign Secretary had to appear on "The World This Weekend" last Sunday and retract what he said. There is no hint of a peace dividend from the Government.
  Contrast that situation with what is happening in America at the moment. There is a reduction of more than

  677
  2·6 per cent. in the United States defence budget this year. The Secretary of Defence, Dick Cheney, put his package to Congress and its response was that it was too timid. The United States has been reducing its budget since 1985. Contrast that with our stance. We have real growth in our defence budget of some £1 billion per year for the next three years. Compare that with the 13 per cent. reduction in the United States since 1985. We know that their five-year plan will continue on that downward path.
  It is sad that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement cannot refer to a change in the Government's style in relation to the changing situation in Europe. Few people would deny that the system of alliances on which European security has rested for the past three and half decades, rigid as it was during the cold war, has been extensively undermined, and is rapidly becoming obsolescent. That implies that it is necessary to have an alternative framework for security for the entire continent.
  A major requirement for any progress is that the United States and its leading NATO allies, such as ourselves, depart from the silly belief that NATO's most urgent task is to frustrate an attack on western Europe by a militant Soviet Union and its equally militant Warsaw pact allies. In at least three eastern European countries their Parliaments would have to decide if their forces could be used. So much for the militant Warsaw pact. There is not a militant approach by the Warsaw pact.
  I can appreciate that the Government are cautious, but surely they can come up with some intellectual thinking on defence issues during the next few years. The Government should say that we have a changing situation and that we support Gorbachev. If the Government support Gorbachev it is incumbent on them to consider and formulate a new defence posture. Sadly, we do not have that opportunity just now.
  At the moment, institutional truth is evident. John Kenneth Galbraith mentioned institutional truth, which is different from simple truth. I am asking the Minister for simple truth, and not the institutional truth of the military industrial complex. Simple truth should make the Government face up to the changing realities in eastern Europe.
  Consider our own Navy and nuclear depth bombs. Can I ask the Minister to respond to this in his summing up? The British nuclear free-fall depth bombs—the WE177B and 177C—which are on Royal Navy ships will become obsolete by the end of the decade. I believe that the decision to replace them will be taken in the next few months. There is widespread agreement that those weapons make no nuclear sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) referred to the arguments of the former Admiral Eberle on that subject. They are becoming increasingly redundant, and I would like the Minister to consider that.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned Faslane and the nuclear reactors. That is in my constituency. The Select Committee on Defence has asked the Ministry of Defence for a note about the supposed faults in the nuclear reactor in HMS Warspite and others. To date, I have not been involved with the MOD on this issue, but I know that the Scottish papers had a lot to say about it at the weekend. A number of alarmist telephone calls have been made to different people, and they have told me that the language being used by the anonymous callers is very technical, and therefore gives the calls an element of credibility. I do not want to add to rumour-mongering, but the Government
  678
  should consider the situation, and give us reasonable explanations of why there are so many boats in port at Faslane, Rosyth and Devonport.
  I am informed that at Faslane, three Valiant class, two Resolution class, one Swiftsure and one diesel are in port at present. Why have those boats been recalled? We know that if there is a hairline fracture in the coolant systems which are manufactured by Roll-Royce in Derby, it could affect not just one boat by many. Certainly it is most unusual for all the Valiant class submarines to be in port at the same time, and it is possible that all the Valiant and Resolution class submarines have similar problems. The question is how serious the fault is in each submarine: if the Minister cannot give me an answer at the end of the debate, perhaps he will write to me setting out the views of the Ministry of Defence.
  The hon. Member for Hampshire, East mentioned a number of investigations that the Select Committee is currently undertaking. One concerns the physical security of military installations. Mention has been made of the tragic accident at Deal in which 11 members of the Royal Marines were killed, and I join other hon. Members in expressing my sympathy. Like many other members of the Select Committee, I am worried about the use of private contractors—not just on that occasion, but in the future—and the evidence given to the Committee on Wednesday by MOD officials gave rise to more anxiety rather than less. It seems that, if a private contract is awarded for two or three years, it will be maintained regardless of lapses in security, rather than being cancelled immediately. There is widespread concern about that on both sides of the House, and I beg the Minister to take account of the problem for the sake of the security and safety of military personnel.
  Last week I received a leaked internal memo which emanated from the divisional secretary of the ammunition division of Royal Ordnance. It reads:
  "Unless we frighten the MOD into agreeing with our point of view, I see no prospect that we will achieve our objective."
  The objective to which he refers is the right to demand the withdrawal of the MOD police and to replace them with Royal Ordnance guards—a right that Royal Ordnance intends to exercise. That is rather alarming language.
  As I said to the newspapers that contacted me at the weekend, I am on the side of the MOD. I believe that it should not give in to coercive tactics, but should stand its ground and take heed of the notes of a meeting on the withdrawal of its police held in the MOD building on 6 June 1989. Five deputy chief constables were asked for their views, and all of them—representing Nottingham, Cheshire, Lancashire, Gwent, and Avon and Somerset—expressed deep concern. The issue of private contractors will not go away, and I hope that the Minister will give it his attention.
  A few weeks ago, the International Herald Tribune featured an article by Albert Wohlstatter, a military strategist involved in the mutually assured destruction strategy of the mid-1960s and a conservative by any definition. According to him, the Americans want leaders to respond positively to the disintegration of Communist empires. Prudence requires a faster, not slower, response to the new problems caused by the break-up of the east European ice.
  America's defence budget is currently being cut. because Gramm-Rudman is "meeting Gorbachev" where the United States of America is constrained by budget problems. I do not think it will be long before the Treasury

  679
  in this country "meets Thatcher". Sadly, that possibility has not been addressed today, but I hope that by the time we debate the defence estimates in the summer the Government will have faced the reality of change, and will give us their proposals for United Kingdom defence in the 1990s.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It was right for the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) to have a ramble through eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, because what has happened there will undoubtedly affect the decisions that the Ministry of Defence must make in the future. It is likely—indeed, I trust that it is the case—that those changes are irreversible, and I hope and expect that the negotiations on conventional armed forces in Europe will produce a positive outcome. As a consequence, I believe that we shall no longer require the single-scenario defences on which we have often based our spending, such as heavy tanks. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) had to say, as he is an ex-tankie.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Cavalry.
  Mr. Sayeed: A cavalryman operating in tanks is normally known as a tankie.
  It was notable that my right hon. Friend acknowledged that the likely outcome of successful CFE talks was a reduction in land forces and possibly in air forces, but no reduction in naval forces: in my view, the reduction in East-West tension may well result in the Navy's role being expanded, because the Navy is the most flexible of all the Services.
  Despite the shrunken state of the Navy's manpower and units, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—I hope that he will not leave just yet—is much exercised by the question of recruitment, especially in view of the demographic trends of which we have been told. I understand from the newspapers that he recently visited the Dutch navy, and that his visits persuaded him that it might be a good idea to employ the Wrens in surface warships but not submarines. He might even announce a change of policy tonight, and hold a press conference tomorrow. I have no doubt about the ability of the Wrens: I believe that they are a considerable asset to the Royal Navy, and I know how proud and protective the Navy is of them.
  Mr. David Martin: My hon. Friend is going to say something sexist.
  Mr. Sayeed: I admit that my hon. Friend is partially right.
  I have been considering how my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will try to persuade the House that a change of policy, as well as being necessary, can be fitted in with what the MOD has said before. He would have sought the help of an estimable but fictitious civil servant whom I shall call Carruthers. This civil servant, a fine protege of Sir Humphrey Appleby, would have responded to the Minister's point that the Royal Navy should employ Wrens at sea in warships—
  680
  [Interruption.] It would help if my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East did not keep interrupting me; I cannot help laughing at his asides when he does.
  When the Minister elicited Carruthers's aid to obtain ammunition to endorse the policy of employing Wrens at sea, he would say to Carruthers, "I have to convince my colleagues of the merits of my solution to the demographic trough. I have to persuade them that nothing that I am proposing will conflict with the idea that women should not serve in the front line. I require you to go away and square the circle."
  Carruthers, fine fellow that he is and no mean student of Sir Humphrey, would retire and, when reporting back to the Minister, would say, "Minister, there is no problem. The definition of 'front line' is a matter of semantics. My solution is as follows: 'front line' means that you operate over enemy territory and that you engage in hand-to-hand combat. That being the case, there is no problem over having women at sea in warships. I have couched my recommendation and definition of 'front line' in those terms because we do not want this monstrous army of women to believe that they will have the opportunity to fly Tornado aircraft, or do any job that a man does and be paid for it in an infantry battalion."
  "Furthermore," Carruthers would report to the Minister, "Wrens already serve at sea—in survey ships, in royal fleet auxiliaries. You can point out, Minister, that if you are sunk in HMS Hecate it is not very different from being sunk in HMS Hermione." The Minister would then say, "Well done, my good and faithful servant. You can collect your gong on the way out," to which Carruthers would reply, "Yes Minister."
  If Wrens serve at sea in warships, there will have to be changes to the Queen's regulations for the Royal Navy. That does not matter all that much; it can be catered for. It will mean structural changes to warships, in which accommodation standards have improved so much that they are getting close to reducing the offensive and defensive capabilities of warships. However, that too could be allowed for.
  There is the point that the Dutch have women serving in warships. Why cannot we? However, the Dutch navy is different from the Royal Navy. The Dutch navy has about 15 units of offshore patrol vessels or bigger—frigates, destroyers and so on. We have 63. Dutch naval personnel total about 17,000, ours total 57,000. But the main difference between the Dutch navy and the Royal Navy is that the Dutch navy mostly goes to sea only during the week.
  Mr. David Martin: My hon. Friend knows that I raised this matter two years ago in my maiden speech. It is quite close to my heart. Does my hon. Friend believe that no advances can be made if women serve in warships throughout the coming decade? Women are allowed to train as pilots and to serve in the Royal Air Force. Why is that so different from combat roles in Royal Navy warships?
  Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend has asked me questions that ought to have been answered by the Minister when he replied to my hon. Friend's maiden speech. If I remember rightly, the points that he made in his excellent speech on that occasion were not adequately answered. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware, however, that women do not serve in the Royal Air Force as front-line pilots.

  681
  The principal difference between the Royal Netherlands navy and our Royal Navy is that the Dutch navy does not usually go to sea at weekends. The ships are tied up alongside the quay at their home base. Men who serve in the Royal Navy, however, can spend months, even years, at sea and away from home.
  As for the argument that women serve in survey ships and royal fleet auxiliaries, I remind the Minister, if he intends to announce a new policy, that most survey ships are used as hospital ships in times of conflict and that consequently they are protected by the terms of the Geneva convention. Although most royal fleet auxiliaries would serve in a combat area, for most of the time they would keep out of trouble. The difference between serving in a royal fleet auxiliary ship and a warship is that a warship's job is to seek out the enemy. It does not matter if one is the cook or the captain; the risk on board a warship is exactly the same for everyone.
  As for operating within foreign territory, it is quite likely that at a time of conflict a warship would have to operate inside enemy-held waters—even, possibly, within enemy territorial waters. I cannot answer the argument that sailors do not engage in hand-to-hand combat at sea, except, possibly, with some of their mess mates now and again. e a However, one is just as dead whether one is killed by a shell or a bayonet.
  The greatest of my objections to the suggestion that Wrens should serve at sea in warships is that in seeking to overcome one problem—recruitment—we shall exacerbate another—retention.
  Dr. Mike Woodcock: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. Am I not right in thinking that it is not only the Dutch navy which permits women to serve at sea and that the Israelis, the New Zealanders, the Australians, the Americans and even the Norwegians permit it? Also, am I not right in thinking that this issue ought not to be settled by men and that the vast majority of Wrens wish to go to sea? We live in an age of equal opportunities. If Wrens want to go to sea, it is not for men to stand in their way.
  Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend's points have considerable validity. However, the fact is that it is men who serve at sea. We must ensure that we can maintain sufficient numbers of them at sea, that they continue to wish to serve at sea and that their families remain keen for them to serve at sea. I accept that a large number of Wrens would like to go to sea. I do not disparage their abilities. However, most of the navies of the countries to which my hon. Friend has referred are shallow water and coastal navies. They are not deep water navies whose ships spend most of their time abroad.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Does the hon. Gentleman have any evidence that men at sea, whom he seems to want to protect for some spurious reason, do not want women to serve alongside them?
  Mr. Sayeed: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question in a few minutes. I hope that he will allow me to make my speech in my own way.
  There is a vast difference between a shallow water, coastal water navy, and a deep water, foreign-going navy. I do not intend to dwell for much longer on the role of
  682
  women in the Royal Navy. It will be the only point that I shall make this eveing because a number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  The solution that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is advocating to overcome the problem of recruitment would exacerbate the greater problem of retention. We already know that the main reason for premature voluntary retirement or for service men not re-enlisting is pressure from wives. I have received advice from families—this deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—and from ships companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East and I went aboard HMS Penelope, where I found only one person who thought that it was a good idea for Wrens to serve on warships. I have spoken to many service families, but none of them think that that is a good idea. Men and women serving together in cramped conditions and away from home for long periods will increase the already considerable pressures on service men and therefore on their wives.
  Anyone who has served at sea knows that many people being cooped up in a small vessel creates jealousies and tensions. Women serving on warships will add to that tension and will damage retention. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has asked the right question—how do we maintain recruitment?—but I believe that he has got the wrong answer.
  I would presume that a submission has been made to the Minister by the second sea lord, who is the chief of naval personnel. He provides professional advice on recruitment and retention. Does the advice that he has given my hon. Friend the Minister of State endorse the policy of Wrens serving on warships with the Royal Navy, or is it so guarded in its response that it constitutes a rejection?
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Although I do not agree with a word of the speech made by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), I must confess to a certain amount of admiration for his bravery in advancing that line of argument, not least because of your distinguished presence in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a clear example of how discrimination against women should be banished completely from all public life.
  These debates tend to divide between procurement and policy. I always thought that that was a rather artificial division, and I suspect that in a time of changing defence requirements it is all the more necessary for one to regard them both as part of the same argument. For example, the question of how may type 23 frigates are to be built must necessarily be related to the forward maritime strategy and to the need to protect the transport of materials for NATO across the north Atlantic in time of war. The number of Merlin helicopters that are necessary must be related to the role that the Navy is being invited to play. The number of nuclear submarines and nuclear warheads must be related to the extent and nature of the strategic nuclear deterrent that is thought to be required.
  Most people agree that the prospect of engagement, whether it be nuclear or conventional, on land or on sea., between the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw pact has never been less. That seemed to be recognised in a speech made 10 days ago by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

  683
  Affairs. No one says that the possibility of such engagement has been completely eliminated—it would be foolish to make such a judgment—but the reduction of the possibility has been considerable.
  That gives rise to consideration of the equipment that is necessary for the defence of our country and for our obligations to NATO. I hope that there will be no reduction in the requirement of about 50 frigates and destroyers. There is grave suspicion among all hon. Members that that figure—although Ministers speak about it with considerable enthusiasm and defend it with dogged determination—is probably not realistic. I have no doubt that any reduction would be unwise and misguided.
  We know that in April 1989—I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), but I disagreed with little of what he said about this—the Government announced that they intended to place orders for four type 23 frigates, but eventually placed orders for only three. The justification that the Government gave for not placing orders for four frigates was that there would be no economic of financial advantage in so doing. That may have been true, but there undoubtedly would have been a military advantage because the Royal Navy would have been better equipped to perform the tasks imposed on it.
  We should not allow the debate to pass without referring Ministers to the sixth report of Session 1988–89 of the Select Committee on Defence. In paragraph 22 of the report, the Committee concluded:
  "a single year's orders is not the same thing as a consistent ordering pattern over a number of years, and the two should not be confused."
  Paragraph 23 says:
  "We hope that the Government will now adopt a consistent pattern for ordering ships, not least in order to give the hard-pressed warshipbuilding industry some firm basis for planning."
  I welcome the fact that orders were placed at the end of last year, but the observations of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East on the laying down of keels were most apposite in this context. I hope that the Minister will offer a greater commitment about the future intentions of the Government for a consistent pattern of ordering of the type 23 frigate.
  There is clearly some disagreement about at least part of the cause of the delay in the Merlin helicopter. It is time that that issue was put to one side, because, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) holds a legitimate interest in the fate or health of a substantial employer in his constituency, a much more significant issue in the context of this debate is that the type 23 frigate may be going to sea without an essential part of its capability. That is highly undesirable, especially when one considers that some type 23 frigates do not have the fullest command and control system that is thought to be necessary. That has an effect on the capacity of those extremely expensive vessels, which play an extremely important role.
  Mr. Ashdown: My hon. and learned Friend puts the case extremely well. I sought to make the point to the Minister earlier and he tried to dodge it. Of course, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, what happens to Westland and its work force is of concern, but the chief concern is the nation's defence. As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, because of the apparent delay which
  684
  has been placed at the Government's door and the indecision which was noted in the Select Committee's report last Thursday, for four years—a quarter of its total keel life—the first type 23 frigate will be without the essential piece of equipment around which it is designed. Surely that cannot be a proper use of taxpayers' money. That indecision will result in a cost to the defence of this nation.
  Mr. Campbell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I return the compliment that he paid me at the beginning of his intervention. This is a serious issue. I hope that if the Government are not willing to give us their considered response to the Defence Committee's third report this Session, they will indicate their preliminary observations about this fairly serious attack on the handling of this matter by the Ministry of Defence.
  I was greatly amused by the extent to which the Opposition's minds were exercised when it became clear that lasers had been used on certain ships for purely defence purposes. No doubt there were compelling reasons why the Opposition thought that that was so unacceptable, but I believe that the use of the most up-to-date technology for a purely defensive purpose is something of which we should be in favour, rather than critical.
  I mentioned the strategic nuclear deterrent. I have no doubt that we should still plan for four boats to carry the strategic nuclear deterrent. As I understand it, the Labour party still clings to the notion that three would be sufficient. I have never found that a particularly compelling argument. I have frequently thought that the notion of having only three, instead of four, was perhaps not so much a rational analysis of the requirement as a sop to those who opposed having any boats at all.
  Is there any justification in the deployment of Trident for having a vast increase in the number of nuclear warheads? Would it not be entirely reasonable in the deployment of the D5 Trident system for the Government to undertake to limit the number of warheads to the number presently deployed on Polaris? The number could be increased if necessary, but it would show that, in an area that would not prejudice the defence of the United Kingdom or of the western Alliance, the Government at least had in mind the prospect of an arms reduction. The argument is all the more compelling, given that Trident is much more accurate and can deliver so much more than Polaris.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would be sensible for the Government to make a virtue out of necessity, because all the evidence shows that they will not be able to produce the extra warheads anyway?
  Mr. Campbell: I proceed on the basis of recent tests in the United States which have suggested that the system will be available as originally designed. The Government have shown that they are alive to the issue of the production of warheads by the changes that they have introduced at Aldermaston. If these are reasonable suppositions, my proposal to the Government seems at least worthy of consideration.
  There has been some discussion about the possible risk attached to nuclear-powered submarines. I have not been privy to the exchange of correspondence that took place virtually across the Floor of the Chamber a little earlier today, but I hope that the Government accept that safety

  685
  must be at a premium for those who serve in such vessels, for our service men—who may come into contact with them in port—and, perhaps more significantly, for the confidence of the civilian population. I hope that the letter that was offered to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, (Mr. Boyes) will be made available more widely.
  Reference has been made to the nuclear depth bomb. I should have thought that one was entitled to feel sceptical about whether it is necessary to deploy such a weapon. In the NF at sea conference in May 1989 Admiral Sir James Eberle and the former United States Secretary of the Navy, John Lehmen, expressed considerable scepticism about the prospect of fighting a nuclear war at sea. One is entitled to ask the Government whether they are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is necessary for the defence of the United Kingdom and of the western Alliance to move towards a replacement for the existing weapon. As I understand it. in June last year, the Defence Committee expressed certain doubts about the value of doing so.
  I remain sceptical about the apparent rush to negotiate a reduction in conventional naval forces. The conventional forces in Europe—CFE—talks in Vienna, under the stimulus of the substantial and imaginative initiatives of President Bush, appear to make substantial strides. I should have thought that it was good sense to wait until those talks have been completed and the envisaged cuts implemented before considering whether it is legitimate to embark on a reduction in conventional naval forces.
  We should then take account of a number of elements. As the Minister made clear, Britain is an island nation. We rely for much of our trade on free passage over the seas. Our interests are such that we may well need to deploy naval forces away from the United Kingdom, for example, in the Gulf, the Caribbean or the Falklands—my view about the Falklands is not necessarily the Government's, but so long as that obligation exists in its present form, there is clearly a requirement to deploy naval forces in the south Atlantic. That cannot be ignored. If troops are withdrawn from mainland Europe, there will need to be a means of redeploying them there in an emergency. A naval capability for that purpose will undoubtedly continue to be important.
  There is another point that I do not think the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement made in opening the debate but which I offer to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who is to wind up. If we move to a new order of security in Europe and there is greater political integration, there may be scope for greater specialisation among the European allies in their contributions to the defence of Europe. It may well make sense for the United Kingdom, which makes the largest contribution in western Europe to conventional naval forces to specialise in that area.
  These are compelling arguments for not moving to early conventional arms reductions in the naval sphere and to ensure that we take account of these important factors. These questions will all fall to be answered. Clearly, they cannot all be answered today. Although no defence review may be taking place—those of us who have participated in these debates understand that—there is likely to be a review of defence expenditure. I imagine that the Treasury will be anxious to embark upon such an excercise, no doubt citing the recent decisions taken in the United States.
  686
  These are not matters about which the Government should be coy or secretive; they deserve wide public discussion, and I hope that the Government will be forthcoming about the elements of that discussion. It may not be possible to arrive at a non-partisan view of defence, but surely, in the changing circumstances to which other hon. Members have referred, we ought to be able to achieve more agreement about defence and security than we have in recent years.
  This debate takes place in an atmosphere of hope that has not been possible on many previous occasions. Those of us who were present for the Defence Estimates debate in October will remember how the Secretary of State for Defence announced to a somewhat startled House that Mr. Honecker had resigned and been replaced by Mr. Krenz. If anybody had said, "By Christmas, the wall between East and West Berlin will be down," his remarks would have been received with considerable scepticism—rightly so, because nothing that had happened by then suggested that the pace of change would accelerate in such an extraordinary manner. The Soviet Union may even decide today that the Communist party should be removed from the place of primacy that it has hitherto occupied. The pace of change and the circumstances with which we are presented are dramatic and difficult, and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise.
  Throughout our consideration of these matters, we should bear in mind the fact that there is no intrinsic merit in defence expenditure or in nuclear weapons. Expenditure on defence and the deployment of weapons of any kind—conventional or nuclear—can be justified only if it is shown to keep the peace and to deter aggression. I venture to believe that in these matters the Royal Navy will continue to play an important part in the life of the United Kingdom for a long time to come.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: I am grateful that I am to be allowed to take part in this debate on the Royal Navy—the very first time that I have been able to speak in the House on this subject. As I have a name that was once well known in the Navy, I believe, this may be rather surprising. Never, since that name was well known, has any member of my family served in the Royal Navy, so alarmed were they at the prospect of having to live up to a reputation. What is more, he was a person who was thanked on a substantive motion of the House, in the days when members of the armed forces could serve in the House. I assure hon. Members that that is not an attribute that is likely to be shared by any of his successors.
  I see the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in his place. Unsolicited by me, the largest Royal Navy aviation establishment, consisting of more than 3,000 service men and women and civilians, and the headquarters of the Fleet Air Arm were shifted sideways from his constituency to mine in 1963. I recall that 120 aircraft from that establishment were deployed on active service in the south Atlantic. They included three front-line Harrier squadrons and four helicopter squadrons. The House will understand how much I value that connection and the opportunity to speak today.
  Since that time, my contacts with RNAS Yeovilton have been frequent and fascinating. I pay tribute to all those on that station who serve the nation's cause and, more locally to those who do their best to try to limit the

  687
  intrusion of their very noisy aircraft. It is not always easy for them, but they try not to annoy my constituents as much as they certainly would if they did not take so much trouble. Those people also maintain a good relationship with all our local organisations, which is helpful to all of us.
  The collective decision of the Government not to rush in and change defence expenditure—for the time being, at any rate—and not to hold an immediate defence review is exceedingly wise and encouraging I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North—East (Mr. Campbell) about the need not to make any changes in the position of the Royal Navy. Within the lifetime of many, the western democracies have time and again been totally and absolutely wrong when the threat against them has appeared to fade.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) will dwell on the fact that the Labour party was no more wise than anyone else on this issue. I recall how, when I was a young man, the Labour party voted to a man against conscription only four months before Hitler invaded Poland. That was a sad day and, like other signals that had gone out from us, that was the wrong signal and Labour Members should be aware of that.
  Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman is playing rather an old tune, and what he says is as true of the Conservative party as it is of the Labour party. His view of history is somewhat selective. No matter how distinguished was the hon. Gentleman's own record in the war, we do not need lessons from him about the inability of certain sections of the Labour party to anticipate the dangers of Fascism. After all, a much greater number of Conservatives actively supported and encouraged those forces in Europe at a time when most decent and reasonable people were saying that they should be stopped.
  Mr. Boscawen: The hon. Gentleman should do me the credit of saying that his party was no wiser than any of us; those were the words that I used. We had a long lecture —50 minutes of it—on this subject from the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington earlier this afternoon, and the Opposition should understand why some of us are rather sceptical of their claims to be any wiser today. And at what cost was that mistake made. I remind the House that it led to a tragedy that was beyond the comprehension of anyone when the decisions that brought it about were made.
  We should be very careful about rushing in with talk of defence reviews. We must be more sure what the future will bring before we do that. We must also be sure that any changes that we make are not irreversible. The time scale for rebuilding modern defence organisations and weapons is so long that it would be quite impossible for countries to re-arm during an emergency. It took long enough during the last emergency and we only narrowly escaped a terrible defeat because of that. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement was absolutely right to dwell on the need to maintain the naval presence both inside and outside NATO
  Many of my constituents, from the chief executive of the Westland group downwards, are employed in that company on Ministry of Defence contracts. The future of
  688
  that company is necessarily of great importance to my constituents and to people elsewhere. When news is scarce, defence procurement is a fat and comfortable soft target for the hungry news vultures of the media; and so, sadly, are Westland helicopters, although the company is now much more hungry and thinner.
  When defence procurement is brought together with Westland, the media can have a really happy time. Sadly, that has happened recently. I am sorry to say that some damaging comments made by the Select Committee on defence have fuelled these comments in the media. Of course, I am concerned about the future of Westland.
  I must protest about one conclusion in the report published by the Select Committee on Defence last week which refers to the "apparent" commitment only of Westland to the EH101 project. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), repeated earlier that the success of the project is far from assured, although he said that good progress is being made.
  I realise that the Select Committee's report was published six months after the evidence was taken—that is the nature of the Select Committee animal, and I believe that it is now 12 months since members of the Select Committee together visited Westland. It is too late for the Select Committee to suggest that the commitment of the work force is only "apparent" and it is too soon to say that success is far from assured".
  The report also uses a very doubtful arithmetical device, which encourages headline fodder. The report stated that if the programme is amortised over the production of 50 helicopters, the MOD would have to foot a bill of some £40 million for each Merlin aircraft. It was a mistake for the Select Committee to fall into the trap of making that comment because such comments are bound to lead to messy headlines.
  No programme involving such immense expenditure can exist on only 40 or 50 helicopters. If it is to be a success, there must be many more. The media have already used the figure of £40 million for each Merlin aircraft, and that figure will stick, but it has a very little meaning when one regards the number of helicopters that may be produced, especially when one considers that there will be a considerable civilian market that the company can attack. The £40 million figure is very misleading and I am sorry that the Select Committee chose to include it in its report.
  I was lucky enough to visit Westland in the past few days and I have visited it several times previously. I saw the pre-production aircraft and discussed many aspects of Westland's current work including the Royal Navy's Merlin mission system integration. Irrespective of the Select Committee's comments, I believe that everyone, from the chief executive downwards—the management at all levels, and the work force at Westland—is a very great deal more than "apparently" committed. Those people have the greatest incentive of all because their jobs are on the line at Westland if they fail to get the production order. They are all well aware of that.
  The experience and capability of the staff are evident. The incentive is there, and they have developed a well-thought-through philosophy for developing the overall system integration. If such an approach had been present with Nimrod, we might have seen something come out of that terrible waste of money.

  689
  Westland is getting on extremely well with its Italian counterparts, which it regards as fine engineers and Westland is learning to integrate the two differing national philosophies very well. Westland is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is taking a direct and concerned interest in ensuring that the country gets value for money from the project.
  The announcement last week of the competition for an overall prime competitor for the initial batch of 25 to 50 EH101 ASW aircraft from two bidders gives Westland the opportunity to go all out and strain itself to get that order. It needs encouragement from the House now and not intrusive knocking. The country needs the project to succeed and the Royal Navy cannot afford not to have an advanced replacement for the Sea King on time to match the new frigates and the new aircraft will be around long after all of us have been forgotten. My constituents, the Royal Navy and the country as a whole need the new aircraft to succeed. The commitment is there, and I wish the company well
  6.37 pm
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who opened the debate for the Opposition, for not being present earlier. I was delayed for two hours by an engine failure.
  I follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) with great pleasure. He was right to say that too many people in this country misjudged the security situation in the 1930s. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the personal cost, and I venture to suggest that no one is better placed than I to say on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House that we salute his brave and very distinguished contribution.
  We will have listened with great sympathy to the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about Westland. We know how important it is that Westland comes through with the Merlin contract, succeeds in its joint venture with Agusta, and remains in business for the future security of this country.
  I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he did not confine his comments to the Royal Navy. How can one possibly do that in this debate? This must be one occasion on which you permit hon. Members to stray a little from the topic of the debate.
  We need to consider the Navy in the context of the recent spectacular developments in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. How can we resist looking at the Navy in the longer term, and perhaps even at the other services in conjunction with the Navy, and at the overall defence and security picture without which any assessment of the Navy would be meaningless?
  Atlantic communities on both sides of the ocean are engaged in an extraordinary intercontinental debate on what the historic changes that have taken place in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union imply not only for future East-West relations but for future West-West relations as well as for the Alliance force structure. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East reminded us, all our old assumptions about appropriate processes, modalities and frameworks for positive change in relations between
  690
  our great nations have been abolished by the magnitude and sheer pace of change on the continent of Europe. Let there be no mistake. Those historic developments will have fundamental implications for western security, and especially for naval forces.
  Political change has begun to challenge the assumptions on which the defence requirements of NATO and the Warsaw pact are based. It has had a dramatic impact on the arms control dialogue in that, probably for the first time in recent history, arms control is arguably behind the political dialogue—not leading or defining it, as we have become used to. That will render arms control in the 1990s much more functional, more technomilitary and less political.
  Those who press for instant reductions in defence expenditure and radical changes in the armed forces assume that Europe will evolve into a collection of democratic states living peacefully together. Already there are signs in central and eastern Europe—where, incidentally, the origins of the last two world wars are to be found—as well as within the Soviet Union that the process is not likely to be straightforward. Therefore, it would be foolish to undermine NATO and the stability that the Alliance provides. Without that stability we shall have no security. After all, that is the objective that we all seek and which brings hon. Members together for this debate. We shall not get that stability until there is another security organisation to take the place of NATO. At present, the only possible forum in sight is the CSCE, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, but that is surely a long way away.
  Some important questions confront us. First, how do we sustain an orderly process of arms reductions when people on both sides, including some of those who marched in Moscow last night, as well as many on our own side—on the side of the West—think that arms are no longer necessary? Secondly, what do we do about the security system that has worked so well in Europe now that the threat is diminishing?
  If the careful work of the negotiators in Vienna is not to be undermined by a rush of unilateral and unverifiable gestures by both sides, CFE must be given time. I have been fortunate in my role as president of the North Atlantic assembly. Hon. Members from both sides of the House, notably the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), have accompanied me when we have been invited to Vienna for every single round of the arms negotiations briefings. I could not be more impressed by both sides.
  We have an excellent team, led by Ambassador Michael Edes. Only last December, he reminded us of the broad conceptual convergence that has been arrived at, which, after only 22 weeks, he claimed was unprecedented. However, of the five categories that both sides are studying —tanks, artillery, armed personnel carriers, aircraft and helicopters, all involving not only reductions but, as many people tend to overlook, definitions and verification—we have a broad measure of agreement on only the first category. There is no want of good will on either side. If anything, there is more cohesion and more push on the side of the Warsaw pact. That takes nothing away from our side.
  It is important that the House should know what the Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati, who leads the Hungarian delegation, had to say to us in December. He insisted that the CFE talks had not been overtaken by events, that even

  691
  if military alliances cease to exist, countries will still have military capabilities, and that the challenge of the CFE talks in Vienna is to construct a security system that will survive military alliances. It is in that climate that the teams representing both alliances are working purposefully and, despite limited progress, constructively.
  There is no agreement about when the talks will conclude. Some think that it will be in the autumn of this year and some think that we may need to wait until next year. If we can get aircraft off the agenda we will get a great deal of agreement.
  I repeat my plea. None of us must feel frustrated about what is going on in Vienna. We will give the CFE talks time. Above all, given the danger of recent announcements —I have in mind President Bush's state of the union speech and a further apparent plucking of numbers from somewhere—I hope that such announcements will not affect the negotiating strategy in Vienna and that the teams in Vienna will not allow themselves to be dictated to by political pressures.
  With the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Wealden, I was in Washington just eight or nine days ago. The three of us gave evidence to the Senate armed services committee, and he had a business meeting with the House of Representatives armed services committee. The deputy chairman of the House of Representatives committee said:
  "No drastic cuts will take place in defence in this year, certainly at a level of not more than three per cent. The United States will not rush into thoughtless cuts."
  Another leading member of that committee said:
  "There should be no precipitant seeking of a peace dividend in Europe.
  The United States still expected to keep substantial forces in Europe."
  He went on to state:
  "United States public opinion will not wish to keep adequate forces in Europe when they see their European allies seeking the peace dividend.
  President Bush came up with another set of figures, from where I do not know. Certainly the pressure does not seem to come from Sam Nunn or the deputy chairman of the House of Representatives committee, Mr. Bennett, or his senior colleague, Mr. Bateman. Therefore, there is a need to be aware of the danger of a scramble for unilateral advantage that does not seem to be confined to Belgium or Holland. We must watch for political pressures even in unsuspected places. We understand the temptation to cash the peace dividend now.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the Soviet Union and other countries in eastern Europe that they can cash some peace dividends to get a considerable movement of their resources away from war effort into peaceful effort? If they are to do that, surely it is logical for many people in the United Kingdom and the United States also to expect a peace dividend.
  Mr. Duffy: First, it is more important to sustain the stability of the present security system. Secondly, I hope that my hon. Friend, as someone who is conversant with good trade union procedures, will value good, honest negotiations. I went into detail about the value of the present Vienna negotiations. I share my hon. Friend's anxiety—as all hon. Members do—but let agreement come about on the surest possible basis. I was arguing against
  692
  political pressures in, perhaps, unsuspected places. I understand the anxiety to cash in the peace dividend now. Even without a strategic review, it is apparent that there are serious implications, even at the moment, for reinforcement, especially sea reinforcement, and therefore for the future role of the Royal Navy.
  About 75 per cent. of all Warsaw pact equipment is moved by rail, whereas 90 per cent. of NATO's equipment relies on sea transportation. If there is to be any unplugging of units—as SACEUR reminds us whenever he has the chance, and did so at the Royal United Services Institute in London last May—Soviet divisions could readily be replugged while American divisions that were withdrawn could only return to the United States, from where replugging would prove much more difficult.
  Both the Army and the Royal Air Force must radically rethink their roles for the 1990s and adapt to a position in which their standing regular forces must be significantly reduced. The Navy should have less of a problem. Yet, instead of feeling free to raise new and urgent questions about the post-cold war Royal Navy—as the hon. Member for Fife, North-East did—we are still obliged to pursue time-worn questions about the numbers and readiness of the surface fleet, such as whether there is to be any improvement in the ordering pattern; whether type 23s will still lack a command system, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) reminded the House; when the Navy can expect to receive the Merlin, the anti-submarine version of the EH101; when the Minister expects the type 23s to be armed with that kit; why the Ministry has pulled out of the advanced sea mine collaboration project as well as the NFR90 programme; and what assessment the Ministry has made of the impact on the credibility of the United Kingdom as a consistent and reliable partner.
  That question was discussed during the annual defence debate last October. Unfortunately, I could not be present on that occasion as I was out of the country on North Atlantic Assembly business. However, I read the report of the debate and I know what the Minister said in defence of the cancellation of the advanced sea mine collaboration project. The Minister for the Armed Forces is present today. One of his colleagues present during that debate raised the question of the credibility of the United Kingdom as a consistent and reliable partner in such collaborative projects. That question was raised again in Washington nine days ago in my presence and that of other hon. Members.
  There should be a progress report on the mine counter-measures vessels programme. What is to be done about morale and retention? Given the present developments in central Europe, there will be a challenge to preserve the high quality and motivation of the services at a time when they must be increasingly asking why they are there and what is their future.
  Developments in eastern Europe and the decline of the Soviet threat clearly point to a return of the Royal Navy's primacy. That must eventually mean a different sort of fleet. It means the return of a blue water fleet with real aircraft carriers, capable of shipping fixed-wing aircraft, as well as a new force of amphibious landing vessels, aviation support ships and the correct type of helicopters, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. In short, it is not just a new role for the Navy; we must think about a new sort of Navy. I cannot help but repeat my question on amphibious capability: when does the Ministry expect to

  693
  complete the feasibility study? When does it expect to place orders for aviation support ships to accompany the Intrepid and the Fearless or their replacements?
  When the Government came to power in 1979—I am touching on retention and morale—they made great play of getting forces' pay right. I had to endure taunts in the early 1980s about that, but I knew that the Labour party had started the process. Lord Bramall has reminded the other place that it was Lord Mulley who started the process. I am glad to say that I was party to it. In that process we felt that we had to give much greater weight than we had hitherto to the X factor, which was meant to compensate for the exigencies of the life of the service man and to bring service men comparability plus. As the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Bramall, said in the House of Lords debate on the Defence White Paper:
  "The X factor … now means relatively nothing. Allowances have been whittled away in a number of areas. It has greatly decreased the incentive to serve and face the rigours of military life, such as living for up to three months under water in a nuclear submarine."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1989; Vol. 510,c.462.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is not the custom to quote from the record of the other place, except when quoting a Minister.
  Mr. Duffy: I am obliged for your guidance on that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can paraphrase.
  Mr. Duffy: All that is leading to premature voluntary release. Another influence on PVR is housing.
  We must base our defence on the concrete rather than the intangible, in response to capabilities rather than intentions. The hon. Member for Sommerton and Frome posed many questions that need to be answered before we can undertake a conclusive defence review. Some of the answers will be made available to us in Vienna, where, as I have been very glad to assure the House, political change and military initiatives are in the process of being translated into coherent arms control treaties.
  Whatever happens to NATO and the Warsaw pact under the impact of political change in eastern Europe, we have an overriding interest in maintaining both alliances as mechanisms for controlled, verifiable disarmament, both nuclear and conventional. In the CFE talks, NATO and the Warsaw pact possess the forum, as well as the machinery, to arrange a new compact of Europe that would meet the Soviet Union's legitimate concern for security, would find a basis for the continued presence of United States forces in western Europe, and would fix the strength of a reunified Germany at a level acceptance to all its neighbours. In my view, NATO has a significant role to play in the future. Whether the Warsaw treaty organisation can also play a useful role in bolstering stability depends largely on whether it can completely reorientate its historical legacy towards being a grouping of democratic nations. I hope very much that it will succeed.
  For NATO, however, the real issue today is not whether the Alliance has a future but how its future should be defined. Details need to be filled in, but the alliance is on the right path—elaborating a political relationship with the countries of the Warsaw treaty organisation aimed at normalisation across a broad spectrum; strengthening
  694
  Atlantic political co-operation; and exploring every avenue towards a just accommodation of the German question in which all parties will perceive an element of gain.
  Writing in 1968, Henry Kissinger cautioned:
  "turning NATO into an instrument of detente might reduce its security contribution without achieving a relaxation of tension."
  Despite periods of severe testing, our Alliance has come through. The Harmel principles have prevailed, and the Alliance has withstood the test of time. A new and ambitious phase for NATO lies ahead.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: I shal seek to put the case for a defence review and a much-enhanced role for the reserve forces. In doing so, I follow the line of argument presented by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). I detect in today's debate—in contributions from hon. Members on both sides, including the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)— greatly widened consensus. Here I refer to the response of hon. Members to recent events and the role of our armed forces. Indeed, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Attercliffe, a former Navy Minister who knows more than a little about out-of-area naval activities and their importance.
  I do not believe that, in paying this tribute, I am being in any way incompatible with the Government's defence posture or ignoring the necessity, at least for the time being, to maintain a strong defence posture and not to change either our deployment or our strategy. But in the light of the momentous events in central and eastern Europe, and of the reductions in conventional force and personnel levels by both the Warsaw pact countries and the United States, we cannot pretend that nothing has happened and go into the next century with that posture.
  Sooner or later, a review of some kind will be necessary, and I believe that the start of such a review should not be put off for long. It will take time, but, of course, any shift in our procurement policy or any change in the numbers or deployment of personnel in the armed forces necessarily takes a long time. We should not be fearful about embarking on such a review.
  I say this as somebody who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), bears a distinguished naval name. I say it also as somebody who in his maiden speech in the House, and in successive debates over the years, has argued for a strong defence posture and more real expenditure on our defences. In my support for strong, well-equipped and well-deployed forces, I defer to no hon. Member. I still believe in, and will maintain my firm support for, our nuclear capability and the minimal level that we have, and must retain, in terms of a nuclear shield.
  That, of course, may be a more contentious subject. But next year we will spend more than £21 billion on defence, and will have nearly a third of a million armed service men, and we cannot afford to look upon the momentous events that have taken place—the freedom revolution that has swept through Europe to the Urals, and possibly beyond —without beginning to respond to them. Some of the talk about turning tanks into tractors has been derided. There is a danger that some past postures, some of our strategies and policies, may box us in and make us less willing to

  695
  regard this process of change as an exciting opportunity for all our peoples and as an opportunity to reorientate our defences for a new century and for a new task.
  There are two lessons to be drawn from our recent experience. The first is that political initiative succeeds where, very often, arms dialogue fails. If we look at what Mr. Gorbachev has proposed and has brought about already and at what President Bush has announced, we see what executive political decisions can achieve in a short time and, sadly, how little many of the worthy arms dialogues over a long period have achieved. The INF treaty may be an exception, but even that was instigated partly by the political decision to deploy cruise missiles in Europe.
  The second lesson that I draw from recent events is that partitions, so easily set up in history to buy peace for a time, to resolve disputes and stop bloodshed, inevitably and invariably crumble. When we look at Vietnam or Korea or Germany or elsewhere, we see that partitions remain a source not just of obvious division but of antagonism, and a wound that continues to weep over the years. I believe that, for the future, we should use the opportunity of the crumbling wall to try to reorientate the defence policies of western Europe, and not look at the situation purely from a nationalist point of view.
  Any assessment of threat must take into account not only the equipment and the manpower of a possible enemy, but the credibility element: whether a potential enemy is prepared to use that capability. We must all agree that, while, for the time being, events in central and eastern Europe are uncertain, there is very little doubt that there is no political backing for any great military adventurism by the Warsaw pact.
  I venture to suggest that, even if there were political consensus for such a move, there are no political mechanisms that could support it. Indeed, the command structure of the Warsaw pact must be exceedingly tenuous at the present time. I do not believe that our defence policy should be orientated in a fixed manner—as were the guns of Singapore, by being pointed in one direction—when, in the event, the threat comes from a quite different direction.
  Peace has broken out in central and eastern Europe, and, happily, peace appears to be breaking out in other parts of the world, such as the Gulf. There are encouraging signs in South Africa and there is a new dialogue with Argentina. We should not let those events lull us into hasty decisions about a reduction in conventional or nuclear forces unilaterally or in NATO. However, we cannot ignore them when making expensive procurement decisions at the taxpayer's expense in the next year and two years. Some of those decisions have been referred to during the debate—we cannot look back, but must look forward.
  That may be a truism, but—to give one example—whither the role of battlefield tanks in the next couple of decades? They are enormously expensive and the decision will be highly political. Such major decisions will affect the ordnance factories and have employment implications, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said, there is nothing intrinsically good about defence expenditure or defence capability. We must consider the necessity for that and whether we need it to deter aggression and secure freedom and liberty.
  696
  The future threat to be assessed should not only be on the central front. It has inevitable implications for our commitment to the northern and southern NATO flanks. A major part of our commitment, apart from the maritime commitment, has been to northern Norway, essentially an airfield-denial strategy of rapid reinforcement and specialist capability in the Arctic area to deny a major cross-country push from the Kola peninsula. We have had an important naval commitment to guard and patrol the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap, and to provide the air support that goes with it.
  However, the position is changing. It is almost inevitable, not just because President Gorbachev has announced it, but because of economic and political pressures, that the Soviet naval and maritime fleet will have to be reduced. He has a people to feed. Whether he has a wider democracy or maintains the pre-eminence of the Communist party in that country, he must find the money to feed a hungry people, whose aspirations have been raised by rapid political change. It will be exceedingly difficult, and even more so as the country becomes democratised, for him to justify the diversion of funds on a massive scale towards the new generation of surface and submarine weaponry which was so ordered in the defence programme of the Brezhnev years.
  For the future, we should look to different priorities, not the central, northern and southern European flanks. First, we should look primarily to defence of the United Kingdom home base. Secondly, we must play our part, in NATO for the time being, in the move towards common European security. Like others who have spoken in the debate, I believe that we must orientate our defences much more towards the protection of our training routes and to areas where we may perceive a need for political intervention either individually or in conjunction with other states. We must also ensure the continued defence of our dependencies.
  Therefore, there is a case for a defence review in the future. I have no divine wisdom on this issue, but a professional view together with the judgment of our Select Committees, should determine our future strategy. There is a case for a rapid reinforcement capability and recreating what we destroyed in 1976— Transport Command. There is a case for buying some of those transport aircraft which the Americans are disposing of as they take their troops back to the United States. There is a case for bringing our war stocks— which have been up front and have been increased— back into the United Kingdom. Those are specific, important decisions which we should begin to look at; we should not carry on as if nothing had happened.
  There should be nothing sacrosanct about the level of ship commitments. I understand the sensitivity of that subject and the importance that many of my constituents in Chichester attach to it. Many of them have strong naval backgrounds. However, the nature of the threat has changed and the needs of the future will be quite different.
  For these reasons there is a case for considering whether our reserve forces should begin to play a much more enhanced role in our defence strategy. I pay tribute, and I am sure that the House will join me in doing so, to the outstanding commitment of our reserve forces over the years. If at some stage there is a case for cutting the regulars, in the way that the United States, the Soviet Union, Warsaw pact and other countries are doing, there will then be a strong case for building up the reserves.

  697
  The 1989 defence White Paper, which follows a creditable tradition every year of improving accountability to Parliament and which spells out our defence posture, reads slightly like an historical document barely a year on from when it was published. It recognised that the
  "Reserves are an integral part of the forces"
  and
  "would play a vital part in defending the European Mainland and the UK".
  The Royal Navy, in particular, has an outstanding record on this. The Royal Navy Reserve, which provides mine counter-measures protection, logistical supply and medical services, has played an outstanding role over the years. The Royal Marines Reserve, which defends NATO's northern flank and United Kingdom base, has done similar excellent work. The Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve, which defends British ports and anchorages, is an essential back-up and support in times of heightened threat.
  Even in a debate about the Royal Navy, no mention of the reserves can exclude mention of reserves for the Army and the Royal Air Force. The Territorial Army, including the Home Service Force, make up more than half the infantry of the British Army on the Rhine and are an integral and essential part in our reinforcement capability, our operational posture and our deterrent over the years. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), with the considerable knowledge that he has built up through his services to the Select Committee and in other ways, would agree with that. The professionalism and personal dedication that our Territorial Army soldiers have shown in giving up their spare time and the tolerance that their employers have shown in giving them the time to play their part in the defence of this country and our contribution to NATO deserve great recognition and repetition in the House.
  The Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the RAF Reserve provide indispensable personnel to airfield defence, intelligence and communications. In all those regards, I welcome and pay tribute to what the Government have done in improving both the pay of reservists compared to regulars and training bounty payments. That has been an essential means of retaining and attracting skilled people into the reserve forces. In future, in terms of protecting our United Kingdom base and sea routes and maintaining our NATO commitments, an enhanced role for reservists is absolutely essential.
  This is an important debate, because it gives us an opportunity to let the Government know what we think about defence expenditure while the next White Paper is being drafted, the Chancellor is drawing up his Budget and at an early stage before the next round of discussions about public expenditure next year. There is no doubt that changes will be included in the defence estimates or the Autumn Statement, which respond to these momentous events worldwide. If the House lags behind international changes and what the Government say we must put up with, we shall not be playing our role in ensuring that the taxpayer's money is well spent and the enormous resources of public expenditure are used to the best advantage.
  We should be beginning to think— even if we do not insist upon it now— about the new needs and the new generation. In doing so, the House and, in particular, the Select Committee, will be playing a major and positive role
  698
  —of which the House will be proud in the next century— in ensuring that peace, democracy, freedom and the role of our defence forces, in a different way, continue to thrive.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). I admire him for stating that we should have a major defence review. There is a series of arguments in favour of that and I support him in his demand for such a review from his perspective.
  I apologise to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement for not being present for the first quarter of an hour of his speech. My researcher made me a note of what he said. I was not here because I was in my constituency attending a meeting at lunchtime, which was fixed up by the Church leaders in Brinnington. It was a meeting of health workers, social workers, doctors, teachers, housing officers and community officers to discuss the problems of Brinnington. It is important to contrast that activity with this debate on defence. The two are linked. We are discussing defending the people of Brinnington.
  I ask whether there should be a transfer of resources from the defence of the realm to the defence of the people of Brinnington. Brinnington is a substantial part of my constituency. It is surrounded by countryside and has some attractive housing, but it also contains some high-rise flats and some council properties that have been neglected. In the area, there are pockets of people who are suffering great deprivation. They need money to be spent on their housing and education, on care of the elderly and on relief of poverty. Those people deserve part of the peace dividend.
  People in Brinnington are no longer convinced that there is any chance of the Russians invading this country or, indeed, of anyone else invading. They are worried about different problems. They are worried about law and order in Stockport, poverty, the lack of resources in schools and in the Health Service, and care of the elderly. When they look beyond Stockport, they look to Third-world poverty and wish that people there enjoyed the peace dividend. They are not enthusiastic about continuing to spend more money on a defence system that they perceive as increasingly out of touch with reality.
  The people of Brinnington fear, not only that they will not enjoy the benefits of the peace dividend, as they have not enjoyed the revenues from North sea oil, but that reductions in defence expenditure will result in a disadvantage for them. They fear that someone else will enjoy the peace dividend and that they will see the other side of the coin. They will suffer unemployment as a result of a loss of jobs in the defence industry. That is a real fear for the people of Brinnington.
  Over the past few months, I have tabled questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I did so on 11 November and 12 January and I have another tabled for next Wednesday. I have been disappointed at the Government's unwillingness to consider the implications of a rundown of world armament industries. We must start to look for alternative jobs for people in those industries. The Government's failure to take that into account in reviews of defence spending is appalling.
  I am lucky that in my constituency— although I have one defence contractor, Fairey, close to it—other firms

  699
  which make considerable contributions to Ministry of Defence projects are involved mainly in civil work and in some military work. It will not be too difficult to expand their civil work. Many companies in Britain are completely dependent on defence contracts.
  It is important that we begin to develop contingency plans at an early stage to take into account arms agreements and a reduction in regional tensions and to seek alternative products. Our defence industries employ 500,000 people. Last year, they brought into Britain over £1 billion in foreign exchange. We must plan to find jobs for those people. We must not only endeavour to produce a peace dividend to be used for other needs, but we must seek alternative jobs.
  It is increasingly difficult to justify the House debating the Navy separately. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said, we must consider all Ministry of Defence activities. We must seek a rational way of discussing them together, rather than separating them out into Army, Navy and Air Force, as we have done for about a hundred years. I question whether the three services need to be separated at all. I understand all the nostalgic arguments for three separate services in the past, but now it does not fit into logic.
  Why do we need a defence review? There are three different strategies. No doubt people could put forward more. It is argued that we must not cut defence expenditure and that it is too soon to do so. The hon. Member for Chichester put that argument strongly. Even if we do not get rid of a nuclear deterrent we must still examine the changing pattern of strategy. I agree with him that it is crazy to consider ordering new tanks.
  There is no point in having tanks unless the Government have somewhere where they can train people to use them. It is inconceivable that during the next five or six years the West Germans will allow the level of tank manoeuvres that has taken place there to continue. The West Germans will not put up with it. Perhaps the Ministry of Defence can find places in Britain for tank manoeuvres, but I am sceptical that people will put up with such levels of training manoeuvres in the British Isles. Perhaps the Ministry can use the Falklands or somewhere else, but the Government have a major problem in finding places where tanks can be manoeuvred. The Government must weigh up whether it would be better to use helicopters to fulfil the role of tanks. That is one of the fundamental issues that must be reviewed.
  The Government must make sure that their commitment to expenditure on Trident does not leave them insufficient funds to spend on small ships. They must weigh up whether our way of life is under threat more from being undermined by the rapid surge of drugs into our inner-city areas than from anything else, and whether we have the boats and equipment to stop people bringing drugs into Britain.
  The Government must seriously consider the problem of recruitment. As yet, the Government have not addressed the question of whether the defence budget could be altered to make better use of the numbers of people available. They must also realise that in this changing world where people see less threat from eastern Europe or elsewhere, it will not be as easy to recruit people into the armed forces. For the past 15 or 20 years, people
  700
  have been convinced that they can have a long career in the armed forces. It will be much harder to convince a 16-year-old that if he goes into the armed forces he will have a job for the next 20 years. Young people perceive that there is a good chance that at some point the armed forces will be cut.
  One can argue for a review, even if it is accepted that Government defence expenditure should be kept at the present level and the nuclear deterrent maintained. Whether arms negotiations progress quickly or slowly, they will bring about a substantial cut in armaments. That is another argument for a review. A review should not deal with only one scenario. It must take into account alternative scenarios. The arms negotiations may not bring success, and levels of armaments may remain the same.
  We must plan for the future, because we all know the time that is involved between placing contracts and having them carried out. There is a possibility that the arms talks will be very successful and that we shall get rapid change. I hope that they are successful. It is high time that the Ministry of Defence took all those possibilities into account in a proper review.
  The credibility of the Government's idea of a 50-ship Navy is now disappearing, because I do not think that the Government will be able to find the money to continue placing the orders. We are then faced with the question of what will happen to the people who work in naval shipyards. The Government ought to look quickly to try to find alternative work on civil ships. It is worrying that in all past conflicts the Navy has relied on the merchant fleet. However, we know that there is virtually no merchant fleet left and it seems logical to look for ways in which we can protect it by placing new orders and ensuring that we still have the capacity to build merchant ships and, if necessary, warships.
  In the debate on the defence estimates I asked about Fylingdales. I said that the Soviet Union had announced, more or less unilaterally, that its early warning station at Krasnoyarsk was to be dismantled and that it had raised the matter of Fylingdales. Has there been any further discussion about that?
  There have been exchanges in the debate about nuclear-powered submarines and their future. That raises questions about Britain's reliance on Trident because I understand that those submarines are important in protecting the Atlantic so that Trident can be hidden. In an intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) asked whether Russian advances in working in space mean that it will be much more difficult to hide Trident. Is Trident now vulnerable to cuts in United States expenditure? I have raised that with the Minister several times and he says no, but I have the feeling that in the next year there will be a substantial argument in the United States about the budget.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe seemed absolutely certain that the United States armed forces committees were firmly committed to defending the programme. My information is that many people in the United States and in Congress are demanding a peace dividend. When negotiations start on that, we shall see whether Trident will be at risk. The Minister says that he is confident that the teething problems of the missile system have been overcome. That must go into the defence review to find out whether we should now be relying on such a system.

  701
  We have questions about the extremely low-frequency transmitter that the Government are committed to building on an experimental basis at Glen Garry forest. Given the tremendous changes that have taken place in eastern Europe, would it not be better to delay expenditure on that programme for another couple of years, to see whether it is necessary, before we start to tear up another bit of our countryside for defence installations?
  Our first demand is that the Government set in train a defence review. It should not be tied to any certainties, but should weigh up the options and come up with proposals that take into account little change in terms of how much we spend; arms negotiations that are moderately successful; or very successful. We should look at how we can transfer resources from the peace dividend to peaceful expenditure, and we must consider the job implications that will flow from that.
  We must look seriously at arms conversion. The Government are in grave danger of ignoring the real defence needs of the British people by insisting that we can go on as if nothing has happened in eastern Europe. A great deal of change has taken place there and we should try to prevent future conflicts by means of a realistic defence policy rather than trying to go on preparing for the sort of wars that happened in the past—or those that did not happen. That is looking to the past and not to the future.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spoke repeatedly about the peace dividend. He must choose his words with great care because it is wrong to assume that there will be great benefits so early from a peace which, although it can be seen, has not yet revealed its real substance. He also spoke about the need to find alternative employment for those who find themselves out of a job in the defence industry. I recall the savage cuts by a Labour Government, but I cannot recall any provision being made for the employment of people who lost their jobs as a result.
  This is a timely debate in which to reappraise the role, size and purpose of our defence forces. I had hoped that the speech by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) would enlighten us about how the Labour party saw the future of the Royal Navy, but I was hugely disappointed. I was left with questions and very few answers.
  One of the questions that came to my mind as a result of what the hon. Gentleman said was whether a Labour Government would maintain aircraft carriers in the Royal Navy. What would be the size of the Royal Navy if a Labour Government came to power? I suspect from what the hon. Gentleman said that it would be a small Navy designed for shore protection. We shall read his speech most carefully in Hansard. We want to know the policy of the Labour party.
  Mr. O'Neill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us about his conclusions on the Government's intentions on the size of the Navy in respect of their performance and ordering record for surface ships. What are the Government's intentions? This may be the first speech that the hon. Gentleman has made in a Navy debate. Those of us who are fairly regular attenders have year after year heard questions from Back Benchers about the intention of the Government over Fearless and
  702
  Intrepid and on the aviation support ships. The Government have the information and the power, but they have done nothing to satisfy the House. The hon. Gentleman should not ask the Opposition. He should ask the Government, because for the next two years they have the power to make the decisions which, no doubt, will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave the commitment that we were seeking to maintain a 50-ship Navy. That is as clear as a bell. I have attended many debates on the Navy and have spoken in them. We have consistently supported the concept of a 50-ship Navy.
  Mr. Alan Clark: It is 300 ships and 50 frigates.
  Mr. Banks: Frigates and destroyers; it is a fighting-ship number.
  The changes in the Soviet empire have probably been more speedy and momentous than the demise of any great power structure in history. That is a victory for political ideals, and the proven value of democratic government. Above all, it is a victory for the strength of the armed forces of NATO and the political and economic example of the West. The years of misery and oppression by Communist regimes have been lifted from eastern European countries and from the Soviet Union itself, which is about to go through a momentous change. The only certainty is that we do not know what the future holds. It is therefore right to reappraise our defence role and that of NATO—and that must be undertaken not in haste but balanced by the scaling down of Soviet and Warsaw pact forces. My advice is that we should be "steady as we go".
  NATO must work together and stay together. The process of holding, checking and preventing a Soviet invasion of Europe may be less thinkable now, but the Soviet navy remains unaltered in terms of its size arid power. I welcome the cuts made in conventional and nuclear forces through patient negotiations. The navies of the world possess about 16,000 nuclear weapons, of which 9,500 are intercontinental ballistic missile warheads. Ninety per cent. of those weapons are deployed in American and Soviet units, and fewer than 1,000 of them in the British, French and Chinese maritime forces, so there is scope for a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons. The scaling down of the naval forces themselves is extremely difficult to accomplish because of the different roles of those navies. That point has already emerged in today's debate, in connection with the Royal Navy's influences and responsibilities worldwide.
  Trident spearheads Britain's defence, and it must be maintained. I congratulate the Government on the savings that they have achieved in the construction programme and on the programme's timing being on course.
  The Royal Navy's shape and purpose should be the subject of a long and searching debate. For as long as there are sizeable navies patrolling the seas, Britain must maintain her sea strength and maritime capability. Our interests span the world and the maintenance of order, prevention of disruption to merchant shipping and ability of our naval forces to land troops and to supply our forces in trouble spots, wherever they may be, are the purposes for which the Royal Navy has always been ready—and for which it must be maintained.

  703
  Our forces must be flexible. The reduction in army personnel is inevitable, given the new situation in Germany. To maintain flexibility, the Royal Marines should be strengthened. They currently number 7,700, which, by our standards, is a small force. Army units need to be transformed into a different type of fighting force. By strengthening the Royal Marines, we shall be able to maintain the flexibility that is necessary quickly to deploy fast-acting forces in different parts of the world.
  The age of the tank and of the tank battle is nearly at an end, and we must examine carefully their role in today's Army. Air platforms and amphibious forces are vital to the concept of a mobile, combative and flexible force. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will reach a decision soon on the futures of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, and that they will be replaced by new ships.
  I welcome the aviation support ship because air power is enormously important in a combative scenario. Support for the Royal Navy from the merchant shipping fleet is as important as maintaining our RFAs. The tonnage of British merchant ships has steadily declined, and it will be further depleted in 1997 when Hong Kong—registered ships are no longer available. For both commercial and defence reasons, fiscal measures are needed to stimulate investment and to increase ship numbers in the industry. After all, the merchant fleet produces £2 billion in foreign exchange every year, in addition to the revenue from insurances that it brings to the City.
  Our objective must be a highly skilled and mobile combat force and the means to back it up, with the force of RFAs and the use of merchant shipping at times of necessity. The three services must work more closely together if the concept of worldwide deployment is to be achieved in their strategic planning. NATO must address the question of its role and territory of operations, and whether now is the time for it to assume a role that takes it farther afield. No United States marines are currently stationed in NATO areas in Europe.
  In peacetime, the Royal Navy must give priority to advancing the technology of its weapons and operations. Wars are prevented, or won, not just by numbers but by having the edge over the weapons possessed by others. That means having improved engine technology for our ships, submarine design and detection, weapon range and accuracy, flying operations, and technically based, more accurate methods of minesweeping. Those are all areas for advance research.
  NATO can and will adapt itself to changing times, but we must not lessen our efforts to co-operate in research and development. We have the prospect of a period of lasting peace. Let us not leave the door open for an intruder or troublemaker to test our resolve to keep the peace.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: Like almost every other right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken tonight, I believe that the extraordinary changes in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe over the past few months have profound implications for the future of our defence. What was so threatening about the Soviet Union over the past 40 years was not its sheer military might but
  704
  the offensive nature of its full structure on the continent of Europe. So much of Russia's armour and military capability was in a forward situation, which enabled it always to be capable of launching a sudden and devastating attack on western Europe.
  Clearly, the CFE process has begun to reduce that risk. The Soviet Union has already accepted the principle of reducing the number of Warsaw pact tanks by two thirds, from 60,000 to 20,000, and its armoured troop carriers from 70,000 to 16,000. Cuts of that kind, together with the reductions currently being negotiated in artillery, will substantially reduce the offensive character of the Soviet forces deployed on the European continent.
  We have seen also unilateral cuts made by the Soviet Union, such as the withdrawal of specialist bridging units, which underlines Russia's apparent willingness to relinquish its ability to launch a sudden and devastating attack. No serious analyst currently argues that there is any risk of a surprise strike being launched in Europe. That view is reinforced by changes in the Warsaw pact nations.
  It is not just that the previous satellite countries are reducing their forces, or that they are no longer concentrating them on their western frontiers. It is not even that they are taking steps to secure the removal of Soviet forces. The most important aspect is the political change that has occurred and the collapse of the Communist regimes. The prospect of free elections also strongly suggests—I put it no higher than that—that we shall soon see elected positive, non-Communist Governments in almost every one of the nations concerned. No doubt they will seek good relations with the Soviet Union, but they are not likely to be pliant, vassal states of the kind that we have seen for the past 40 years.
  Because those new states will have serious economic problems, they will look to the West for solutions, which again makes it unlikely that they will serve as any kind of springboard for a Soviet attack on western Europe. The opposite is true. In future, they will present an obstacle to any such Soviet adventurism.
  As other hon. Members have said, the situation in the Soviet Union is changing in no less dramatic a way. The Soviet Union is no longer a monolithic super-power. It is riven with economic, ethnic and nationalist problems. If the Soviet leadership wants to meet the aspirations of its people, aspirations that we see expressed on our television screens almost every night, it cannot continue to pour resources into arms at the level that we have seen during the past 40 years.
  The basis of the deal that is emerging between East and West is that the Soviet Union desperately needs economic expertise and technological know-how from the West; in exchange, it can offer stability and security—the removal of the threat under which we have lived since the end of the second world war. That basic and fundamental ideal gives us hope for the future.
  However, nothing is certain in this life, and there are obviously risks in the current position. Perhaps the most worrying risk is not the possibility of a return to the old hard-line, concrete-faced Stalinist rulers in the Soviet Union, but, as the empire breaks up, the greater risk of chaos, civil war, ethnic and religious conflicts in the Soviet Union and in parts of eastern Europe. There is always a risk that such untidy and unpleasant situations could spill over into neighbouring areas, particularly in the southern flank of NATO.

  705
  I agree with hon. Members who have said that the forces that we need to deal with a new situation are different from those needed to deal with the threat with which we have lived since the end of the second world war —a major pitched confrontation on the continent of Europe. In future, we may need smaller, well-trained, well-equipped, more flexible and more mobile forces than we have at present. That implies that we need to reassess the threat and our future defence needs. As we can see, our NATO allies are going down that track: some of them seem to be stampeding down it.
  There will be cuts in United States forces deployed in the continent of Europe. In many ways that strengthens the case for Britain to have effective naval forces. Europe is likely to be more dependent on North America for sudden reinforcement in the event of an unexpected crisis. NATO needs to review the size, shape and character of its naval forces.
  I would be strongly opposed to early steps to extend the disarmament process into the maritime area, and not just because of the complexity of the issue. We have quite enough to do at the moment in dealing with the complex negotiations on land forces and aircraft without adding something as mobile as naval forces.
  When we begin to negotiate about naval forces in the future, I hope that we will remember that the sea lanes across the Atlantic are as vital to us as roads and rail links across Europe are to the Soviet Union. Any deals that we do on reductions in naval forces will have to bear in mind the basic vulnerability of NATO's position. There may be a case for considering naval confidence-building measures, and perhaps for exchanging technical information, or alerting each side to plans for maneouvres and exercises, but that is a long way from the sort of naval disarmament that is being peddled in some quarters.
  The coming changes, and those that are already taking place, seem to underline the need for the sort of burden-sharing and specialisation within NATO that we have talked about frequently for years but of which we have achieved little. If we get the sort of CFE deal that seems likely, and we seek to share out various ceilings in equipment and forces across the European part of NATO, there is a risk that we shall end up with ineffective defence systems.
  It seems to me that CFE ceilings and the well-established prospect of reductions in American forces in Europe will force the European NATO nations to embrace the concept of sharing out who does what at long last. We cannot have every European member of NATO trying to do everything in defence right across the waterfront. I strongly endorse the idea put forward by a number of hon. Members and people outside the House that it is logical for the continental nations of Europe to concentrate more on land defence, leaving Britain to develop its maritime role. Historically we have done that, and it is in our best interests. It would improve the mobility of our armed forces and give us the ability to deal with out-of-area problems which we may well have to face in the future.
  I shall mention briefly the concept of forward defence, which featured in the earlier part of our debate. I have no difficulty with the basic concept of forward defence in the naval sphere. If we could guarantee to bottle up the Soviet navy, and the submarine forces in particular, north of the
  706
  Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap, that might be sensible and the best way to protect NATO convoys across the north Atlantic.
  However, I have three basic worries about the practical application of that sort of concept. We would have to deploy those forces forward well before hostilities started —if they ever broke out. Therefore, we would have to deploy them at a time of tension, and their deployment would be obvious to the Soviets. At a time of tension, our forward deployed naval forces could no nothing to stop the Soviets moving out of their North sea bases. All that we could do is watch them sail past into the calmer waters of the Atlantic. Also, in my view merely deploying forces forward at a time of tension could risk strongly aggravating the situation, and make matters worse.
  When resources are scarce, as we know naval resources are, using them to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted is not the best use. Therefore, in view of the changing situation, forward maritime defence strategies must be reconsidered.
  We all welcome the prospect of a 50 per cent. cut in strategic nuclear systems deployed by the US and the Soviet Union. It has been talked about for so long, that it will be something of an anti-climax when it occurs, but it will be welcome none the less. We should not under-estimate the fact that it will leave the Soviet Union with a massive strategic arsenal, a good deal of which will be targeted on western Europe.
  While nuclear weapons remain, there is always the risk of a nuclear attack on Britain. Therefore, I see no reason to alter my view, despite the changing international climate, that, while the Soviet Union retains nuclear weapons, it is crude common sense for Britain and France to keep a minimum effective nuclear ability, something that will provide a degree of security to Europe, and will guarantee against any possibility that the United States may not deliver on its nuclear guarantee to NATO powers.
  It is well known that Trident was not my first choice for a strategic nuclear system in Britain, but that argument ended a long time ago. I think that Trident now has a lot to commend it as a powerful, accurate and flexible system. It is perfectly possible for us to tailor the number of warheads to suit changing circumstances, and in that sense it can be described as an effective minimum nuclear deterrent.
  I am glad to see that the trials of the Trident missile have turned out to be more successful than some pessimists thought in the early stages. Perhaps inevitably, those who gleefully seized on the two unsuccessful sea launch trials have been quieter about subsequent successes. I am glad to see that the missile is doing no worse than any predecessor missile did at a similar stage in its trials.
  I believe that the major threat to the British Trident missile system comes from problems with warhead production at the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston, rather than problems with the missile. The Defence Committee has drawn attention on a number of occasions to the problems of recruitment and retention of the scarce and vital labour needed to produce those warheads. I shall watch with interest to see how the Government's contractorisation programme will tackle the problem—although I remain somewhat sceptical about the possibility that labour can be produced out of thin air at a time when it is so scarce, and can then be

  707
  persuaded to stay on, without the improvements in pay and conditions that were possible without the introduction of contractors.
  I do not want Britain to make any unilateral defence cuts: I do not want us to spend the peace dividend before the cheque arrives at the bank. I do not believe, however, that we can stick our heads in the sand and argue that the world has not changed dramatically over the past 12 months. We should be working with our NATO allies to assess the implications of those changes; we must seek to reshape our armed forces to meet the needs of the future, rather than leaving them stuck in the concrete of the past. That, I feel, is the sensible, prudent course, and the sooner we embark on the process the better.
  8 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I listened with keen interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright); it was one of several fine speeches in this very relevant debate.
  My constituency, which contains six major naval establishments and a large housing estate, must be home to about half the members of the shore-based Navy. Nine years ago the Government conducted a major review of defence commitments, as a result of which they decided that the three main priorities should be the defence of the home base, the nuclear deterrent and the British Army of the Rhine. Over the past 10 years, the Army has remained at a strength of about 156,000, while the strength of the Royal Air Force has increased from about 86,000 to 94,000. The strength of the Royal Navy— which was excluded from that list of top priorities—has now been reduced from about 65,000 men to 57,000, and the purpose of my speech is to ask for the reduction to be arrested.
  As many hon. Members have pointed out, the political background has changed profoundly since 1981. Socialism and centralism have proved economically and morally bankrupt throughout eastern Europe; an attempt has been made— and thwarted—to secure better dialogue and more democratisation in China; there has even been an attempt to open up dialogue in South Africa. I am sure that everyone marvels at the courage of those who have led the changes, and we wish them well, but it must be added that the future is potentially dangerous.
  What are the defence implications of the political changes? Some nations have sought to respond to them quickly: the United States has already announced its intention of cutting defence expenditure by some 2·6 per cent. It is goodbye to the USS New Jersey, the USS Iowa and others, and the 600-ship navy concept— essentially a part of Reagan's presidency— has gone; we shall see a 546-ship navy in 1991. Holland and Belgium, too, have expressed the wish to cut the number of troops deployed elsewhere in Europe.
  Before making our own decisions, we need to consider the military reality behind the political headlines. According to various intelligence reports, and comments by its generals, the Soviet Army appears to support and indeed embrace perestroika, but perestroika—which means "restructuring"—does not simply mean restructuring away from military hardware; it means a restructuring within the military establishment as well. To many Russian generals, perestroika means that they will have a
  708
  chance to increase their emphasis on technology and high-quality products, which will enable the Soviet army to narrow the West's technological lead in military equipment.
  There has been much talk of the conversion of the Russian arms industry to civil production, but without verification it would be unwise for us to rely on that. Similarly, there are indications— mentioned by Labour Members—of a change of strategy by the Russian navy. In recent years there have been fewer "high seas" deployments and a greater concentration on the Soviet "bastion" concept— defending the bases in the sea of Okhotsk, and the strategic submarine ballistic nuclear operations. So far, however, evidence of any Russian naval reduction is thin, and in any event such a reduction would pose major problems of verification. As has been pointed out, cruise missiles in particular can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, which makes it difficult to verify which type is being carried unless there are people on the missile carriers.
  How much reliance can we and should we place on the fact that political changes have reduced the military threat to us? My answer is that we must face uncertainty and instability, and that this is not a time to lower our guard. The likelihood of a planned Russian tank invasion through Europe— backed with the willing support of the armies and population of the Warsaw pact countries— must be less than it was, but the risk of civil dissension within the eastern bloc, provoking military action and a war that will spread, could be greater now than before.
  Some hon. Members have talked rather loosely about the peace dividend. It would be a serious mistake to imagine that the changes in eastern and central Europe are a cause for unalloyed joy among the populations of those areas. There must be losers as well as gainers; for every person dancing in the street there must be someone contemplating the loss of a privileged existence—the loss of a house, a car, a privileged education for the children or the opportunity to travel. There must be immense stresses and strains in eastern and central Europe, and talk of spending a peace dividend seems to me seriously premature.
  We should take note of the changing nature of the threat. The more that the forces facing each other in Europe are reduced, the greater will be the need for flexibility and improved lines of reinforcement. The more that we reduce the British Army of the Rhine and the allied tactical air force—I for one believe that, in due course, by agreement and with proper verification procedures, that will be possible—the more we shall need to keep open the routes for rapid support. Hon. Members have already compared NATO's supply routes with those of the Warsaw pact countries. Those countries rely 75 per cent. on rail communication for their reinforcements and only 25 per cent. on road and Baltic sea and Black sea ferries. NATO, however, moves 90 per cent. of its reinforcement equipment by sea.
  Land wars and sea wars require different balances of troops. It has been accepted for years, perhaps centuries, that an aggressor on land needs an advantage of about 3:1 against the defender, whereas at sea the position is reversed: the aggressor has the advantage, because he has the opportunity of secrecy and surprise. It would be entirely wrong for us to contemplate reducing our sea

  709
  forces now. SACEUR— the Supreme Allied Commander Europe— has estimated that NATO could last only about 10 days without sea reinforcements.
  The Royal Navy of today is leaner and more efficient than ever. It is well equipped— and I am grateful to the Royal Navy and, indeed, to ship manufacturers and builders, for giving me the opportunity to visit ships at sea and to watch the construction of every class of naval ship in the building yards. It is superbly manned; the concentration of training and personnel in the south of England—and particularly in my constituency—is, I think, now recognised as the most efficient way to run the Royal Navy, although 10 or 15 years ago their removal to the north was being contemplated. It also gives a social advantage to the men and their families.
  We cannot, however, ignore the fact that concentration on the other services at the expense of the Royal Navy leads to some stretches and strains, due to concentration on the three main commitments. The commitment to an escort fleet of about 50 destroyers and frigates may still be about met, but I am concerned that there may not be sufficient personnel to man them. The Royal Navy has already been run down from 65,000 to 57,000 personnel and there has been a commitment to reduce it still further.
  I do not know whether further slimming down will harm the efficiency and effectiveness of the Royal Navy, but I fear that it may. Similarly, urgent action needs to be taken to upgrade the armed forces' amphibious capacity, with replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. I am also concerned that over one third of the royal fleet auxiliary's fleet tankers and replenishment ships are more than 20 years old. Replacements need to be ordered soon.
  Like others, I am disturbed by the lack of a command and control system in the type 23 frigates. We are all concerned about the delay over the supply of a good airborne early warning system. I look forward to the arrival of AWACS in 1992.
  There are two other areas of specialisation about which I am concerned. The first is the naval medical service, whose skill and courage has been proved time and again, but never more memorably than in the Falklands. The royal naval hospital at Haslar is highly regarded, but budgetary and nursing problems have occasionally caused difficulty. The medical service is an essential and integrated part of the Royal Navy and deserves steady support. Similarly, may I say a discreet word in support of naval intelligence. There has never been a greater need for us to distinguish between reports of political progress on the one hand and military reality on the other.
  Finally, I refer to personnel issues. The Royal Navy is tough on some things. For instance, it does not tolerate lateness when a ship is due to sail. However, it is a caring employer. Pay is good and the Royal Navy takes considerable care to help and to understand any problems that may arise while men are in its service. The Royal Navy, however, as with the other services, is naturally more concerned about those serving than about those who have served.
  It took several years to win pensions for the pre-1950 service widows who previously had no service pension. The Conservative Government can take great credit for the fact that one of their earliest actions in 1979 was to introduce a special service pension for the pre-1950 service widows. Similarly, it took many years to win improvements for the older war widows. I give all credit to the present Defence Ministers for having responded to the
  710
  representations that were made on behalf of war widows. On their behalf, I thank the present Defence Ministers for enhancing older war widows' pensions.
  I fear, however, that the 25,000 service men who were present at nuclear tests between 1952 and 1958 may he in a similar position to that of the widows when they were fighting for recognition. It does not take a nuclear physicist to guess that there is some connection between nuclear tests and the fact that 700 or so men have suffered cancers, deformity and in some cases death. Those who serve in the Royal Navy deserve our gratitude and support. Those who served in the Royal Navy in the past, and their widows, deserve nothing less.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made a fluent speech. I agree with him that those who served in the Royal Navy deserve better pensions. However, the bulk of his comments were fundamentally flawed. They were based on threats from an enemy. In the light of world events, that is now regarded as increasingly unreal—a fact that has been acknowledged even by some of his hon. Friends when they look at the state of politics in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
  I pay tribute to Royal Navy personnel. They carry out their tasks ably and efficiently. I paid a visit to HMS Alacrity, which is doing excellent anti-drugs work. It has also provided hurricane relief. That is the sort of work that I want the Royal Navy to do, especially anti-drugs work with the United States coastguard. I should like it to be increased. Unfortunately, however, the Royal Navy's cold war role is regarded by the Government as more important.
  Naval ratings have expressed concern to me about several issues. They moan about pay, but they are more concerned about the bills they face when they return home. The poll tax is at the top of their list of concerns. Many of them are worried about their families having to rely on social security and housing benefit. They will also, I presume, have to rely on poll tax benefit. The Minister ought to acknowledge that the Government's policies have led to the families of service personnel being forced to rely on rebates, as so many other families have to.
  Those people must regard the future with as much concern as my constituent, Mr. E. Taylor, of Lea Hall gardens, Leyton, who wrote to me recently because he is worried about the effect of the poll tax upon him and his wife. He said:
  "My present weekly income is £48·55 state pension, and about £64 per week"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's constituent a sailor?
  Mr. Cohen: Yes. You have spoilt my punch line, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise.
  Mr. Cohen: I shall continue as if you had not intervened, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Taylor said:
  "My wife's pension is £26·20. This being a total of £138·75 for the household."
  He went on to say that their weekly average expenditure eats up all that money easily. He includes the telephone in his weekly average expenditure and says that he can take incoming calls only. He also says:

  711
  "all these proposed increases are really pushing us literally to the wall."
  His punch line is:
  "The reason for my writing this letter is to express my protest against such severe increases to our cost of living which after my service of thirteen and a half years in the Royal Navy (including the war years), plus 30 years with the Ministry of Defence is, you will agree, against all sense of justice and fair play."
  I believe that most hon. Members will agree with those sentiments. It is shocking that the Government have placed ex-Royal Navy personnel with that amount of service in such a plight.
  Recently I visited Faslane. I pay tribute to the peace campers. They have obtained information that the public have a right to know, but which the Ministry of Defence has consistently hidden. They have obtained it despite Ministry of Defence police coming around every five or 10 minutes. Faslane is being prepared for Trident. Millions of pounds have been spent on it. Money is no object. It has been pointed out to me that over £10 million was spent on road construction but that it was all dug up again after the work had been completed. My borough could do with some of that £10 million, so that the proposed surface road which will lead to many houses being knocked down in Leyton and Leytonstone could be put underground.
  The peace campers found out about the Ministry of Defence's plans for the site of special scientific interest at Rhu Spit. They also found out about the submarines that have limped into port during the past few months. We know now that they limped into port because of nuclear reactor faults. That was made clear in The Independent on 1 February. The report refers to the fact that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's safety and reliability directorate has expressed concern about the safety of the reactors. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the safety and reliability directorate has a role to play. The report says:
  "all five of the Valiant and Churchill boats are in.…highly unusual under normal conditions.
  The fault is believed to be a hairline crack in the primary cooling system of the reactor".
  The report also said:
  "10 days ago a Polaris class vessel had returned unexpectedly early…cracking of reactor pressure circuits is a well-known problem in the civil nuclear power industry."
  That problem is coming home to roost in nuclear-powered submarines. The hon. Member for Gosport mentioned nuclear test veterans. Many Labour Members have been fighting for proper compensation for those involved in the A-tests in the 1950s and 1960s. What about the Navy personnel in those Polaris submarines? The Ministry should come clean about that problem. Is Ministers' reluctance to come clean about these problems one of the reasons why the Government have been so mean about paying veterans?
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: I must put the record straight. The advantage for a submariner is that he is not exposed to the normal degrees of radiation that the rest of us are in the open air. The fact that he spends some of his life at sea means that he is exposed to lower rates of radiation than other people. There is no evidence that any of our submariners have suffered from radiation.
  Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that point, and we must take it at face value, but that reminds me of when it was said that
  712
  there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer. Years later, it was suddenly discovered that there was such a link. I fear that that may become the case in this respect.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We should have more faith in what the Minister says if all the veterans of Christmas Island had not been told that they were under no risk. The Government should at least admit that they made a mistake and pay them compensation.
  Mr. Cohen: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. The Minister says that there is no risk of radiation, yet reactors have developed hairline cracks. That must create doubts in people's minds. All the expert opinion should be made public.
  What if the Vanguard class of submarine, which will carry Trident, develops the same reactor faults? If its reactor blows, there will be enormous self-destruction. Trident has indiscriminate and massive overkill powers many hundred times greater than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
  What is the point of using Trident to obliterate people who are campaigning for democracy and better economic conditions in eastern Europe? The tests carried out on Trident have been far from perfect: we remember the catherine wheel test, when it fell straight back down. Such failures would make Trident a suicide weapon.
  Defence cuts have been made by President Gorbachev. If a war is started against the Soviet Union by accident or in mad circumstances, it may be argued by a Soviet general that the best way to achieve a draw is to get Trident used. That person would have to be mad because that would be suicidal for both sides, but it may be preferred to defeat, which could be inherent in Soviet cuts that are made unbalanced by Western expansion in nuclear arms.
  I raised the problem of sonar in an intervention. The Minister said that the Soviet Union has substantially improved sonar techniques. The Vanguard submarine is bigger than normal submarines in order to accommodate the huge Trident weapons and it will be relatively easily tracked. The United States is aware of that problem. It is holding back on full-scale production of Trident because it knows that Congress is uneasy about it. It is using Trident as a bargaining chip for the strategic arms reduction talks. It is being built to be scrapped and the US will scrap it straight after START 2, but the United Kingdom is dependent upon the United States for Trident. The £10 billion-plus cost will be down the drain for those useless but immensely dangerous nuclear weapons that have no realistic role in the changed world.
  Naval forces are left out of arms control talks. Verification has been mentioned, but I wish that there was some verification. We have had the thinnest verification that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), but the United Kingdom has not taken part in that and has shown no interest in doing so. It is silly for naval forces to be left out when arms cuts covering conventional forces and land and air-based nuclear weapons are high on the agenda. It is silly that naval nuclear weapons will remain untouched, unrestricted and unrestrained. Naval cuts should be made soon, not only for international peace and stability but to redistribute to people money otherwise wasted on weapons. Such cuts are best for the Royal Navy, because it cannot plan for the future while the Government fudge this issue.

  713
  The Government ignore world events. The Warsaw pact is in disarray. The Soviet Union has made substantial moves towards defensive defence. President Gorbachev has made huge arms cuts— in many cases, unilateral cuts — to support the economy and, indeed, for his own survival. He has repeatedly called for a deal. A Government booklet, "Broadsheet 89", on the Navy says:
  "A number of proposals on naval forces have been put forward by the Warsaw Pact, in open speeches and at formal negotiations. These have ranged across a wide spectrum, from constraints to confidence building measures…The CFE talks do not impact upon the RN."
  It later deals with the
  "Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, (CSCE) … The latter does not affect Naval forces except where naval gunfire support and amphibious forces take part in exercises involving more than 13,000 troops."
  That is saying that the Navy will not do a deal. President Gorbachev has been spurned by the Government when he has called for a deal on naval forces. The Soviet Union, because of economic pressures, will make naval cuts, but we shall be left with nuclear weapons based on cold war thinking and a strategy that is obsolete and hugely expensive.
  We want the peace dividend, which could represent billions of pounds. It could be done in co-ordination with the Soviet Union and without any risk. Instead, we have massive overkill and massive overspend. We keep being told by Conservative Members— and the hon. Member for Gosport was no exception— that now is not the right time; it is never the right time for Conservative Members. Is it not the right time when arms cuts are being made by the Soviet Union?
  The peace dividend could apply to arms conversion. We should be reshaping our yards to build merchant shipping, which is needed to boost our trade and world trade. We could be guaranteeing jobs into the future. The peace dividend could especially apply to welfare services. We could be keeping hospitals open instead of closing them.
  The Government are out of touch with world events and are missing a great opportunity. If they get their way, they will be condemned in history for it.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I wish that the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) could have found it in their hearts to show their appreciation of what the Royal Navy does for this country. Their lack of enthusiasm followed the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I was worried by not only the content of that speech, which talked about the potential reduction in naval expenditure, but the tone in which it was delivered, which showed a complete lack of enthusiasm for the Royal Navy.
  I interpreted that as meaning that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington— the same applies to the hon. Members for Leyton and for Denton and Reddish— regards the Royal Navy as an instrument of war. I suggest that it is an instrument of, and for, peace. First, it is an essentially defensive instrument, offering protection to this country. Secondly, it is an instrument that operates as effectively in peacetime as in wartime. As has been evidenced in the Gulf and the Caribbean, its role in peacetime can often be as essential as in any wartime operation, and presumably its purely humanitarian objectives would be supported by both sides of the House.
  714
  I trust that someone who says that he wants the Royal Navy developed is not seen as ignoring changes in the world. I belong to a generation that has seen changes arid gone through a world war. No one of my generation would do other than welcome a move towards peace. After the first world war, we saw the rise of national independence in numerous countries in eastern and southern Europe and saw them celebrating it, yet we also saw the adventurism, nationalism and aggression that it bred. Only a few years later, some of those countries cast aside the very freedom that they had sought in the first world war or, as in the Baltic republics, had it brutally taken from them by their bigger neighbour.
  It is not enough for us to say that we have had a few weeks or months of euphoria and calls from people— including those who were active during the cold war on the other side of the iron curtain or the Berlin wall— for peace, freedom and understanding. Their actions must speak as loudly as their words. It will be a long time before we can say that the leopard has changed his spots and that they are all converts to freedom, peace, democracy and liberal ideals.
  In the meantime, to increase the pace of the process, we may take part in negotiations to reduce arms and arms expenditure. I do not believe that there is any great difference between the two sides of the House on that issue. Although it may be possible for us to conceive of a move towards a reduction in offensive weapons on both sides, there would be nothing desirable in having a major reduction in defensive weapons on either side. Purely defensive weapons give security, which means that there is no need for either side to fear the other or to fear change. We want change, and we shall not fear it as long as we have our national security. We in the West feel secure, and I want the nations of the East to feel equally secure.
  I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. At the top of my agenda was the question whether we were still committed to an escort fleet of about 50 vessels. My hon. Friend took the bull by the horns and answered in a straightforward way, but in offering him my thanks, I feel a certain hesitation. I should have thought that "about 50 vessels" means either a little above or a little below 50, but the number is now permanently a little below 50. We know that some ships are not immediately available for use, so we have a fleet of 48—well, that is nearly 50. We know that 44 vessels could be ready in a relatively short time.
  The numbers are getting perilously small. That is not a jingoistic statement—I do not want to send a gunboat anywhere. Commitments such as those that we have in the Gulf come up without any action by us. We have no control over how those circumstances arise. There is no guarantee that there will be only one such incident at a time— there could be more than one in different parts of the world which involve direct British interests and where it would be necessary for us to maintain a naval presence.
  I trust that the Government are still wedded to their promise of "about 50 vessels", not to something below 50. We all welcome the building of newer ships and the reduction in the age of our fleet, about which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State spoke, but we must remember that we will get the advantages from new equipment such as the type 23 frigate only if the ship is fully operational. It is not fully operational if it does not have the computerised control system that it was intended to have.

  715
  I know that the ship can operate without that equipment, but in practice the advantages do not exist until it has that capacity. I trust that we will have from the Ministry of Defence a commitment not only to provide hulls in the water, by which we measured the success of the escort fleet in the past, but to ensure that the necessary equipment is provided— the control system and the seagoing version of the EH101 helicopter, which is an essential part of the new vessel.
  It is not always easy to make a commitment to a new weapon. People often say that it will not work, that it will probably cost more and that it will take longer to develop than expected. My first duty on being elected in 1979 was to take a group of trade unionists to see the then Navy Minister on behalf of the Marconi workers who were building Sting Ray. That was one of those projects that was criticised by the Left and the Right because it was said that it would never succeed. Sting Ray is now perhaps the finest lightweight torpedo in the world. It has export markets and export potential.
  We need a commitment to finishing the jobs that we have started. I have been alarmed at the talk that Marconi cannot achieve a full-scale production order for the heavyweight torpedo and to hear that Westland has not been given a production order for the helicopter. There must at some point be a commitment to buy a certain weapon because we believe that it can be made to work. There must be a point at which the advice given to the Ministry of Defence is sufficient to lead it to make a decision. I hope that it will reach quick and early decisions on these essential matters.
  We need also a commitment to the support facilities on which the Navy relies. When HMS Southampton was brought somewhat ignominiously into Portsmouth harbour after she was severely damaged, it was a mistake not to have the repair work done at the naval repair base, which had the men and equipment ready for her refitting. One cannot argue that that work could not have been done there, because that is where refitting work is carried out. It has been said that a royal naval fleet maintenance base has no accounting procedures to submit a tender, but every piece of work done on the fleet maintenance base is costed.
  Plenty of people in the naval base at Portsmouth would have been prepared to submit, if not a tender exactly, a firm quotation by which the success of Portsmouth in the repair work on HMS Southampton could have been judged. Instead, the vessel was taken away for all the work — not only the repairs of new damage but the work that would otherwise have been done in Portsmouth—to be carried out. The then Minister gave Portsmouth some offsetting work, but that is not the same, is it, as allowing a ship that was to be refitted in Portsmouth to be repaired there? After that blow, morale in Portsmouth will not easily be restored.
  A commitment to facilities, equipment and the development of weapons is essential. It is up to the Ministry of Defence not simply to sit back and wait to see what it can get but to commit itself to developing what it wants.
  Mr. David Martin: My hon. Friend knows how we in Portsmouth fought over the HMS Southampton issue and how the morale of the work force was badly affected. The package of work that was supplied has been keeping the
  716
  naval base work force going, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we should know what is coming to the direct labour force in the Royal Navy in Portsmouth beyond the summer? After all, it is the one remaining direct naval force working under direct Government contract. Will my hon. Friend touch on its future?
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend, who has a more detailed knowledge of the workings of the fleet maintenance base than I do as he gives a great deal of time to close personal study of it. We have a fleet maintenance base in Portsmouth which is part of the Royal Navy. We want a commitment to the Royal Navy— not a hand-to-mouth commitment to giving us something now and something in the future or to finding us something to offset work that we have lost, but a firm commitment that certain vessels will be based on Portsmouth for all their requirements and that when such vessels need repair, refitting and maintenance they will come to Portsmouth.
  The Royal Navy as an institution in peace and war is well worth maintaining, developing and protecting. The qualities of quiet efficiency and discipline are the sort of qualities that reflect all that is best in our national life. That is why I am proud to be associated with a city that has such a long-standing link with the Royal Navy. Whatever the future may hold— whether we are to enter the golden uplands of a period of unparalleled peace or to move once again into troubled waters of political upheaval and uncertainty— we want people to be able to say for certain, "The Navy is here."
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) has urged the Government to remain armed against the Soviet Union until it has adopted, and has been seen to have adopted, liberal ideals. On that basis, the Soviet Union will most certainly remain armed against the current Government as it will see no sign of their adopting such liberal ideals. Having said that, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman because the community that I represent, like the community that he represents, has long and close ties with the Royal Navy and because, like him, I think that the Royal Navy has an important role on which considerable emphasis should be placed. I have been emphasising that role in Royal Navy debates ever since I came to the House, and when we have debated merchant shipping orders I have tried to get a word in for our merchant marine.
  All hon. Members who have spoken have referred to foreign affairs, and it is absolutely right that, in debating the Royal Navy, we should have due regard to the international position. I shall not go through all the arguments again, except to say that it is clear that whatever else may divide the House we are not divided in our analysis of what is happening in eastern Europe. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have painted a similar picture. The issue for the House, and the issue that perhaps divides the parties more, is how we should respond.
  As I have said before, I think that it is a mistake to debate defence issues as we do— a day for the Navy, a day for the Army and a day for the Air Force— when the question of our strategic deterrent arises under all three headings. We should consider the issues under four

  717
  separate headings and have a debate about Trident and Britain's nuclear capability distinct from our debates on the conventional role of our three armed forces.
  I shall refer specifically to the conventional role of the Royal Navy and in doing so I shall allude to what the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said. If we are to consider a peace bonus—I would warmly welcome that, as I am sure would the majority of our fellow citizens— we must consider whether it should come from our strategic deterrent, from the Navy, from the Army or from the Air Force. The services do not all start from the same basis. The Royal Navy's conventional role has borne the bulk of the downturn in defence expenditure over the past 10 years, and I should not wish that expenditure to be diminished further. As we move from a time of real tension between the two super-powers— between NATO and the Warsaw pact— to a time of diminishing tension, the role of the Royal Navy may be enhanced rather than diminished.
  Both the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred to emphasis being placed on the Royal Navy's unique role within NATO. That is absolutely right. If there is to be more specialisation within NATO—I think that there should be — it is surely right that, with our traditions, heritage, background and special strategic needs as a trading nation and, above all, as an island, we should emphasise the contribution of the Royal Navy. That means funding it, not reducing our commitment to it.
  The Royal Navy's contribution in international affairs is unique. It can provide a diplomatic presence or an oblique military presence overseas in a way that the Army and Air Force simply cannot. It is no accident that the role of the Royal Navy has been paramount in every conflict in which we have been involved since the second world war. The Navy is not the service whose role we should diminish if there is to be a peace bonus. The savings should be reaped elsewhere, and the Army of the Rhine is the obvious source.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the Royal Navy is an instrument of peace rather than aggression. It has a role in fighting the drugs trade and piracy and in assisting in dealing with natural disasters — a role that cannot be played by any other service. If the emphasis on the roles of the different military arms is to be changed, we should remember that the Royal Navy poses the least aggressive threat to the eastern bloc. If we are to place much more emphasis on real defence rather than pre-emptive strikes, we should be underpinning the role of the Royal Navy.
  My constituency, like that of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North has a long relationship with the Royal Navy. We make the fleet auxiliaries and the frigates for the Navy and we repair them, as we did with HMS Southampton. We provide the crews and there is a great tradition of sea-going people on Tyneside. Tyneside is also popular with the Royal Navy because it is a good shore leave. Newcastle is a good place to spend a Saturday night.
  Mr. Boyes: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) is cheering me on, obviously on the basis of personal experience.
  My community wants to express its wholehearted support for the Royal Navy and its role in our national
  718
  life. It would be wrong of me not to associate my community with the condemnations from Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen and from Back-Bench Members of those responsible for the deaths of the young bandsmen at Deal. That was a disgusting outrage and vile murder and it is wholeheartedly condemned by me and everyone I represent.
  I refer to a number of procurement issues. I listened with considerable interest to the Minister's opening remarks and I broadly welcome them. If, as the Minister said, there is to be a further type 23 procurement round this year, surely it is time to consider the ratios and the further procurement of auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels. Perhaps that issue can be addressed when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces replies. If there are to be more type 23 frigate, the Government must make arrangements for their replenishment and that must mean an AOR3 or perhaps even an AOR4. I hope that the Minister can tell us something about the time scale for that.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the role replacements of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. The Minister said that that was under full and detailed consideration. Perhaps when the Minister replies he can tell us about the time scale for that full and detailed consideration. After all, the matter has been under review for a little more than a year. Perhaps those considerations will end soon and perhaps the Minister can tell us when.
  I know that the Minister of State will have received a copy of the report of the Public Accounts Committee on reliability and maintainability of defence equipment. The report states:
  "The Services have estimated that unreliability adds over £1 billion a year to support costs. We accept that not all such costs can be saved, but note that the Department consider 50 per cent. to be a fair goal for the level of achievable savings."
  Does that apply specifically to the Royal Navy? Will the Minister place emphasis more on reliability and maintainability in the procurement rounds in future rather than on just the costs of procurement? Clearly, initial costs and eventual costs are not the same, as the PAC recognises. It would be heartening to hear the Minister's response about that.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he can tell us something about the Royal Navy's experience with the costs and performance of the Argus which was procured on a non-competitive basis. I also hope he can tell us whether the experience with the Fort Victoria AOR1 contract continues to be happy. Can he assure us that the overall cost to the taxpayer of those contracts is still within budget and that there is no overrun? Can he tell us anything about the National Audit Office report on the Argus? I know that the MOD will want to respond to that as some stage, but I wonder whether the Minister can tell us something about it tonight.
  We have had some discussions on broad and sweeping issues and great events. However, with the Minister's indulgence, I want to raise an issue which may seem more trivial, but which is a matter of some importance to our service personnel. I refer to the ceilings of modern warships while they are at sea.
  As part of the post-Falklands experience and review, it has been decided to remove the ceilings from modern new British frigates, including the type 23. Those ceilings have been removed from the crew's quarters, workrooms and leisure rooms. The pipework is left exposed and the

  719
  intention is that it should stay exposed. That is not very aesthetically pleasing. The men work in a very small space and it is obvious to anyone who has worked in an industrial environment that exposed pipework collects more dust, debris and filth than unexposed pipework.
  I am sure that the idea has been sold to the Treasury as a possible cost saving. However, for aesthetic and housekeeping reasons, would it be possible for the Royal Navy to consider replacing the ceilings, at least until vessels go into combat? If there were small prefabricated panels that could be removed when the warship was at combat stations, that would make life more pleasant for the crew and result in housekeeping savings.
  Having made that small and modest plea, which is probably the only point to which I will receive a response, I confirm yet again the support of my community for the Royal Navy. I hope that the peace bonus, which is the British people's due, comes from a service that has been less hard hit by expenditure cuts than the Navy.
  8.56 pm
  Dr. Mike Woodcock: Earlier in the debate, several references were made to the new armed forces parliamentary scheme. I am particularly pleased to have been called this evening because this year I am on attachment to the Royal Navy under the auspices of that scheme. Many hon. Members will know that the scheme follows the familiar pattern set by the Industry and Parliament Trust and tries to give hon. Members an understanding of service life and service priorities and problems.
  With the abolition of national service and inevitably smaller defence services, it is not surprising that fewer hon. Members have direct experience of service life. I have no direct experience of it. Like other hon. Members, I have to rely on briefing papers and the work of the all-party defence group to enhance my knowledge of defence matters. While commending the work of that group and the valuable visits that it organises and commending those to other hon. Members, I recognise that that experience is, of necessity, limited. The armed forces parliamentary scheme provides a great deal more depth and detail.
  During my brief time with the Royal Navy I have had nothing short of total co—operation from everyone. Whether discussing naval strategy with the heady rank of admiral or whether discussing day—to—day problems with junior ranks messes, within the bounds of security, everyone has been totally helpful and willing to state their views. With the profound changes in eastern Europe and the new attitudes that are coming from the Soviet Union, it is vital that, as we consider the role of our forces, Members of Parliament are informed and have views on the role and state of our armed forces.
  I shall say a few words based on my brief experience with the Navy. I stress that I have no great experience of naval matters, but, throughout a long career in industry as a consultant and writer, I have been able to visit thousands of organisations in all sectors of the economy, and I am able to make comparisons. I shall make just a few comparisons this evening. I shall refer to morale and pay, management style and practice, retirement policy, and the role of women in the Navy.
  720
  The first matter concerns morale and pay. In many years of talking to people in many organisations, I have come to realise that, almost invariably, wherever and whatever the organisation, people consider that they should be paid more and that morale could be improved. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to know that the Navy is no exception to that rule. Many people consider that they should be paid more and that allowances should be higher and more flexible.
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body's recommendation of a 10·9 per cent. average increase will be welcomed in the Navy, as will retention incentives and the increase in the X factor. That body recognises the problems, but it will not wholly solve them. Within the Royal Navy there is a certain amount of discontent about allowances. Having seen what I have in the Navy, I think that the Minister would do well to examine this matter a little more closely.
  Inevitably, as the number of our dependencies around the world declines and as our worldwide commitments are cut, there is not the same opportunity for sailors to visit foreign ports. Traditionally, many sailors join the Navy to see the world, and they are understandably disappointed when they find that their opportunities to do so are nowhere near as numerous as they were in the past.
  I would not for a second suggest that the conduct and deployment of the Navy should be determined by sailors' desire to see the world, but the Minister should take into account the importance of shore visits as seen by ratings when looking at other motivational factors in Navy life. I do not believe that morale is low or that pay is bad in the Royal Navy, but there is some room for the adjustment of allowances, particularly when service men are based away from their family homes, and more account should be paid to the importance to sailors of shore leave on foreign visits.
  The second matter concerns management practice and style. In recent years, throughout the economy, particularly industry, great emphasis has been placed on management practice. Every successful manager recognises that people in all walks of life today need not only to be informed but to participate in decision-making processes. Successful organisations involve people. They are organisations in which authority must be earned and in which managers at all levels lead by example. The days when the boss, whoever he was, could rely solely on his position in a hierarchy have gone, and rightly so. Only a fool pretends that the same management practices can apply in the armed forces as in industry.
  In a battle it is neither possible nor desirable to arrive at decisions by consensus. We must have strong leaders and obedient followers. But not all situations are battles. From what I have seen in my brief time in the Navy, I wonder whether there is not more room for consultation and involvement of junior ranks. There is a danger that hierarchical structures, the officer class system and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 can sometimes—I put it no higher than "sometimes"— be substitutes for good management practice. That can have severe consequences for morale and retention.
  The third matter concerns retirement ages. There is justifiable concern in the Navy about difficulties in recruiting, training and retaining suitable staff. Those problems are not unique to the Navy. Industry, education, medicine and almost every branch of commerce face them on a day-to-day basis. The problems will not get better; they will get worse. Increasingly, most organisations will need more intelligent and better-trained staff.

  721
  Demographic trends will make the situation worse. Competition for highly trained and motivated people will become more and more severe. Like other organisations, the Navy will find it increasingly difficult and expensive to recruit, train and retain suitable staff. Therefore, it seems strange that the Navy sometimes forces highly trained but competent people to leave the service at a comparatively early age and against their wishes.
  Throughout the economy, there is a need to be more flexible about retirement ages. Not everyone is ready for retirement at the same age. Throughout industry and commerce, there is a need to retain people longer and to utilise the valuable skills that they have acquired. The Navy's present policy is partly illogical. We should be seeking to retain people and skills, not the reverse. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that matter.
  The role of women in the Navy has already been mentioned on several occasions and I wish to mention it again. The Navy can be rightly proud of the Women's Royal Naval Service, which does an invaluable job. However, I wonder if it does enough. Not least for reasons that I mentioned earlier, we need to examine the role of women throughout the economy, and the Navy is no exception. It is wrong and wasteful that women are prevented from performing those tasks that they are willing and able to perform. Many Wrens wish to go to sea—almost all of those that I have met do—and the Navy should face that challenge. The Navy can recruit and retain high-quality women, but it is not tapping that potential sufficiently. Industry is changing its attitudes. There is a woman Prime Minister; there are many first-rate women managers in industry; but Wrens are not allowed to go to sea.
  I appreciate that there are arguments for that, and hon. Members have argued against the deployment of women at sea because of the strength of women, the need for separate accommodation, the inevitable male and female relationships that would develop, the feelings of wives and of husbands left at home and the moral arguments about putting women in combative roles.
  This is the age of equal opportunity and the Navy must be an equal opportunity employer. The Dutch, the Israelis, the New Zealanders, the Australians, the Americans and the Norwegians all allow women to go to sea in certain types of ship. I hope that Ministers and that the Navy Board will quickly adopt a policy of encouraging Wrens to go to sea in non-combative ships. I offer those suggestions because I believe that the Navy would be improved by them. All forms of human organisation can be improved and while the Navy is no exception, I have been impressed by what I have seen of it. It is dedicated, loyal and fully professional.
  The House has a duty to ensure that there is not only a constant search for efficiency and economy within the Navy but that the Navy continues to receive the resources to enable it to continue to do such an excellent job.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) said that some of his military experience was derived from his experience in the Industry and Parliament Trust. My similar experience with that organisation was with Cadbury-Schweppes. I observed more chocolate soldiers than real soldiers. Although, like the hon. Gentleman, I
  722
  have not served in the armed forces, being a member of the Select Committee on Defence—of which the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) is an able and probably the best Chairman, a comment that I hope will not do him irreparable harm with his party or myself with mine—and the experience that I have derived from the North Atlantic Assembly, particularly in its relationship in recent years with eastern Europe, gives me a perspective that may be relevant to supplement the experiences of people who have been in the military services.
  I do not need to speak with a sense of embarrassment from the Opposition Benches. The nightmare of the 1980s is thankfully over. That is when my party drifted into the periphery of politics, especially in defence. I was berated for my speech in the previous defence debate for wanting greater consensus on defence issues. That is something that I do not regard as worthy of public criticism. It is important that we eventually return to the concept of politics ceasing at the water's edge. Perhaps we are not yet there, but we are far less apart than we were before last October.
  As someone who has studied public opinion polls, and noting Labour's new defence policy, I am confident that no one would believe that my party adapted its defence policy for other than the noblest motives, unrelated to its electoral considerations. The Independent poll of a couple of weeks ago showed that no more than 12 per cent. of people support what amounts to unilateralism. When members of the public were asked whether they thought that Britain should keep some nuclear weapons so long as the Russians had theirs, 76 per cent., including 70 per cent. of Labour voters, said that it should.
  We wish ultimately to see a world in which nuclear weapons have been eliminated, so long as there is some parity in conventional forces and so long as Third-world nations, which have been acquiring chemical and nuclear weapons at an alarming rate, are brought into an arms control regime. In the meantime, my party has widely adopted a policy that gives it flexibility in its approach to arms control negotiations, and I hope that when it is elected to office our nuclear weapons will become part of a START 2 process. That would be an intelligent way to proceed. I do not want to see Britain adopting the electorally unpopular and pretty stupid policy of throwing in its nuclear weapons in advance of other nations abandoning theirs.
  tt
  The great problem that Governments of all political hues have had, certainly since the second world war, has been the matching of commitments and resources. That problem will become even more difficult. During the cold war it was relatively easy to amass resources commensurate with the threat, but now that the cold war appears to be over, it is more difficult for Governments to retain a level of defence expenditure commensurate with the threat.
  However, the present Government certainly have not just woken up to the fact that they must cut defence expenditure. According to a Defence Select Committee report about a year ago, the Committee estimated that, by 1990–91, if current trends continued, defence expenditure would fall by 3·9 per cent. of gross domestic product. The Government have been cutting defence expenditure for one reason or another. To the critics who say that NATO has been doing nothing to respond to initiatives, I point out that, over the years—this can be taken one way or

  723
  another—almost every NATO Government, including that of the United States, has been cutting substantially the percentage of expenditure devoted to defence.
  When I hear that somehow all the initiatives derive from President Gorbachev, I want to tell people that they should look at the NATO summit communique issued in May last year. If they do so, they will see that the initiatives of President Bush last year and his recently announced initiatives make those of the Soviet Union pale almost into insignificance.
  Quite recently, I was in Vienna observing the CFE negotiations. Which alliance was it that produced the first draft CFE treaty? Which alliance leaked that draft treaty to the Soviet Union so that it might see what our thinking was? I do not think that we have to view our alliance with any shame as to its reticence about developing its arms control proposals. There has been a remarkable reaction. Bearing in mind the difficulties faced by 16 sovereign democratic nations in somehow calibrating their security policies, and in doing so swiftly, I believe that NATO has had remarkable success.
  Bearing in mind also the fact that peace is breaking out, the diminished perception of the threat, the economic and domestic political pressures, and the pressures that will emerge from the CFE treaty, one realises that the Government will have difficulties in reconciling their commitments with their resources. Some very hard decisions will have to be made.
  I am not within that spectrum of opinion that argues that nothing should be done, that the threat is still enormous, that Gorbachev may be overthrown, and that therefore we can settle down to another cold war in a couple of months' time, but nor do I adhere remotely to the euphoric attitude that, as peace has broken out, swords must instantly be transformed into ploughshares. We must be imaginative; we must take advantage of the situation. But we must proceed with some prudence, because arms decisions, including procurement decisions, taken now will set the agenda for the year 2000. One cannot suddenly and swiftly produce weapons as fast as Spitfires were produced during the second world war.
  I agree that we must be prudent and cautious. The NOP survey in The Independent of 20 January asked:
  "In the light of recent developments in eastern Europe, which of these statements comes closest to your own view?"
  It continued:
  "The threat of war is now less, so Britain can safely reduce the amount of money it spends on defence"
  How many people agreed with that? One might think that it would be 80 per cent., but in fact 29 per cent. agreed with the statement that because of developments in eastern Europe we can cut defence expenditure. That puts the Government way out of step with public opinion.
  The survey continued:
  "No one can be sure what will happen in the future, so Britain should keep up its defence spending."
  Some 63 per cent. agreed with that, including 58 per cent. of Labour voters. While we must be imaginative, it is necessary to be reasonably prudent. How we give that dichotomy the right proportions is something that others must decide.
  I listened to the debate on eastern Europe last week. I hoped to catch Mr. Speaker's eye but was unsuccessful. In that debate, the leader of the Liberal party was attacked
  724
  for his views—I thought, unfairly. Far be it from me to rush to his defence, but what some have argued was that the time has come for alliances to wither away. He correctly argued that we should hope that the Warsaw pact will survive. He did not argue that it should survive in its current form. It is necessary for NATO to outlive the present situation for a variety of reasons. Ironically, we should also try to sustain the Warsaw pact. It is as though two heavyweight boxers reached the 13th round, and one was in better shape than the other and tried to hold up the other to prevent him from collapsing. It is in our interests that the Warsaw pact survives, but in a different form.
  I have been to almost every non-Soviet Warsaw pact country and contributed six chapters to "Jane's Warsaw Pact High Command," so I speak with some interest in the problems of non-Soviet Warsaw pact militaries. Clearly, the reliability of such forces to the Soviet Union is questionable. Most of them have ordered, or begun negotiations, for Soviet withdrawal.
  If the alliance collapses, as it might, the Soviet Union will be in further disarray. The military will be even more angry with President Gorbachev for having apparently torpedoed its security interests. The relationship between NATO and the Warsaw pact, which is critical in terms of arms control negotiations, might be severely damaged. I put that argument in Hungary and said that it was easy for somebody who had not lived under the Soviet Union to argue for the survival of the Warsaw pact.
  I am not arguing for its indefinite survival, but if it is altered and non-Soviet Warsaw pact countries inject more control and influence over it, it will not necessarily be a force of instability but will be in their and our interests. That argument should be seriously addressed and is why NATO must survive, not entirely in its present form, but more or less in the way with which we are familiar—[interruption] I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. O'Neill: I was going to start the wind-up.
  Mr. George: I am sorry. I have not finished yet.
  NATO has a useful role. We are fortunate that, since the Harmel report 20 years ago, NATO has been both a political and a military alliance. Clearly, the political dimension will assume greater prominence. It still has a military role and an economic role, particularly in terms of the Third world. There are many environmental challenges which NATO can play a role in meeting. It has a role to play in combating terrorism and a critical role in arms control. It is a means by which, in these tempestuous times, there can be some stability.
  It is also important to think not just in military terms vis-à-vis eastern Europe but to do far more for it economically. It is simple to applaud events in Romania when we see them on television, and it is easy to say that we must provide economic assistance. I have recently returned from spending a week in Romania, and it is with some embarrassment that I say that many people inside and outside Government believe that the British Government's aid programme to Romania, although not derisory or trivial, is at the lower end of the third division of aid donors.
  It is important to think of ways in which we can help to underpin the emerging democracies in eastern Europe. If someone had told western Governments two years ago that the Soviet Union would be a marginal force in eastern

  725
  Europe, that democratic Governments would be established there within two years and had asked how much they were prepared to give to achieve that, they would have offered enormous sums. Now we have an opportunity.
  I received a parliamentary answer from the Foreign Secretary stating how much we give in aid to Romania. Our private charities such as the Red Cross have been magnificent, but the Government contribution has been little short of unsatisfactory.
  We are at an exciting crossroads in world and European history. We were all brought up with a cold war mentality and some of us with a pre-cold war mentality so it is difficult for us to adjust to changed circumstances. There are enormous opportunities. Clearly, defence expenditure will have to fall. Nevertheless, it is critical that the Alliance that has helped to maintain our security for over 40 years survives. It is important that we relate to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe in a way that will help to underpin the democratic forces that are emerging there.
  Perhaps the time will come when the amount of money that we need to spend on defence will genuinely fall and we shall see the beating of swords into ploughshares, but that time has not quite come.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I was beginning to feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) had reached the end, but not quite yet.
  The debate was prefaced by discussions between what are known as the usual channels, about which we dare not speak. Suffice it to say that we discussed whether it would be better to have separate debates about deployment and procurement or debates about the individual services. In some respects, our discussions were largely academic. The ingenuity of both Opposition and Conservative Members has been such that they have wangled in every service and piece of hardware, and every thought or idea about the world situation.
  Of the six or seven debates on the Navy in which I have participated, this has been the most exciting, varied and encouraging. Although hon. Members have shown varying degrees of optimism, few of us have been too bleak in our expectations. Of all the issues, the most difficult is how to deal with the Navy and naval arms control in a world of disarmament. It can be said that, because in NATO there was so much anxiety about the disposition of forces in central Europe, it turned its attention there when we first had signs of improvement in East-West relations. It is natural that we have had a CFE discussion in Vienna and that, of all the issues, the Navy is at the bottom of the list.
  Despite that justification, I am impatient about the way in which we address maritime strategy. Although it is mainly the Norwegians and ourselves who make a substantial contribution to the defence of the northeastern Atlantic, we seem reluctant to throw our weight around and to try to encourage proper discussion of some of the problems.
  To an extent, I understand why some of those difficulties arise. Naval power is essentially about the projection of power. It is a flexible asset that can be moved across the globe with relative ease and lack of obstruction.
  726
  It is therefore desirable for super-powers—in their eyes at least—to have such flexibility in moving the pieces around the chessboard.
  It is a paradox of our modern political systems that the Navy is perhaps the most expensive of all the services. It certainly has the most expensive equipment. An aircraft costs £20 million to £30 million at most. For the purposes of the example, I am not looking at such aircraft as stealth bombers. A frigate is essential to naval deployment and costs at least £100 million. For amphibious craft such as Fearless or Intrepid, the cost may well be twice that or more. It is uncertainty over those sums that causes the Government to take so long to make up their mind. I shall come back to that.
  The Navy also requires highly qualified and skilled service personnel because expensive weapons platforms require high technical skills and a great deal of training. They also require maintenance that would tax the ingenuity of the best engineers. All those factors give rise to problems with the Navy across the globe. The Navy probably has one of the tightest and most effective political pressure groups in any political system in the shape of its procurement systems and its friends. Because of that, it is difficult to get beyond the starting gate on matters such as the confidence-building measures that are necessary, before we get to arms control.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South spoke about consensus. The consensus that some of us would like to see—by that I mean the Government agreeing with us—would take account of the provocative and potentially destablising nature of the forward deployment of ships in the North sea and at the edges of the Arctic. Cat-and-mouse tactics are often a feature of their deployment and they are relatively close to the Soviet fleet in the Kola peninsula. To use an inelegant phrase for which I can never find an alternative, it is thought, as John Lehmann said, that the aim should be to beard the bear in its lair.
  It is felt that there should be a first-strike capability, certainly of a conventional nature, as close to the Soviet Union as possible—and that could lead to the early start of a nuclear confrontation. Because of that, we are getting a measure of agreement across the political spectrum about the desirability of less provocative deployments of sea-launched cruise systems and the like.
  It is notable that Ambassador Nitze and Admiral Crowe, who are not known as long-time supporters of irresponsible disarmament or of giving the game away to the Soviet Union, or as being open to the sort of challenges made by Conservative Members, have made constructive statements about the desirability of changing some of the maritime strategies and about the possibility of finding ways to have more confidence-building measures in respect of naval deployment and so on.
  I wait with interest to hear what the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has to say about some of those matters. The Under-Secretary did not cover them to any great extent and was non-specific about many others. Adjournment debates present an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to take a balanced approach, but today we listened to a narrow expression of Government policy on the north Atlantic.
  I should have been pleased to hear more about the sea lanes of communication and the reinforcement of the United Kingdom and Europe. Are the sea lanes as essential as they were some time ago? We are told that it would take 40 days to realise that a threat was emerging.

  727
  In those circumstances, the reinforcement of Europe would still need to be effected as rapidly as it could be today. Would a post-CFE deployment of American and British troops need the same level of rapid deployment across the Atlantic that is possible today?
  Conservative Members may argue that the Soviets have uninterrupted railway lines that just happen to pass through Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the German Democratic Republic and that railway carriages full of troops would be greeted with open arms. There is an assumption that the workers, peasants and students of those people's republics would join the Red Army, cross the Oder-Neisse line, and liberate the people of western Europe from capitalism. Is that the argument that is being posited by the Government in the context of the length of time that it would take for an invasion threat to materialise? If so, they are still living in the bleakest days of the cold war.
  This evening, we should have heard a clearer exposition of the problems. Is it better for us to have a surface fleet to secure the sea lanes of communication, or can a better case be advanced for the use of submarines? The Government are not sustaining a rate of ordering compatible with that required to keep open the sea lanes. If the Government are thinking in terms of submarines, do they propose placing orders additional to those already announced? The Minister should have dispelled such confusion.
  Mr. Mates: Some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman poses are valid and should be debated. However, when he talks of a diminishing threat and of reducing our forces in Europe, he must agree that the more we take away—as peace breaks out and the situation improves—the more will be the need for reinforcement. There will be more to reinforce if anything goes wrong.
  Mr. O'Neill: That assumes that American troops, for example, will not be civilianised but will be landed in the United States and returned to military bases. However, from last week's statement I am led to believe that President Bush intends to close many of them. We are talking of armies of a different size, and that raises different questions of support. It is incumbent on the Government to anticipate events and to inform the House of their thoughts.
  It may be that we shall have to wait until the White Paper is published. If it contains the right information, perhaps I shall not have to make the same speech when the House debates the defence estimates, and the hon. Member for Hampshire, East, (Mr. Mates), or his Committee members, will not have to ask the same questions when the Minister and his officials go before them in the early summer.
  We must be clear also about our view of the reinforcement of Norway, as that will probably be the last matter dealt with in the CFE talks and in negotiating the settlement of the European question. If there are no answers yet, the Government should be frank and say so, rather than use that as an excuse and have Ministers saying at the Dispatch Box year after year, "We are still thinking about what to do with HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. We are not sure what to do about aviation support vessels. We do not know our plans for amphibious vessels. We are
  728
  still considering." Those excuses have been trotted out for an intolerable length of time. When that is set alongside the manner in which the Government are ordering ships and the way in which the hulls are being laid, it is even more intolerable. We have to be grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence for making that valid point.
  It is one thing to announce that there will be orders, but it is another to have competition and get the orders. There is an even greater delay before the hulls start to be laid.
  This evening we have had no clear statement about the number of surface ships available to us—perhaps the Minister can help remedy that in his speech—the net number of the Armilla patrol, the net number of the commitment to the Falklands, and the number of ships that we would need if there was a crisis. The Government seem to be conscious of the fact that a crisis could arise quickly.
  We are still no clearer about support for the frigates that have been ordered, and that has emerged in several speeches. For example, there is the absence of CACS for the first four years of the life of some of the type 23 frigates, or the problem with the EH 101 and the likely cost overruns. Those cost overruns seem to be consuming a great deal of the savings that we used to hear about in the days when competitive tendering was all the fashion. I realise that it is still available in some areas of procurement, but opportunities for competitive tendering in shipbuilding are becoming fewer and fewer.
  The failure of Cammell Laird to secure any part of the most recent round of orders is having a devastating effect on employment prospects in the Wirral, and in that part of Merseyside. It is also fair to say that Yarrow has been afflicted by its failure to get any part of those orders. Problems are now arising in yards such as Yarrow because of the doubt surrounding the future of the Euro-frigate.
  Understandably, there will be national difficulties and differences about the hull design of such a ship, and, as I understand it, that is why the programme has collapsed; but, since modern frigates are nothing if not weapons platforms, perhaps the Minister can give us a clearer idea of what will happen to that ship. Are the Government committed to sustaining the effort to secure an agreed programme for the Euro-frigate?
  We know that fewer armaments will be required, and that there will be problems of employment in the defence industries. We also know that the Government, almost alone among Governments in the Alliance and the Warsaw treaty organisation, choose to pour cold water on any prospects of a conversion programme.
  I know that the Minister is not responsible for procurement. That is the responsibility of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. However, throughout Europe and across the Atlantic, people are concerned about the economic and industrial consequences of peace. Perhaps the Minister is not aware of it, but he should ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because he and I spent a weekend at a conference on the subject.
  In Britain we have a fundamental problem with shipbuilding skills, because the crucial mass of those skills is contracting to such a point that it may not be possible to transfer them to merchant yards if there were a need for an upturn in merchant shipbuilding in Britain. At the moment, most shipbuilding skills are based in warship building yards.

  729
  All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have praised the quality of our service personnel. I referred to their skill and dedication earlier. A new round of pay awards has just been announced. It will probably take us some time to appreciate the fine print of the awards and for messages to come back to us about them. As for my hon. Friend for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said, the Government have honoured their commitment to the pay review process that was entered into while Lord Mulley was Secretary of State for Defence.
  The arrangements for wages set up by the Labour Government have largely been honoured, but the arrangements for conditions have not. There is an X factor, in that, although we may not be able to say that promises have been broken, undertakings have certainly not been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the personnel. That is why many are voting with their feet. It is only right that people who are both expensive to train and valuable to the nation's security should be given a better deal in the 1990s, when the demographic trough will hit recuitment in all the armed services.
  Nuclear submarines have been mentioned in the debate. The Minister has said that he is satisfied that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is investigating, and we appreciate its record; nevertheless, if a fault were found in a commercial aircraft, I cannot imagine that the airline company would get away with allowing it to continue flying. It would not say, "We shall have to wait until it gets back to the airport." How long must the nuclear submarines in the categories that are prompting anxiety remain at sea before returning for a thorough check? Surely we owe it to the crews and their families to ensure that safety is taken seriously.
  I realise that questions of confidentiality and security arise, but it ought to be possible to make such undertakings, and to make them in a way that the public can understand. A number of anxious calls and letters have already been received, and they will continue and increase unless the Minister takes the necessary steps to reassure the public.
  The split in today's debate has been less between optimists and pessimists than between the optimistic and the less optimistic. There is a case for caution, but that caution should not be based on the bleakness of spirit that sometimes emanates from Conservative Members. There is also a case for the pursuit of stability, but that should not be based on the rigidity that has characterised statements on the armed services in recent months. All our clippings files are replete with quotations from generals and admirals who say that not another troop must be allowed to leave Europe; last week, President Bush said that another 100,000 would go.
  We now have a better chance than ever before to seize the challenge—to seize the peace. The optimism that many of us feel could be reinforced if the British Government began to exercise the political independence exercised by our German allies across the political spectrum in areas where the Royal Navy makes its unique contribution to the safety of Europe. The Germans have forced America to reconsider the basis and priorities of many of its policies. I am sure that we should have a safer Britain and a safer Europe if we took such action, but I believe that it will take a change of Government for that to happen.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I agree with the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that this has been an excellent debate.
  The hon. Gentleman—and the hon. Members for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)—all raised the issue of the safety of our nuclear submarines. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington for reading into the record my letter to him of today's date. I am sorry that he did not receive it earlier—he might then have incorporated it in his speech a bit earlier—but he has removed the necessity for me to repeat the essence of its contents.
  I assure the House that the Government place a high priority on the safety of nuclear-powered submarine operations. There are rigorous monitoring and safety standards. The decision to inspect all submarines as they come alongside from their operational tasks is in line with that policy. It was taken as a prudent precaution, to deal with a possible defect with potential safety implications. I reiterate that there has been no incident, accident or injury to anyone and that submarines alongside present no hazard to the public.
  I said in my letter to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington that detailed information on the design of nuclear power plants is classified, so he will understand why I cannot comment on the nature of the defect; nor can I comment on any implications for submarine operations —which are also classified—except to say, in order to avoid any doubt, that the deterrent force certainly remains operational.
  Mr. McFall: Mention has been made of a hairline crack. Could that have occurred in a number of submarines, because the manufacturer was Rolls-Royce in Derby?
  Mr. Hamilton: I repeat that I cannot comment on the defect with which we are dealing. The design of these nuclear power plants is classified.
  The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington also referred to protecting the deterrent. He missed the point, due to his concern that there has been some increase in the Royal Navy's role in the protection of the deterrent, which was mentioned in the defence White Papers of 1988 and 1989. It has been the practice of the Royal Navy for many years to provide forces to protect Polaris submarines during their deployment from the Clyde. That does not reflect in any way on the ability of the submarines to maintain a deterrent patrol undetected by hostile forces.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton referred to maritime nuclear weapons. They have an important role to play in support of NATO's strategy of flexible reponse. We must also bear in mind that the Soviet Union has an impressive array of sub-strategic maritime nuclear weapons. In meeting that threat, the Royal Navy must maintain a full spectrum of capability in order to give sufficient operational flexibility to respond to acts by an aggressor at sea.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and the hon. Members for Houghton and Washington and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) asked about the replacement of the assault ships Fearless and Intrepid. The

  731
  Government remain committed to maintaining an amphibious capability in the longer term. We have been assessing the results of studies into replacing the capability offered by these ships, either by new build or by extension of their current lives. A decision will be made within the ships' current planned lives. Tenders for the aviation support ship were received in July 1989. We hope to place an order later this year. No decision has yet been taken on when to order a second vessel.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East is concerned about when the latest type 23 frigate which has been ordered will be laid down. There is normally a gap between order and the laying down of the first vessel in a new class to be built at a particular yard, in this case Swan Hunter. Work will start this spring on the next type 23 frigate, HMS Westminster, and the following two will be built to a phased programme at six-month intervals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East asked whether we intend to procure more than the initial batch of 50 Merlin ASW helicopters. We expect to order further aircraft in due course, but no decision has yet been taken or needs to be taken on the size and timing of the second batch.
  Mr. Barry Field: Will the additional ships enable the Royal Navy to fulfil its traditional role of providing a guard ship for the royal yacht Brittania during Cowes week? Last year, was, I believe the first occasion in peacetime when that was not possible.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am well aware of the concern on the Isle of Wight that there was no guard ship for the royal yacht, but I cannot guarantee that there will always be a guard ship. That will depend on the number of ships that are available.
  Mr. Rogers: It was originally proposed that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force might order as many as 200 Merlin helicopters. The present figure is estimated at 50, which enhances the single cost of one helicopter alarmingly. Will the Minister say whether he will order 50 or nearer 200 of those helicopters?
  Mr. Hamilton: I thought that I had made myself quite clear on this. It is not yet necessary to make a decision about future orders, but we shall keep that under consideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East asked about the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines. The Ministry of Defence continues actively to consider the options for disposing of the nuclear reactor plant from the Royal Navy's decommissioned nuclear submarines. The options are the piecemeal disposal of the reactor plant in the deep-level repository to be developed by Nirex, or shallow land burial of the intact reactor compartment. Sea disposal of the intact submarine has not been excluded, but we remain keenly aware of public concern in the United Kingdom, and internationally, about that method of disposal.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East asked about the vertical-launch Sea Wolf. As he knows, a contract for a vertically launched version of the Sea Wolf system was placed with British Aerospace in 1984. To date, no major delays have occurred in the development and production of that missile. The project's costs were
  732
  thoroughly reviewed in 1985 and subsequently re-endorsed in 1986, since when there have been no notable increases in real costs.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton questioned the minimal real growth in the defence budget, which he thought thoroughly inappropriate to the times in which we live. I remind him that, when trying to maintain defence expenditure and capability at the same level, one faces rising wage costs, increases in the number of people employed and the fact that as equipment becomes more sophisticated it becomes more expensive.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton mentioned the use of private security firms. Labour Members suggest that the only good security guards are those employed in the public sector. I remind them that many lives were saved in Germany when a German civilian boilerman alerted people to an IRA attack, but was knocked over the head for his pains. We should concern ourselves with the quality of security guards, not who employs them. We aim to improve the quality of security firms employed at our bases.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made several remarks with which I had much sympathy; I normally find that I agree with the bulk of what he says. Significantly, he said that we must get the conventional forces in Europe negotiations out of the way. Let us get the treaty signed before considering maritime arms control. If we were to add the further element of maritime arms control we would delay the formal signing of that treaty. I need not remind the House that originally maritime arms controls were specifically excluded from the CFE arrangements.
  The hon. and learned Member rightly said that in future we will need to consider the question of reinforcements, our ability to have mobile troops and the specialisation that we may need following future arms control agreements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) made a welcome contribution to the debate. It is sad that he has had to wait so many years to address the House. I should like to remind the House of the sacrifices that are made by Whips, which are rarely appreciated; they are appreciated probably even more rarely by our constituents. He wondered, and I could not agree with him more, whether the Labour party is any wiser today than Governments were in calling for disarmament before the last war.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, and mentioned his courage in the last war. My late father served in the same Guards armoured brigade as my hon. Friend. They were both Coldstreamers, but my father was on his feet and my hon. Friend was in tanks. My father saw him blown up three times. The last time that he saw him carried away, he thought that he would never see him again—and he nearly did not. My hon. Friend was critically ill for many months, and it is a miracle that he is with us today. It is a matter of great sadness to me that he will be leaving the House at the end of this Parliament. Let us face it, we do not have many people here who are decorated as he was in the last war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hearl.]
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe went on to spell out the difficulties that we are facing with CFE. It certainly is not a simple business of negotiating with the Warsaw pact. It is not a matter of lack of good will on either side. There

  733
  are great difficulties of definition and verification but, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is no reluctance to reach agreement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) raised the issue of women going to sea. He seemed to be against it, but I am grateful that my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) did not agree with him. I think that many Opposition Members believe that it is right that women should be able to go to sea.
  I am pleased to be able to announce that we intend to extend the employment of members of the Women's Royal Naval Service to include service at sea in surface ships of the Royal Navy. Our decision has been taken against a background of concern about the Royal Navy's future manning position, but we have also been mindful that the current restrictions on Wrens' employment were in any case ripe for review in the light of developments in other navies and of domestic social trends. It follows decisions already reached and announced to widen the employment opportunities for members of the Women's Royal Army Corps and the Women's Royal Air Force.
  There is one important distinction between these earlier announcements and that for the Royal Navy. It stems from the nature of naval operations, and it is that officers and ratings of the Wrens serving at sea are liable to serve there in combat. This represents a change in the long-standing policy that women should not undertake duties that may include direct combat. We have concluded that to attempt to categorise ships as "combat" and "non-combat" would be artificial and misleading in the context of modern maritime warfare, when all ships will be liable to serve in potentially dangerous waters.
  We plan for women to serve on a wide range of ships, including the carriers and amphibious ships. A team has been appointed to plan the early selection and modification of vessels so that members of the Wrens may be drafted to sea, and our aim is for the first of them to be embarked by the end of the year. Present plans do not include extending mixed manning to the submarine flotilla, but early studies will be conducted into the employment of women as naval air crew and in the Royal Marines. Separate work is in hand to determine how women can serve at sea in ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
  Serving members of the Wrens will be given the opportunity to volunteer for sea service and those selected will then receive appropriate sea training. From a date to be announced, all new recruits will be required to accept liability for sea service throughout their careers. Initially, sea service for women will be more common in branches and specialisations in which there are shortages of men. The aim, however, is to offer the widest possible opportunities to all Wrens.
  Clearly, it is important in this context to seek the greatest possible equality in terms of service for women. This principle is being extended to our administrative planning including pay for Wrens at sea and, logically, includes the right for women to remain embarked whatever the nature of the vessel's employment. That, of course, means that, if a naval vessel is going to war, there will be no question of taking the women off it.
  734
  This major change will also help to ease the pressures on men by reducing gapping in the fleet and improving the ratio of sea-to-shore service in those branches where shortages have been most pronounced. We are conscious of the fact that this decision marks a significant step in the evolution of the role of women in the armed services. On the one hand, it opens up important new opportunities for members of the Wrens. On the other, it will expose them to all the potential dangers of service in naval vessels, dangers from which they have hitherto been shielded. I am sure that, as ever, the service will rise to meet the challenge.
  Mr. Sayeed: I think that my hon. Friend should have had that part of his speech rewritten. Does he think that the proposal will pose any problems of retention for those currently serving in the Navy? Will their wives be happy about their serving alongside Wrens? And did the Second Sea Lord, the director of personnel, fully agree with the idea?
  Mr. Hamilton: Yes, the decision was taken unanimously by the whole Admiralty Board. My hon. Friend asked about the reaction of womenfolk at home. That was certainly a problem encountered by the Dutch navy, with whose representatives I went to talk. They said that there was a problem initially—lasting 12 to 18 months—and they operated a hotline so that people could ring up and find out what was going on. That reassured them, and they now have no difficulties.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 7th February,

(1)notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Newton relating to Social Security (in respect of the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1990 and the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1990), Terms and Conditions of Employment and Pensions may be proceeded with until Seven o'clock; and, if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motions; and

(2)notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 14 (Exempted business) and 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Newton relating to Social Security (in respect of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Regular Employment) Regulations 1990 and the Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations 1990) and of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Social Security may be proceeded with until Ten o'clock; and, if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Newton, and no further such Motion shall then be made.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 6th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall not later than Ten o'clock put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Agriculture.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Student Loans
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many representations he has received to date supporting the introduction of student loans;

  (2) how many representations, including postcards, he has received to date opposing the introduction of student loans.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the publication of the White Paper "Top-Up Loans for Students" (Cm. 520) in November 1988, a total of 472 representations expressing a variety of views have been received from various sources. Of these, 452 were postcards sent in pursuance of a campaign mounted by student unions.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement indicating the estimated cost of the introduction of student loans in Northern Ireland and outlining the proposed administrative arrangements for such a scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is Estimates provision of some £5·5million for loans in 1990–91. The Student Loans Company Ltd. will have responsibility for the administration of loans to all eligible students in the United Kingdom and provision will be made for each of the Education Departments to meet its respective proportion of the running costs.

  Students' Incomes
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate(a) the average student rent in Northern Ireland and (b) the average housing benefit received by students in Northern Ireland during term time.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested in(a) is not available. The information requested in (b) is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the average income levels in Northern Ireland received 12 months after graduation by(a) disabled graduates, (b) women graduates, (c) graduates over 26 years of age and (d) all graduates.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available for Northern Ireland.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will announce the budget available for payments from the discretionary part of the social fund in 1990–91.
  422
  Mr. Needham
  The total sum will be £21·32 million. The budget for small care grants will be £7·32 million and budget for loans will be £14 million.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fees have been paid by applicants and for what total sums in respect of(a) applications for firearm certificates, (b) renewal of firearm certificates and (c) variation of firearm certificates; and how much has been repaid in each case because the application was rejected, in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: The Police Authority for Northern Ireland has informed me that the information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total net amount received for all firearms certificate fees and the total refunds are as follows:

  Financial year

  Firearms Certificates

  Refunds

  £

  £

  1986–87

  605,129

  22,975

  1987–88

  844,132

  18,691

  1988–89

  612,727

  20,346

PRIME MINISTER

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the proposed expenditure by the EEC in 1990 of £9,000,000,000 on the disposal of food surpluses;

  (2) if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the sums being spent on the disposal of food surpluses.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so. The provision of £9 billion in the European Community s budget for the storage and withdrawal of agricultural products and for export refunds represents a reduction in real terms on the Community's 1989 budget. Surplus stocks are now a fraction of what they were at their peak and the proposed expenditure is well within the legally binding guideline which was one of the measures agreed at the February 1988 European Council as part of the process of CAP reform.

  I shall certainly continue to take every opportunity to impress upon our Community partners the need for this process of reform to be maintained and for agriculture to be reformed worldwide in the context of the current multilateral trade negotiations.

  Trade Imbalance
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will indicate in the Official Report the representations made to the European Commission by Her Majesty's Government on the need to equalise the adverse imbalance of trade between the United Kingdom and the empire of Japan; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government keep in close contact with the European Commission about measures to
  423
  improve the Community's balance of trade with Japan. These include measures to sustain the recent shift in the balance of the Japanese economy from exports to domestic demand; the encouragement of Japanese manufacturing investment in the Community; the removal of the remaining barriers to access to the Japanese market; the promotion of business awareness of the opportunities in the Japanese market; and improvement of our business men's skills in the Japanese language.

  While the United Kingdom's visible trade deficit with Japan remains high, its rate of growth declined to just 1 per cent, over last year compared with 20 per cent, in 1988; in 1989 United Kingdom exports to Japan almost doubled their rate of growth to over 30 per cent, while the rate of growth of our imports from Japan was more than halved to 9 per cent.

  East-West Relations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment she has made of the peace dividend accruing to the United Kingdom from changes in East-West relations.

  The Prime Minister
  The changes taking place in Europe have been made possible in good part by the strength and cohesion of NATO, which will remain the basis for our security. The negotiations in Vienna on conventional forces in Europe should lead to some reductions in NATO's forces. It will be for the Alliance itself to decide how these will be allocated between its members.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Jonathan Greenwood and Sara Coren
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the conduct of the Crown's case against Jonathan Greenwood and Sara Coren at Southwark Crown court on 23 January.

  The Attorney-General
  The legal issues arising from the case are under consideration.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Romania
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been given by Her Majesty's Government to Romania(a) directly and (b) indirectly since the revolution; and if each item can be costed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have donated a consignment of medical supplies on 24 December and several items of medical equipment since then. We are treating a number of seriously injured young victims of the December righting for major surgery, at a cost which has yet to be determined. We are contributing about £5·8 million to the food aid and medical supplies packages sent or agreed so far by the EC. The British Council has committed £100,000 for new assistance projects in the cultural field. Further help is under consideration.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced on 22 January that the existing know-how fund for Poland and Hungary
  424
  would be widened to cover other countries of eastern Europe once they are firmly committed to reform. I hope that Romania will qualify for assistance in that context.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he proposes to ensure that an appropriate part of European Community financial support to east European countries is allocated to the needs of disabled people.

  Mr. Maude
  EC structural aid to eastern Europe is intended to create market economies and generate wealth to the benefit of all the population. In addition the Community has, responding to requests and needs, provided humanitarian, medical and food aid in particular circumstances, distributed through national authorities.

  John McCarthy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives the Government are taking in order to secure the release of John McCarthy following reports that he is alive and well; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's answer of 30 January to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). We are following up the recent reports about Mr. McCarthy.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government maintain relations with(a) the Syrian-backed Hrawi regime and (b) General Aoun's regime in Lebanon; and what information he has as to which regime controls the area in which the British embassy is situated.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We maintain relations with President Hrawi and his Government, as the legitimate authority in Lebanon, and informal contacts with other political figures, including General Aoun. The British embassy is in the area controlled by General Aoun.

  Syria
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to renew diplomatic relations with Syria.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We could not consider restoring diplomatic relations without firm evidence that Syria has given up support for international terrorism.

  Lebanese Embassy
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Syrian interests section of the Lebanese embassy in London is manned by Syrians or Lebanese citizens; and what proportion of the total staff of the Lebanese embassy are in this section.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are eight members of the Lebanese embassy in London with diplomatic status. Of
  425
  these, three are Syrian nationals who form the Syrian interests section. There are three British nationals in the British interest section of the Australian embassy in Damascus.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if, when evaluating the visa application of a foreigner married to a British citizen, British immigration officials assess the integrity of the British spouse; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what questions British immigration officials ask visa applicants who are married to British citizens, when deciding on the primary purpose of the marriage; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether the desire of a foreigner married to a British citizen to be reunited with his or her spouse and children constitutes sufficient grounds for the granting of a visa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  In considering an application for entry clearance from a foreign spouse of a British citizen, the entry clearance officer must be satisfied that the relevant requirements of the immigration rules are met. Depending on whether a visit or settlement was intended, these requirements are set out in paragraphs 22 and 50 of the Immigration Rules (HC 388).

  Entry clearance officers have discretion to ask whatever questions are necessary to establish whether an applicant qualifies for admission under the immigration rules. However, in pursuing any particular line of questioning, entry clearance officers are instructed to be at all times alert to the sensitivities of applicants (and sponsors) and to treat them all with courtesy, tact and respect.

  Environmental Concerns
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what activities the Government are pursuing through the United Nations to address world scale environmental concerns.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are pursuing through the United Nations, and its organs, a number of activities to protect the global environment. These include matters that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised when she addressed the United Nations General Assembly on 8 November 1989, not least preparations for the 1992 United Nations conference on environment and development and the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation). In June we will host the second meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer which, with its parent convention, is administered by the United Nations Environment Programme.

  Namibia
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the current political situation in Namibia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Constituent Assembly has agreed that independence day will be 21 March. Agreement on the constitution is expected shortly.

  British Exhibition, Kiev
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which papers the advertisement on 24 January for Russian speakers for the British exhibition at Kiev was placed; why these were chosen; why it was decided to make the deadline for applications 26 January; how many applications he received; and whether he will take late applications.

  Mr. Maude
  The FCO placed advertisements for Russian speakers for the British exhibition at Kiev in The Times Educational Supplement of 12 January and in The Independent of 18 January. The Independent repeated the advertisement on 24 January. The two newspapers were chosen for their advertising rates and national circulation.

  The deadline for applications was set in order to provide sufficient time to select candidates and to give those chosen adequate notice before they are required for the exhibition. The FCO has to date received 211 applications and will consider late applications from suitably qualified candidates.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing (Research)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to conduct research into the causes of the present numbers of those sleeping rough or in poor-quality temporary accommodation but who are not at present legally classified as homeless.

  Mr. Chope
  Suitable questions to give further insight into the numbers are to be included in the next (1991) census and decisions will then be made on any necessary further research.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to extend the priority need category of homeless to include those aged 18 years and under.

  Mr. Chope
  Our review of the homeless legislation concluded that the existing priority need categories were adequate and appropriate to cover the homeless in genuine need. Decisions are for local authorities; they must judge whether young people aged 18 or under are in priority need.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviroment if he will make a statement on progress in the allocation of £250 million for the homeless and the relief of homelessness.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer I February 1990]: Of the £250 million additional resources announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15 November, £148 million will be made available for schemes to relieve homelessness in London and the south-east in 1990–91 and £102 million in 1991–92. Housing associations were invited to submit bids for 1990–91 to the Housing Corporation by 22 January and local authorities to my Department by 31 January. The applications are now being assessed and decisions will be issued before the start of the next financial year. A total of £112 million will be allocated to local authority schemes and £36 million to housing associations.
  427
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking to reduce the problem of homelessness, especially among young people and those with a record of mental illness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Following our review of the homelessness legislation, additional resources of £250 million are being made available in those areas with the greatest homelessness pressures, in particular to reduce the numbers in bed and breakfast. Local authorities have a duty to secure accommodation for those homeless whom they deem to be vulnerable as a result of mental illness or other special reason, including young people, and some of the additional resources will go to assist these groups. The problems young homeless people face are often complex and are addressed by a range of Government policies. Departments are now looking at how these work together to ensure appropriate assistance is available.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce regulations to prevent the use of information by a charging authority for purposes other than those associated with the management or collection of the community charge which has been disclosed to a charging authority by a community charges registration officer for the purposes associated with the community charge; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No, because such regulations are unnecessary. A charging authority may make use of information provided by a community charges registration officer only in accordance with its powers under the Local Goverment Finance Act 1988, and is bound by the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the level of non-payment of the poll tax in the first year it is due.

  Mr. Chope
  In the light of the very high level of registration achieved by almost all local authorities, improved arrangements for paying by instalments, and more flexible enforcement powers, the level of payment of the community charge should match or exceed that for domestic rates.

  Social Services, Humberside
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost to Humberside county of implementing sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons Act; and what was the extent of the allocation for this in central funding for Humberside.

  Mr. Chope
  The provision we have made in the settlement for local authority personal social services (PSS) takes account of the additional costs of implementing sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The PSS element of each authority's standard spending assessment is its share of the PSS provision and is calculated in accordance with section 3 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), which was approved by the House of Commons on 18 January 1990.
  428
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the impact on the community charge on Humberside to(a) compensate for the cut in social services spending allocation for 1990–91 over 1989–90 while maintaining social services at the same level and (b) to meet the criticisms in the inspection of child care by social services.

  Mr. Chope
  Humberside county council's standard spending assessment (SSA) represents an appropriate level of spending for the council to provide a standard level of service consistent with the Government's view of the amount of expenditure which it would be appropriate for authorities generally to incur. The community charge in Humberside would be £278, before safety net adjustments, if the county and districts all spent at the level of their SSA.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was his Department's social services spending allocation for county Humberside for 1990–91; what was the grant-related expenditure allocation for 1989–90; and what are the reasons for the changes between the years.

  Mr. Chope
  The 1990–91 standard spending assessment (SSA) for social services for the county of Humberside is £60·234 million. The 1989–90 grant-related expenditure assessment (GREA) for social services in Humberside was £61·637 million.

  There are several reasons for the difference in the two assessments. The GREA includes a small element for pre-1981–82 debt charges which is covered elsewhere in the SSA formula; the assessment formula has been substantially revised; and the information used in the assessment has been updated.

  Housing Demand
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any estimates have been made of the likely effects on the demand for houses and flats of the future decline in the population of marriageable age together with the effects of the continuing increase in both the number of single parents and the number of broken marriages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has published estimates of the future number of households, most recently in "1985 Based Estimates of Numbers of Households in England". These estimates are derived from the official projections of the population, analysed by sex, marital status, and age. They therefore take account of the change in the population of marriageable age, and in divorce rates. They take account also of the proportion of never-married women who head lone-parent households. These demographic influences interact, so their effect on the number of households cannot be estimated individually. The number of households will be a strong influence on the future demand for separate dwellings, but there are other important influences as well, notably changes in income. No estimate has been made of total demand for separate dwellings. The Government have however accepted from the London and south-east regional planning conference a figure of 570,000 for the increase in the housing stock in the south-east region between 1991 and 2001.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the reasons why, following the publication of table 67 by his Department which illustrated community charges implied by levels of local authority spending then current for 1987–88 and for 1988–89, his Department changed the basis of its estimates for 1989–90 to include only income from rates and Government grants.

  Mr. Chope
  The illustrative charges for 1989–90 were calculated after the Government had made it clear that income from rates and grants was the likely basis of the expenditure assumption needed for safety nets in 1990–91. The 1989–90 illustrative charges were therefore calculated on this basis, which also gave a consistent comparison between actual average rate bills in 1989–90 and illustrative charges. Figures calculated on the previous basis were placed in the Library on 19 July 1989.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has issued the guidance, referred to in his written answer to the hon. Member for Taunton,Official Report, column 27 of 13 November 1989, on the boundary between domestic and non-domestic property; and whether he will place such guidance in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope to be able to issue the guidance later this month; a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the number of people who will be liable to pay standard community charge on unoccupied domestic property.

  Mr. Chope
  No estimates have been made of this particular category, but we intend to collect information about the standard charge in the regular statistical returns which authorities will be making under the new system.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which local authorities have stated that they will provide relief from the standard community charge on unoccupied property for a period in excess of three months;

  (2) which local authority councils have declared their intention to levy standard community charge at less than twice the personal community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not available centrally at present.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount and proportion of the education component of the standard spending assessment for each authority benefiting from an area cost adjustment factor greater than one derives from the operation of that factor: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  430

  Table Showing the amount and proportion of the 1990–91 education standard spending assessment deriving from the area cost adjustment factor for authorities with a factor greater than one

  Authority

  Amount of Education SSA deriving from the area cost adjustment in £ million

  Percentage of Education SSA deriving from the area cost adjustment

  1

  2

  City of London

  0·209

  25·4

  Camden

  7·629

  14·5

  Greenwich

  11·894

  14·5

  Hackney

  13·278

  14·5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6·594

  14·5

  Islington

  9·285

  14·5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4·307

  14·5

  Lambeth

  15·253

  14·5

  Lewisham

  12·437

  14·5

  Southwark

  12·315

  14·5

  Tower Hamlets

  13·201

  14·5

  Wandsworth

  12·168

  14·5

  Westminster

  6·428

  14·5

  Barking and Dagenham

  5·136

  10·6

  Barnet

  9·356

  10·6

  Bexley

  7·204

  10·6

  Brent

  11·490

  10·6

  Bromley

  8·434

  10·6

  Croydon

  10·920

  10·6

  Ealing

  10·687

  10·6

  Enfield

  9·406

  10·6

  Haringey

  8·426

  10·6

  Harrow

  6·947

  10·6

  Havering

  7·545

  10·6

  Hillingdon

  7·343

  10·6

  Hounslow

  7·307

  10·6

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  3·854

  10·6

  Merton

  5·011

  10·6

  Newham

  10·467

  10·6

  Redbridge

  7·568

  10·6

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  3·825

  10·6

  Sutton

  5·061

  10·6

  Waltham Forest

  8·685

  10·6

  Bedfordshire

  6·699

  3·8

  Berkshire

  13·449

  5·9

  Buckinghamshire

  10·349

  5·0

  East Sussex

  6·443

  3·8

  Essex

  24·520

  5·3

  Hampshire

  17·299

  3·8

  Hertfordshire

  23·001

  7·8

  Isle of Wight

  1·394

  3·8

  Kent

  20·315

  4·4

  Oxfordshire

  5·781

  3·8

  Surrey

  22·170

  8·6

  West Sussex

  7·833

  4·3

  Isles of Scilly

  0·406

  42·9

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will be sending to the letter of 29 January on Manchester and the poll tax from the leader of Manchester city council; whether the Minister's claim that the city council seems intent on setting the highest poll tax it can get away with represents Government policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have not yet received any such letter. If authorities spend at the level of their standard spending assessments, the community charge everywhere before safety net adjustment and certain special grants would be about £278. Higher charges will be a consequence of authorities' spending decisions, and authorities will be accountable to their electorate for the level of community charge they introduce.
  431
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) further to his answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) of 17 January,Official Report, columns 252–53, if he will make it his policy to bring forward a community charge capping scheme between the February cycle of local authority meetings and the end of the financial year;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to cap local authorities that propose a 1990–91 community charge which is more than 10 per cent, above the Government's target figures for charges.

  Mr. Chope
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 17 January.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given local councils as they settle their community charges for the forthcoming financial year.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that if some of the horrendously high figures for the community charge being bandied about are in fact set next year, he will have no hesitation in capping the authorities concerned.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his estimates of(a) grant towards local government spending to the Exchequer and (b) the total contributed or to be contributed by non-domestic rates for 1988–89, 1989–90, and 1990–91, in a manner consistent with the figures given in the reply of 15 November 1989, Official Report, column 242.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: The available information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  All government grants1

  17,940

  18,545

  20,365

  Net non-domestic rate yield (including LRT levy)2

  8,800

  9,600

  310,500

  1 Figures are not available on a comparable basis to those given in the reply of 15 November 1989, Official Report, column 242. Those figures were based on returns showing outturn on an accruals basis submitted by local authorities. The figures given above are the English component of those published in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" and include payments of Rate/Revenue Support Grant, current specific grants (both inside and outside AEF) and capital grants on a cash basis. The figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 exclude grants in respect of polytechnics which were transferred from the local authority sector in April 1989.

  2 LRT levy was excluded from figures given in the reply of 15 November 1989. For 1988–89 and 1989–90 these amounts were estimated to be £75 million and £114 million respectively.

  3 The Distributable Amount for 1990–91, gross of the allowance for costs of collection and the City Offset. It is on a comparable basis with figures for earlier years, after taking into account the effects of transitional arrangements.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage and absolute increase in community charge for every 1 per cent, increase in expenditure incurred over the levels that are covered by central Government grant; and what is the level of charge for(a) Northampton and (b) Northamptonshire at that level of grant; and if he will tabulate the information also for every district/county in England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: Assumed 1990–91 community charges to the nearest pound for every
  432
  charging authority in England were placed in the Library on 11 January. The assumed charge for Northampton is about £294 after the safety net. County councils will not set community charges. The basis of calculation of the assumed charge is set out in the Revenue Support Grant Transition Report (England).

  I have today placed in the Library a table showing for each charging authority in England the increase in community charge, in pound per adult and percentage terms, for a one percentage point increase in spending from the 1989–90 figure, over and above the 4·64 per cent, increase allowed in calculating assumed charges. This shows separately the effect of increases by precepting authorities, including county councils, and by charging authorities.

  Gipsies
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites for gipsies, and for what numbers, are currently provided in the London borough of Bromley.

  Mr. Chope
  I understand there is presently one authorised site, providing accommodation for 22 families.

  Angell Town Estate
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will approve proposals for estate action housing expenditure for the Angell Town estate.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department wrote to Lambeth on 1 February 1990 inviting the council to develop further its proposals for a scheme on this estate to be supported by estate action expenditure in 1990–91.

  Palace of Westminster
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the damage to the fabric of the Palace of Westminster as a result of the recent storm on 25 January and of its implications for the programme of cleaning and restoration.

  Mr. Chope
  An assessment of the damage to the fabric of the Palace of Westminster by the recent storm was started as soon as the winds abated. Initial investigations suggest that major damage has been limited to the loss of one pinnacle on the central tower. In falling it caused some damage to roof areas and a window. Work requiring immediate attention has been put in hand.

  Until the full results of the investigations are received I am unable to say whether this will have any impact in the programme of cleaning and restoration, but all the indications are that the programme for the work to the Victoria Tower will be unaffected.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has considered the effect on the eyesight of persons working in the Palace of Westminster resulting from diminished light availability because of dirty stonework on the inner courtyards.

  Mr. Chope
  The level of lighting, whether natural or artificial, provided for those working within the Palace of Westminster is considered sufficient to meet the required standards.
  433
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has considered the effect on the health of persons working in the Palace of Westminster resulting from dirty stonework on the inner courtyards.

  Mr. Chope
  The minimisation of health risks to persons working in the Palace of Westminster is always of paramount concern. I am not aware, however, of any evidence that there have been any health problems caused by the condition of the stonework in the inner courtyards.

  Hertfordshire County Council
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1984–85 the expenditure of Hertfordshire county council in(a) cash terms and (b) constant price terms.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Rate fund revenue account net current expenditure—Hertfordshire County Council

  Cash

  Real1 (1984–85 prices)

  £ million

  £ million

  1984–85

  326·6

  326·6

  1985–86

  344·7

  327·1

  1986–87

  378·2

  347·2

  1987–88

  399·3

  348·1

  1988–89

  476·1

  387·0

  1989–902

  498·8

  378·9

  1 Using GDP Deflator.

  2 Polytechnics were transferred from the Local Authority Sector in April 1989.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received the manpower watch return for Hertfordshire county council for the third quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  These returns are collected by the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board (LACSAB) on behalf of the joint staffing watch (previously the joint manpower watch). I understand that Hertfordshire county council has not yet provided a return for the third quarter of 1989.

  Glis Glis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 781, if he will place in the Library details of the specific conditions applied to the licence for trapping glis glis and, when available, the written report on the licences required by him.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have placed in the Library a sample copy of one of the current licences to trap glis glis. I will write to the hon. Member with details of the returns from the local authorities when they are available.

  Environmental Labelling
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on 9 January,Official Report, column 589, (1) if he will estimate the cost of establishing and running the advisory group to study further an environmental labelling scheme and (2) (i)
  434
  how many individuals will serve on the advisory body, (ii) how many civil servants will support the advisory body and (iii) will the members of the advisory body be (a) full or part-time and (b) salaried.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The answers are:

  (1) no more than £ 10,000 in 1990–91 to cover travel and subsistence costs of the group's members;

  (2) (i) the composition of the group is not yet finalised, but is expected to include some 12 members;

  (2) (ii) support from officials is not expected to exceed the equivalent of half a full-time post;

  (2) (iii) (a) part time; (b) unsalaried.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the cost to business of complying with the Government's product eco-labelling scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is not possible to give any estimates of cost since we are still in the early stages of discussing an eco-labelling initiative at the EC level. We are clear, however, that companies' participation in an eco-labelling scheme should be on a voluntary basis, and any charges made will have to be commercially acceptable if their participation is to be secured.

  Nirex (Waste Disposal Site)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on Nirex's plan to establish a new site for waste disposal in the north; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In March last year the Government accepted Nirex's report on the development of a deep disposal facility for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House. Nirex is currently awaiting the result of a planning application for the drilling of test boreholes at Dounreay. At Sellafield, the local planning authority has recently approved an application to drill a second investigatory borehole. Only when these site investigations are complete will Nirex be able to submit proposals for a substantive development.

  Waste Management Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will be represented at the Waste Management 90 conference to be held in Tucson, Arizona, between 25 February and 1 March.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are not aware of this conference, but would be interested to see the details if the hon. Member would care to provide them.

  Mortgage Rates
  Mr. Clive Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average gross mortgage rate of the building societies from March 1974 to May 1979; and what was the same rate from June 1979 to January 1990.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The estimated average gross mortgage interest rates of building societies for the periods March 1974 to May 1979 and June 1979 to October 1989 are 10·8 per cent, and 12·4 per cent., respectively.

  Water Act 1989
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total value of land and assets privatised under the Water Act 1989; and what were the net proceeds of the sale.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information on the assets of all the water holding companies was set out in the water share offers prospectus in November 1989. I will report the proceeds of the water share offers and associated costs to Parliament shortly.

  Public Footpaths
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to increase significantly the severity of sanctions against developers who proceed with works which render public footpaths unusable without securing the necessary legal authority to stop up or divert the path.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Any failure of developers to observe the proper procedures in respect of public rights of way is to be deplored, but powers are already available to enable authorities to take appropriate action in such cases and we are therefore not convinced that further legislation is necessary.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has as to the(a) quantities and (b) locations of low-level radioactive waste dumped in England outside of Nirex sites; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his policy on allowing the dumping of radioactive wastes on sites overlying major aquifers;

  (3) what is his policy on permitting the dumping of radioactive waste in ordinary sites close to centres of population;

  (4) what mechanism of public consultation is available before dumping of radioactive wastes can proceed on sites which have been given planning permission for domestic landfill.

  Mr. Trippier
  Any waste disposal site licensed by a waste disposal authority under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 may receive low-level radioactive waste where such a disposal method is authorised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Such authorisations impose strict conditions and activity limits and are issued only after careful assessment is made of the environmental impact of proposed disposals, including any possible impact on water supplies, to ensure that doses to the public are below the maximum permissible limits as recommended by the International Committee on Radiological Protection. Consultation with local and other public authorities is required by the Act before authorisations are issued to non-nuclear premises where the disposal requires special precautions to be taken by any local or public authority.

  The Department does not maintain a central record of the quantities of low-level radioactive waste disposed of through local disposal routes nor of specific disposal locations. However, a condition of authorisation requires waste producers to keep proper and detailed records relating to their disposals. These records as well as the
  436
  premises or sites concerned are subject to scrutiny by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspectors and in cases where a disposal requires special precautions to be taken, both Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and local waste disposal authorities are notified by the operator of the nature and destination of individual consignments of radioactive waste due for disposal.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what notification he has received as to the quantities of radioactive waste to be dumped at Arpley Meadows, Warrington.

  Mr. Trippier
  The quantities of low-level solid radioactive wastes proposed to be disposed of at Walton Arpley landfill site are as follows:—

  i less than 3·5 gigabecquerels per annum of radionuclides of a half-life not exceeding one year; and

  ii. less than 1·0 gigabequerels per annum of carbon 14 and tritium.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at Arpley Meadows, near Warrington.

  Mr. Trippier
  There have been four representations made to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution of my Department on the proposals to authorise the disposal of low-level solid radioactive waste at Walton Arpley landfill site. No technical objections have been raised and my Department is fully satisfied that the proposals are sound.

  Sewage Treatment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sewage treatment plants in England and Wales use the root-zone method to reduce river eutrophication.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The root-zone method of sewage treatment is claimed to be a cost-effective treatment of sewage for small communities. In the United Kingdom it is not primarly used to control the discharge of nutrients and is not noticeably better in this respect than conventional sewage treatment.

  I understand that there are currently some 35 trial or test sites in England and Wales at which the process is being evaluated.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is available for the National Rivers Authority and sewage undertakers on(a) controlling the level of phosphates entering rivers and lakes and (b) the maximum acceptable concentration of phosphates in rivers and lakes to prevent deleterious effects on waters of high wildlife interest.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for the quality of rivers and lakes and for controlling discharges into these waters, and makes it own decisions on these matters. There are no national guidelines for rivers and lakes.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the proportion of the National Rivers Authority budget for 1990–91 which has been allocated for the purposes of promoting the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on the aquatic, environment.
  437
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am informed by the National Rivers Authority that its 1990–91 budget identifies activities estimated to cost £1·282 million which are aimed specifically at conservation of flora and fauna. Further costs incurred in the course of carrying out tasks whose primary aim is not conservation cannot at present be identified.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give figures to show section 3A grant payments by English Heritage for 1984–85 to 1990–91 in cash and real terms; and if he will provide similar figures excluding payments to ex-Greater London council properties;

  (2) if he will give figures to show the expenditure by English Heritage on the maintenance and repair of historic buildings from 1984–85 to 1990–91 in real terms using 1984–85 as the base year;

  £ million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1990–91

  Annual grant-in-aid

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  Special allocations

  25·0

  10·5

  —

  20·0

  —

  —

  The Office of Arts and Libraries provides an equal amount of annual grant-in-aid to the fund. The special allocation in 1984–85 was to enable the fund to assist in securing the future of three important heritage properties for the nation: Kedleston hall, Nostell priory and Weston park. The special allocations in 1985–86 and 1986–87 were to assist the fund in meeting increased demand on their resources in those years. The latest public expenditure White Paper provides for continuing annual grant-in-aid of £1·5 million in 1991–92 and 1992–93, with a matching provision from the Office of Arts and Libraries.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on which of the developments being carried out under the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 the uniform business rate will be payable.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Once the works are completed, the occupiers of the Channel tunnel and the land, structures and buildings associated with it will become liable to non-domestic rating in the usual way under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on which of the developments proposed in the British Rail (No. 3) Bill, including the Borough Green loop, the uniform business rate will be payable.

  Mr. David Hunt
  All the works that British Rail proposes to occupy would form part of its rateable hereditament and contribute to the board's liability for rates.

  Mr. Richard Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the net inflow or outflow of uniform business rate revenue for each local authority in England.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: I expect to receive shortly from local authorities their estimates of
  438
  (3) if he will give figures to show the expenditure by English Heritage on conservation area and town scheme grants, respectively, in real terms from 1984–85 to 1990–91 using 1984–85 as the base year.

  Mr. Trippier
  Detailed expenditure figures for section 3A grants, historic building grants generally, and conservation area and town scheme grants are matters for English Heritage. I have asked the chairman, Lord Montagu, to write to the hon. Member.

  National Heritage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the annual grant to the national heritage memorial fund from his Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what is the budget figure for 1989–90 and the estimates to 1992–93.

  Mr. Trippier
  Grant-in-aid to the National Heritage Memorial Fund from the Department is as follows:

  the likely amount of non-domestic rates which they will collect in 1990–91. Meanwhile I have placed in the Library the Government's own preliminary estimates of the amount which each charging authority in England will collect and the actual amount which each authority will receive from the national non-domestic rating pool. In addition, of course, authorities will receive revenue support grant so that (subject to the effect of the safety net) a standard level of service can broadly be provided everywhere in England for the same community charge. So authorities are compensated for any net outflow of business rate income to the extent necessary to enable them to provide this standard level of service.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning the uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received a great many representations about the uniform business rate and the non-domestic revaluation. The Government believe that there is general acceptance that the new system will remove the distortions caused by widely varying local poundages and outdated rateable values and will, once the transition is complete, make rates a much more predictable and stable element of business costs than has been the case in the past.

  Thomas Harrison Bust
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will call for a report from the director of the Merseyside task force on its handling of the Thomas Harrison bust following its possession of the Lyceum club, Liverpool;

  (2) on what basis his Department loaned the Thomas Harrison bust to the Post Office; and if he will make a statement;
  439
  (3) when his Department took out an insurance policy on the Thomas Harrison bust, formerly of the Lyceum club, Liverpool.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Government Buildings (Rates)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his best estimates of the total amount of non-domestic rate to be paid on Government buildings in(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The amount of the contribution in aid of non-domestic rating paid in respect of Crown property in England is estimated as £572·3 million in 1989–90 and £631 million in 1990–91.

  Marine Nature Reserves
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list existing designated marine nature reserves and list the other areas under consideration for such designations.

  Mr. Trippier
  One statutory marine nature reserve at Lundy island has been designated so far. The Nature Conservancy Council has identified the following additional sites as being suitable for marine nature reserve status: Skomer Island and the Marloes Peninsula; Menai Straits; Loch Sween; St. Abbs Head, Bardsey Island and the Lleyn Peninsula; and the Isles of Scilly.

  Archaeological Sites, London
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the activities of treasure hunters on archaeological sites in London.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. As elsewhere in the country, any person in London wishing to seek objects hidden beneath the surface of a scheduled archaeological site by means of a metal detector must first seek a licence for its use from English Heritage. The last such licence was issued in August 1988.

  Environmental Protection (Training)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has figures for the number of people employed in training schemes leading to qualifications in environmental protection or environmental improvement techniques for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department does not hold figures on the number of people employed in the United Kingdom by a wide range of bodies, both public and private, on environmental protection and improvement activities.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many dwellings were let by local authorities between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989(a) to new secure tenants and (b) to new secure tenants who were homeless households (1) in inner London, (2) in
  440
  outer London, (3) in non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) in non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) in metropolitan areas outside London and (6) in England as a whole;

  (2) how many households and how many homeless households, respectively, took up nominations by local authorities between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 (1) in inner London, (2) in outer London, (3) in non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) in non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) in metropolitan areas outside London and (6) in England as a whole;

  (3) how many households local authorities accepted between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 (a) as homeless and (b) as homeless and in priority need (1) in inner London, (2) in outer London, (3) in non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) in non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) in metropolitan areas outside London and (6) in England as a whole;

  (4) how many households were registered on local authority housing waiting lists on 1 April 1989 (a) in inner London, (b) in outer London, (c) in non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (d) in non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (e) in metropolitan areas outside London and (f) in England as a whole;

  (5) how many local authority dwellings (a) were vacant and available for letting on 1 April 1988 and (b) became available for letting between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 (i) through new build, (ii) through acquisition or conversion and (iii) through other means (1) in inner London, (2) in outer London, (3) in non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) in non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) in metropolitan areas outside London and (6) in England as a whole;

  (6) how many dwellings were let by local authorities between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 (a) to new non-secure tenants and (b) to new non-secure tenants who were homeless households (1) in inner London, (2) in outer London, (3) in non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) in non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) in metropolitan areas outside London and (6) in England as a whole;

  (7) how many dwellings were let between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 (a) in total and (b) to homeless households (i) through the national mobility scheme; (ii) through the housing association liaison office and (iii) through other mobility schemes (1) in inner London, (2) in outer London, (3) in non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) in non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) in metropolitan areas outside London and (6) in England as a whole;

  (8) how many dwellings were let by local authorities between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 to homeless households referred by other local authorities under the Housing Act 1985 part III, section 68 (a) in inner London, (b) in outer London, (c) in non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (d) in non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (e) in metropolitan areas outside London and (f) in England as a whole.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: Following are estimates from local authorities' annual housing investment programme re turns (HIP1) for April 1989:
  441

  Local authority lettings 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Inner London

  Outer London

  Non-metropolitan areas in South East

  Non-metropolitan areas outside South East

  Metropolitan areas outside London

  England

  Dwellings let to:

  New secure tenants

  15,500

  11,900

  26,200

  78,500

  89,600

  221,700

  of which homeless households

  9,400

  7,200

  7,400

  18,500

  19,300

  61,800

  New non-secure tenants

  3,700

  1,600

  3,300

  3,600

  1,500

  13,700

  of which homeless households

  3,000

  1,500

  2,800

  2,600

  600

  10,400

  Dwellings let through:

  National mobility or local authority mobility scheme (NMS/LAMS)

  2,300

  1,100

  1,000

  2,300

  1,800

  8,600

  of which homeless households

  1,000

  200

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,200

  Housing association liaison office (HALO)

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  of which homeless households

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Other mobility schemes

  100

  100

  200

  300

  100

  800

  of which homeless households

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Dwellings let to homeless households referred by other local authorities under section 68, Housing Act 1985 between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989

  300

  200

  100

  200

  200

  1,000

  Nominations to housing associations

  2,000

  1,300

  1,400

  5,300

  7,800

  17,800

  of which homeless households

  900

  500

  100

  400

  800

  2,600

  Total households accepted as homeless 1988–89

  17,500

  11,600

  16,600

  33,500

  38,300

  117,400

  of which in priority need

  16,400

  11,300

  15,800

  31,800

  31,800

  107,200

  Households on waiting lists at 1 April 1989

  139,900

  104,200

  205,000

  488,000

  313,000

  1,250,000

  Dwellings vacant and available for letting on 1 April 1988

  2,600

  1,600

  3,600

  8,000

  8,800

  24,600

  Dwellings coming into management during 1988–89 which were:

  (a) Newly built

  900

  800

  6,400

  6,300

  1,700

  16,200

  (b) Acquisition etc.

  1,100

  800

  2,000

  4,400

  4,700

  13,000

  Other dwellings which became available for letting

  31,800

  24,400

  55,700

  138,100

  154,100

  404,000

  Total dwellings available for letting 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  36,500

  27,600

  67,600

  157,000

  169,300

  457,900

  1 Less than 50.

  Local Government Finance (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply he has sent to the letter dated 14 December 1989 from the treasurer of Eastbourne borough council concerning the figure for the resident population of the borough for the purpose of calculating its standard spending assessment; and if he will make an amending report.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 1 February 1990]This letter was acknowledged and treated as a representation from the council about the intended contents of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered the council's point, along with those of other authorities which had made representations, before reaching his decisions. Those decisions were embodied in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) laid before the House on 11 January and approved on 18 January. A copy of that report has been sent to Eastbourne borough council.

  My right hon. Friend decided not to adopt the suggestion put forward by the council but to use population estimates produced by the Registrar General for England and Wales as he initially proposed. We have no plans to change this or to make an amendment report at present.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 27 November 1989 referring to Rugby borough council.
  442
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 1 February 1990]I have written to my hon. Friend today.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the numbers of mortgage repossessions taken by(a) building societies and (b) local authorities in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 1 February 1990]: The information is as follows:—

  (a) Mortgage repossessions by building societies: United Kingdom

  Year

  Number

  As a percentage of loans at end of period

  1979

  2,530

  0·048

  1980

  3,020

  0·056

  1981

  4,240

  0·077

  1982

  5,950

  0·105

  1983

  7,320

  0·123

  1984

  10,870

  0·171

  1985

  16,770

  0·250

  1986

  20,930

  0·296

  1987

  22,930

  0·319

  1988

  16,150

  0·215

  19891

  6,350

  0·083

  1First half.

  (b) Mortgage repossessions by local authorities: England

  Year

  Number

  As a percentage of loans at end of period

  1979–80

  1,100

  n/a

  1980–81

  1,000

  0·14

  1981–82

  1,100

  0·16

  1982–83

  950

  0·14

  443

  Year

  Number

  As a percentage of loans at end of period

  1983–84

  840

  0·13

  1984–85

  570

  0·10

  1985–86

  630

  0·13

  1986–87

  490

  0·12

  1987–88

  330

  0·10

  1988–89

  170

  0·06

  n/a = Not available.

  In addition some 100 to 150 additional properties reverted to local authority ownership as a result of vesting.

  Children at Risk
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 30 January, if he will list the factors taken into account in the children at risk index; and how they have operated in the case of the figure given in his answer for Humberside.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 Februrary 1990]The factors which are taken into account in calculating the children at risk index are as follows:

  (i) the number of children aged under 18 years of age resident in each authority;

  (ii) the proportion of children living in private households containing a lone parent;

  (iii) the proportion of children dependent on a claimant receiving Supplementary Benefit or Income Support;

  (iv) the proportion of children living in private housholds in rented accommodation.

  The weight given to each of these indicators and full details of the children's social services standard spending assessment are given in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 30 January on the Humberside and national average figures for children at risk, what factors have caused the SSA allocation for child care for Humberside to be lower than the preceding grant-related expenditure allocation.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]I refer the hon. Member to my separate answer to him on 30 January at column 171.

  Archaeological Sites, London
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Metropolitan police about investigating thefts from scheduled archaeological sites in London.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor his advisers English Heritage have received any reports of thefts from scheduled archaeological sites in London. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has announced the Government's intention to seek legislation to strengthen controls over scheduled sites by making it an offence to remove any finds whether or not discovered by a metal detector. At present objects may be removed from a scheduled site without consent, if found on the surface. The general laws of trespass and theft apply to 444
  archaeological sites that are not scheduled as they do elsewhere.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the maximum levels of(a) mercury and (b) lead allowed in sewage sludge to be dumped at sea.

  Mr. Curry
  Current United Kingdom licences for disposal of sewage sludge to sea set a maximum total annual input of 2·7 tonnes of mercury and 248 tonnes of lead.

  The quantities of these metals entering the North sea in sewage sludge dumping is only about 1 per cent, of the total inputs of these metals to the North sea, most of which result from river discharges from continental countries, atmospheric inputs and disposals of dredged spoil.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each London local authority(a) the amount reduced from their grant in 1990–91 to fund London Regional Transport and (b) the amount of the levy upon them in 1989–90; and on what basis he has calculated the reduced grant figure.

  Mr. Chope
  The grant for 1990–91 of London local authorities has not been reduced to fund London Regional Transport (LRT). The cost of funding LRT which until 1989–90 fell on London ratepayers through the LRT levy will, from April 1990, be borne by the Exchequer; this is reflected in the total amount of revenue support grant for 1990–91. The LRT levy was 9·06p in 1989–90; I estimate that it will yield about £188·6 million.

  The Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) for 1990–91 of London boroughs and the City of London have been reduced by the equivalent of about £24 per adult to reflect the fact that these authorities do not provide support for public transport. The basis of this calculation is set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) laid before the House on 11 January. The total reduction is £121·275 million.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any conveniently available figures for the costs of running the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill Committee stage after 9 pm.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  It is not possible to identify separately such costs.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what percentage of paper used for official duties in the House of Commons is recycleable.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  All the paper that is provided by Her Majesty's Stationery Office for official use in the House of Commons can be recycled. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee is considering ways in which recycled material can be used more widely for House stationery and parliamentary publications.

  Pedestrian Crossing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ask Westminster city council to provide a further pedestrian crossing to facilitate safe crossing from Old Palace Yard and other Members' offices to the Palace of Westminster near the House of Lords entrance.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee is at present considering a proposal from Westminster city council for the installation of various traffic and pedestrian management schemes in and around Parliament square designed to speed up traffic flow. I understand that the installation of a pedestrian crossing from Old Palace Yard would run counter to these proposals.

  Lancashire
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many debates on Lancashire there have been in the last 12 months.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  In the 12 months to 31 January, four Adjournment debates related specifically to Lancashire.

  Members' Staff (Employment Contracts)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many reminder notices have been sent by the Fees Office to hon. Members about the need for contracts of employment in respect of staff paid via the Fees Office.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Reminder notices were sent to all Members in March 1988. In November 1989 further reminder letters were sent to 333 Members in respect of 523 employees (secrataries and research assistants) in respect of whom statements of main conditions of employment, and so on, were still outstanding. Additionally, since March 1988, Members engaging new staff have, where necessary, been individually reminded of the requirement to provide such statements.

  Westminster Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will initiate a review of the uses of Westminster Hall.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  If the hon. Member has a specific proposal he should, in the first instance, address it to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

  Queen's Consent
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the Bills so far requiring the Queen's Consent this Session on(a) Second Reading and (b) Third Reading.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Of the Bills introduced in the Commons and printed so far this Session, the Reform of the House of Lords Bill will require the Queen's Consent on Second Reading: and the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill, the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill, the Environmental Protection Bill, the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill, the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, and the Social Security Bill will require the Queen's consent on Third Reading.

  Members' Staff
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) how many research assistants are currently employed by hon. Members;

  (2) how many secretaries are currently employed by hon. Members.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The total number of persons employed by hon. Members and paid directly from the Members' office costs allowance is currently 1,270. Since job titles ascribed to Members' employees vary considerably and do not conveniently fit into the categories specified, it is not possible to provide a meaningful breakdown.

  Library (Beetles)
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will investigate whether there is any evidence of the Australian spider beetle Ptinus Tectus or the bread beetle Stegobium Paniceum in the books in the Library; and what steps he is taking to avoid damage to the books by these beetles.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The House of Commons Library has a continuous cleaning and conservation programme for its books, which up to now has afforded no evidence of infestation by beetles. However, in the light of current concern, Library staff have already been asked to be alert for any signs of beetle activity. Appropriate control measures would be taken immediately if any such evidence came to light.

  Secondhand books acquired by the Library will be examined for any signs of paper decay before they are added to stock, and similar provisions will be adopted for older books borrowed for Members from other libraries.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  St. Luke's School, West Norwood
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he gave to the need to alter and extend St. Luke's school, West Norwood, when considering the building programme approved for Lambeth for 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend took careful account of the proposal put forward by Lambeth for a building project at St. Luke's school, West Norwood. Although we increased the amount available for new voluntary aided building works in 1990–91 by 17 per cent, compared with 1989–90, project bids exceeded the resources available. Priority was given first to projects for additional school places in areas of population growth, then to building work which governors have a statutory duty to undertake as a result of proposals approved under section 13 of the Education Act 1980 and, thirdly, to projects for the improvement or replacement of inadequate buildings.

  The project at St. Luke's fell in the third category and was one of a number of projects in that category which could not be accommodated in the 1990–91 programme.

  Oxburgh Report
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has taken to implement the Oxburgh report on earth sciences.

  Mr. Jackson
  Implementation of the report on the rationalisation of universities' earth sciences departments is a matter for the Universities Funding Council, in consultation with the institutions concerned.

  Salary Arrears
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science who will be responsible for discharging the Inner London education authority's responsibilities after 31 March 1990 in respect of any salary arrears due to(a) teachers in schools and (b) teachers in colleges of further education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In general, liabilities in relation to salary arrears of teachers in ILEA-maintained schools or colleges of further education will become the responsibility of the new inner London education authorities from 1 April.

  Haberdashers' Aske's CTC
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further advice or undertakings he has given in respect of the payment of transitional and capital costs for the proposed Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college as a result of his meeting with representatives of the Haberdashers' Company this week.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave on 15 and 23 January 1990. Discussions with the Haberdashers' Company have followed the line adopted in these replies.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he anticipates receiving curriculum proposals for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college;

  (2) when he anticipates receiving the results of a detailed feasibility study for the proposed Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In order to equip the Haberdashers' Aske's school to open as a city technology college (CTC)

  Proposals to establish new Voluntary Aided Schools (including amalgamations of existing schools)

  Date published

  LEA

  Name of Proposed School (if known)

  19 December 1989

  Avon

  New CE/Methodist Primary

  12 February 1987

  Barnet

  Hasmonean (Jewish) Preparatory

  24 April 1986

  Brent

  Islamia (Muslim) Primary

  24 August 1989

  Cheshire

  St. Joseph's RC Secondary

  28 September 1989

  Cheshire

  Macclesfield Tytherington CE Primary

  6 September 1989

  Cornwall

  St. Petroc's CE Primary

  1 November 1989

  Derbyshire

  Nagle RC Primary

  13 September 1989

  Devon

  Devonport CE Comprehensive

  15 April 1989

  Kirklees

  Zakaria Muslim Girls' High

  12 July 1989

  Leeds

  13 new CE Primary and two new CE secondary schools

  15 September 198

  Liverpool

  New CE Primary

  20 January 1989

  Norfolk

  St. Mary's RC Primary

  5 May 1989

  Oxfordshire

  St. Mary's CE Primary

  19 October 1989

  Salford

  St. James's RC Primary

  19 October 1989

  Salford

  St. Mary's RC Primary

  3 August 1989

  Sefton

  Crosby RC Primary

  13 December 1989

  Trafford

  New RC Secondary school

  27 October 1989

  Wakefield

  St. Austin's RC Primary

  448
  in September 1991, detailed studies will be required related to the adaptation of buildings and to the CTC's organisation and curriculum. Preliminary studies have been commissioned but are not yet complete.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he anticipates that a governing body for the proposed Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college will be formed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The timing of the formation of the governing body of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college is a matter for the Haberdashers' Aske's City Technology College Trust. My right hon. Friend expects that a governing body will be in existence for the opening of the college in September 1991.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines his Department gives local education authorities on the relationship between planning total primary school numbers and the rising five intakes in the autumn, spring and summer terms.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has issued no such guidance. It is up to local education authorities to decide when to admit children under five to schools, and to make plans for primary provision accordingly.

  Voluntary-aided Status
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those schools which have current applications for voluntary-aided status; and when he expects to make a decision on the applications.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The schools are listed in the table. My right hon. Friend will reach a decision on the proposals as quickly as is compatible with a full and careful consideration of all the issues involved. He has stated that it is his intention to come to a decision on statutory proposals within five months of publication wherever possible. Delays in some cases arise from factors outside the Department's control.
  449

  Proposals to Change Status from Voluntary Controlled to Voluntary Aided

  Date published

  LEA

  Name of Proposed School (if known)

  4 October 1989

  Cheshire

  Davenham CE Primary

  18 August 1989

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  St. Mary's CE Primary

  Local Management Schemes
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table to show such information as he has to hand from the schemes of local management of schools submitted for his approval by education authorities under the headings(a) the value of the general schools budget; (b) the value of the mandatory exceptions; (c) the value of the aggregate schools budget; (d) (b) as a percentage of (a); and (e) (c) as a percentage of (a).

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to her reply, 8 January 1990, c. 485]The following information has been taken from the

  Local education authority

  Mandatory exceptions as percentage of general schools budget

  Total discretionary exceptions as percentage of general schools budget

  Aggregated schools budget as percentage of general schools budget

  Westminster

  6·05

  22·47

  71·48

  Barking

  5·51

  24·63

  69·86

  Barnet

  10·58

  21·02

  68·40

  Bexley

  17·15

  16·87

  65·98

  Brent

  16·21

  20·68

  63·11

  Bromley

  15·86

  19·30

  64·84

  Croydon

  10·82

  20·57

  68·61

  Ealing

  6·45

  20·03

  73·52

  Enfield

  20·65

  17·86

  61·49

  Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Harrow

  10·20

  18·16

  71·64

  Havering

  7·71

  18·87

  73·42

  Hillingdon

  20·43

  20·67

  58·90

  Hounslow

  14·98

  22·40

  62·62

  Kingston

  9·64

  20·87

  69·49

  Merton

  15·58

  17·94

  66·48

  Newham

  21·70

  21·21

  57·09

  Redbridge

  16·23

  17·86

  65·91

  Richmond

  11·12

  20·57

  68·31

  Sutton

  20·58

  20·42

  59·00

  Waltham Forest

  20·35

  20·27

  59·38

  Birmingham

  10·75

  21·16

  68·09

  Coventry

  19·75

  21·37

  58·88

  Dudley

  13·97

  18·05

  67·98

  Sandwell

  8·96

  21·85

  69·19

  Solihull

  14·75

  20·37

  64·88

  Walsall

  13·36

  17·46

  69·18

  Wolverhampton

  12·64

  22·46

  64·90

  Knowsley

  9·62

  18·67

  71·71

  Liverpool

  6·66

  19·94

  73·40

  St. Helens

  12·09

  23·74

  64·17

  Sefton

  7·79

  15·62

  76·59

  Wirral

  10·14

  19·09

  70·77

  Bolton

  10·99

  18·13

  70·88

  Bury

  11·21

  20·60

  68·19

  Manchester

  14·31

  19·72

  65·97

  Oldham

  12·67

  23·04

  64·29

  Rochdale

  14·80

  19·24

  65·96

  Salford

  14·15

  19·95

  65·90

  Stockport

  11·76

  16·34

  71·90

  Tameside

  10·53

  20·92

  68·55

  Trafford

  23·94

  17·85

  58·21

  Wigan

  7·01

  17·50

  75·49

  Barnsley

  7·03

  24·46

  68·51

  Doncaster

  5·78

  24·48

  69·74

  Rotherham

  8·59

  19·15

  72·26

  Sheffield

  11·95

  22·76

  65·29

  Bradford

  17·91

  17·68

  64·41

  Calderdale

  16·17

  23·41

  60·42

  Kirklees

  11·24

  22·93

  65·83

  450
  local management of schools scheme submissions made by local education authorities to my right hon. Friend. The table gives the percentage figures requested; it is not possible to provide comparative cash figures because the information has been supplied using a variety of price bases.

  The full information requested by my hon. Friend, relating to 1990–91 budgets, will be available in the spring from statements published by all local education authorities with approved schemes under section 42 of the Education Reform Act.
  451

  Local education authority

  Mandatory exceptions as percentage of general schools budget

  Total discretionary exceptions as percentage of general schools budget

  Aggregated schools budget as percentage of general schools budget

  Leeds

  15·25

  17·54

  67·21

  Wakefield

  9·18

  23·33

  67·49

  Gateshead

  11·06

  19·54

  69·40

  Newcastle

  12·55

  24·05

  63·40

  North Tyneside

  9·32

  21·80

  68·88

  South Tyneside

  11·68

  26·38

  61·94

  Sunderland

  9·47

  19·18

  71·35

  Isles of Scilly

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Avon

  10·91

  23·49

  65·60

  Bedfordshire

  15·86

  16·58

  67·56

  Berkshire

  14·77

  16·98

  68·25

  Buckinghamshire

  14·53

  16·51

  68·96

  Cambridgeshire

  13·69

  22·18

  64·13

  Cheshire

  8·54

  21·02

  70·44

  Cleveland

  9·46

  20·35

  70·19

  Cornwall

  12·57

  21·87

  65·56

  Cumbria

  11·58

  27·13

  61·29

  Derbyshire

  7·16

  26·17

  66·67

  Devon

  7·82

  23·26

  68·92

  Dorset

  10·13

  22·74

  67·13

  Durham

  8·19

  22·90

  68·91

  East Sussex

  9·74

  23·44

  66·82

  Essex

  11·10

  17·93

  70·97

  Gloucestershire

  9·81

  20·88

  69·31

  Hampshire

  16·33

  16·07

  67·60

  Hereford and Worcester

  12·58

  19·87

  67·55

  Hertfordshire

  9·49

  23·25

  67·26

  Humberside

  7·47

  1972

  72·81

  Isle of Wight

  13·33

  22·37

  64·30

  Kent

  9·47

  16·62

  73·91

  Lancashire

  11·81

  20·93

  67·26

  Leicestershire

  11·60

  21·55

  66·85

  Lincolnshire

  10·17

  16·60

  73·23

  Norfolk

  8·09

  19·05

  72·86

  North Yorkshire

  6·67

  23·95

  69·38

  Northamptonshire

  11·30

  16·46

  72·24

  Northumberland

  9·52

  22·42

  68·06

  Nottinghamshire

  7·97

  22·97

  69·06

  Oxfordshire

  8·73

  19·70

  71·57

  Shropshire

  9·05

  19·94

  71·01

  Somerset

  13·72

  20·32

  65·96

  Staffordshire

  11·09

  22·35

  66·56

  Suffolk

  14·91

  18·82

  66·27

  Surrey

  6·45

  22·68

  70·87

  Warwickshire

  5·55

  21·95

  72·50

  West Sussex

  11·77

  13·26

  74·97

  Wiltshire

  12·34

  18·10

  69·56

  n/a = Not available.

ENERGY

  Sizewell B
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the timetable for commissioning and the future of Sizewell B power station in Suffolk.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government attach the highest importance to the completion and operation of Sizewell B by Nuclear Electric. The commissioning of the station will be a matter for the company.

  Adviser

  Area

  From

  To

  Kleinwort Benson

  Financial

  1987

  continuing

  Touche Ross

  Regulatory and Accounting

  August 1987

  continuing

  Slaughter & May

  Legal

  August 1987

  continuing

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all organisations which have advised or are now advising his Department on any aspect of the privatisation of electricity, giving in each case the dates of their involvement and, in each case, the aspect on which they advise.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is as follows:
  453

  Adviser

  Area

  From

  To

  Professor Littlechild

  Regulatory

  November 1987

  May 1989

  James Capel

  Lead Brokers

  May 1988

  continuing

  Lowe Bell

  Marketing and Public Relations

  July 1988

  continuing

  Merz & McLellan

  Technical

  August 1987

  continuing

  Lloyds Bank

  Receiving Bank and Registrar

  August 1988

  continuing

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Reporting Accountants

  1988

  continuing

  Price Waterhouse

  Reporting Accountants

  1988

  continuing

  Peat Marwick Mclintock

  Reporting Accountants

  1988

  continuing

  Binder Hamlyn

  Reporting Accountants

  1988

  continuing

  Ernst & Whinney

  Reporting Accountants

  1988

  continuing

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Reporting Accountants

  1988

  continuing

  Spicer & Oppenheim

  Reporting Accountants

  1988

  continuing

  Touche Ross

  Reporting Accountants

  1988

  continuing

  BM RB

  Market Research

  August 1988

  continuing

  Davis Polk & Wardwell

  United States Lawyers

  September 1988

  continuing

  Russell Reynolds

  Headhunters Chair NEEB

  December 1988

  February 1989

  Osier Renault

  Canadian Lawyers

  February 1989

  continuing

  Anderson Mori & Rabinowitz

  Japanese Lawyers

  March 1989

  continuing

  Goldman Sachs

  United States Financial

  December 1988

  continuing

  Wood Gundy

  Canadian Financial

  March 1989

  continuing

  Nomura

  Japanese Financial

  March 1989

  continuing

  Credit Suisse First Boston

  European Financial

  June 1989

  continuing

  Saxton Bampfylde

  Headhunters

  1989

  1989

  DG Electricity Supply

  NORWEB

  June 1989

  October 1989

  Price Waterhouse

  Common Areas

  1988

  continuing

  The VPI Group

  Joint Marketing Advisers successor generation Comp's

  February 1989

  January 1990

  Jones Lang Wootton

  Property adviser

  March 1989

  continuing

  UKAEA

  AGR output

  September 1989

  October 1989

  Nuclear Services Group

  Decommissioning costs

  1989

  1989

  Lamb and Edge

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Grimley J. R. Eve

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Gerald Eve

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Knight Frank Rutley

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Weatherall Green & Smith

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Debenham Tewson & Cheshire

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Hartnell Taylor & Cook

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Connell Hallum & Brackett

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Matthews & Goodman

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Cook & Arkwright

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  454 455

  Adviser

  Area

  From

  To

  Bernard Thorpe

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Henry Butcher

  Property Valuers

  June 1989

  continuing

  Lloyd Northover

  Design Consultants

  January 1990

  continuing

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Salary advisers

  July 1989

  continuing

  Williams Lee

  Printing Advice

  April 1989

  continuing

  Dewe Rogerson

  Marketing and Public Relations

  February 1990

  continuing

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the organisations known by his Department to have advised or now to be advising any parts of the electricity supply industry on any aspects of privatisation, giving in each case the dates of their involvement and the aspect on which they have advised.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for the industry. I have therefore asked the Electricity Council, in respect of the area boards, and the CEGB, in respect of National Power, PowerGen and the National Grid Company, to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what co-ordination there is between the electricity industry and his Department on privatisation advertising.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Advertising by the industry to promote its goods and services is a matter for the industry itself. Currently there is no advertising for the forthcoming offers for sale. I have, jointly with the electricity supply industry, appointed Dewe Rogerson to develop and co-ordinate a marketing strategy and we shall consider the need for advertising in the light of this strategy.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current estimate of the total fees which will be paid by his Department in the course of electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Total costs of privatisation will be made available once flotation has been completed. Expenditure to the end of March 1989 amounted to £6·3 million and provision has been made for £30 million for the current year. Latest forecasts of requirements for 1990–91 will be published as part of the supply Estimates in March.
  456
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy why his officials have briefed the press that the value of the electricity supply industry for privatisation will be £7 billion; and how this valuation was arrived at.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government have not published estimates of the value of the electricity supply industry. It would be premature to do so, since the value will depend on many factors, including market conditions at the time of the sale.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he, or his officials, have had with the electricity supply industry about electricity price increases this year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Ministers and officials have had many discussions with the industry on a wide range of subjects.

  Coal-fired Power Station, Bilsthorpe
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his reply on 29 January,Official Report, column 13, what information he has received from British Coal on the cancellation of the proposal to build a coal-fired power station at Bilsthorpe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions on the investment in the joint venture power station at Bilsthorpe are a matter for the partners involved. I am not aware of any decision to cancel the project.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Europe (Aid)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he will provide updated public expenditure estimates for the Overseas Development Administration and for the component of overseas aid, in the light of Government commitment for economic assistance to eastern Europe, which were not fully included in table 2.1 of Cm 1002, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93";

  (2) whether the estimated total expenditure for the Overseas Development Administration will be increased in the light of recent commitments for economic assistance to eastern Europe; from which reserves any aid to eastern Europe will be paid for; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Table 2.1 of Cm. 1002 lists the provision of £5 million in respect of the original commitment of the Polish know-how fund of £25 million over five years. The expenditure implications of the specific new commitments to eastern Europe since the survey will be reflected in next year's public expenditure White Paper. For 1990–91 we expect to seek main Estimates provision for assistance to eastern Europe of £15 million to cover expenditure under the know-how fund. Supplementary Estimate provision for 1990–91 and later years may be sought when the public expenditure implications of other commitments, such as that for the Polish agricultural project, are clearer.

DEFENCE

  Low-flying Exercises
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum length of time within which aircrew can acquire the appropriate training and requisite skills necessary for participation in low-flying exercises; and whether the appropriate training and requisite skills specified for these exercises differ from those required for exercises which do not involve low flying.

  Mr. Neubert
  No specific length of time is set for aircrew to acquire the appropriate training and requisite skills necessary for participation in low-flying exercises. As aircrew progress through training, the exercises that are undertaken will depend on the experience level of the individual aircrew concerned and the stage of training that they have reached. Low-flying training is designed to ensure that the aircrew concerned acquire the skills needed to meet the particular demands of the low-level environment.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is planning to recall any of the Polaris submarines for safety checks of their nuclear reactors.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No submarines are being recalled from operational tasks. Following the recent discovery of a technical defect in one of our nuclear-powered submarines, all such vessels are, however, being inspected as a precautionary measure when they come alongside.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is planning to retire Britain's two Valiant class submarines.
  458
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These vessels will be retired at the end of their useful operational life.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the integrity of Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines' reactor-cooling circuits.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on specific features of the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarines. These vessels are, however, designed and operated in accordance with rigorous safety standards.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment has been made of the risk to Royal Navy submarine personnel from radiation leaks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government attach very high priority to the safety of the crews of Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines, which operate in accordance with rigorous safety standards. All Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines and personnel, where appropriate, are subject to stringent monitoring procedures.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the total number of documents relating to Colin Wallace which have been discovered; what were the dates when each was found; and when Ministers were notified on each occasion;

  (2) what month early in 1989 the documents relating to Colin Wallace were discovered, by whom, where and when this information was given to Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the information which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out in a letter dated 2 February 1990 to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the additional information which has now become available on the issues raised by Colin Wallace, he will reassess the answers provided by his Department's Ministers to the hon. Member for Southend, East on the complaints by Captain Fred Holroyd.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Papers recently found on Mr. Wallace do not affect answers given on the complaints made by Mr. Holroyd on his own behalf.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature of the file provided on behalf of Colin Wallace to his Department and to the Prime Minister's office late in 1984; and what was the nature of the inquiry then initiated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The file contained a selection of background information concerning Mr. Wallace's allegations. These papers were considered by officials and a reply was sent to Mr. Holroyd from the Prime Minister's office.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  AIDS
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his AIDS education programme among(a) prison officers and (b) prisoners.

  Mr. Waddington
  A resource package, "AIDS Inside", designed for prison officers has been in use since August 1987. The package is used in the initial training of new entrant prison officers and in the development training programmes of individual establishments. The target for governors in the present training year (ending 31 March 1990) is to deliver the package to all operational staff who have not received such training in earlier years. Refresher training will begin in 1991–92.

  The latest phase of the prisoner education programme began in March 1989 with the introduction of the resource package, "AIDS Inside and Out". Governors have been set a stringent target for 1989–90 of delivering the package (or, failing that, showing the 20-minute video which is the core element of the package) to all willing prisoners who are in custody for four weeks or longer. They have been asked to say how they have progressed in meeting that target in their next annual report.

  Crime (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of crimes in London in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Persons received under sentence into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales: by ethnic origin and court sentencing 1988

  Court sentencing

  White

  West Indian Guyanese African

  Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi

  Chinese Arab Mixed origin

  Other not recorded (including refusals)

  All receptions under sentence

  Crown Court

  52

  71

  68

  63

  69

  54

  Magistrates' courts

  48

  29

  32

  37

  31

  46

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage of sentenced prisoners in England and Wales who emanate from an ethnic minority for the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]The latest readily available information is given in
  the table:

  Population under sentence in prison service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1989: by ethnic origin

  Ethnic origin

  Percentage

  White

  83

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  10

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  3

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  2

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  2

  All sentenced persons in prison service establishment

  100

  Badgers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were instigated, and how many were successful, in the most
  460
  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested for 1979 is published in table 32 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1979", Cmnd 8098. The information for the whole of 1989 is not yet available but figures for the 12 months to the end of September 1989 are published in table 5 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 43/89. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Archaeological Sites (Thefts)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests and (b) convictions there have been in the past year for the offence of theft from scheduled archaeological sites.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not
  available

  Sentenced Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of all sentenced prisoners who (i) emanated from an ethnic minority and (ii) are white were sentenced by(a) a Crown court and (b) a magistrates court during 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]The information is given in the table:

  recent year for which figures are available, in connection with badger baiting; what was the maximum penalty levied; if he plans to introduce any further controls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]In 1988, the last year for which information is available, there were 74 prosecutions under the Badgers Act 1973. There were convictions in 41 cases and the largest fine was for £700. It is not possible to say how many of these cases involved badger baiting.

  Badger baiting may lead to an offence also under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, although no separate records are kept of such cases.

  I am considering sympathetically a proposal by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) to provide that a person convicted under the Badgers Act 1973 may be disqualified from keeping a dog. Otherwise there are no plans for further legislation relating to badger baiting.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ensure that job vetting by private, non-Government employers involving the
  461
  security services complies with the European Convention on Human Rights in providing an effective remedy to those adversely affected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wadding ton
  The Security Service Act 1989 ensures that United Kingdom law relating to the Security Service is fully consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population in England and Wales for the latest available date; and how many of those prisoners had been sentenced by:(a) a crown court and (b) a magistrates' court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: On 26 January 1990 there were 46,630 prisoners in prison service establishments in England and Wales.

  Details of sentencing courts are published annually in prison statistics England and Wales (table 1.15 of the latest volume, for 1988 (Cm. 825)), copies of which are in the Library. The latest available information is for June 1989 and is given in the table.

  Population under sentence in Prison Service establishments on 30 June 1989: by court sentencing

  Court Sentencing

  Number1

  Crown Court

  33,100

  Magistrates' court

  3,400

  Other courts

  100

  Not recorded

  1,500

  Total sentenced population

  38,000

  1 Provisional figures.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Accounts
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies still have not filed accounts with the Registrar of Companies in respect of their accounting years ended in(a) 1985, (b) 1986 and (c) 1987; and how many of those companies are engaged in the provision of financial services to the public.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of currently live companies which have not yet filed accounts for each of the years in question is shown in the table.

  1985:

  13,710

  1986:

  26,223 (includes 1985)

  1987:

  57,350 (includes 1985, 1986)

  It is not possible to identify how many of these companies are engaged in the provision of financial services to the public.

  Company Law
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list European Community company law directives that have been enacted, considered and planned over the last decade with approximate dates of imposition.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following European Community company law directives have been adopted since 1980:462

  Directive

  Implementation date

  Directive revising the amounts expressed in ECU in the Fourth Company Law Directive

  1984

  Sixth Company Law Directive on the division of public liability companies

  1 January 1986

  Seventh Company Law Directive on consolidated accounts

  1 January 1988

  Eight Company Law Directive on the qualification of auditors

  1 January 1988

  Eleventh Company Law Directive on branch accounts

  1 January 1992

  Twelfth Company Law Directive on single member private limited companies

  1 January 1990

  Directive co-ordinating regulations on insider dealing

  1 June 1992

  Directive on the disclosure of information on major holdings in listed companies

  1 January 1991

  Directive on the accounts of banks

  31 December 1990

  Directive on the accounts of bank branches

  1 January 1991

  The following proposed directives have been considered since 1980, but have not yet been adopted, and no implementation dates have yet been set:

  Proposed Fifth Company Law Directive on the structure and management of PLC's.

  Proposed Tenth Company Law Directive on cross-border mergers of PLC's.

  Proposed Thirteenth Company Law Directive on takeovers.

  Proposal to amend the Fourth and Seventh Company Law Directives with respect to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and to accounts in ECU.

  Proposal to extend the Fourth and Seventh Company Law Directives to certain partnerships and unlimited companies.

  Proposed Directive on employee involvement complementing the Proposed Regulation on the European Company Statute.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when he expects the Office of Fair Trading to conclude its inquiry into media ownership;

  (2) when he expects the Sadler inquiry to publish its findings.

  (3) whether he will list the people appointed to assist Mr. Sadler on his inquiry into aspects of the media;

  (4) whether the Sadler inquiry has commenced taking evidence; and if it will be taking evidence in public.

  Mr. Redwood
  I announced to the House on 14 December at column 750 that Mr. John Sadler CBE was to undertake an inquiry into standards of cross-media promotion and that the Director General of Fair Trading, who was conducting an inquiry into the competition aspects of these issues, had decided not to pursue it.

  Mr. Sadler's inquiry is expected to last about a year. He will be assisted by officials of my Department.

  Mr. Sadler is writing to a number of organisations likely to have an interest in his inquiry. He expects to issue shortly a press notice inviting other interested parties to send him their views. He is asking for written evidence by mid-March and expects to take oral evidence later in the year. The inquiry will not be taking evidence in public.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the share of accountancy business taken by the seven biggest firms in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1989 in Britain, West Germany and France.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not available.

  Telephones
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given to encouraging the introduction to the United Kingdom of the option for telephone subscribers to install equipment which will identify the number from which an incoming call is being made.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 1 February 1990]: The provision of calling line identification facilities is primarily a matter for the network operators; but I know that the Director General of Telecommunications, Sir Bryan Carsberg, is keeping the position under close review.

  Japan (Trade)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what obstacles remain to fair trade between the United Kingdom and the Empire of Japan; if he will list them and the action he intends to take to eliminate them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: The Government have three main trade policy objectives with Japan. The first is to persuade the Japanese authorities to implement structural reforms to sustain the shift in the balance of their economy from export-led to domestic demand-led growth. At the OECD ministerial meeting and the G7 summit last year, it was agreed that structural reform would play an important part in efforts to reduce current account imbalances. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, during her visit to Japan last year, emphasised the need to eliminate structural rigidities in key areas of the Japanese economy such as agricultural support and protection, land use and taxation and the distribution system.

  Secondly, we must secure the removal of barriers to access to the Japanese market for United Kingdom exporters. Few such barriers remain. Where they do, the Government campaign vigorously for their removal through the appropriate channels: bilaterally, through the European Community, and through the multilateral GATT system.

  The principal areas in which further progress is needed are:
  Leather and leather goods. Under the present tariff quota system, Community exports within a small quota attract duty of 20 to 27 per cent, and goods in excess of quota a duty of 60 per cent. Negotiations are in progress at Community level to secure improvements in access when the present EC-Japan agreement expires in 1991.
  Food products, particularly sugar confectionery, biscuits and jam, which still attract high tariffs (between 20 and 35 per cent.). GATT Ministers have agreed that such tariff peaks should be dealt with in the Uruguay round.
  Standards and testing requirements in sectors such as Pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment sectors. Regular EC-Japan sectoral talks provide the main forum for negotiations to eliminate non-tariff barriers of this sort.
  464
  Financial services. British firms are looking for greater opportuities to participate in Japan's financial markets, particularly in the insurance and investment sectors.

  The Government's approach has achieved significant results. Last April, for example, the Japanese Government removed discriminatory taxation on imported whisky; exports of Scotch to Japan in the first 11 months of 1989 show an increase of 75 per cent. in value compared with the same period in 1988.

  Thirdly, we must ensure that the British business community is fully aware of the greatly increased opportunities in Japan, and of the strategic importance of the Japanese market. My Department's Opportunity Japan campaign was launched in 1988 to address this need. A target was set of doubling British exports to Japan in three years. The determined efforts of British exporters mean that we are well on the way to doing so: last year United Kingdom exports of goods to Japan increased by £525 million to £2·3 billion, an increase of 30 per cent. over 1988.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who will represent his Department at the Council of Ministers meetings; and what the agenda will be on(a) industry: 13 March and 28 May, (b) internal market: 22 February, 3 and 14 April and 20 June, (c) research: 26 February and 29 June, (d) telecommunications: 28 April and (e) tourism: 7 and 8 April.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: At the moment it is intended that my Department should be represented at the Council of Ministers meetings as follows:

  Industry—Mr. Hogg

  Internal Market—Mr. Redwood

  Research—Mr. Hogg

  Telecommunications—Mr. Forth

  Tourism—Mr. Forth

  Representation plans are provisional at present. Even the dates are subject to change. In particular, if the Tourism Council agenda is mainly for the Department of Employment, the United Kingdom will probably be represented by Lord Strathclyde.

  Agendas for Councils are not announced till about two weeks beforehand. The table shows the provisional agendas that are available from the work programme circulated by the Irish Presidency. At this early stage of the Presidency, these are no more than a rough guide to which issues are likely to be taken when.

  Council of Ministers

    INTERNAL MARKET COUNCIL 22 February 1990
    Dossiers subject to outcome of discussion at Internal Market Council of 21–22 December 1989 i.e. either further discussion with a view to achieving a CP or possible FA in May-June

    Second Life Insurance Directive

    Public procurement (excluded sectors)

    Directives on Veterinary Medicines

    Directive on Electro-medical implantables

    Certification

    Right of Residence

    Directive on Nutritional Labelling

    Directive on Ionisation of Food Products

    Directive on Package Travel

    Binding tariff information regulation

    Major trans-European networks

    Computer Programmes

    Public procurement; compliance Directive for excluded sectors—Presentation

    465

    Directives on Pharmaceuticals

    packaging and labelling

    wholesalers

    Non-prescribed retail sales—Presentation

    INTERNAL MARKET COUNCIL 3 April 1990
    Directive on Insurance Annual Accounts

    Motor vehicle insurance services

    Nine amendments to Directive on Dangerous Substances

    INTERNAL MARKET COUNCIL 8 May 1990
    (Possible) Motor vehicle type-approval

    Third Motor Insurance Directive

    Non-automatic weighing instruments

    Abolition of transit advice note (TAN)

    Right of Residence

    (Possible) Regulation for Community Trademark

    Gas appliances

    INTERNAL MARKET COUNCIL 20 June 1990
    Pharmaceuticals

    Motor insurance services

    (Possible) Mobile machines

    European Company Statute

    Second general Directive on Mutual Recognition of Diplomas

    Directive on bio-technological Inventions

    Insurance annual accounts

    (Possible) Overhaul of transit rules (Reg. 222/77)

    Directive amending Directive 79/695 on free circulation

    Directive on control of personal weapons

    RESEARCH COUNCIL 26 February 1990
    Adoption of 3rd Framework Programme

    Adoption of the following programmes under the 2nd Framework Programme:

    Human Genomes

    Agricultural Research

    Co-operation Agreements with EFTA countries on Science and Medical and Health Research

    (Possible) Common Position on the following Programmes under the 2nd Framework Programme:

    EURET (Transport)

    SPES (Revision)

    EUROTRA (Revision)

    RESEARCH COUNCIL 29 June 1990
    3rd Framework Programme (1990–1994)—Common Position on certain programmes.

    2nd Framework Programme

    EURET (A)

    SPES (A)

    EUROTRA (A)

    Agreement with EFTA on B.C.R. and SPES Programmes (CP)

    Commission Communication on Research Cooperation between the Community and Third Countries.

    INDUSTRY COUNCIL 13 March 1990
    Semi-Conductors (PD)

    Textiles

    Steel

    Automobiles (PD)

    Footwear

    Shipbuilding

    INDUSTRY COUNCIL 28 May 1990
    Biotechnology (PD)

    Audiovisual (PD)

    Industrial Targeting in Electronics (PD)

    SME Participation in Community R&D Programmes

    SME Access to Public Procurement

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS 25 April 1990
    Directive on terminal equipment

    Resolution on video-communications

    Directive on Radio-paging

    (Possible) Digital European Cordless Telecommunications

    Postal matters

    HDTV—agreed position for CCIR

    P.M. Reports from the Commission to be noted:

    Second Report on ISDN

    Report on Broadband Integrated Telecommunications in Europe.

THE ARTS

  Disabled People
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how he intends to improve access to arts venues for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  My aim is for the arts to be accessible to everyone. In December 1988 I gave £150,000 to the Carnegie Trust's Adapt Fund for the improvement of facilities for disabled people in arts venues. I acknowledge the important role which my hon. Friend is playing as chairman of this fund.

  Both the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Arts Council employ a disability officer. The Arts Council recently published an arts and disability action plan to produce practical measures to increase disabled people's involvement in the arts, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he can report any further developments in the agency system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Work continues to progress well in preparing activities for agency status and in identifying further candidates. The Treasury minute (Cm. 964), replying to the PAC's 38th report and published on 31 January, confirmed the Government's view that the pace at which Departments launch agencies would speed up, with a total of at least 20 agencies launched by the summer, and with more to come.

  Management Skills
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what training is given in management skills within the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  Civil servants are trained in the full range of management skills they need to exercise in their work, including the management of people, finance and other resources. In 1988–89, some 82,600 civil servants undertook management training. Of this, 81 per cent. was provided directly by Departments, 7 per cent. was undertaken at the Civil Service college, and the remainder was provided externally.

  Outside Posts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what rules govern the acceptance by any senior civil servant of a post outside the Civil Service(a) during and (b) subsequent to his Civil Service career.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]: The rules governing acceptance by senior civil servants of outside appointments during and after their Civil Service careers are set out in chapters 5 and 11, respectively, of the personnel management handbook, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  State-supported Training
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons were involved in state-supported training at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows the numbers of people who were on state-supported training schemes, funded through the Training Agency, at the end of November 1989:

  Programme

  Numbers in training (November 1989)

  Employment Training (ET)

  212,000

  Youth Training Scheme (YTS)

  427,900

  Community Industry (CI)

  6,000

  Business Growth Training (BGT)

  (1)

  (1) The following figures are available for BGT for the month of November 1989;

  Percentage increase in weekly and hourly earnings of full-time adult male employees1

  Manual Public sector

  Not in public sector

  Non-manual Public sector

  Manufacturing

  April of each year

  Weekly earnings percentage

  Hourly earnings percentage

  Weekly earnings percentage

  Hourly earnings percentage

  Weekly earnings percentage

  Hourly earnings percentage

  Weekly earnings percentage

  Hourly earnings percentage

  1973

  15·7

  2—

  16·5

  2—

  8·4

  2—

  11·2

  10·3

  1974

  15·4

  14·8

  13·9

  14·3

  15·1

  15·3

  11·9

  12·5

  1975

  36·1

  36·5

  24·6

  28·2

  28·1

  28·8

  26·1

  25·8

  1976

  15·7

  17·9

  17·6

  17·6

  22·4

  24·8

  17·8

  18·0

  1977

  8·2

  7·1

  10·4

  9·6

  6·3

  4·4

  9·9

  9·3

  1978

  11·7

  10·3

  13·4

  12·9

  9·2

  9·3

  15·9

  15·5

  1979

  14·5

  13·0

  15·5

  15·4

  11·0

  11·0

  14·3

  13·8

  1 Average gross weekly and hourly earnings, not affected by absence, for those aged 21 and over.

  2 Not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Government will publish guidelines showing increases in productivity to assist employers faced with pay claims to discount settlements in other industries which take into account increases in productivity; and if he will publish a table showing the percentage increase in median earnings of(a) full-time adult male manual workers in the motor vehicle industry and (b) the whole economy less manufacturing since 1972 and 1979, together with increases in output per head.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Productivity is clearly a vital influence on costs and competitiveness but it is for employers to regulate their own internal affairs. Only they can judge the level of pay settlements appropriate to all the relevant circumstances; and it is they who must bear the consequences of their decisions for competitiveness, investment and jobs.
  468

  Programme

  Numbers in training (November 1989)

  Option 1

  1,226

  kits issued

  Option 2

  28,974

  filled training places

  Option 3

  133

  contracts signed

  Option 4

  23

  contracts signed

  Option 5

  17

  contracts signed

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his letter of 11 January to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby replying further to his holding answer of 19 December,Official Report, 20 December, column 235, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table providing the same information for 1972–79 together with his best estimate of the numbers employed in 1979 in (i) each of the specified categories, (ii) manufacturing in the public sector and (iii) the private sector other than manufacturing; and if he will add an estimate of the increase in average earnings each year of manuals and non-manuals in the private sector less manufacturing based on the weighted average employment figures in the respective sectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates of the increases in earnings for each year are provided in the table. Estimates of the numbers in employment for the categories requested are not available except for non-manual male employees in manufacturing, of which there were 1,377,000 employees in October 1979. The calculation requested in the final part of the question would not be meaningful for the reasons stated in my letter to the hon. Member.

  The increase to April 1989 in the median level of gross weekly earnings of full-time adult manual male employees in the manufacture of motor vehicles and parts (SIC 35) was 511 per cent. from April 1972 and 148 per cent. from April 1979. Information on the median level of earnings for all full-time adult employees in the whole economy less manufacturing is not available.

  The increase in output per head for SIC 35 between the second quarter of 1979 and the third quarter of 1989 was 49 per cent. Data on output per head for SIC 35 prior to 1978 are not available. The increase in output per head for the whole economy less manufacturing between 1972 and the third quarter of 1989 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. The increase between the second quarter of 1979 and the third quarter of 1989 was 12 per cent.

  Factory Inspectors
  Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors were appointed in the past 10 years with the minimum qualifications of(a) higher national diploma, (b) polytechnic degree and (c) university degree.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The 276 factory inspectors recruited in the past 10 years were qualified to at least the levels specified, as follows:

  a) higher national diploma—2

  b) polytechnic degree—89

  c) university degree—185

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive factory inspectorate division budget for the year 1989–90.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The gross budget for 1989–90 allocated to the factories and agriculture inspectorate division was £37·6 million. The Health and Safety Commission's planned use of resources in 1989–90 was described in its "Plan of Work for 1989–90 and beyond", published on 3 May 1989.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In September 1989, the latest date for which estimates are available, the number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom was 3,141,000.

  Economic League
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the Economic League to discuss the lists it gives to employers concerning prospective employees.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria he uses to judge the success of the careers service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The standards expected of the local education authority-delivered careers service in England are set out in the "Guidance for Local Education Authorities in England and Wales" issued jointly in 1988 by my predecessor and the Secretary of State for Wales. Annual objectives and numerical targets are a condition for receipt of direct grant under the careers service strengthening scheme.

  The careers service inspectorate monitors annual performance against objectives and targets and carries out a full inspection of each service at about five-yearly intervals. Reports from the inspectorate provide the information on which I judge the effectiveness of individual services.

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) announced last year that reports on
  470
  inspections started after September 1989 will be published. Copies of previous reports, including a recent report on the excellent service in Bolton, are available in the Library.

  Footwear and Textiles
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been lost in(a) the footwear industry and (b) the textile industry since October 1989, by month; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no figures for job losses or job gains. Latest estimates of the number of employees in employment relate to November 1989. These show falls of 300 (0·6 per cent.) and 200 (0·1 per cent.) respectively for the footwear and textile industries since October 1989.

  Women Workers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department intends to encourage employers to address the needs of women returning to work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department will continue the action that it has taken over many months to encourage employers to make recruitment and retention policies attractive to women. It is doing this primarily through:

  (1) alerting employers to the need to recruit women at all occupational levels to help make up for the decline in the numbers of young people. The Training Agency/NEDO report "Defusing the Demographic Time Bomb" has been widely publicised.

  (2) encouraging employers to consider introducing—career breaks—part-time work at all levels—flexible working hours—childcare.

  (3) its example as an employer

  (4) helping women get appropriate training thus enhancing their value to employers.

  (5) supporting and publishing research into the female labour market, for example, on employers' recruitment and retention strategies.

  Environmental Protection
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has any figures for the number of people employed in the United Kingdom on environmental protection and environmental improvement activities for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men were in employment in each standard planning region in the United Kingdom; and how many women were in full and part-time employment in June 1979 at the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Table 1 shows the male civilian work force in employment for each region in September 1989. Table 2 shows the total female civilian work force in employment in June 1979 and September 1989.
  471

  Table 1

  Civilian Workforce in Employment Males, Unadjusted, Thousands

  September 1989

  Greater London

  2,289

  South East

  2,690

  East Anglia

  526

  South West

  1,146

  West Midlands

  1,345

  East Midlands

  1,019

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,176

  North West

  1,551

  North

  713

  Wales

  654

  Scotland

  1,246

  Great Britain

  14,355

  Northern Ireland

  328

  United Kingdom

  14,683

  Table 2

  Civilian workforce in Great Britain Females, seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  Full time

  Part time

  Total

  June 1979

  5,801

  3,982

  9,783

  September 1989

  6,343

  4,908

  11,251

  Change

  542

  926

  1,468

  Percentage change

  9·3 per cent.

  23·3 per cent.

  15·0 per cent.

  Liquidation (Costs)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution his Department makes to the administration costs of settling redundancy claims, holiday pay, pension schemes, etc., when his Department pays the redundancy liabilities of the workers of a liquidated company; and how these costs rate against the claims of unsecured trade creditors in settling the liquidation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department makes various statutory redundancy and insolvency payments to employees through the employer's representative, usually the receiver or liquidator dealing with the insolvency, who acts as the Department's agent. The Department pays a fee for this work. The general administration costs of the insolvency are recovered by the employer's representative from the proceeds of the insolvency in priority to claims by creditors. Statutory claims by employees are settled as soon as the employer's representative has processed them, normally within a few weeks of the closure of the company.

  Under-sevens Project
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by which date the "Working with Under Sevens and their Families" project is required to complete its work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  By 31 July 1990.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much time will be available for consultation with the professionals and others involved in the implementation of the recommendations of the "Working with Under Sevens and their Families" project.
  472
  Mr. Nicholls
  Consultation with the professionals and others who will be involved in the implementation of project outputs is an integral part of the project and therefore ongoing.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the remit of the "Working with Under Sevens and their Families" project in which the Training Agency has had an input.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The purpose of this project is to develop nationally recognised standards of competence and associated assessment systems as the basis for national awards for care staff working with the under-sevens and their families.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether funding will be made available to implement the recommendations of the "Working with Under Sevens and their Families" project.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Government funding is available for all projects within the standards programme, to contribute to the cost of promoting the uptake of the standards and qualifications which emerge from them.

  YTS Trainees
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he will make a statement on the use of YTS trainees on the MV Marine.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. There were no YTS trainees on the MV Marine.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on 18 January,Official Report, column 341, if he will estimate the net revenue forgone by the Exchequer in (a) 1988–89 and (b) 1989–90 as a result of the reductions in personal income tax for higher rate payers to 40 pence in the pound introduced in the Finance Act 1988, in the light of the Government's receipts since then.

  Mr. Lilley
  My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay on 18 January (Official Report, column 341) referred to the estimate of the direct costs of abolishing the income tax rates above 40 per cent. given in the 1988 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the percentage of total general Government taxes, and social security contributions derived from(a) direct taxation and (b) indirect taxation in each country of the EEC for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lilley
  Statistics on the composition of tax revenue in EC member countries are published by the OECD in "Revenue Statistics of OECD Member Countries 1965–88".

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  what was the level of tax revenues incurred from(a) individuals, (b) corporate bodies and (c) public organisations in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1989.
  473
  Mr. Lilley
  Taxes on income and capital gains, local authority rates and national insurance contributions can be allocated as follows:

  1979–80

  1988–89

  £ billion

  £ billion

  Persons

  30·8

  75·8

  Companies

  18·4

  46·3

  It is not possible to distinguish taxes paid by public corporations from those paid by companies as a whole. Nor is it possible to allocate other taxes (for example, VAT) to persons or companies.

  Inflation and Interest Rates
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were(a) the rates of inflation and (b) the levels of interest rates in each country of the EEC, Japan, and the United States of America, for the most recent dates available.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following is the information requested:

  Inflation and short term interest rates in the EC, US and Japan.

  12 month inflation rates excluding estimates of homeowners' costs1

  Short-term nominal interest rates2

  United Kingdom3

  6·1

  15·1

  United States of America

  4·7

  8·3

  Japan

  2·9

  7·0

  Germany

  3·1

  8·1

  France

  3·6

  11·1

  Italy

  6·5

  6·2

  Belgium

  3·6

  8·8

  Denmark

  4·8

  12·0

  Greece

  14·0

  21·0

  Ireland

  4·2

  12·1

  Luxembourg

  3·8

  10·5

  Netherlands

  0·9

  8·8

  Portugal

  11·7

  12·5

  Spain

  7·0

  15·5

  1 Inflation figures are for November 1989, except for United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark and Belgium (December) and Ireland (Q4).

  2 Interest rates refer to close 31 January, except Spain, Greece and Denmark (1 February), Ireland (January) and Portugal (October).

  3 United Kingdom figure is for RPI excluding mortgage interest payments; figures for other countries exclude estimates of owner occupiers' housing costs as appropriate.

  Publicity
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure, including for privatisation, by all Government Departments and public bodies in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Ryder
  Information on publicity, including advertising, is not held centrally and is a matter for individual Departments.

  Banks (Third World Debt)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the revised Bank of England guidelines to banks on their provisions for Third world debt.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]: The revised matrix guidelines are a supervisory tool to assist
  474
  banks in fixing provisioning levels against exposure to countries experiencing debt-servicing and repayment difficulties. Responsibility for formulating the matrix rests with the Bank of England.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Inland Revenue will take account of Third world debt provision by banks in allowing them tax relief.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]: Provisions by banks against Third-world debts are allowable for tax only to the extent that such debts are shown to be irrecoverable.

  Civil Service (Closed Shop)
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what closed shop arrangements exist in the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]: There are no closed shop arrangements in the Civil Service.

  Civil servants are free to choose whether or not they wish to join or remain a member of a trade union.

  European Community Budget
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in a separate tabulation for each of the last three years, including the estimate for 1989, the receipts and contributions to the EEC budget under each of the major headings value added tax, agricultural levies CE7, fourth resource, agricultural receipts, social fund receipts etc., setting out the net contribution/receipt, followed by the notional shape of the cost of central Community institutions allocated on a population basis leading to an amended net contribution/receipt as calculated by addition/subtraction of this notional value.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]: Full information about the net contributions or receipts of each of the member states is not available. It is, therefore, not possible to show the notional impact on net positions of allocating the cost of central Community institutions in line with population shares.

WALES

  Rural Schools (Closures)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of rural schools closed in Dyfed, Powys, Clwyd and Gwynedd since 1979.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Separate figures relating only to schools in rural areas are not held. The following table shows the net change in the number of primary and secondary schools other than maintained special schools in the areas requested.

  Net change by school year

  Local education authority

  Dyfed

  Powys

  Clwyd

  Gwynedd

  1979–80

  +1

  —

  -2

  -1

  1980–81

  -2

  -2

  -1

  —

  1981–82

  -6

  -4

  -3

  —

  1982–83

  -5

  -3

  -2

  -1

  1983–84

  -5

  —

  -6

  —

  1984–85

  -3

  -2

  -1

  —

  475

  Net change by school year

  Local education authority

  Dyfed

  Powys

  Clwyd

  Gwynedd

  1985–86

  -6

  -2

  -1

  —

  1986–87

  -7

  -2

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  -1

  +1

  -2

  1988–89

  -5

  —

  -1

  -2

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of extra staff employed by Welsh district authorities to administer and collect the poll tax in each named district.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not held
  centrally.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of local authority expenditure in 1990–91 he estimates will be met by community charge payers.

  Commercial and industrial rating information1

  Commercial

  Industrial

  Average Rateable Value

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Average Rateable Value

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1973 Value £

  1989 Value £

  Percentage Increase

  Average Rate Bill £

  Average Rate Bill £

  1973 Value £

  1989 Value £

  Percentage Increase

  Average Rate Bill £

  Average Rate Bill £

  Alyn and Deeside

  706

  6,421

  809

  2,042

  2,234

  4,871

  29,269

  501

  14,091

  13,944

  Colwyn

  681

  6,102

  796

  2,043

  2,192

  1,371

  9,678

  606

  4,115

  4,071

  Delyn

  598

  6,333

  960

  1,728

  2,013

  1,589

  12,889

  711

  4,593

  4,854

  Glyndwr

  384

  3,764

  880

  1,130

  1,268

  1,708

  10,004

  486

  5,029

  5,014

  Rhuddlan

  866

  7,625

  780

  2,494

  2,764

  1,377

  8,051

  485

  3,965

  3,978

  Wrexham Maelor

  872

  7,709

  784

  2,591

  2,815

  4,430

  24,370

  450

  13,159

  12,897

  Carmarthen

  577

  6,746

  1,070

  1,626

  1,986

  1,031

  9,062

  779

  2,909

  3,135

  Ceredigion

  463

  4,851

  948

  1,271

  1,507

  516

  4,263

  726

  1,417

  1,498

  Dinefwr

  292

  3,409

  1,069

  797

  950

  1,580

  16,593

  950

  4,320

  4,705

  Llanelli

  574

  6,230

  985

  1,733

  1,984

  3,711

  23,469

  532

  11,203

  11,065

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  505

  4,775

  845

  1,368

  1,592

  6,185

  53,344

  763

  16,748

  19,475

  South Pembrokeshire

  546

  5,098

  834

  1,517

  1,717

  8,959

  87,870

  881

  24,902

  32,037

  Blaenau Gwent

  401

  3,386

  746

  1,143

  1,218

  3,521

  21,920

  523

  10,049

  9,767

  Islwyn

  463

  3,940

  751

  1,283

  1,395

  2,669

  15,520

  482

  7,392

  7,160

  Monmouth

  752

  8,669

  1,052

  2,113

  2,463

  3,510

  25,454

  625

  9,856

  10,027

  Newport

  1,217

  9,272

  662

  3,359

  3,580

  9,205

  53,115

  477

  25,402

  24,925

  Torfaen

  894

  6,797

  660

  2,586

  2,721

  3,463

  17,718

  412

  10,017

  9,650

  Aberconwy

  649

  6,391

  884

  1,817

  2,107

  1,270

  7,804

  515

  3,554

  3,673

  Arfon

  524

  5,772

  1,002

  1,451

  1,711

  1,107

  7,625

  589

  3,066

  3,177

  Dwyfor

  555

  5,354

  865

  1,545

  1,805

  320

  3,093

  867

  891

  1,022

  Meirionnydd

  389

  3,514

  803

  1,096

  1,214

  432

  3,857

  793

  1,216

  1,287

  Ynys Mon

  410

  4,131

  908

  1,134

  1,318

  3,174

  16,739

  427

  8,778

  8,510

  Cynon Valley

  418

  3,291

  688

  1,218

  1,277

  4,148

  28,540

  588

  12,097

  11,968

  Merthyr Tydfil

  663

  5,585

  743

  1,995

  2,090

  3,596

  30,716

  754

  10,829

  11,090

  Ogwr

  800

  7,378

  822

  2,491

  2,714

  2,775

  18,280

  559

  8,639

  8,456

  Rhondda

  395

  3,373

  753

  1,206

  1,261

  2,176

  12,226

  462

  6,639

  6,427

  Rhymney Valley

  537

  4,749

  785

  1,667

  1,778

  3,194

  20,255

  534

  9,918

  9,709

  Taff Ely

  1,028

  9,178

  793

  3,111

  3,401

  4,727

  30,220

  539

  14,307

  14,206

  Brecknock

  281

  3,166

  1,028

  749

  895

  985

  10,004

  916

  2,629

  2,806

  Montgomeryshire

  476

  4,517

  848

  1,183

  1,363

  1,253

  6,301

  403

  3,112

  3,062

  Radnorshire

  333

  3,671

  1,004

  834

  1,017

  1,335

  8,902

  567

  3,350

  3,459

  Cardiff

  1,494

  13,079

  776

  3,594

  4,140

  2,817

  19,623

  597

  6,778

  7,214

  Vale of Glamorgan

  786

  7,842

  898

  1,953

  2,343

  3,668

  27,049

  637

  9,118

  9,686

  Port Talbot

  682

  6,151

  803

  2,184

  2,289

  16,261

  94,979

  484

  52,102

  50,535

  Lliw Valley

  401

  4,084

  918

  1,301

  1,455

  3,829

  20,415

  433

  12,413

  12,197

  Neath

  627

  6,197

  888

  2,043

  2,195

  4,291

  30,780

  617

  13,978

  14,020

  Swansea

  1,060

  10,225

  864

  3,540

  3,883

  2,366

  13,461

  469

  7,899

  7,6 I 2

  Total Wales

  757

  6,979

  822

  2,124

  2,377

  3,482

  22,403

  543

  10,080

  10,138

  1 For properties shown on the Valuation list at 31 December 1989.

  A large increase in the average rate bill for industrial properties in South Pembrokeshire is due to the large upward revaluation of the Milford Haven oil refinery complex.
  476
  Mr. Peter Walker
  If local authorities budget in line with the settlement that I have announced for 1990–91, after allowing for community charge benefit and transitional relief, community charge payers should expect to contribute 14 per cent. of local authorities' expenditure for that year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give the average business rate to be paid by (i) commercial and (ii) industrial premises in each Welsh district in 1990–91;

  (2) if he will set out the average rateable value for (a) commercial and (b) industrial premises in each Welsh district following revaluation together with the average figure for each category prior to revaluation and the percentage increase as a result of the 1989 revaluation.

  Mr. Walker
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  The average rateable values requested are not representative of the majority of premises. Inevitably they are weighted towards the upper end by the existence of a few companies with very large properties—viz British Steel

  477
  at Port Talbot. A more appropriate measure would have been the median rateable values. That information is not available.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the figures and percentages for the income of each Welsh district for the latest year for which figures are available broken down into the following categories: central Government grant, domestic rate, business rate, mixed hereditament rate, income from fees and charges.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give the general rate for each Welsh district in 1989–90 broken down into its component parts of county precept and community and district council levies;

  (2) what was the (a) domestic rate, (b) hereditament rate and (c) business rate for each Welsh district in 1989–90;

  (3) what was the average rate paid by (i) commercial and (ii) industrial premises in each Welsh district in 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is published in table 9.3 of Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics No. 13, 1989.

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what allocation of resources is to be made to the Health Promotion Authority for Wales for the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Grist
  Subject to parliamentary approval, £2·257 million will be made available for allocation to the HPAW in 1990–91. The allocation will be conditional upon satisfactory completion of annual performance review. It represents a further and substantial additional commitment of resources to HPAW over the £2·057 million allocated in 1989–90.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to commission a survey comparable to the "Survey of School Buildings 1986" by the Department of Education and Science.

  Health Authorities' Salaries and Wages Expenditure: 1988–891

  Consultants2

  Junior Doctors

  Nursing Staff

  Managers and Administrators3

  Ancillary Staff4

  Health Authority

  Salaries and wages expenditure (£000)

  Percentage of total HA expenditure

  Salaries and wages expenditure (£000)

  Percentage of total HA expenditure

  Salaries and wages expenditure (£000)

  Percentage of total HA expenditure

  Salaries and wages expenditure (£000)

  Percentage of total HA expenditure

  Salaries and wages expenditure (£000)

  Percentage of total HA expenditure

  Clwyd

  5,186

  4·7

  6,273

  5·7

  42,772

  39·0

  6,969

  6·4

  8,114

  7·4

  East Dyfed

  3,530

  5·3

  4,423

  6·7

  24,582

  37·0

  4,417

  6·6

  4,987

  7·5

  Gwent

  5,409

  4·2

  6,626

  5·1

  49,425

  38·4

  8,086

  6·3

  10,531

  3·2

  Gwynedd

  2,680

  4·1

  3,988

  6·2

  23,943

  37·0

  4,392

  6·8

  5,614

  3·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  6,265

  4·2

  9,464

  6·3

  62,660

  41·8

  9,298

  6·2

  12,718

  3·5

  Pembrokeshire

  1,282

  4·9

  1,885

  7·2

  8,525

  32·5

  1,642

  6·3

  1,544

  5·9

  Powys

  291

  1·0

  1,208

  4·0

  13,244

  44·3

  1,797

  6·0

  2,381

  8·0

  South Glamorgan

  8,165

  4·8

  12,520

  7·3

  53,487

  31·2

  12,762

  7·4

  13,551

  7·9

  West Glamorgan

  5,157

  4·5

  6,387

  5·6

  40,158

  35·1

  6,725

  5·9

  9,408

  8·2

  WHCSA

  —

  —

  7

  0·0

  —

  —

  5,209

  19·7

  65

  0·2

  WALES

  37,965

  4·3

  52,781

  5·9

  318,796

  35·9

  61,297

  6·9

  68,913

  7·8

  1 NHS staff and non-NHS staff (Agency etc.).

  2 Medical and Dental consultants.

  478
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 19 December 1989, when I said that in the context of my efficiency initiative local authorities had prepared reports on energy and property management and had further action in hand. The property review recommends the setting up of appropriate records in regard to age and condition of buildings including schools.

  Contaminated Land
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to update and supplement the register of land contaminated by industrial and landfill activities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The survey to locate contaminated sites in Wales was conducted for the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency in 1982–83 and updated in 1987–88. Further updates will be considered as appropriate.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the computer facilities at his Department enable local authorities in Wales to receive information on the contaminated land sites in their area.

  Mr. Grist
  Yes. The information is available to local authorities and other inquirers on request.

  Health Workers' Wages
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the figure and the proportion of the total budget for each health authority in Wales spent on(a) wages of consultants, (b) wages of junior hospital doctors, (c) wages of nursing staff, (d) wages of managers and administrator and (e) wages of cleaners and ancillary staff.

  Mr. Grist
  The information which the hon. Gentleman has asked for is not available centrally in the form requested, since budgets are determined locally by each authority from the resources which my right hon. Friend allocates to them and from the proceeds which they realise from cost improvement and income generation schemes. However, the information requested, expressed as a proportion of total expenditure, can be obtained from the authorities' most recent annual accounts as follows:
  479
  3 General Managers, Administrative and Clerical staff, and chairman's remunerations.

  4 Ancillary staff includes cleaners.

  Source: Health Authorities' Annual Accounts for 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the figure and the proportion of the total wages budget for each health authority in Wales spent on(a) wages of consultants, (b) wages of junior hospital doctors, (c) wages of nursing staff, (d) wages of managers and administrators and (e) wages of cleaners and ancillary staff.

  Health Authorities' Salaries and Wages Expenditure: 1988–891

  Consultants2

  Junior Doctors

  Nursing Staff

  Managers and Administrators3

  Ancillary Staff4

  Health Authority

  Salaries and wages expenditure £000

  Percentage of total Salaries and wages expenditure

  Salaries and wages expenditure £000

  Percentage of total Salaries and wages expenditure

  Salaries and wages expenditure £000

  Percentage of total Salaries and wages expenditure

  Salaries and wages expenditure £000

  Percentage of total Salaries and wages expenditure

  Salaries and wages expenditure £000

  Percentage of total Salaries and wages expenditure

  Clwyd

  5,186

  6·3

  6,273

  7·6

  42,772

  51·7

  6,969

  8·4

  8,114

  9·8

  East Dyfed

  3,530

  7·1

  4,423

  8·9

  24,582

  49·3

  4,417

  8·9

  4,987

  10·0

  Gwent

  5,409

  5·7

  6,626

  7·0

  49,425

  52·3

  8,086

  8·6

  10,531

  11·1

  Gwynedd

  2,680

  5·4

  3,988

  8·1

  23,943

  48·5

  4,392

  8·9

  5,614

  11·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  6,265

  5·3

  9,464

  8·1

  62,660

  53·3

  9,298

  7·9

  12,718

  10·8

  Pembrokeshire

  1,282

  7·1

  1,885

  10·5

  8,525

  47·4

  1,642

  9·1

  1,544

  8·6

  Powys

  291

  1·3

  1,208

  5·3

  13,244

  57·8

  1,797

  7·8

  2,381

  10·4

  South Glamorgan

  8,165

  6·5

  12,520

  10·0

  53,487

  42·7

  12,762

  10·2

  13,551

  10·8

  West Glamorgan

  5,157

  6·4

  6,387

  7·9

  40,158

  49·9

  6,725

  8·4

  9,408

  11·7

  WHCSA

  —

  —

  7

  0·1

  —

  —

  5,209

  61·7

  65

  0·8

  Wales

  37,965

  5·9

  52,781

  8·1

  318,796

  49·1

  61,297

  9·4

  68,913

  10·6

  1 NHS staff and non-NHS staff (agency etc.).

  2 Medical and dental consultants.

  3 General managers, administrative and clerical staff, and chairman's remunerations.

  4 Ancillary staff includes cleaners.

  Source: Health Authorities' Annual Accounts for 1988–89

  Water Supply
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the water supply problems which arose or were imminent in Wales during 1989; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that such problems do not arise in future.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 25 October 1989, c.451–52

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the impact upon arts funding in Wales by(a) local authorities tax and (b) business sponsorships consequent upon the implementations of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I do not expect the community charge or the uniform business rate to have any effect on the funding of the arts in Wales.

  Opencast Mine, Bannel Bridge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will visit Bannel bridge, Clwyd;

  (2) if he will visit Bucrley, Clwyd;

  (3) if he will visit Megs Lane, Clwyd;

  (4) if he will visit Spon Green, Clwyd.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Not in the immediate future.
  480
  Mr. Ian Grist
  The information which the hon. Gentleman has asked for is not available centrally in the form requested since budgets are determined locally by each authority from the resources which my right hon. Friend allocates to them and from the proceeds which they realise from cost improvement and income generation schemes. However, the information requested, expressed as a proportion of total expenditure, can be obtained from the authorities' most recent annual accounts as follows:

  Health Service (Income Generation)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of full-time Health Service employees who are directors of, or who work for, companies operating in areas related to their work in the National Health Service where there are opportunities for income generation.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if Mid Glamorgan health authority has sought his advice about the conflict of interest which has arisen from the involvement of two full-time Health Service employees as majority shareholders and company secretary and chairman of Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd. based at the innovation centre on the Mid Glamorgan science park, Bridgend.

  Mr. Grist
  No. This is primarily a matter for the health authority to satisfy itself that there is no conflict of interest arising when any of its employees become involved in activities which could affect their terms of employment with the NHS.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidelines he has issued in addition to DHSS Circular PM(79) 11 (November 1979), with its attached standard contract, for dealing with potential conflicts of interest when full-time National Health Service employees are involved as directors, shareholders,
  481
  workers, or all three, in private companies operating in areas related to their work in the National Health Service where there are opportunities for income generation;

  (2) whether he will issue guidelines to prevent full-time National Health Service employees from being involved in any capacity in a private company operating in the same field as that in which they are employed in the National Health Service where there are opportunities for income generation.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department is currently considering the possibility of issuing advice on general principles of good conduct within the NHS which will include aspects such as the declaration of interests in cases where staff may have a private pecuniary interest in a firm contracting to provide a service.

  Ynys-y Fro Reservoir
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will investigate the growth of blue-green algae at Ynys-y fro reservoir, Newport, in the summer of 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority, which is conducting investigations into the cause of algal blooms last year.

HEALTH

  Milk Tokens
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to review the working of the welfare milk token scheme.

  Mr. Freeman
  Operational matters such as the workings of the welfare milk token scheme are kept under constant review to ensure that they are as efficient and effective as possible.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received concerning the working of the welfare milk token scheme.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 23 January at column 682 and to the record of the debate on the regulations introducing the change on 29 January at columns 113–32.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about alleged underfunding of(a) North East Thames regional health authority and (b) Waltham Forest district authority; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received a number of representations about financial allocations to North East Thames regional health authority, and Waltham Forest district health authority, including one from the hon. Member, to which I replied on 31 January 1990.

  Environmental Medicine Foundation
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 22 January,Official Report, column 555, if
  482
  an application has been received for funds from his Department from the Environmental Medicine Foundation.

  Mr. Freeman
  No application has been received in the Department of Health.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the criteria used by his Department for making funds available to organisations such as the Environmental Medicine Foundation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The Department of Health funds health and personal social services research which meets departmental objectives in public health. The criteria employed are the relevance and scientific promise of the work proposed. The then Minister for Health, the late Lord Trafford, wrote to the chairman of the foundation last year, advising it of the role of the MRC in funding medical research, and of the availability of facilities in the United Kingdom for analysing low concentrations of chemicals in human tissue.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance his Department gave to local authorities concerning money allocated for the implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what money has been, and will be, made available to local authorities for the implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92;

  (3) whether the money made available to local authorities for the implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 was ring-fenced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We agreed with the local authority associations in 1987 that the additional costs of implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the Act were in the region of £5 million in 1988–89 and £19 million in 1989–90, rising to around £24 million in a full year. These amounts have been taken into consideration in determining the level of central Government support to local authorities for the appropriate year. They have not been ring-fenced or separately identified, as is the case with the vast majority of our support for local authorities. Our guidance to local authorities on implementation of sections 5 and 6 included a reminder that the resource implications had been agreed and taken into account in public expenditure discussions.

  Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will identify the number of doctors and nurses employed in each regional health authority(a) now and (b) in June 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of doctors and nurses employed in each regional health authority now and in 1979 are given in the table. Validated figures are available only in September each year.
  483

  NHS staff in post by regional health authority at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalent 1

  Regional health authority

  Medical and Dental 2

  Nursing and Midwifery 3

  1979

  1988

  1979 4

  1988

  Northern

  2,530

  2,820

  23,940

  27,770

  Yorkshire

  2,690

  2,910

  26,980

  30,330

  Trent

  3,160

  3,990

  32,500

  38,280

  East Anglia

  1,360

  1,720

  12,830

  16,140

  North West Thames 5

  3,430

  3,530

  26,800

  27,830

  North East Thames

  3,640

  4,270

  30,930

  34,480

  South East Thames

  3,300

  3,730

  29,040

  30,480

  South West Thames

  2,460

  2,600

  23,830

  23,780

  Wessex

  1,970

  2,160

  19,660

  23,680

  Oxford

  1,760

  2,080

  14,730

  17,010

  South Western

  2,350

  2,700

  23,620

  27,300

  West Midlands

  3,870

  4,540

  36,350

  42,160

  Mersey

  2,000

  2,280

  20,960

  22,180

  North Western

  3,490

  4,220

  32,160

  37,530

  England 5 6

  38,990

  44,750

  358,450

  403,880

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

  2 Includes medical/dental locums.

  3 Includes qualified nurses, learners, unqualified staff and agency staff.

  4 Figures not adjusted to take account of reduction of nurses working hours (from 40 to 37·5 per week) during 1980–81.

  5 Excludes 80 whole-time equivalents medical and dental consultants for 1988 because of insufficient information.

  6 Includes staff at the Dental Estimates Board, Prescription Pricing Authority, London Postgraduate Special Health Authorities, and Family Practitioner Committees.

  Source: Annual census of NHS Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his replies of 16 January,Official Report, columns 194–95, if he will set out the value of each hospital building project listed in the answers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The construction cost at tender of each of the hospital building projects listed is as follows:

  Currently under construction

  Region

  Scheme

  Cost £

  Northern

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Scheme 1, Phase 5

  23,268,389

  Northern

  Wansbeck General Hospital, Scheme 1, Phase 1

  21,087,977

  Trent

  Lincoln County, Phase 2

  20,113,508

  North West Thames

  Westminster and Chelsea Hospital

  178,158,900

  South East Thames

  Hastings, District General Hospital, Main Phase 1

  27,475,536

  South West Thames

  Mid Sussex, Phase 1

  21,052,954

  Wessex

  Bournemouth District General Hospital, Phase 2B

  23,815,773

  Wessex

  Salisbury District Hospital Phase 1

  26,750,945

  South Western

  Royal Devon and Exeter, Wonford

  20,079,803

  North Western

  Ormskirk District General Hospital, Phase 1

  19,461,538

  Completed since 1979

  Trent

  Queens Medical Centre Development, Phase 2

  18,577,215

  North West Thames

  St. Mary's W2, Phase 1B

  20,521,915

  North East Thames

  Homerton Hospital, Phase 1

  14,178,756

  484

  Region

  Scheme

  Cost £

  South West Thames

  St. Georges Block H, Phase 2A

  18,004,089

  Wessex

  Bournemouth District General Hospital, Phase 1A

  14,636,811

  West Midlands

  Walsall, Phases 4A and 4B

  14,679,257

  West Midlands

  City General, Stoke, Surgical Accommodation

  14,724,874

  West Midlands

  Telford District General Hospital, Phase 1

  18,536,334

  West Midlands

  Bromsgrove Redditch District General Hospital, Phase 1 Contract 2

  15,285,938

  Mersey

  North Sefton District General Hospital, Southport, Phase 1

  16,623,819

  AIDS
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department received an application for a grant for 1990–91 from AIDS care education and training; and when this will be approved.

  Mr. Frank.Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will approve the AIDS care education and training application for a grant under section 64 for the current financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  ACET sent its application for section 64 funding for 1990–91 to the Department on 11 January 1990. A decision will be given as soon as consideration of the application is completed.

  Durham Health Authority
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total spending allocated to Durham district health authority for each year since 1979, and then adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Allocations to district health authorities are a matter for the regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Northern regional health authority.

  Drug Promotion
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to halt the increase in drug promotion by companies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Expenditure on promotion by pharmaceutical companies supplying the NHS with drugs within the terms of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme is limited by that scheme. For the companies in aggregate it is limited to 9 per cent, of sales revenue.

  Junior Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will announce the outcome of recent studies on junior doctors' hours of work.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1985 the Department commissioned Dr. Robin Dowie of the British Postgraduate Medical Federation to undertake research into patterns of hospital medical staffing. She has completed an interim report on junior doctors' hours of work, which is published today. A copy will be placed in the Library.
  485
  The report covers the period before we launched two initiatives on junior doctors' hours of work. It cannot, therefore, be expected to reflect progress made during the last couple of years or so.

  In our first initiative, launched in June 1988, we asked health authorities to take further action to reduce the onerous rotas worked by some junior doctors. Good progress has been made on this.

  Reports from regions show that about 27 per cent. of all junior doctors were on rotas worse than one in three in 1988. By September 1990, around one in eight junior doctors will undertake duties which are onerous.

  In the second initiative, which began in July 1989, we announced the establishment of nine pilot studies across six regional health authorities aimed at reducing average hours of duty to our long-term aim of 72 per week.

  Another important feature of our drive to reduce the working hours of junior doctors is the appointment of 100 extra hospital consultants, as announced in the White Paper "Working for Patients". I announced details of the allocation of the first 35 of these posts in October last year, and hope to be in a position to announce the allocation of the remaining 65 by the end of this month.

  I will be meeting representatives of the British Medical Association on Wednesday this week to discuss what further action is now appropriate. We are determined to see further progress in reducing the onerous rotas worked by some junior doctors.

  With the rapid pace of scientific and medical advances it is even more important than ever for junior doctors not to be tired when carrying out their duties. Progress depends largely on the commitment and co-operation of the medical profession. This week's talks with the British Medical Association will be a good beginning.

  Foetuses
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will place a copy of the research carried out for the Department on the law and practice in other countries on in vitro fertilisation, embryo research, abortion and the use of foetal tissue in research and treatment in the Library.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today arranged for a copy of this research report to he placed in the Library. It was commissioned by the Department of Health in recognition of the need for up-to-date, accurate information on these subjects. In particular, the introduction of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has focused attention on the approach taken in other countries to the questions raised by the Bill. The study was undertaken by Dr. Jennifer Gunning, until recently secretary of the Interim Licensing Authority.

  The report is a survey of the legislation and current practice in a number of countries. It does not attempt to analyse the merits of any particular approach and no conclusions are drawn. It will be of value to hon. Members here in the debates on the subject.

  Regional Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each regional health authority(a) budgeted and (b) spent on (i) genito-urinary medicine and (ii) AIDS in the latest year for which figures are available.
  486
  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally and I cannot add to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on 12 January 1990 at columns 776–77.

  Toxoplasmosis
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pregnant women were tested for toxoplasmosis in 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the final cost of the work to make safe the cardiac block at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children;

  (2) who bore the cost of the work to make safe the cardiac block at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total works cost of the remedial works was £21·1 million. The cost of this work was borne centrally by the Department (70 per cent.) and by the University Grants Committee (30 per cent.). Litigation receipts of £8 million resulting from settlements in this case have been paid into the Consolidated Fund.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter he has received from the hon. Member for Uxbridge dated 16 January concerning the case of Mr. W. A. Taylor.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have now written to my hon. Friend.

  Residential Care (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people were in residential care in the Bolton area in(a) local authority and (b) privately run homes in 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information for 1979 and 1988 is given in the table; information is not yet available for 31 March 1989.

  Number of residents aged 65 and over in homes for the elderly and younger physically handicapped, Bolton

  As at 31 March

  Local authority homes

  Registered private homes

  1979

  681

  19

  19881

  588

  2500

  1 All 1988 figures are provisional.

  2 Includes 9 residents whose age was not known accommodated in homes primarily catering for elderly people.

  Kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Diseases
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the incidence in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years of reported cases of Kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, respectively; and whether there is any explanation for changes in their incidence.
  487
  Mr. Freeman
  Kuru does not occur in the United Kingdom; on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 2 February.

  NHS Employees (Outside Interests)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of full-time National Health Service employees who are directors of, or who work for, companies operating in areas relating to their work in the National Health Service where there are opportunities for income generation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines he has issued in addition to DHSS circular PM (79) 11 [November 1979], with its attached standard contract, to deal with the potential conflicts of interest where full-time National Health Service employees are involved as directors, shareholders, workers, or all three, in private companies operating in areas related to their work in the National Health Service where there are opportunities for income generation;

  (2) whether he will issue guidelines to prevent full-time National Health Service employees being involved in any capacity in a private company operating in the same field as that in which they are employed in the National Health Service where there are opportunities for income generation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities as employers are responsible for ensuring that their employees' private interests do not conflict with those of the authority. It is for them to decide how this is achieved. The model contract of employment which the Department has issued for health authority general managers includes a stipulation that the employee must declare to the authority any financial interest or relationship which may affect the authority's policies or decisions. We are considering whether further guidance is needed in this field.

  Free Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list those local education authorities which have made an application under the Welfare Food Act 1988 for the provision of free milk for under-fives in local education authority nursery units and classes.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following 24 local education authorities have been approved (under the Welfare Food Regulations 1988) to participate in the scheme to receive reimbursement of costs for the supply of milk to children under five in nursery schools and classes:

  Avon County Council

  London Borough of Bexley

  London Borough of Brent

  Derbyshire County Council

  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Durham County Council

  London Borough of Hounslow

  Inner London Education Authority

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Leicestershire County Council

  Liverpool City Council

  Manchester City Council

  488

  City of Newcastle upon Tyne

  North Tyneside Council

  North Yorkshire County Council

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  Staffordshire County Council

  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

  In addition, the following six local education authorities have indicated they will be applying for approval to participate in the scheme:

  Birmingham City Council

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  Hereford and Worcester County Council

  Oxfordshire County Council

  Metropolitan District of Sefton

  London Borough of Sutton

  Family Practitioner Committees (Expenditure)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, for the last year for which figures are available, the total for England and Wales and a breakdown for each family practitioner committee of(a) the number of general practice premises and (b) the amount directly reimbursed to unrestricted principals in general practice for the cost of providing premises under the rent and rates scheme.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: Information on the number of general practice premises is not collected centrally. Expenditure by family practitioner committees in England in 1988–89 on direct reimbursements to general medical practitioners under the rent and rates scheme is set out in the table. Information in relation to family practitioner services in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Direct Reimbursements to General Medical Practitioners for Rent and Rates Costs, 1988–89

  Family Practitioner Committee

  £

  Avon

  1,530,724

  Barking and Havering

  852,785

  Barnet

  901,554

  Barnsley

  345,840

  Bedfordshire

  1,032,585

  Berkshire

  2,246,091

  Birmingham

  1,666,604

  Bolton

  247,554

  Bradford

  720,774

  Brent and Harrow

  1,397,754

  Bromley

  695,912

  Buckinghamshire

  1,723,275

  Bury

  175,821

  Calderdale

  304,813

  Cambridgeshire

  1,505,494

  Camden and Islington

  1,044,917

  Cheshire

  1,535,343

  City and East London

  1,471,921

  Cleveland

  733,423

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  911,570

  Coventry

  480,872

  Croydon

  601,840

  Cumbria

  633,392

  Derbyshire

  1,531,595

  Devon

  2,180,958

  Doncaster

  342,820

  Dorset

  1,647,729

  Dudley

  358,425

  Durham

  1,090,251

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  1,517,446

  Enfield

  1,166,622

  489

  Family Practitioner Committee

  £

  Essex

  3,779,781

  Gateshead

  301,954

  Gloucestershire

  1,294,082

  Greenwich and Bexley

  930,232

  Hampshire

  3,096,826

  Hereford and Worcester

  949,429

  Hertfordhire

  3,389,963

  Hillingdon

  430,269

  Humberside

  1,427,404

  Isle of Wight

  221,649

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1,441,861

  Kent

  3,326,975

  Kingston and Richmond

  844,628

  Kirklees

  456,509

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,451,237

  Lancashire

  1,389,213

  Leeds

  1,492,844

  Leicestershire

  1,467,513

  Lincolnshire

  1,095,256

  Liverpool

  555,297

  Manchester

  659,697

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1,061,783

  Newcastle

  518,812

  Norfolk

  1,810,574

  Northamptonshire

  1,087,571

  Northumberland

  403,850

  Nottinghamshire

  1,532,486

  Oldham

  138,171

  Oxfordshire

  1,027,203

  Redbridge

  1,154,744

  Rochdale

  271,419

  Rotherham

  303,989

  Salford

  306,683

  Sandwell

  519,122

  Sefton

  472,078

  Sheffield

  923,439

  Shropshire

  628,777

  Solihull

  384,447

  Somerset

  1,128,053

  Stafford

  1,168,285

  Stockport

  389,362

  St. Helens

  546,256

  Suffolk

  1,507,019

  Sunderland

  226,703

  Surrey

  2,200,146

  Sussex, East

  1,406,463

  Sussex, West

  1,567,749

  Tameside

  308,597

  Trafford

  282,560

  Tyneside, North

  330,536

  Tyneside, South

  197,803

  Wakefield

  686,481

  Walsall

  477,386

  Warwickshire

  1,053,852

  Wigan

  373,235

  Wiltshire

  987,911

  Wirral

  404,224

  Wolverhampton

  432,634

  Yorkshire North

  1,749,904

  England

  92,569,630

  Notes:

  1. Payments under the rent and rates scheme comprise direct reimbursements for rent, rates, notional rent, cost rents and local

  Flours and meals of meat and offals, greaves, unfit for human consumption

  Country

  December

  Year to date

  Kgs

  Value £

  Kgs

  Value £

  FR France

  244,030

  33,916

  3,459,750

  590,839

  BE Belgium-Luxemburg

  1,889,862

  215,350

  NL Netherlands

  805,086

  139,435

  DE Federal Republic of Germany

  23,000

  6,468

  73,000

  20,557

  IE Irish Republic

  158,645

  20,109

  2,092,155

  332,794

  490
  authority economic rents applicable to surgery premises.

  2. Expenditure figures based on FPC annual accounts prepared on an income and expenditure basis.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the impact upon those engaged in milk distribution from the discounting of welfare milk tokens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January 1990, column 682]: I regret that the reply contained an error.

  The second sentence in the second paragraph should read:
  "Milk Tokens will continue to be issued in respect of pregnant women and children under five in families receiving income support and to handicapped children aged five to 16 who, because of their handicap, are not registered at a school."

  Residential Care
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to increase financial provision for residential care to cover fully the cost of such care.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  No. It has never been the policy of the Government to undertake to meet all fees, however high, charged by independent residential care homes.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the actual costs of residential care and the sums provided to cover such care.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  We receive a considerable number of representations from a variety of interested organisations and individuals.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat and Bone Meal
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of meat and bone meal exported from the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom rendering industry for each of the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  Exports of flours, meals and pellets, of meat or meat offal, greaves, for the last two years that figures are available are as follows:

  Tonnes

  1987

  12,299

  1988

  13,228

  Source Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics.
  491

  Country

  December

  Year to date

  Kgs

  Value £

  Kgs

  Value £

  DK Denmark

  21,490

  7,500

  PT Portugal

  500,000

  113,000

  MT Malta

  40,100

  5,334

  260,260

  30,741

  ML Mali

  20,020

  2,523

  NG Nigeria

  16,714

  6,354

  GA Gabon

  17,160

  2,351

  KE Kenya

  80,060

  8,967

  ZM Zambia

  9,000

  2,862

  9,000

  2,862

  ZA South Africa

  5,000

  3,035

  CY Cyprus

  18,000

  3,600

  SA Saudi Arabia

  3,024,540

  420,369

  HK Hong Kong

  70

  476

  NZ New Zealand

  6,426

  1,000

  EC total

  425,675

  60,493

  8,841,343

  1,419,475

  Non-EC total

  49,100

  8,196

  3,457,250

  482,278

  All countries total

  474,775

  68,689

  12,298,593

  1,901,753

  United Kingdom Exports (CDT) General Trade December 1988 Flours, Meals and Pellets, of Meat or Meat Offal: Greaves

  December

  Year to date

  Country

  Kilograms

  Value (£)

  Kilograms

  Value (£)

  FR France

  2,012,225

  363,330

  7,222,394

  1,270,181

  BE Belgium-Luxembourg

  —

  0

  273,620

  39,974

  NL Netherlands

  93,180

  19,711

  1,826,385

  370,451

  DE Federal Republic of Germany

  59,520

  22,019

  558,530

  205,357

  IT Italy

  14,000

  3,430

  3,7650

  9,370

  IE Irish Republic

  322,740

  41,545

  2,554,832

  358,260

  PT Portugal

  —

  0

  80,000

  18,310

  SE Sweden

  19,000

  5,100

  76,000

  18,600

  MT Malta

  19,800

  3,479

  299,220

  48,293

  GH Ghana

  —

  0

  16,050

  6,138

  ZA South Africa

  —

  0

  5,000

  3,645

  LB Lebanon

  60,000

  13,920

  60,000

  13,920

  IL Israel

  18,000

  6,035

  92,000

  38,271

  SA Saudi Arabia

  —

  0

  4,950

  1,777

  LK Sri Lanka

  —

  0

  121,000

  44,080

  EC Total

  2,501,665

  450,035

  12,553,411

  2,271,903

  Non-EC Total

  116,800

  28,534

  674,220

  174,724

  All Countries Total

  2,618,465

  478,569

  13,227,631

  2,446,627

  United Kingdom exports (CDT) general trade November 1989 Flours, meals and pellets, of meat or meat offal; Greaves

  November

  Year to date

  Country

  Kilograms

  Value (£)

  Kilograms

  Value (£)

  FR France

  1,766,660

  315,084

  14,636,818

  2,537,789

  BE Belgium/Luxembourg

  554,750

  75,363

  1,604,710

  258,782

  NL Netherlands

  1,002,060

  155,593

  5,863,449

  1,186,838

  DE Federal Republic of Germany

  40,020

  15,180

  538,365

  135,503

  IT Italy

  —

  0

  72,500

  20,068

  IE Irish Republic

  140,520

  54,200

  813,987

  179,256

  DK Denmark

  18,630

  9,370

  60,381

  17,395

  MT Malta

  —

  0

  200,210

  32,931

  LR Liberia

  —

  0

  2,785

  1,898

  NG Nigeria

  —

  0

  100,000

  27,000

  KE Kenya

  —

  0

  49,980

  14,134

  LB Lebanon

  —

  0

  341,750

  68,350

  ZA South Africa

  —

  0

  20,160

  3,790

  IL Israel

  888,100

  190,004

  2,546,845

  624,987

  SA Saudi Arabia

  484,440

  76,563

  3,461,878

  622,136

  LK Sri Lanka

  —

  0

  20,000

  6,380

  TW Taiwan

  —

  0

  200,000

  58,000

  PR Puerto Rico

  —

  0

  19,580

  2,895

  QQ Curacao

  —

  0

  760

  3,462

  EC Total

  3,522,640

  624,790

  23,590,210

  4,335,631

  492 493

  November

  Year to date

  Country

  Kilograms

  Value (£)

  Kilograms

  Value (£)

  Non-EC Total

  1,372,540

  266,567

  6,963,948

  1,465,963

  All Countries Total

  4,895,180

  891,357

  30,554,158

  5,801,594

  Note Latest available data for 1989.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European quality standards apply to the production of meat and bone meal.

  Mr. Maclean
  Standards for meat and bone meal are laid down in EC directives which are enacted in the United Kingdom by the Feedingstuffs Regulations 1988. These require that the product should be substantially free of hair, bristle, feathers, horn, hoof, skin and blood and of the contents of stomach and viscera; and technically free of organic solvents.

  Agriculture Industry
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing(a) the amount borrowed and (b) the consequent liability for interest of the agricultural industry in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Curry
  The figures are as follows:

  Total liabilities1

  Interest paid net of interest received2

  in £ million at year end

  in £ million

  1978

  3,400

  184

  1979

  4,150

  318

  1980

  4,650

  464

  1981

  5,400

  468

  1982

  6,300

  501

  1983

  7,300

  494

  1984

  7,650

  569

  1985

  8,250

  704

  1986

  8,350

  700

  1987

  8,550

  637

  1988

  9,250

  690

  1989

  not yet available

  949 (forecast)

  1 Total liabilities include trade credit, most of which will not incur interest.

  2 Interest paid excludes interest paid on loans taken out for land purchase.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the study by the European Community Commission into the economic and social implications of the use of bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report (doc 8975/89) the Commission presented in October identified a number of issues which could arise were BST to be licensed and which it considered to need more study. The Commission has work in hand and a further report is expected this autumn.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise at the next meeting of the Agriculture Council the sums being spent on the disposal of food surpluses.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend is well aware of the considerable success the United Kingdom Government 494
  have had in bringing about reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), in particular through the measures agreed in February 1988. These reforms are beginning to bear fruit. Surplus stocks are a fraction of what they have been; expenditure is well below the financial guideline. In negotiations in the Council of Ministers of the Commission's price proposals, we will be seeking to ensure that this progress towards a more rational and sustainable CAP is maintained.

  Turkeys
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to protect the traditional farm fresh turkey sold uneviscerated.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have ensured that the EC Commission is in no doubt about the importance we attach to our right to permit farmers to market uneviscerated poultry. We shall oppose any proposal which might seek to prohibit this.

  Pollution (Farms)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forms of assistance are available to farmers seeking to deal with on-farm pollution problems.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department offers a free initial visit to farmers by an ADAS expert and grants to meet 50 per cent. of the cost of new investment to handle, store and treat farm waste.

  Basking Sharks
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total catch in United Kingdom waters of basking sharks in 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  There is no requirement on United Kingdom fishermen to report catches of basking sharks but these are thought to be minimal. Norway may take basking sharks in United Kingdom waters as part of the annual EC-Norway fisheries arrangements, but catches in 1987, 1988 and the first part of 1989 were nil.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any proposals to control catches of basking sharks by issuing licences.

  Mr. Curry
  No. The data available indicate that there has been no decline in the stock in Community waters since 1978.

  National Fruit Collection
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will play a co-ordinating role in relation to the responsibilities for science in relation to the decision to move the national fruit collection from Brogdale to Wye college.
  495
  Mr. Maclean
  The arrangements for moving the national fruit collection to Wye college and for its subsequent maintenance there will be covered by a contract between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the college. This will include any Ministry-funded scientific work in the collection. A small advisory group of independent scientists will oversee compliance with the contract. We see no need for further co-ordination.

  Live Cattle Imports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those countries currently enforcing bans or partial bans on live cattle imports from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Member states of the European Community, Australia, Austria, Finland, Israel, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States of America.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the meeting between non-governmental organisations represented by Tony Juniper, Peter Knights, Dave Currey, Peter Wilkinson, Karen Bradbury, Colin Booty and David Williams and officials of his Department on 30 January.

  Mr. Maclean
  Officials from my Department and the Department of the Environment had a useful exchange of views with these representatives on the trade in wild-caught birds and possible measures to reduce mortality among imported birds.

  Lead-contaminated Feed
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to lift restrictions on the movement and sale of cattle affected by lead-contaminated feed; and what progress has been made in meeting compensation claims.

  Mr. Maclean
  I announced further measures on 1 February which will ease livestock restrictions. We shall continue our comprehensive research programme with a view to lifting all restrictions as quickly as possible, consistent with the need to ensure that the food chain remains fully protected.

  There is no provision for statutory Government compensation in the event of incidents of this kind. The National Farmers Union is, however, advising its members on the subject of compensation.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will prohibit the sale of meat for human consumption from sheep that are suspected of having scrapie.

  Mr. Curry
  No, because scrapie has been present in this country for at least two centuries without any evidence to suggest that it has been, or can be, a risk to humans. Nor has research over 20 years identified any such risk.

  Sheep
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's procedure to ensure that the Economic Community sheepmeat premium is paid annually in respect of eligible sheep.

  Mr. Curry
  The annual ewe premium provided for by the EC sheepmeat regime is paid annually to eligible claimants.

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any further representations concerning the irradiation of food.

  Mr. Maclean
  I receive letters about food irradiation as about other topical matters.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy towards the irradiation of food.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are taking steps to permit the use of food irradiation as one additional measure in the comprehensive range of policies aimed at protecting public health through enhancing the safety of food. On obtaining the necessary powers, the Government would propose to introduce a licensing system with official monitoring by qualified inspectors. Comprehensive labelling provisions are also proposed that would leave consumers free to decide for themselves whether they wish to choose foods whose safety is protected by this process.

  Milk
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the cost of the distribution of(a) welfare milk and (b) milk supplied to customers in general; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Milk prices were de-controlled at the beginning of 1985 and my Department no longer collects this type of information.

  Animal Feedstuffs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what United Kingdom regulations govern the declaration by manufacturers and wholesalers of ingredients on the labels of compound animal feedstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  At present manufacturers of feeding-stuffs must give detailed nutritional information such as protein, oil and fibre content and guarantee the safety of the finished feed. Manufacturers may also voluntarily declare the ingredients used. However, an amendment to the relevant EC directive was agreed at the Agriculture Council on 22 January, which will make it obligatory for ingredients to be shown in descending order of importance or in categories of similar ingredients.

  Salmonella
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk of a pasteurised egg containing salmonella enteriditis.
  497
  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to pasteurise an egg.

  Pasteurisation is applied in egg-processing plants to broken-out bulk liquid egg. Only a moderate heat treatment can be applied during the process, otherwise the functional properties of the liquid egg are destroyed. The risk of contamination remaining at the end of the process depends on the degree of contamination of the raw product prior to pasteurisation. This is why processing plants cannot accept raw product which is likely to be heavily contaminated.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline his statutory responsibilities and those of his Department in relation to food poisoning.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]: My statutory responsibilities in relation to food poisoning are set out in the Food Act 1984, the Animal Health Act 1981 and the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985.

SCOTLAND

  Toll-free Bridges
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the toll-free bridges built from public funds in the Highlands and Islands since 1965.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1965, approximately 125 significant road bridges have been built from public funds in the Highlands and Islands. If the hon. Member would care to identify the type of bridge which interests him I should be pleased to provide him with a list.

  Skye Toll Bridge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the prospective designers and operators of a Skye toll bridge have so far been required to consult any environmental bodies before submitting plans and costs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Skye bridge working group has already consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland (RFACS) and is in touch also with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council and the National Trust for Scotland. The views of these bodies will be conveyed to the three tenderers once they have been selected. The tenderers will be required to provide an environmental impact statement for each of their designs and, as usual, to give RFACS an opportunity to comment on their detailed designs before their tenders are formally submitted to the Scottish Development Department.

  Communications Infrastructure
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of his Department on the provision of future fixed link improvements in communications infrastructure being provided(a) from public funds and (b) by the private sector.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I assume the hon. Member's interest is in major roads and road bridges. We are committed to further improving the trunk road 498
  network in Scotland, and plan to increase public expenditure on new construction during 1990–91 by some 25 per cent, over the current year. As indicated in "New Roads by New Means", the financing of roads is no longer a matter solely for Government, however, and there will from time to time be ad hoc opportunities for privately financed schemes. The Scottish Development Department is willing to discuss with the private sector any such schemes which are brought forward.

  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 on progress on the criminal investigations arising out of alleged irregularities in the running of the Labour clubs in Ardler, Menzieshill and Whitfield, Dundee, commenced in November 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The investigation of crime is the responsibility of my noble Friend, the Lord Advocate.

  The procurator fiscal at Dundee has reported regularly to Crown counsel on the progress of investigations by him and Tayside police.

  Given that inquiries are not yet concluded it would not be appropriate for further details to be given at this time.

  Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify the number of doctors and nurses employed in Scotland(a) now and (b) in June 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  1979

  1989

  Doctors

  9,839

  1 10,833

  Nurses

  66,339

  2 75,213

  1 As at 30 September 1988.

  2 Provisional, as at 30 September 1989.

  Sheep Farming
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask he Secretary of State for Scotland how many sheep farmers in each of the Scottish regions have 1,000 ewes or over; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Farm units with 1,000 or more breeding ewes June 1989 Scottish regions and Island areas

  Region/Island area

  Number of farm units with 1,000 or more breeding ewes

  Borders

  141

  Central

  40

  Dumfries and Galloway

  105

  Fife

  2

  Grampian

  14

  Highland

  79

  Lothians

  23

  Strathclyde

  145

  Tayside

  76

  Orkney

  4

  499

  Region/Island area

  Number of farm units with 1,000 or more breeding ewes

  Shetland

  8

  Western Isles

  2

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the community charge table for each district council and regional council for 1989, and what it would have been if it had been uprated in line with inflation for the 1990–91 year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. The 1989–90 charges have been uprated by the January RPI figure (7·7 per cent.).

  Community Charge 1989–90 (inc. water charge)

  Community charge 1989–90 in-creased by current RPI

  £

  £

  BORDERS

  205·00

  220·79

  Berwickshire

  31·00

  33·39

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  42·00

  45·23

  Roxburgh

  42·00

  45·23

  Tweeddale

  43·00

  46·31

  CENTRAL

  213·00

  229·40

  Clackmannan

  87·00

  93·70

  Falkirk

  46·00

  49·54

  Stirling

  97·00

  104·47

  DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY

  206·50

  222·40

  Annandale and Eskdale

  47·00

  50·62

  Nithsdale

  39·00

  42·00

  Stewartry

  37·00

  39·85

  Wigtown

  40·00

  43·08

  FIFE

  238·00

  256·33

  Dunfermline

  55·00

  58·24

  Kirkcaldy

  60·00

  64·62

  North East Fife

  82·00

  88·31

  GRAMPIAN

  219·00

  235·86

  Aberdeen City

  85·00

  91·55

  Banff and Buchan

  56·70

  61·07

  Gordon

  44·00

  47·39

  Kincardine and Deeside

  32·00

  34·46

  Moray

  42·00

  45·23

  HIGHLAND

  200·00

  215·40

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  35·00

  37·70

  Caithness

  25·00

  26·93

  Inverness

  26·00

  28·00

  Lochaber

  37·00

  39·85

  Nairn

  28·00

  30·16

  Ross and Cromarty

  39·00

  42·00

  Skye and Lochalsh

  25·00

  26·93

  Sutherland

  6·00

  6·46

  LOTHIAN

  305·00

  328·49

  East Lothian

  69·00

  74·31

  Edinburgh City

  87·00

  93·70

  Midlothian

  59·00

  63·54

  West Lothian

  54·00

  58·16

  500

  Community Charge 1989–90 (inc. water charge)

  Community charge 1989–90 in-creased by current RPI

  £

  £

  STRATHCLYDE

  219·00

  235·86

  Argyll and Bute

  58·00

  62·47

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  79·00

  85·08

  Clydebank

  78·00

  84·01

  Clydesdale

  82·00

  88·31

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  56·00

  60·31

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  57·00

  61·39

  Cunninghame

  59·00

  63·54

  Dumbarton

  79·00

  85·08

  East Kilbride

  99·00

  106·62

  Eastwood

  63·00

  67·85

  Glasgow City

  87·00

  93·70

  Hamilton

  72·00

  77·54

  Inverclyde

  72·00

  77·54

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  50·00

  53·85

  Kyle and Carrick

  89·00

  95·85

  Monklands

  74·00

  79·70

  Motherwell

  86·00

  92·62

  Renfrew

  76·00

  81·85

  Strathkelvin

  80·00

  86·16

  Tayside

  241·00

  239·56

  Angus

  52·00

  56·00

  Dundee City

  83·00

  89·39

  Perth and Kinross

  58·00

  62·47

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of local authority expenditure in 1990–91 he estimates will be met by community charge payers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Until details of local authorities' budgets are available it is not possible to estimate what proportion of their expenditure in 1990–91 is to be met by community charge payers. The proportion indicated in budget returns for the current year is 21 per cent.

  Private Rented Accommodation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has made an estimate of the increase in central Government subsidy to housing benefit caused by private landlords who have failed to reduce their rents following the replacement of rates by the poll tax.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There has been no such increase.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will cause a study to be carried out on the number and proportion of private landlords who have not reduced rents following the abolition of rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Effective remedies are available to regulated tenants and assured tenants who believe their landlords are continuing to include an element for domestic rates in their rental charge. A study on the lines suggested would serve no useful purpose.

  Hill Farms, East Kilbride
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of designated hill farms within the constituency of East Kilbride.
  501
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of agricultural holdings classified as less favoured within the constituency of East Kilbride is estimated to be 247. The figure is, however, approximate since parish boundaries (on which records of holdings are based) do not necessarily coincide exactly with constituency boundaries.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the name of the accountants instructed by the chief executive of the Scottish Health Service to examine the accounting methods of Lothian health board referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central on 31 January.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock.

  Grant-aided Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many extra students there will be at the grant-aided Scottish colleges in each of the next five years;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1989, whether he will now say how many students are and will be enrolled at each of the Scottish grant-aided colleges in the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Academic staff1 2

  Students 1

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Central institutions

  3 Robert Gordons Institute of Technology

  283·0

  292·0

  301·0

  311·0

  311·0

  3,194

  3,229

  3,328

  3,291

  3,483

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  162·5

  168·5

  171·5

  174·5

  174·5

  2,075

  2,095

  2,114

  2,044

  2,010

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  98·0

  98·0

  98·0

  98·0

  98·0

  1,057

  1,045

  1,065

  1,099

  1,108

  Edinburgh College of Art

  104·0

  104·0

  102·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1,060

  1,070

  1,070

  1,065

  1,069

  4Queen Margaret College

  125·0

  122·0

  122·0

  122·0

  122·0

  1,227

  1,305

  1,391

  1,401

  1,513

  5Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh

  —

  441·0

  451·0

  462·0

  462·0

  —

  4,830

  5,022

  5,372

  5,703

  Scottish College of Textiles

  53·0

  53·0

  54·0

  55·0

  55·0

  641

  595

  605

  616

  615

  Queens College Glasgow

  81·0

  81·0

  74·0

  81·0

  81·0

  850

  845

  847

  904

  987

  Glasgow School of Art

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  102·0

  102·0

  1,163

  1,038

  1,069

  952

  973

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  60·5

  60·5

  60·5

  60·5

  60·5

  394

  399

  376

  419

  436

  5Glasgow College of Technology

  —

  343·5

  347·5

  350·5

  350·5

  —

  4,066

  4,088

  3,878

  4,174

  6Paisley College of Technology

  239·5

  246·5

  250·5

  255·5

  255·5

  3,045

  2,924

  3,065

  3,146

  3,354

  7Leith Nautical College

  63·0

  53·5

  —

  —

  —

  683

  483

  —

  —

  —

  Colleges of education

  8Aberdeen

  92·0

  87·0

  —

  —

  —

  756

  747

  —

  —

  —

  Craigie

  38·5

  40·0

  39·0

  39·0

  39·0

  332

  334

  357

  403

  367

  8Dundee

  77·0

  73·0

  —

  —

  —

  608

  609

  —

  —

  —

  9Dunfermline

  47·0

  45·0

  —

  —

  —

  366

  374

  —

  —

  —

  Jordanhill

  278·0

  271·0

  268·0

  244·0

  244·0

  2,332

  2,229

  2,439

  2,324

  2,260

  Moray House

  169·5

  170·0

  207·0

  208·0

  208·0

  1,4002

  1,480

  1,849

  2,016

  1,992

  St. Andrews

  102·0

  97·0

  96·0

  91·0

  91·0

  841

  836

  862

  873

  827

  Northern

  —

  —

  158·0

  151·0

  151·0

  —

  —

  1,420

  1,451

  1,400

  1 Staff and student figures are expressed as full-time equivalents.

  2 The staff figures represent the approved complements.

  3 Excludes the Off-shore Survival Centre and the Off-shore Health Centre.

  4 Excludes the Business Development Centre.

  5 Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh and Glasgow College of Technology joined the Central Institution sector on 1 September 1985.

  6 Excludes the Non-Destructive Testing Centre.

  7 Leith Nautical College transferred to the local authority sector with effect from 1 August 1987.

  8 Merged to form Northern College of Education on l April 1987.

  9 Merged with Moray House College of Education on 1 April 1987.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total budgets for each of the Scottish grant-aided colleges in each of the past 10 years.
  502
  Mr. Lang
  As I stated in my written answer of 18 December 1989,Official Report, columns 50–51, projected student numbers will be set out in the Scottish commentary on public expenditure to 1992–93, which will be published shortly.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the three-year running cost settlements that have been provided for each of the Scottish grant-aided colleges; and how much extra money has been provided through fee income and for extra student numbers.

  Mr. Lang
  I shall announce allocations of grant-in-aid for 1990–91 shortly and provide colleges with provisional grant allocation figures for the following two years in due course. The colleges' tuition fee income will depend on the numbers of students enrolled and the levels of fee they charge.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were(a) the academic staff numbers and (b) the student numbers in each of the Scottish grant-aided colleges in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures are given in the table:

  Mr. Lang
  The gross current expenditure in each of the colleges is set out in the table:
  503

  Grant-aided colleges gross current expenditure

  £million

  Grant aided colleges

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–821

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Central Institutions

  Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29·582

  217·351

  219·497

  22·136

  Glasgow College of Technology 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27·629

  213·070

  214·039

  17·039

  Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology

  5·881

  7·126

  5·192

  8·841

  9·941

  10·421

  211·123

  212·096

  213·471

  14·669

  Paisley College of Technology

  5·080

  6·531

  5·080

  8·222

  8·697

  9·277

  29·920

  210·690

  211·466

  12·556

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  3·110

  4·184

  3·645

  5·045

  5·427

  5·856

  26·215

  26·747

  27·319

  8·077

  Scottish College of Textiles

  1·080

  1·399

  1·087

  1·759

  1·946

  2·336

  2·279

  2·363

  2·513

  3·891

  Queen Margaret College

  2·536

  3·221

  2·778

  3·489

  3·657

  3·874

  4·214

  5·069

  5·582

  6·416

  Queen's College Glasgow

  1·634

  2·205

  1·823

  2·582

  2·793

  2·923

  3·185

  3·317

  3·536

  3·878

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  2·205

  2·712

  1·963

  3·084

  3·298

  3·434

  3·582

  3·781

  4·148

  4·423

  Edinburgh College of Art

  2·436

  2·886

  2·226

  3·475

  3·733

  3·815

  4·075

  4·249

  4·333

  4·629

  Glasgow School of Art

  2·138

  2·719

  1·998

  3·172

  3·309

  3·545

  3·717

  3·880

  4·275

  4·438

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  1·043

  1·383

  1·129

  1·518

  1·643

  1·762

  1·874

  2·010

  2·533

  2·913

  Leith Nautical College4

  1·249

  1·581

  1·197

  1·830

  1·887

  1·822

  1·840

  —

  —

  —

  Colleges of Education

  Aberdeen College of Education8

  2·415

  2·881

  3·110

  3·231

  3·263

  3·344

  3·393

  3·496

  —

  —

  Callendar Park College of Education5

  1·029

  1·246

  0·510

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigie College of Education

  1·041

  1·177

  1·242

  1·295

  1·284

  1·364

  1·458

  1·576

  1·735

  2·105

  Craiglockhart College of Education6

  0·751

  0·911

  0·429

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee College of Education8

  2·186

  2·609

  2·786

  2·870

  2·879

  2·936

  3·129

  3·094

  —

  —

  Dunfermline College of Physical Education9

  1·271

  1·591

  1·744

  1·774

  1·838

  1·845

  1·955

  1·970

  —

  —

  Hamilton College of Education5

  1·537

  1·789

  0·880

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jordanhill College of Education7

  6·251

  7·798

  8·765

  10·588

  10·149

  10·366

  10·770

  11·302

  10·698

  11·318

  Moray House College of Education

  3·934

  4·772

  5·823

  6·055

  5·988

  6·059

  6·484

  6·606

  8·878

  9·243

  Northern College of Education

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·954

  7·383

  Notre Dame College of Education6

  2·102

  2·449

  1·101

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Andrew's College of Education

  —

  —

  2·129

  3·705

  3·689

  3·832

  3·852

  3·844

  3·939

  4·251

  1 Represents spending over 9 month period due to change in financial year.

  2 Figures include grant allocated under the switch to technology programme.

  3 Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh and Glasgow College of Technology became central institutions on 1 September 1985.

  4 Leith Nautical College transferred to the local authority sector.

  5 College dissolved on 15 September 1981.

  6 Merged to form St. Andrew's College of Education on 15 September 1981.

  7 Includes funding for Jordanhill College School until 31 March 1987.

  8 Merged to form Northern College of Education on 1 April 1987.

  9 Merged with Moray House College of Education on 1 April 1987.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his planned intention to raise the staff-student ratio beyond 11·5:1 in Scottish grant-aided colleges in future years.

  Mr. Lang
  I expect the overall student:staff ratio in the grant-aided colleges to reach 11·5:1 in session 1989–90. For the future I envisage that staff and student numbers will be a matter for the colleges themselves in keeping with their responsibility for achieving the best use of the resources available to them.

  Self-governing Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he has budgeted for ballots, the preparation of formal proposals for self-governing status, and transitional and special purpose grants for schools which may become self-governing in 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  The provision to be made for this expenditure will be published in the Supply Estimates for 1990–91 to be laid before the House in the next few weeks.

  Technology Academies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how the £3·8 million budgeted for technology academies in 1988–89 was spent;
  505
  (2) whether any money was budgeted and spent on technology academies prior to 1987–88.

  Mr. Lang
  No provision for expenditure on technology academies was made in either 1987–88 or 1988–89. There is provision of £4·25 million for this purpose in the Estimates for the current financial year.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1989,Official Report, column 808, whether he will now say by how much his education budget will increase in cash and percentage terms in the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, excluding the costs of student maintenance;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1989, Official Report, column 808, whether he will now say how much money will be spent on student grants in Scotland in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1989, Official Report, column 808, whether he will now say how much money will be spent on student loans in Scotland in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1989, Official Report, column 53, if he can now say what his spending plans are for the postgraduate student allowance scheme for the years until 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  As stated in the answers I gave the hon. Member on 14 December 1989 at column 808 and 19 December at column 149, my detailed expenditure plans will be set out in the Scottish commentary on public expenditure to 1992–93 which will be published shortly.

  Water Supply (Disconnections)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for the number of people who were disconnected from their water supplies in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. A water authority (regional or islands council) would disconnect a domestic household's supply only for operational reasons. These would include repairing leaks, making connections and lining pipes.

  Charing Cross Clinic
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will act to ensure that Greater Glasgow health board does not proceed with its plans to close Charing Cross clinic which provides a comprehensive range of alcohol and drug recovery services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The level and pattern of services to be provided for people with alcohol and drug problems is primarily a matter for health boards to determine in consultation with local authorities and the voluntary sector and in the light of their assessment of local needs and circumstances.

  I understand that Greater Glasgow health board has issued a consultative document proposing the closure of Charing Cross clinic and relocation of the services provided there. The board will be considering the responses it receives to the consultation document. Thereafter, if the board wishes to proceed with the closure of the clinic, the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend will be required.

  Steel Foundry, Bathgate
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the actions of the Scottish Office in relation to the North British steel foundry in Bathgate.

  Mr. Lang
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Roads, Ayrshire
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Government's expenditure plans, Cm 1015, include no reference to the £100 million road programme for the upgrading of Ayshire roads which he announced in July 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have taken the opportunity to give the hon. Member a full reply to this question in the letter I sent to him on Friday 2 February.

  Nuclear Electricity
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric enter into contracts with Scottish Nuclear Ltd. for the sale of nuclear electricity in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Negotiations about the terms and conditions of the nuclear energy agreement are taking place.

  Waiting Lists (Inverclyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a) the total waiting list, (b) the longest time any patient had to wait and (c) the numbers waiting by number of months' wait for the ear, nose and throat department at the Inverclyde royal hospital over the last four years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]The information available is set out in the tables:

  (a) In-patient waiting list at 31 March.

  Year

  Numbers on Waiting List

  1986

  358

  1987

  462

  1988

  1253

  1989

  1245

  (b) Waiting time for those discharged during the year.

  Year

  Longest Waiting time (Months)

  Mean Waiting time (Months)2

  1985

  46·5

  3·4

  1986

  36·8

  2·8

  1987

  54·4

  3·4

  1988

  55·5

  3·4

  (c) Number of people on the waiting list by time spent on the waiting list at 31 March3

  1988 Number

  1989 Number

  under 3 months

  104

  141

  3 and under 6 months

  50

  33

  6 and under 9 months

  38

  16

  9 and under 12 months

  25

  26

  507

  1988 Number

  1989 Number

  12 months and over

  36

  29

  Total

  253

  245

  1 The altered statistical system on which these figures are collected is explained in ISD Statistical Bulletin 1/88.

  2 The figures in this column relate to admissions while those at Vol. 149 No. 68 6137 of the official report were confined to operations.

  3 The altered statistical system on which these figures are collected is explained in ISD Statistical Bulletin 1/88. The information is not available for earlier years.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the projected shortfall in the finances of Lothian health board for the current financial year; and if he will take any steps to supplement the board's finances in order to ensure the continuing provision of patient care;

  (2) what are the terms of reference of the review that Mr. Don Cruickshank is to conduct into the financial crisis of Lothian health board; when he expects that review to be completed; and if he will publish Mr. Cruickshank's report.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]Lothian health board has indicated that its expenditure in 1989–90 will exceed its revenue allocation by some £9 million. However, the interests of patient care remain paramount and there is no question of crisis closures, or reductions in patient services as a result of the current financial difficulties.

  An independent review initiated by the chief executive, NHS in Scotland has examined the board's financial management of its affairs.

  Dangerous Animals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans for legislation concerning the control of dangerous animals, whether kept as domestic pets, or for guarding of premises.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans at present. There is already a considerable body of relevant legislation, including the Guard Dogs Act 1975, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and certain provisions relating to dangerous and annoying creatures in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which is currently under review. Most recently the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 significantly enhanced the powers of the courts to deal with dog owners who fail to exercise proper control over their animals. These provisions, together with the judicious use of byelaws as advocated in our consultation paper, "Action on Dogs", offer considerable scope for more effective control of dangerous animals.

  Trials (Delays)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to reform the organisation of Scottish courts to ensure that cases are no longer abandoned because of delays in convening a trial.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]No. The information available centrally 508
  indicates that less than 0·5 per cent. of all cases reported to procurators fiscal are not proceeded with due to court delays, predominately minor cases in the district courts.

  Scottish Wildcats
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will bring forward legislation to ensure that Scottish wildcats are protected from extinction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]: The Scottish wildcat (Felis silvestris) was added to schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 under the Variation of Schedules Order 1988. It is an offence intentionally to kill, injure or take any wild animal included in the schedule. Following an increase in recent years, the numbers of wildcats have stabilised.

  Procurator Fiscal
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the number of cases requiring the services of the procurator fiscal coming before(a) the sheriff and district courts at Rothesay for the 12 months prior to 30 September 1988 and (b) the sheriff courts at Dunoon and Rothesay and the district courts at Dunoon, Rothesay and Inveraray for (i) the year ended 31 December 1988 and (ii) the year ended 31 December 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]The figures are as follows:

  12 months prior to 30 September 1986

  1988

  1989

  Rothesay Sheriff Court Cases

  390

  313

  298

  Rothesay District Court Cases

  45

  42

  68

  Dunoon Sheriff Court Cases

  867

  625

  Dunoon District Court Cases

  41

  120

  Inveraray District Court Cases

  35

  61

TRANSPORT

  Highway Authorities
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report those highway authorities to which supplementary credit approval has been allocated for 1990–91, together with the size of the approvals and the purpose for which they are intended.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Supplementary credit approvals in 1990–91

  Authority

  SCA £ million

  Scheme

  Berkshire

  0·239

  Reading IDR urban traffic control

  East Sussex

  0·660

  Brighton bypass-Hangleton link

  Hampshire

  5·910

  Blackwater valley route (north)

  Kent

  4·560

  Thanet way dualling

  Kent

  0·996

  A256 Dover-Sandwich

  Kent

  0·102

  A260 Barham-Folkestone

  Kent

  4·195

  A2070 Brenzett-Ashford

  Surrey

  1·804

  Runfold diversion and BVR A31-A323

  Surrey

  0·759

  Blackwater valley route northern section

  Surrey

  0·183

  Urban traffic control

  509

  Authority

  SCA £ million

  Scheme

  Avon

  0·491

  Urban traffic control

  Devon

  0·407

  Urban traffic control Scoot phase 3

  Birmingham

  0·744

  City urban traffic control

  Coventry

  0·767

  Foleshill Holbrooks bypass

  Coventry

  0·058

  Urban traffic control

  Coventry

  0·013

  IDA

  Walsall

  2·693

  Black country route

  Wolverhampton

  2·111

  Black country route

  Warwicks

  0·328

  Bedworth bypass extension

  Manchester

  0·187

  Urban traffic control

  St. Helens

  0·340

  Urban traffic control

  Sefton

  0·282

  Urban traffic control

  Wirral

  0·220

  Urban traffic control

  Sunderland

  0·007

  IDA

  Barnsley

  0·132

  Urban traffic control

  Rotherham

  3·435

  IDA

  Sheffield

  0·270

  Urban traffic control

  Sheffield

  0·392

  IDA

  Bradford

  0·127

  Urban traffic control

  Bradford

  0·018

  IDA

  Kirklees

  0·006

  IDA

  Leeds

  0·088

  Urban traffic control

  Humberside

  0·210

  IDA

  Leicestershire 0·081

  Redland quarry to Quorn/ Mounts orrel bypass link

  Bedfordshire

  0·132

  Urban traffic control in Luton

  Essex

  0·373

  Braintree bypass

  Norfolk

  2·782

  Trowse bypass

  Norfolk

  0·107

  Urban traffic control in Norwich

  Ealing

  1·710

  Hayes bypass

  Enfield

  6·480

  North south route

  Haringey

  2·780

  North south route

  Hillingdon

  4·917

  Hayes bypass

  Hounslow

  0·279

  Hayes bypass contract 4

  Merton

  1·150

  Beddington/Mitcham relief road

  "IDA" means road schemes qualifying for grant under Section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the present regulation on bus lanes in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Decisions on bus lanes in London are primarily for London boroughs. Departmental advice published in circular 2/87 "Traffic Management Guidance in London", is that buses be given priority where benefits to passengers exceed the costs to other traffic. We are reviewing currently requirements for the signing of bus lanes and technical advice on implementation of bus priority measures more generally.

  Buses
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bus operators and how many miles of bus route there were in 1989; and what the figure was in 1985.

  Mr. Portillo
  These data are not available. However, local bus mileage outside London increased by 18 per cent. between 1985–86 and 1988–89, with 84 per cent. of the 1988–89 mileage being operated on a commercial basis.

  London Transport (Sexual Attacks)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sexual attacks have occurred on London Transport vehicles in each of the past three years; what action he is taking to stop these attacks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of reported "sexual offences" on London Underground trains and stations in 1987, 1988 and 1989 were 334, 451 and 632 respectively. Figures for crimes on trains are not recorded separately. The category "sexual offences" covers a range of incidents from indecent exposure to rape. The British Transport police are now targeting this type of crime and detection rates have increased by 94 per cent. since 1988. In addition, a programme of passenger security measures is being introduced on the Underground, financed by £15 million Government grant. Crime against passengers on London buses is dealt with by the Metropolitan police and London Regional Transport does not maintain a central statistical record of such incidents. There has been no serious crime reported on the Docklands light railway since it opened in 1987.

  London Underground (Escalators)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many London Transport escalators have been out of service during the past two months.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is a matter for London Regional Transport. I am asking the chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had about the co-ordination of entry clearance for individuals and luggage with the transport arrangements for travellers on the proposed Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  For travellers on Eurotunnel shuttle trains, the concession agreement specifies juxtaposed frontier controls. All the formalities of both countries will be carried out at the terminal of departure.

  For BR/SNCF trains going beyond London, the Channel Tunnel Act specifies on-train controls provided that satisfactory arrangements are made to provide facilities for the control authorities.

  Discussions between the frontier control authorities, Eurotunnel and British Rail about the detailed arrangements appropriate to the Channel tunnel in these two cases are continuing.

  For international trains to London, discussions between BR and the control authorities are under way and an announcement is expected shortly.

  M1 (De-acceleration Lanes)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if de-acceleration lanes will be provided on the M1 south bound at its junction with the M25.

  Mr. Atkins
  The layout of this junction will be examined by Hertfordshire county council under its design commission from the Department for the proposed
  511
  widening of the M1 from junction 6a (M25) to junction 10 (Luton airport). This is one of the many new schemes announced in the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", published in May 1989.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation that will make it easier to introduce lower speed limits.

  Mr. Atkins
  Lower speed limits in suitable residential areas could have a significant effect in reducing road casualties, particularly among children. I am discussing with the local authority associations and the police guidelines for the establishment of 20mph zones and hope shortly to issue a consultative document. Action by local authorities on these lines will not require legislation.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy with regard to the extension of existing 30mph speed limits commensurate with urban developments.

  Mr. Atkins
  Most urban developments have street lighting, where a 30mph limit automatically applies. It is open to local highway authorities to introduce a 30mph limit on their other roads if, in their view, that would enhance road safety.

  Noise Insulation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend existing noise insulation regulations to enable eligibility for insulation to be based on a noise criteria level alone.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. The cost of insulating all properties receiving a noise level at or above 68 dB(A)L10 18 hour would be prohibitive. It was estimated in 1983 that it would cost about £2 billion.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the national staffing levels for British Transport police and (b) the staffing levels for British Transport police for the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority area, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The figures for national staffing levels for British Transport police officers and civilian staff are as follows:

  Year

  Police officers

  Civilian staff

  Total

  1979

  1,899

  182

  2,081

  1980

  1,948

  186

  2,134

  1981

  2,138

  194

  2,332

  1982

  2,128

  196

  2,324

  1983

  2,052

  194

  2,246

  1984

  1,961

  186

  2,147

  1985

  1,817

  184

  2,001

  1986

  1,834

  186

  2,020

  1987

  1,846

  183

  2,029

  1988

  1,830

  194

  2,024

  1989

  1,856

  247

  2,103

  Note The change in the total between 1983 and 1985 reflected the termination of policing arrangements between Associated British Ports and the BTP.

  Data for officers engaged solely on policing the West Yorkshire passenger authority area are not available, but
  512
  figures for officers stationed at Leeds and Bradford, involving an area which approximates to that of the PTA, are as follows:

  Year

  Police officers

  Civilian staff

  Total

  1979

  53

  2

  55

  1980

  51

  2

  53

  1981

  54

  2

  56

  1982

  50

  2

  52

  1983

  52

  2

  54

  1984

  51

  2

  53

  1985

  53

  2

  55

  1986

  56

  2

  58

  1987

  53

  2

  55

  1988

  52

  2

  54

  1989

  55

  2

  57

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to ensure that heavy goods vehicle licensing authorities must take into account deficiencies in the public highway system giving access to a proposed operating centre when determining applications for new licences.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for traffic and safety matters on the public highway rests with the appropriate highway authority. It would be wrong to confuse this with the functions of a licensing authority for goods vehicle operator licences.

  Traffic, Wakefield
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action will be taken to reduce traffic congestion on roads within Wakefield metropolitan district during the proposed widening of the A 1 in West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  To minimise traffic delays on the Al it is intended that two lanes of traffic in each direction will be maintained for most of the construction period associated with the widening works. In this way it is anticipated that conditions on other roads, including those in Wakefield metropolitan district, will be substantially unchanged.

  M1-M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what stage his proposal to build a new link between the Ml and M62 to the west of Leeds has now reached.

  Mr. Atkins
  Civil engineering consultants were commissioned on 1 February 1990 to investigate possible route alignments for this proposed new link road.

  Road Deaths, Dorset
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the figures on road deaths in rural Dorset; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which there is a relationship between fatal road accidents and inadequate roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  Over the past five years, an average of 35 people have been killed each year on non built-up roads in Dorset. On average, 12 of these were on minor roads, the remainder on major roads.
  513
  The Department is very aware of the need for safe roads, and in January 1988 introduced a new skidding resistance standard for trunk roads. By providing the highest levels of skidding resistance where they are most needed, it is expected that 1,800 road casualties, including 75 fatalities, will be saved each year on trunk roads.

  Local authorities have followed the Department's lead by incorporating the standard within their own code of good practice for highway maintenance.

  Motor Insurers Bureau
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many complaints he has received about the operation of the Motor Insurers Bureau for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give his reasons for his decision to allow the Motor Insurers Bureau to be regulated by a voluntary agreement;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the operation of the Motor Insurers Bureau;

  (4) if he will review the voluntary agreement operated between his Department and the Motor Insurers Bureau; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what representations he has received about the operation of the Motor Insurers Bureau.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Motor Insurers Bureau provides a central fund to compensate accident victims of uninsured and untraced drivers. It carries out its obligations under the terms of its agreements with the Secretary of State. The agreements have been revised from time to time since the bureau was formed in 1946.

  These arrangements have worked satisfactorily. Last year the bureau received some 15,000 applications under the agreements and paid some £28 million in compensation. The Department receives some 30 inquiries or representations a year about specific cases or the bureau's operations generally. Most of these originated from one firm of solicitors.

  I have no plans to review the agreements.

  Hunt Trespass
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many actions for trespass were initiated by British Transport police in 1989; and how many were against members of hunts;

  (2) how many incidents of hunt trespass on British Rail property were reported to British Transport police in 1989; and what action was taken.

  Mr. Portillo
  This Department has no figures readily available. These are detailed matters for British Rail and the British Transport police.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he plans to take following the death of Mr. Joseph Cunningham, Master of the Cleveland Foxhounds, who was killed by a train on 25 January when trespassing on British Rail property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I naturally regret Mr. Cunningham's death. This will be subject to investigation at a coroner's inquest, and I will take note of any recommendations the coroner might have.

  Ferry Road, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will authorise a public inquiry into the public safety, health, nuisance and amenity considerations pertaining to the proposed excavation of the controlled household refuse tip established at Ferry road, Cardiff, and its proposed transportation by rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 January. Environmental considerations are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any of the owners of the land along the line of British Rail's preferred Channel tunnel rail link route are among the third parties to which he referred in his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing of 16 January,Official Report, column 152.

  Mr. Portillo
  I had in mind the negotiations which will need to take place with Eurotunnel, SNCF and SNCB before the joint venture can be established.

  Dock Workers
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had any recent representations from any of the former dock labour scheme ports about reintroducing a workers' registration scheme; and if he will make a statement about employment at former scheme ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have had no such representations. There have been many changes in employment practices in former dock labour scheme ports, as overmanning, restrictive practices and rigid demarcations have been eliminated and numbers employed generally reduced, making the ports more efficient. Some shippers are now using their own employees to load and unload ships. Some former stevedoring firms have closed down, but some new ones have been started up.

  Car Parking Signs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations govern the maximum size of public signs denoting car parking within cities, towns and villages; and if he will give details of the relevant dimensions.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]: Car parking signs which are off the highway are subject to permission by local planning authorities under the Control of Advertisement Regulations. There is no legal limitation as to their size.

  Car parking signs which are located within the highway are covered by the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981. The traffic speed on a road will determine the height of the letters used on the sign. Practical considerations and the amount of information to be included will determine its overall size.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Industrial death benefit

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  25

  30

  30

  Maternity allowance

  100

  115

  120

  125

  125

  110

  120

  115

  110

  30

  15

  15

  Non-contribution RP

  65

  55

  50

  50

  45

  40

  35

  35

  40

  35

  35

  35

  War pension

  385

  370

  360

  345

  330

  315

  305

  295

  280

  270

  265

  255

  Attendance allowance

  265

  285

  315

  350

  390

  445

  490

  555

  605

  670

  730

  796

  Invalid care allowance

  5

  5

  5

  5

  10

  10

  10

  10

  25

  80

  100

  110

  Severe disability allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  245

  245

  265

  265

  270

  265

  Non-cont invalidity pensions

  150

  165

  175

  180

  195

  210

  225

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mobility allowance

  95

  140

  185

  210

  265

  315

  390

  420

  460

  515

  560

  615

  Income support

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,310

  4,075

  Supplementary benefit3

  3,020

  2,920

  3,110

  3,725

  4,165

  4,435

  4,665

  4,765

  5,095

  5,020

  —

  —

  Child benefit4

  3,480

  13,330

  13,160

  13,145

  12,890

  12,660

  12,430

  12,375

  12,175

  12,040

  12,010

  12,140

  Family credit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  280

  315

  Family income support

  85

  80

  95

  125

  165

  200

  205

  205

  215

  220

  —

  —

  Housing benefit5 6

  rent rebate

  1,210

  1,205

  1,330

  1,590

  3,050

  3,735

  3,745

  3,710

  3,720

  3,665

  3,125

  3,115

  rent allowance

  225

  220

  240

  250

  260

  1,015

  1,080

  1,150

  1,180

  1,195

  965

  1,040

  rate rebate

  3,055

  3,065

  3,350

  3,700

  5,320

  7,020

  7,230

  7,020

  7,050

  6,875

  5,150

  4,480

  Percentage change from 1978–79 Numbers in each year12

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Retirement pension

  2

  4

  6

  7

  8

  10

  10

  12

  14

  14

  15

  Widows' benefits

  -1

  -4

  -7

  -10

  -11

  -14

  -17

  -19

  -22

  -25

  -25

  Unemployment benefit

  -4

  68

  96

  91

  79

  79

  68

  76

  43

  5

  -27

  Sickness benefit

  -13

  -22

  -21

  -29

  -70

  -68

  -71

  -82

  -81

  -81

  -81

  Invalidity benefit

  3

  3

  10

  17

  27

  38

  44

  56

  68

  83

  98

  Ind. disability benefit

  0

  -3

  -3

  -5

  -8

  30

  33

  43

  50

  63

  70

  Ind. death benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -17

  0

  0

  Maternity allowance

  15

  20

  25

  25

  10

  20

  15

  10

  -70

  -85

  -85

  Non-contributory RP

  -15

  -23

  -23

  -31

  -38

  -46

  -46

  -38

  -46

  -46

  -46

  War pension

  -4

  -6

  -10

  -14

  -18

  -21

  -23

  -27

  -30

  -31

  -34

  Attendance allowance

  8

  19

  32

  47

  68

  85

  109

  128

  153

  175

  200

  Invalid care allowance

  0

  0

  0

  100

  100

  100

  100

  400

  1,500

  1,900

  2,100

  Severe disability allowance7

  *

  0

  8

  8

  10

  8

  Non-cont. Inv. Pensions

  10

  17

  20

  30

  40

  50

  Mobility allowance

  47

  95

  121

  179

  232

  311

  342

  384

  442

  489

  547

  Income support7

  *

  -5

  Supplementary benefit

  -3

  3

  23

  38

  47

  54

  58

  69

  66

  Child benefit

  -1

  -2

  -2

  4

  -6

  -8

  -8

  -10

  -11

  -11

  -10

  Family credit7

  *

  13

  Family income supp.

  -6

  12

  47

  94

  135

  141

  141

  153

  159

  Housing benefit

  rent rebate

  -0

  10

  31

  152

  209

  210

  207

  207

  203

  158

  157

  rent allowance

  -2

  7

  11

  16

  351

  380

  411

  424

  431

  329

  362

  rate rebate

  0

  10

  21

  74

  130

  137

  130

  131

  125

  69

  47

  Notes:

  1 Source: Public Expenditure White Papers 1984–1990.

  2 Beneficiaries may be receiving more than one benefit at any one time.

  3 Includes housing benefit supplement recipients (some 440,000 in 1987–88) who are also included in the figures for housing benefit recipients.

  4 Numbers of children in families receiving child benefit, including those also receiving one parent benefit.

  5 Figures up to 1981–82 relate only to the rebate and allowance scheme for those not receiving supplementary benefit. Thereafter the figures reflect the partial introduction of the housing benefit scheme from November 1982 and full start in November 1983.

  6 There is a significant overlap: most households getting help with rent also receive a rate rebate.

  7 * denotes the first year of a new benefit. Percentage increases in subsequent years are increases since the first year.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of spending on community care grants by the social fund in Leeds, West.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on local office social fund allocations and expenditure, including those for Leeds, West, is in the Library.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' incomes from savings changed over the period(a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell).

  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions have risen since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A measure of this Government's success is that between 1979 and 1986 pensioners received a 56 per cent. increase in income from their occupational pensions.

  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average income of a retired couple with savings just sufficient to disqualify them from all means-tested benefit including housing benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  A wide range of factors are involved in calculating income-related benefits and I regret it is not possible to give a precise answer to the question. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind and cares to write to me I will respond.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions have risen since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information shows that pensioners' average total net incomes increased by 23 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1986. This compares very favourably with the previous Government's record when, between 1974 and 1979, previous average total net incomes rose by only 3 per cent. Increases in income from occupational pensions have contributed considerably to this improvement. Pensioners had experienced a 56 per cent. increase in real terms in the level of their occupational pension during this Government's first seven years of office.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' incomes from savings changed over the period(a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information shows that pensioners' average total net incomes increased by 23 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1986. This compares very favourably with the previous Government's516
  record when, between 1974 and 1979, previous average total net incomes rose by only 3 per cent. Increases in incomes from savings have contributed considerably to this improvement. In 1986 a total of 70 per cent. of pensioners had income from savings. These pensioners had seen the value of their savings income increase in real terms by 64 per cent. during this Government's first seven years of office, whereas under the previous Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 savings fell by 16 per cent.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of income support and housing benefit paid to pensioners whose sole income in 1989 was the state pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information requested for 1989 is not yet available. However, estimated expenditure in 1988–89 was £700 million for income support and £1,290 million for housing benefit. The housing benefit estimate includes retirement pensioners who were also receiving income support.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, if he has any plans to amend the benefit regulations covering homeless 16 and 17-year-olds

  Mr. Scott
  Our overall policy for young people remains correct and in the best interests of young people. As a result of the administrative improvements announced last November all young people are now interviewed about their claims and automatic consideration is given to the severe hardship provisions in every case where there is no entitlement under normal rules. In addition we are in the process of consulting voluntary groups about new instructions for our staff and the design of a leaflet for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy in any future review of disability benefits to consult disability organisations.

  Mr. Scott
  We are always willing to take account of comments made by organisations of and for disabled people in considering changes to benefits. Our proposals for major changes in the balance and structure of disability benefits have been made in the light of the views and comments of many organisations. And we shall continue to take into account the views of interested organisations in the course of our detailed work on the proposals, in particular the new disability allowance and the disabled employment credit.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on his proposals for disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  We have 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, in particular to do more for those disabled from 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
  517
  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 £8·3 billion that is currently spent on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers.

  Disability Allowance
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he anticipates will benefit from the introduction of the disability allowance.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he anticipates will benefit from the introduction of the disability allowance.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he anticipates will benefit from the introduction of the disability allowance.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he anticipates will benefit from the introduction of the disability allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that about 150,000 people will receive the new lower rate of the mobility component of the disability allowance and 140,000 people the new lower rate of the care component. We shall also be working to ensure that everyone who receives the disability allowance benefits from improved arrangements for the administration of the benefit.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the working of the social fund loan scheme.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the working of the social fund loan scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  As I said earlier today in reply to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), we continuously monitor the working of the social fund. Interest-free loans have proved to be an effective way of targeting the available money so as to help the greatest number of people. Indeed, the flexible way in which the social fund operates has enabled us to reallocate some of the money recovered from loans to help those offices coming under pressure.

  Long-term Disablement
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what proportion spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has increased over the last decade; and how he anticipates recent announcements will affect such expenditure over the next three years.

  Mr. Scott
  The improvements in benefits for disabled people announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 10 January will result in 518
  increases in expenditure of an extra £88 million net in 1990–91; £141 million net in 1991–92; and £214 million net in 1992–93. This was on top of a real increase in spending on people who are long-term sick or disabled of nearly 100 per cent. over the last decade.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the measures he is introducing to help long-term sick and disabled people who are disabled from birth or early in life.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the measures he is introducing to help long-term sick and disabled people who are disabled from birth or early in life.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is introducing to help long-term sick and disabled people who are disabled from birth or early in life.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends to my answer earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what proportion spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has increased over the last decade; and how he anticipates recent announcements will affect such expenditure over the next three years.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

  Pensions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning restoration of the link between earnings and retirement pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have received a total of 1,941 representations between 11 January 1989 and 9 January 1990 on pensioners' incomes, the majority of which concerned the link with earnings. We have no plans to restore the link; the Government do not accept that uprating retirement pension in line with earnings is the key factor in improving pensioners' incomes. Between 1979 and 1986 pensioners' average total net income increased by 23 per cent. in real terms.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the future of small self-administered pension schemes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 20 December 1989 at column 304.

  Young People (Accommodation)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available for young people aged under 18 years who leave home to help them find accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Discretionary social fund crisis loans are available to young homeless people for rent in advance and essential items of furniture where this is the only
  519
  means of avoiding a serious risk to the health and safety of the applicant. In addition young people likely to receive income support on leaving institutional, residential or local authority care are one of the priority groups for community care grants and may be eligible for start-up grants to help them to establish themselves in the community.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will launch an inquiry into the reasons why eligible claimants are not receiving income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to do so. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind perhaps he could write to me giving full details.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the refusal of loans to claimants without sufficient income by social fund officers.

  Mr. Scott
  The percentage of people whose applications for a social fund loan have been refused because of inability to repay is very low—1·2 per cent. of the decisions in the year 1989–90 to date. We do not consider that it would be helpful to allow people in these circumstances to put themselves further into debt. Money advice is offered in these cases.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the additional social fund allocations to individual local offices for 1989–90 were calculated.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 31 January 1990 at columns 194–95.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of social fund expenditure for 1990–91 by(a) grants and (b) loans for London offices and the amount spent in the last full year for which single payments were applied.

  Mr. Scott
  Allocations to individual local offices are being considered and will be announced in due course. Details of single payment expenditure for 1987–88 are available in the Library.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cash limit for social fund loans and grants from his Department's offices in Scotland for 1989–90 and the amount expended by 1 January in the current year.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about the national and regional social fund budget allocations for loans and grants and monthly levels of expenditure by region and local office is available in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he received in 1989 about the operation of the current rules on housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.
  520
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We receive correspondence on a range of issues, including housing benefit, both from hon. Members and their constituents. I regret that information is not available in the form requested.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the level of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, organisations and individuals expressing a variety of views.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the costs faced by people with disabilities other than care and mobility attendance costs.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received copies of the studies on the extra costs of disability carried out by the Disablement Income Group (DIG), the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Spastics Society. The findings, based on a small number of case studies, suggested that extra costs incurred as a result of disability were higher than the averages found by the surveys of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. In addition, we have received a number of letters from organisations representing visually impaired people concerning the level of extra costs incurred as a result of seeing disabilities.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is introducing to make it easier for disabled people to take up employment.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is introducing to make it easier for disabled people to take up employment.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is introducing to make it easier for disabled people to take up employment.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is introducing to make it easier for disabled people to take up employment.

  Mr. Scott
  In October, we announced two measures to improve incentives to rehabilitation in employment: an increase of £6·50 in the therapeutic earnings limit in invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance, and the extension of invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance to people who undertake an employment rehabilitation course. In addition to these measures we plan to introduce, from April 1992, a disability employment credit which will help disabled people take up and return to employment by providing assistance with low earnings similar to that given to families through family credit. We estimate that about 50,000 people might be entitled to this new benefit.

  Single Parent Families
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure he has for the number of single parent families in Britain in receipt of social security benefits.
  521
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Virtually all lone parent families receive child benefit, but many also receive other benefits. The table sets out the most recent information for the main income-related benefits and for one parent benefit.

  Numbers receiving Social Security Benefits

  Number

  Date

  Income support1

  722,000

  May 1988

  Family credit

  120,000

  September 1989

  Housing benefit

  650,000

  May 1988

  One parent benefit

  696,000

  January 1990

  1 Income Support: Figure does not incluie prisoners' partners.

  Notes:

  1. Number of lone parent families: OPCS estimates that in 1986 there were 1,010,000 lone parent families in Great Britain.

  2. Claimants can be entitled to more than one benefit.

  Sources: Income Support—Annual Statistical Enquiry 1988.

  Family Credit—Departmental Statistics.

  Housing Benefit—Housing Benefit Management Information System 1988.

  One Parent Benefit—Departmental Statistics.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to secure a common state retirement age for men and women.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government are fully committed to the principle of equal treatment. We are currently considering the issue of equalising state pension ages. This is a complex issue requiring careful study. We will not make precipitate decisions.

  Shelter
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received any representations from Shelter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have had no recent representations though we are aware of the Shelter report, "Hard Times", published last November.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the current arrangements for severe weather payments.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund cold weather payments are made for any seven-day period when the average temperature is 0 deg. Celsius or below.

  In order to obtain information on temperature, each of the Department's local offices is linked to one of 62 national climatological message (NCM) stations around the country. The NCM stations used are broadly representative of the climate conditions in the main centres of population and are able to provide the necessary data speedily. These arrangements work well. In the two months to 31 December 1989, cold weather payments totalling £73,500 were made.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the amount in the proposed level of income support from April 1990 to take account of 20 per cent. of the average community charge.
  522
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Income support levels were adjusted in April last year to include help towards the average minimum contribution to the community charge that recipients would be expected to pay. The amounts included were £1·15 a week for single people aged 18 to 24, £.1·30 a week for single people aged 25 or over and £2·30 a week for couples. These amounts now form part of the overall benefit levels which will be uprated from April this year.

  Departmental Service
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of recent improvements in the speed of service provided by his Department; and to what he attributes such improvements.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of recent improvements in the speed of service provided by his Department; and to what he attributes such improvements.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since the Government reforms were introduced in 1988, the social security system has become simpler for claimants to understand and easier for staff to operate. As a result there have been very real all-round improvements in standards of service to the public. In 1989–90 the average time taken to clear income support claims and the average time income support callers spend in our offices have both improved by 24 per cent. compared with average processing and waiting times before the reforms.

  Funerals
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the present arrangements concerning payment of grant towards the work of interment where the deceased person leaves a sum insufficient to meet these costs.

  Mr. Scott
  No.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being introduced to increase the protection for members of occupational pension schemes.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being introduced to increase the protection for members of occupational pension schemes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To improve benefit security for members of occupational pension schemes, we have brought forward four legislative proposals. First, we are strengthening the protection for early leavers that we introduced in 1985, by requiring schemes to revalue all future early leavers' preserved pension rights. Pension rights which go beyond the guaranteed minimum pension will be revalued in line with prices, up to a maximum of 5 per cent. a year. Secondly, where a pension scheme winds up, the same revaluation requirement is also to apply to future pensions and to pensions in payment. Thirdly, again on wind-up, any deficiency in a scheme's assets to meet
  523
  scheme liabilities, including these new liabilities, is to become a debt on the employer. Fourthly, we are introducing a new ceiling on self-investment which will allow pension schemes to hold no more than 5 per cent. of their assets in the employer's business. This will not apply to small self-administered pension schemes where directors control the investment of their own pension savings.

  To improve the range of help and advice available to individual pension scheme members, we are introducing a pensions ombudsman and improved tracing services—based on a register of pension schemes—to help individuals discover which company is responsible for pension rights acquired in previous employment. There will also be amendments to the disclosure regulations to improve information available to scheme members.

  Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in the implementation of his Department's computerisation programme.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in the implementation of his Department's computerisation programme.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in the implementation of his Department's computerisation programme.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in the implementation of his Department's computerisation programme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department of Social Security's highly complex £1·7 billion strategy for the computerisation of the social security benefit payment system is proceeding as planned. The pilot exercise in 23 local offices has been completed and the systems are being introduced nationally office by office.

  National Insurance
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to meet the shortfall projected for the national insurance fund in 1990; and whether the Government have any plans to consider the payment of national insurance as a financial contribution separate from general taxation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest report by the Government Actuary shows the estimated balance in the national insurance fund at the end of the current financial year to be well above his minimum recommended level. His estimates also show the balance remaining at a satisfactory level during 1990–91 even though expenditure is expected to exceed income. The balance is declining but the Social Security Bill currently before Parliament contains measures which will help to maintain a prudent working balance in the fund in future years.

  Although class 1 and class 4 national insurance contributions are generally collected by Inland Revenue together with PAYE income tax, they are paid into the national insurance fund and are not accounted for separately.

  Married Women (Pensions)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider a payment of additional pension to married women who when working paid insurance contributions but do not receive any additional pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to change existing arrangements. Married women in employment who pay full rate national insurance contributions on earnings over the lower earnings limit (currently £43 a week) do contribute to the state earnings-related pension scheme and earn additional pension. Married women who have contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme contribute either to an occupational pension scheme or an appropriate personal pension. Those married women who continue to pay reduced rate national insurance contributions do not contribute to the state earnings-related pension scheme.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has carried out into the extent to which it is possible to provide nursing care for the elderly in private homes within the amounts allowed in income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As part of the Department's annual review of income support limits for people in independent residential care homes and nursing homes, many interested individuals and organisations submit evidence on costs and charges in such homes which we take into consideration along with other information available from the Department's own sources. The Department has commissioned a number of studies into this area, the best known of which was by Ernst and Whinney, published in 1986 and revised in 1987.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's record of support for elderly people; and what is the comparable position in other European Community countries.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that it is not possible to provide comparisons between European Community countries because of widely differing pension arrangements. For example, earnings-related pensions in other member states are normally based on an individual's own earnings, which means that low earners receive low pensions. In the United Kingdom an individual who contributes to the state earnings-related pension scheme has his or her entitlement revalued in line with average earnings. The United Kingdom is unique among European Community countries in paying a pension to a woman based on her husband's contributions and a dependency addition for a wife under 60 years of age. In France and West Germany, percentage deductions are made from pensions as contributions to state health care; whereas in the United Kingdom no such deductions are made. I am pleased to provide the following comments on the Government's record of support for elderly people.

  The Government have always attached the highest priority to the interests and needs of elderly people, and

  525
  will continue to do so. We would particularly point to the improving economic circumstances of pensioners brought about by the wide range of successful Government policies aimed at creating a stable economic environment.

  This success led to an increase in average pensioners' total net income of 23 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1986. The increases during the same period of the value of income from savings of 64 per cent. and occupational pensions of 56 per cent. are particularly encouraging. This demonstrates the vital importance to elderly people of the economic policies that the Government have pursued, and will continue to pursue. We think it fair to say that the elderly are not an homogeneous group with wholly common interests and circumstances and our policies recognise this. For example, we are conscious that not all pensioners have benefited from sources of incomes other than their state pension. In recognition of that the package of measures introduced last October directed an extra £200 million towards 2·6 million individuals in greatest need—the less well-off, elderly and disabled pensioners on income support and housing benefit. However, many people wish to continue in work beyond pension age and the abolition of the retirement pension earnings rule, also last October, allows them the freedom to choose to do so and receive their pension.

  In addition, many pensioners may benefit from the changes to personal taxation to be made from this coming April

  These are, we believe, all good examples of the sound policies which have enabled pensioners to share in the increased wealth of the nation.

  Finally, the depth of our commitment may be measured by the levels of spending on the provision of benefits and services for the elderly; spending on social security benefit rose by 24 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1989–90; spending on health services for the elderly rose by 29 per cent. between 1978 and 1987 and spending on social services for the elderly rose by 21 per cent. between the same dates. This Government are committed to continuing to look after the interests of elderly people.

  Maintenance
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward proposals resulting from his review of the maintenance system.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward proposals to impose tighter controls on the payment of maintenance by divorced and separated fathers.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward proposals resulting from his review of the maintenance system.

  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward proposals resulting from his review of the maintenance system.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward proposals resulting from his review of the maintenance system.
  526
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government are very concerned about the number of lone parent families on benefit who receive little or no maintenance. This situation is certainly not unique to the United Kingdom and we are examining systems operating abroad to see if there are any lessons for us there. In addition, the survey which we are setting in hand with my noble and learned Friends the Lord Chancellor and Lord Advocate and my right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will provide full and up-to-date information about the effectiveness of the current maintenance system. This will then give us a sound and firm base for setting the way forward.

  Approximately 12,000 cases will be examined in a sample of courts and DSS local offices to gather data on the amounts of maintenance which courts order absent parents to pay, what is actually paid and when, details of the absent and custodial parents9 means, and the cost of the current system in terms of court costs, DSS staff costs and benefit spending. Information taken from individual cases will be treated in full confidence in the normal way as for any research. The survey, which will first be piloted, will be completed in the summer. We certainly intend to act as quickly as possible to improve maintenance arrangements. What we do and when will depend on the results of the survey, and if radical reforms are indicated we would want to consult widely.

  In the meantime, as we announced last week, we are taking action to improve the maintenance collected under the existing system. In 1988–89 the DSS recovered £155 million from absent parents. In 1989–90 the target is £180 million and we look set to achieve it. From next year, we expect to increase that figure to over £200 million by changing our procedures. We intend to strengthen the basis on which local offices assess absent parents' ability to pay maintenance. At present we do not expect the maintenance paid to reduce an absent parent's income below, in broad terms, income support level plus full housing costs plus 25 per cent. of net earnings. We are reducing that 25 per cent. margin to 15 per cent. Where a reasonable agreement cannot be reached the final decision on the amount payable will rest, as it does now, with the courts.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the outcome of his Department's advertising campaign to increase the uptake of family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The first stage of the campaign in spring 1989 was a considerable success. Over the nine weeks during which TV adverts were shown over a quarter of a million family credit claims were received, about twice as many as in the nine weeks beforehand. Independent research carried out before and after the advertising showed a marked increase in awareness of family credit, with prompted awareness increased to 87 per cent., and in comprehension which demonstrated that the advertising had been successful in correcting misconceptions concerning some aspects of eligibility.

  By the end of September 1989 the caseload had risen to around 320,000 compared with about 280,000 before the advertising began.

  Further TV and press advertising began in November 1989 and the weekly level of claims since then is averaging

  527
  more than 40 per cent. above the level at the same time in the previous year. Further research is taking place on awareness and comprehension levels but the results are not yet available. The effect on the caseload will not be known until all the claims received since the further advertising began have been dealt with.

  Since April 1989, when the publicity first began, well over 800,000 claims have been received and about 520,000 of these have been new claims rather than existing recipients renewing their award. Nearly half a million awards have been made altogether and, currently, approaching 65 per cent. of all claims are successful.

  Estimates of the effect on the percentage take-up level cannot be made until information becomes available from the 1989 family expenditure survey about the total eligible population in that year.

  Young People (Income Support)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to provide income support to those aged 16 to 17 years who are unable to gain employment or a vacancy on YTS through no fault of their own.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There is no need for a young person aged 16 to 17 to be without money. Young people have the positive options of remaining in education, getting a job or joining the YTS. If they are unable to obtain employment then the offer of a YTS place is guaranteed. There are sufficient YTS places throughout the country for all who want one.

  Income support is available to vulnerable groups, such as lone parents and the disabled. There is also the discretionary provision which enables income support to be paid in cases of severe hardship.

  We continue to monitor the situation. The legislative changes introduced in July 1989 and the administrative improvements announced in November demonstrate our willingness to respond when a need arises, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's undertaking to the Social Services Committee on 31 January to look at the way the system works for young women who are pregnant.

  Fuel Charges
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions or representations he has had with pensioners' organisations regarding the level of fuel charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am not aware of any recent discussions or representations on this subject.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of total expenditure by his Department for 1989–90.

  Estimated numbers receiving social security benefits at any one time 1978–79 to 1988–891 2

  thousands

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Retirement pension

  8,530

  8,680

  8,880

  9,015

  9,115

  9,210

  9,350

  9,400

  9,575

  9,685

  9,710

  9,825

  Widows' benefits

  495

  490

  475

  460

  445

  440

  425

  410

  400

  385

  370

  370

  Unemployment benefit

  570

  550

  960

  1,120

  1,090

  1,020

  1,020

  955

  1,005

  815

  600

  415

  Sickness benefit

  560

  490

  435

  445

  395

  170

  180

  160

  100

  105

  105

  105

  Invalidity benefit

  600

  620

  620

  660

  700

  760

  825

  865

  935

  1,010

  1,100

  1,185

  Industrial disability benefit

  200

  200

  195

  195

  190

  185

  260

  265

  285

  300

  325

  340

  528
  Mr. Scott
  As announced in the Autumn Statement, total DSS expenditure in 1989–90 is estimated to be £52·6 billion. Further details are given in chapter 14 of the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1014) published on 30 January 1990.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the procedures adopted by his Department to ensure that the element in the allowance for people in residential and nursing care which is earmarked for pocket money is controlled by the claimant.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 30 January at column 123.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will initiate a general review of benefit claims for the industrial disease vibration white finger to identify those where disablement benefit has been wrongly refused; and if he will ensure each claim is met in full.

  Mr. Scott
  No. Decisions on claims and how much is payable are made by independent adjudication officers. Claimants have a right to appeal against, or to a review of, those decisions.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a definitive response to his letter of 3 October 1989 referring to Mrs. D. I. Allen, following the receipt of an interim reply dated 26 October 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My noble Friend Lord Henley replied to my hon. Friend's letter today.

  Benefits
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received social security benefits in each year from 1979 to the latest date available; and what was the percentage increase from 1979 in each case.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that information in the form requested is not available and an estimate could be provided only at disproportionate cost, as information on numbers receiving benefit is collected separately for each benefit, and claimants may receive more than one benefit at any one time. An estimate of the numbers of claimants receiving each of the main benefits for the years 1978–79 to 1988–89, and the percentage increase since 1979, are shown in the table.

  Homes for the Elderly
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will meet representatives of the Royal United Kingdom Beneficient Association to discuss Government grants for nursing and rest homes for the elderly.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As I indicated to my hon. Friend on 24 January at columns 1024–32, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am happy to meet him and representatives of RUKBA in the near future about social security issues for elderly people in homes.

  Disability Employment Credit
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the research on which his Department bases its estimate that 50,000 people might be 530
  entitled to the proposed disability employment credit, and that the gross cost of the new benefit would be some £80 million.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 26 January at column 908.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the guidelines which will be issued to medical staff assessing the capacity for work of claimants under the proposed disability employment credit system.

  Mr. Scott
  We propose that entitlement to a disability employment credit will be subject to periodic medical evidence of partial capacity for work. We are considering the precise way in which the scheme will operate.
  531
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his proposals for a disability employment credit will benefit people who are able to work only two or three days a week.

  Mr. Scott
  Our proposals for a disability employment credit envisage that the benefit will be available to disabled people who are able to work only part time or who may not be able to work at full capacity. We are considering the precise way in which the scheme will operate.

  Family Incomes
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) of 15 December 1989,Official Report, columns 855–56, if he will publish the equivalent scales used for calculation of the equivalent incomes with (a) a married couple and (b) a single person as the reference point.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 1 February 1990]The information is held in the tables. These equivalence scales are the same as those used in "Households Below Average Income".

  (i) Taking married couples as the reference point

  Equivalence value

  (1) If head of the household is married

  Number of additional adults in the household

  0

  1·00

  1

  1·42

  2

  2·78

  More than 2 where number of adults = n

  1·78 +(0·361(n-2)

  (2) If head of the household is single

  Number of additional adults in the household

  0

  0·61

  1

  1·07

  2

  1·49

  More than 2 where number of adults = n

  1·49 +(0·361(n-2)

  (3) Total number of children in household Age of child

  532

  Equivalence value

  <2

  0·09

  2–4

  0·18

  5–7

  0·21

  8–10

  0·23

  11–12

  0·25

  13–15

  0·27

  >15

  0·36

  (The value is multiplied by the number of children in the age band.)

  1 The total values, when added together, give the total equivalence scale for each family. This will always be the total of (1) or (2) plus (3). For example, a married couple with two children aged 9 and 11 would have an equivalence scale of (1.00+0·23 + 0·25)= 1·48.

  (ii) Taking single person as the reference point

  Equivalence value

  (1) If head of the household is single

  Number of additional adults in the household

  0

  1·00

  1

  1·75

  2

  2·44

  more than 2

  where number of adults = n

  2·44 +(0·591(n-2)

  (2) If head of the household is married

  Number of additional adults in household

  0

  1·64

  1

  2·33

  2

  2·92

  more than 2

  where number of adults = n

  2·92 + (0·591(n-2)

  (3) Total number of children in household

  Age of child

  <2

  0·15

  2–4

  0·30

  5–7

  0·34

  8–10

  0·38

  11–12

  0·41

  13–15

  0·44

  >15

  0·59

  The value is multiplied by the number of children in the age band.

  1 The total values, when added together, give the total equivalence scale for each family. This will always be the total of (1) or (2) plus (3). For example, a married couple with two children aged 9 and 11 would have an equivalence scale of (1·64 + 0·38 + 0·41) = 2·43.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Airport Capacity
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress in the light of current forecasts has been made in planning additional airport capacity in South-East England.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority is to advise this summer on the adequacy of UK airport capacity to the year 2005, in response to a commission given to it by the Government in July 1988.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm that the Government in general and the Department of Transport in particular are fully aware of the urgency of the situation in the light of the growth in air traffic and the risk of losing air traffic and airline services to airports such as Charles de Gaulle or Schiphol, where there is adequate accommodation and likely to be so for some years?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government fully accept the need to press ahead on airport capacity. However, very complex works are involved. It is important that decisions are taken in the light of properly considered and researched advice.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I appreciate the reply of the noble Viscount. Does he recall that in the letter sent by the Secretary of State to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority last October he urged that there should be no hurried decisions? The words that he used were that there should be no decisions in the margin. He made it absolutely clear that there should be no further development on any greenfield sites.
Regarding the further advice to be given by the CAA in the summer, has the authority been asked to indicate exactly the full role that the regional airports could play in the future?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all these matters are included in the remit of the CAA. Its advice will include forecasts of air space and airport capacity. It will examine the contribution of regional airports, consider possible locations and timing of additional runway capacity to serve the South-East and examine the merits of possible demand management measures.
At the moment it is examining air traffic control and aviation industry aspects of the matter. We do not expect the CAA to do more than identify the
514
wider factors. Those, including environmental concerns, will need to be considered in a broader forum.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, are the obvious advantages of Cardiff Airport being taken into account by the authorities? The airport in Cardiff is now as modern as any in the country outside Heathrow and Gatwick. Also, Cardiff is in close proximity to the Midlands and London.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot comment in particular on Cardiff Airport. However, I can say that the Government already encourage the use and development of all regional airports to handle all the traffic they can attract. The Government have recently agreed the construction of a new £275 million terminal for Manchester and are negotiating with the USA over extra services.
The regional airports' share of all traffic is forecast to increase significantly, growing faster than that of the London airports. We welcome that and we are sure that it includes Cardiff.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in order to facilitate the movement of air traffic, are the Government re-examining the use by the Ministry of Defence of air space, particularly up the east coast? If some of that space were handed over to civil aviation, would not considerable relief be given to air traffic control over the whole country?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are prepared to look sympathetically at applications for the civil use of MoD airfields where that is compatible with the operational role. The civil enclave has already established RAF Manston as the Kent international airport.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry; I was talking about air space, not airfields.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I apologise; I did not hear the noble Lord. I shall write to him about air space.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, when reaching a decision on this matter will the Government take into consideration that the people of London are already overflown to a greater degree than the people of any other capital city? Would it be worthwhile to consider the possibility of pricing the situation so that it becomes cheaper to land at regional airports and dearer to land in London?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion and I am sure that the CAA will take note of it.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind that the majority of aircraft on the British register are general aviation aircraft? Will he be careful not to squeeze those aircraft out of every airfield within reach of London?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. That point will be taken note of.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give proper recognition to the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to market economics?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes; I shall recognise that. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding me of it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I have always been in favour of a mixed economy, provided the mix is right?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. However, I think it is straying a little from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend add to the economic information which he has given and received by bearing in mind that if we make Heathrow and Gatwick too expensive a great deal of traffic will go not to our regional airports but to European ones which are more economical?
Viscount Davidson: That, my Lords, is another side of the coin.

Cambodia: Self-Determination
2.42 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that everything is being done through international bodies to prevent Pol Pot from regaining power in Cambodia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara):My Lords, it is generally agreed that there can be no place in the future of Cambodia for Pol Pot and his murderous associates. The Cambodian people deserve the right to decide their own future, free from the fear of Khmer Rouge atrocities, foreign occupation or civil war. We are actively helping to promote self-determination for Cambodians through free, fair and democratic elections. We and our fellow permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are working to carry forward the proposals made by the Foreign Minister of Australia for an enhanced role for the United Nations.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the people of Cambodia are one of the most ancient civilisations in the world? They have suffered the most horrible regime that mankind has probably ever seen. The United Nations record in trying to relieve those people of the murderous activities of the communists under Pol Pot is not much of an encouragement to anyone. Will the Minister say whether the Australian proposals will now be made a reality in the interests of ensuring that the sham organisations which Pol Pot still controls will not be given power even by the United Nations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our repugnance for the Khmer Rouge is well known. However, as I said in my original Answer, we shall do our best to play our part as a permanent member of the five members of the United Nations Security Council. We attended the first meeting in Paris on 15th and 16th January, and we look forward to attending another meeting later this month. The Australian proposals for greater United Nations involvement are currently the best way forward.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we on this side fully agree with and support everything the Minister said in his original reply to the Question. In view of the fact that the Minister has just recently returned from Thailand, can he confirm that the fund from the UN which should be used to help the refugees in Cambodia is used for that purpose and that it is not used by the Khmer Rouge army? Further, in view of the dangerous advances being made by the Khmer Rouge at the present time, does the Minister agree that the implementation of the Australian peace plan now takes on an even greater urgency?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first point, during my visit to Thailand recently I visited Site Two on the border where some 140,000 or more Cambodian refugees or displaced persons live under the United Nations border relief organisation. I once again made it clear that any funds we provide to that organisation should be solely for the use of those refugees and similar people, and that none should go to the Khmer Rouge. I was assured that everything possible is done to prevent such supplies going to the Khmer Rouge. On the second point on the Australian proposals, as I said, there has been one meeting of the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council and there is a proposal for a follow-up meeting later this month. In the meantime, I hope that those two members of the permanent five most closely involved will gain agreement from their clients that this is the best way forward. We hope in the not too distant future to have a reconvening of the Paris conference where all parties could reach a settlement.
Lord Rea: My Lords, are the Government working towards the replacement of the representation at the United Nations of Cambodia by the coalition government which is dominated by the Khmer Rouge, by representatives of the Hen Sun government, which is now universally recognised to be the de facto government of Cambodia and is thought to be doing a reasonably good job under very difficult circumstances? Will the Minister also tell us the outcome of the diplomatic mission to Cambodia which took place just before Christmas whose aim was to find out Cambodia's needs for development aid?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the matter of the occupancy of the United Nations seat by Cambodia was settled back in October for the time being. However, we recognise that we shall have to return later to that matter. There is no doubt in my mind that that would form a part of the peace

517
proposals if they proceed. The occupation of that seat will be a key factor in that process. Regarding our own mission, which involved one person from the Overseas Development Administration and one of our diplomats from Bangkok, they reported back to the non-governmental organisations at the beginning of this month, and we look forward to seeing further proposals put forward by NGOs for humanitarian aid within Cambodia. We have set aside £1 million for that purpose.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this may be a difficult question to answer, but I should like to ask whether there is any danger that the Khmer Rouge might occupy most of Cambodia before the Security Council is able to act and before the Australian plan is put into operation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a difficult question to answer because of what is happening day by day on the ground in Cambodia. However, the current situation is that the Phnom Penh government hold around 90 per cent. of the territory, and the resistance groups —not just the Khmer Rouge but also other resistance groups —hold about 10 per cent. It appears —I can only say that it appears to be the case —that there is more or less stalemate on the ground at the moment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is now an urgent necessity for the United Nations and international forces to work swiftly as words are not enough? Words are beginning to turn sour because there is not enough action. Does the Minister not also agree that the United Nations should put some pressure on the Chinese communist government to stop supplying Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge with the arms that they use to murder their own people? Does not the Minister also agree that the European Parliament could support the possibility of the Hen Sun grouping with an international force which could then start to bring some form of peace to that troubled land?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the need for urgency which the noble Lord has expressed. However, the meeting of the five permanent members on the Australian proposals was a good sign. China is one of those permanent members. Therefore we should draw encouragement from the fact that China put its name to the 16-point plan that came from that meeting.

Narrow Money Indicator: Target Range
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they now expect the narrow money indicator (MO) to come back within the target range set for it at the time of the 1989 Budget.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, MO's growth rate has fallen appreciably
518
since its peak in the summer of 1988. The Government will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that it reaches, and remains within, the target range.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Can he place the conduct of MO in the scale of the Government's priorities and concerns in monetary policy? Is it at the top or is it wandering along somewhere near the bottom?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, MO has proved a reliable indicator of monetary conditions. Therefore we take particular note of it. It is the only monetary aggregate that is targeted, but we look at other measures such as M4.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the event of the indicator MO remaining outside the target range set by the Government, will they admit to the failure of their policies to meet the target? Alternatively, as on so many previous occasions, will they consider abandoning the indicator, as they did with M4 and M3?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we believe that MO will come within its target range. However, forecasting is a hazardous business and I shall not make a forecast today. I know that the noble Lord would like everything to be under the strict control of the Government, but MO is not necessarily under such control because it takes into account consumer expenditure.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Earl indicate whether the Government attach any importance these days to the related indicator of broad money? They paid attention to it up to 1985 but have since lost interest in it. Is the Minister aware that the broad money indicator for the UK is substantially in excess of that for any other OECD country, with the possible exception of Australia, and that that is an indication of an excess amount of credit in the economy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne, we take the broad money indicator M4 into account.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, do not the figures quoted by the noble Lord opposite suggest that there must be evidence for believing that monetary policy is still more lax than it should be for the comfort of Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we continue to review both monetary and fiscal policy on a regular basis. If further measures are needed they will undoubtedly be taken.

Water Levels: Southern Region
2.53 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the levels of reservoirs and aquifers in the southern half of the country at 1st January 1990 compared with average, and whether they foresee any danger of drought next summer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, reservoir levels were about normal except in the South-East, where they were about 60 per cent. of normal. Aquifer levels ranged from below to above average except in the South-East, where they were still well below normal. As for next summer, water undertakers in the West and central areas believe that the risk of shortages is relatively low. Those in the South-East and East risk being short of water if rainfall this winter is insufficient to recharge the aquifers on which they largely depend.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative answer. Is he aware that the information that he has given about water levels in the southern region reflects the dangers for water supply next summer in that region, where rationing and shortages are already endemic? Is he aware that the southern region is particularly dependent on groundwater supplies, from which it obtains 80 per cent. of its water? That is more than in most other regions. Does he agree that the answer would be for Southern Water to build a couple of large storage reservoirs which would conserve some of the rainfall in order to supplement the groundwater supply? Does he also agree that that would provide an adequate overall supply for dry summers? Will the noble Lord advise the company that that is the action it should take with all expedition?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are aware that my noble friend Lord Nugent knows far more about water supplies anywhere in the United Kingdom than this Minister ever will. He has made a very good point. I remind the House that some 10 years ago the proposed Broadoak reservoir outside Canterbury was turned down for planning reasons. As a result that reservoir was not built. It is also a fact that, due to its technical specifications, a reservoir is bound to be built in a valley, which is likely to be more scenically attractive than a flat plain. As my noble friend pointed out, if we are to have more reservoirs the local authorities and planning committees involved will have to give consideration to that aspect in the future.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether there was an appeal against the planning decision in the case of the Canterbury reservoir?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not know whether there was an appeal or whether at the time the local authority felt that it was not worth appealing.
520
However, that does not alter the difficulties of achieving a balance between the interests of those who support one use of the landscape and the requirements of those who supply water to people who live in the surrounding area.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most of the South-West of England has been turned into a reservoir in the past few days? Is there any way of updating the figures that the noble Lord has given the House to take account of the fact that since the beginning of January the country has had between 150 per cent. and 200 per cent. more rainfall than is normal for the month?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is entirely correct. My noble friend's Question referred to 1st January. However, in January in the South-East and the East rainfall was 150 per cent. of the average. For the first four days of this month the figure has been between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the average for the whole of the month of February.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the Minister give up-to-date information regarding the promise that was made in this House five years ago for a reservoir for South Wales? So far as I know, nothing has happened. Does the noble Lord have more up-to-date information?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have to confess to the noble Baroness that I was not in your Lordships' House five years ago. However, I shall inquire about that Welsh reservoir and drop her a note on the subject.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the proposal for a reservoir to the north-east of Canterbury has been under consideration for more than 14 years? Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that the local authority gets its priorities right in that matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that it is entirely proper that I should draw to the attention of the local authority the remarks that have been made in your Lordships' House today.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that reservoirs are the solution to the problem? People who live in southern England will be bewildered by the answer that he has just given. He said that we are still short of water. After all the rain that we have had in the past few weeks, people will never believe that. Reservoirs have been subject to local authority planning permission. Am I not right in saying that, if a local authority refuses planning permission, it is a matter for the Government to step in and decide? If that is so, why have the Government not done that?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the last part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, we believe that local authorities should show initiative and ability in local government. However, I remind him that though he may decry the figures

521
that I have given for the past month, we have suffered from a substantial drought for a considerable period of time. Last summer was the hottest summer since 1659.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been gross over-pumping of underground water supplies over a long period of time, leading not only to the present water shortage but to damage to small rivers and the environment throughout the South-East? Is it not time that water authorities were encouraged to adopt a conservation policy and to stop the gross waste of water? Perhaps the Government can give some advice to the new water authorities as to the conservation of water, which is just as important as the conservation of energy.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is fair to say that there are two responses that I can give. First, I am sure that the introduction of metering will make the consumer more aware of the level of consumption. I should point out to the House that since 1976 some £3·3 billion has been spent on improving the connection service and the inter-connection, to which attention was drawn after the last drought in 1976.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is perfectly right to say that adequate water comes from the skies and that we are well blessed in this country with more than we need, only using about 10 per cent. of what falls from the skies for supply? Management therefore depends on storing enough of the winter rains, either underground or in surface reservoirs, to ensure that we have sufficient for dry times in the summer. A couple more reservoirs are needed for the southern region to supplement the limited aquifer supplies.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the law of the land is in favour of the imposition of building, but I must confirm that my noble friend Lord Nugent is absolutely correct. I can assure noble Lords that, when I attend the conference in San Diego next Sunday to address the matter of water, most of those attending the conference will be amazed that I have been asked to do so because they will not believe that I have anything to talk about which relates to the problems that they face in the south-western United States.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but I do so merely to ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to duplicate the answer that he intends to give to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about South Wales. Strange as it may seem, I am interested, inter alia, in water in Wales.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly put a copy of the letter in the Library. I remind the noble Lord that Wales is even more blessed than the South-East of England when it comes to rainfall.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister agree that adequacy of water requires not
522
only adequate quantity but adequate quality? In the light of the revelations regarding the 1,300 landfill sites which may be damaging the aquifers in this country, will the Government say, first, what they propose to do to resurvey those landfill sites which have not been surveyed since 1974; and, secondly, whether they will do something to protect the quality of our water?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would not expect me to answer on pure speculation in a popular Sunday newspaper. However, I can assure him, as I often have to, that the privatisation of water has resulted in the UK having the only fully funded programme of some £17·5 billion.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour—perhaps marginally longer on this occasion —and that during this adjournment the Report of the European Communities Committee on Irradiation of Foodstuffs will be debated.

Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 7th and 21st February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Boardman and the Lord Williams of Elvel set down for 7th February and 21st February shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes". —(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Nathan be appointed a member of the Select Comittees. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Capital Allowances Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Cashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this consolidation Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene at this stage, but noble Lords will notice that the Capital Allowances Bill, which is of considerable significance, has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I was a member of that committee and initiated the amendment. The subject matter of the amendment was approved by committee members from the other House.
The mischief with which I sought to deal was the fact that, although the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 referred to capital allowances for patents and, inter alia, other intellectual property matters, the consolidation Bill did not include any reference to that Act. I therefore felt —this point was received with great sympathy by other members of the committee —that a capital allowances Bill should indicate to practitioners the position of capital allowances in relation to intellectual property matters. I am sure that institutions such as the BBC are not particularly interested in capital allowances for intellectual property matters, but it is an important matter.
As a result of a compromise with the committee, it was decided to introduce on consolidation of the Bill an amendment, which is to be found on page 143 of the Bill, to Clause 161(11), which states:
"Chapter I of Part XIII of the principal Act"
the principal Act is defined on page 142 as the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—
"(which relates to patents and know-how) contains further provisions relating to capital allowances".
I took the view that a practitioner dealing with patents in the field of industrial property would expect a capital allowances Act to contain some reference to the important subject of patents and know-how. Nevertheless, the committee said that that kind of compromise would be effective.
I take the view that, having incorporated the amendment in the Bill, the Title of the Bill should be amended. I must therefore draw the Government's attention to the fact that the Title of the Bill should include some reference to the fact that it includes capital allowances in relation to patents and know-how. It seems to me that that would be of great help to practitioners who deal with that important subject. The Prime Minister is a great supporter of the idea that intellectual property matters should be brought to the notice of industry. Practitioners —not merely members of large companies with plenty of money, but members of small companies —would expect a capital allowances Act to include some
524
reference to the position relating to patents and know-how which are so important to industry today.
The Government may feel that they wish to consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill in order to bring forward an amendment to the Title of the Bill so that it may make some reference to the fact that capital allowances in relation to patents and know-how are dealt with in the Bill, rather than being simply hidden away in Clause 161(11) on page 143.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the situation is that the Long Title of the Bill is:
"An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to capital allowances".
In other words, the Bill does not profess to be an exhaustive consolidation of capital allowances. When capital allowances were gathered into the Capital Allowances Act 1968, the capital allowances relating to patents and know-how were left in the Income and Corporation Taxes Acts. The reason was that they are so intimately bound up with other provisions of those Acts that it is not possible to have a sensible separation. There would be a tremendous amount of duplication in the statute book if the provisions that are necessary in relation to capital allowances in that area were duplicated in the Income and Corporation Taxes Acts and again in capital allowances legislation.
The Long Title warns that these are only certain enactments relating to capital allowances. The joint consolidation committee, as the noble Lord pointed out, has in Clause 161 now put in a clear marker to where other enactments are to be found which deal with capital allowances. The joint committee took the view that this was the right way to do it and I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to leave the matter there. If he wants to move an amendment in Committee, we shall have to have a Committee stage. It is of course up to him to decide.
However, the advice that I have been given from parliamentary counsel is that the Long Title of the Bill is correct as it stands and that the attention of practitioners is sufficiently directed to the other Act by the amendment to which he has referred. I am advised that that was the practice in the past. In that situation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to object to my Motion that the order of recommitment be discharged. It is, however, up to him.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to comment on what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. His view is that to the practitioners in this important field of patents and know-how a reference to capital allowances, hidden away, if I may presume to say so, in Clause 161(11) is a clear indication to practitioners that they have to look into this Bill. I hesitate to differ from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Despite the advice that the noble and learned Lord has received from his advisers, it seems to me that as a practical matter the Title of this Bill should be amended in order to include a reference to the fact

525
that, although it refers to certain other Bills, the Capital Allowances Bill certainly includes a reference to the capital allowances to be afforded on patents and know-how matters.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to move an amendment to the Long Title, we shall have to have a Committee stage. I take it that the noble Lord has objected. Therefore the House must resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 165 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
In the Title:
On Question, Whether the Title shall be the Title to the Bill?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am not acquainted with the full procedure for dealing with this matter. Certainly I have not yet tabled an amendment. I only obtained this Bill this morning. However, my amendment to the Title would be to include the words:
("and to consolidate certain enactments relating to capital allowances including capital allowances in relation to patents and know-how.").
I am not sure whether by merely putting forward orally this amendment I am using the correct procedure. However, that is the amendment that I would have put down had I had time to consider the matter further.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I seek leave of the Committee to ask where we now stand. I believe that. at Committee stage, especially when we are dealing with something so abstruse as the Long Title of the Bill, we ought either to have a written amendment before us or a Motion set down on the Order Paper, and preferably the latter. I should have thought that a purely oral amendment would be out of order whatever the situation may be.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord. It may be that this is a matter that should be considered at the Report stage of the Bill.
Lord Belstead: In the circumstances, I think we have reached the point at which the noble Lord will be in a position to vote against the Long Title of the Bill but, as he has not produced a manuscript amendment, there is no amendment before the Committee.
On Question, Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

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

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.17 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 44 [Conditional fee agreements]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 35, line 12, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: If it is convenient to the Committee I should like also to address it on Amendments Nos. 188 and 191. In our deliberations on this Bill we have now reached the stage of considering the proposed conditional fee arrangements. Those are the proposals made by the noble and learned Lord which arise out of his Green Paper on contingency fees. In moving this amendment I seek neither to advocate nor speak against the new proposed conditional fee agreements.
My amendments are directed to two smaller but nonetheless important points. The first point is that, if there are to be conditional fee agreements, they should be set out in writing. Secondly, that the noble and learned Lord should identify the essential ingredients of that statement in writing to the client.
It is already good practice, when entering into an agreement to act for a client, to set out the terms of that agreement, especially the terms concerning the fee arrangements. Under the new proposed conditional fee agreements there are added more important reasons why that agreement should be set out in writing.
With regard to the essential information that the agreement in writing should contain, when a client is being invited to consider the conditional fee agreement, in my submission it is important that he should be fully aware of alternative means of funding the legal services that are being provided to him. The nature of the conditional fee agreements makes it most important that the client understands the full consequences of entering into such an agreement.
Without either advocating or speaking against these new proposed arrangements, for the reasons that I have put before the Committee, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As the Committee knows, I am committed to resist conditional fee agreements. However, if we are to have them —I hope that we shall not —surely we must support these amendments. We are considering a person providing advocacy or litigation services. There ought to be some unified regime under which this conditional service is rendered which would govern barristers, solicitors and the authorised bodies, albeit in consultation with all those bodies. There ought to be some unified system so that there is fair competition between all those providing the services.
On that basis I support the amendments, and in particular Amendments Nos. 188 and 191. However, I hope that the Committee will not accept conditional fee agreements.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I take the same view about the merits of Clause 44 as my noble friend. But it is surely not enough for the amendments that are proposed simply to be contained in a conditional fee amendment. Surely the other side should know what has been agreed between the client and his own adviser or advocate. The other side may have to pay in certain circumstances and therefore has an essential interest in such an agreement. The court should surely be told in writing what has been agreed before the proceedings are started, because in the end the court will have to tax the successful party's costs. The agreement may have been altered during the course of the proceedings to the disadvantage of the losing party.
Lord Hacking: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to intervene? That point is covered in subsection (8). For the purpose of taxation, other parties in the litigation will not be required to make any additional payment over the standard costs in the case of a conditional fee arrangement.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: All the same, one ought to know in advance exactly where one stands when one is dealing with contested litigation. It ought to be registered in some form so that people know the contents of the arrangement at the time when it is arrived at. Otherwise it is very much in the air.
The Lord Chancellor: On these amendments there is a good deal to be said for the views that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has put before the Committee. I have felt on balance that, since the risk of uncertainty would fall on the lawyer making the agreement, it would be highly likely that he would normally protect himself by reducing the agreement to writing. However, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has put the matter forward, I am very happy to consider it further. So far as I can see, there is little difficulty. If the noble Lord will allow me, therefore, I should like to consider the matter.
Lord Hacking: Unless other Members of the Committee wish to speak to my amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 35, line 18, after ("by") insert (", or as the case may be, the calculation by reference to").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 190, 192, 193 and 194. I do not wish to pre-empt the discussion on clause stand part, but for the purpose of these amendments I am bound to make the point that, however generous legal aid may be, there will always be a gap between those who qualify for legal aid and those rich enough to enter into legal proceedings without a qualm. I think it most desirable, in order to help in a modest way towards filling that gap, that there should be on the statute book provisions which enable conditional fee arrangements to be made in a way that avoids the problems raised by the American arrangements. It is one way in which access to justice can be improved.
In these amendments, I am suggesting rather tentatively that, if powers are taken to introduce some form of contingency fees, the opportunity should be taken to widen those powers a little. The scheme can then be expanded if experience shows that that would be useful in order to take account of the possiblity of other methods of calculating the fees to be paid going beyond a percentage of the lawyer's fees.
If I dare say so, it might, for example, be thought desirable to provide that lawyers may be additionally remunerated by taking, in prescribed cases, a prescribed proportion of the sums recovered by way of damages. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might perhaps appoint a committee of lawyers, laymen and representatives of consumer interests to advise on the permissible means of calculation.
I fully realise that the powers in the clause as it stands would be unlikely to be used on a great scale in the early days. I am not suggesting that there would be any question of using the additional powers for some time to come. However, it seems rather a pity that it would be necessary to come back for further legislation if experience showed the need for some development of the original concept.
I am certainly not wedded to the drafting of my amendments. I put them forward as a possible means of permitting flexibility and subscribing to what the noble and learned Lord described on an earlier occasion as "evolutionary change". I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a simple question. Can these appropriate means of calculation in his concept bear any relationship to the damages recovered? Is so, that would indeed be a serious derogation for the concept of Clause 44 as it stands.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I thought I had explained that that is one possibility that could be envisaged

529
in the future, not on the American model but only under strict prescription as to the proportion and type of case in which it might be possible.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord. I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment in any circumstances. It opens the door to an even greater objection than the objection that already arises to Clause 44 as it stands.
Lord Mishcon: I urge the Committee to exercise the caution that should undoubtedly be exercised when dealing with the question of lawyers' costs, conditional fees and contingency fees. I appear to have caused some merriment. I am talking about a very serious subject and one that affects the public very greatly.
There is not the slightest doubt that when legislation opens a door very slightly there is the danger of future legislation opening it still wider. If the Committee accepts the view that there can be conditional fees limited in the way that has been indicated in the Bill, I hope —and I am speaking personally —that the matter will end there. To walk into the possibility of the American model of contingency fees is asking for trouble for the public and the profession.
I should like to give the Committee an example of what could easily happen. Let us suppose that you have a personal injury case. You are covered in regard to your fees only if there is a recovery of damages in which you, the lawyer, participated. You are saved a great deal of trouble by the defendant insurance company offering a sum almost at the beginning of the case which, if you are thinking objectively and endeavouring to advise your client so, you believe may well be too small. However, as the lawyer —and here lies the conflict of interest —you face the possibility of a long trial with very much work at the end of which you may receive nothing. Yet here is a prospect of your walking away with a percentage of what has been offered by the insurance company as against having to do all that work and run all that risk. Is that what Members of the Committee would like the legal profession to be driven into?
I have one fear which I shall mention again later in Committee. I hope that even with the conditional fee there will be no question of a legal aid board saying to the client, "You will not receive legal aid because this is a case where you might find a solicitor who will do it on the conditional fee basis". Obviously, that would be a very wrong way in which to deal with legal aid.
Therefore, as I said when I commenced my remarks, the whole question of the regulation of lawyers' fees, within proper professional ambits and with a due regard to the way in which an honourable profession is supposed to behave, is a matter of serious concern to the Committee. I hope that, if we are to have the conditional fee, we shall not embark upon anything further; nor shall we give anyone the power to make recommendations or decisions which will further that conditional fee into areas which are extremely unhealthy.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I too hold the gravest doubts about what I can describe only as an extension of the proposals in a clause which I regard as inherently immoral. Where are we going if it is not in the American direction? We know what the American direction is. In the Green Paper we were promised that we would not follow that path and now we are invited to follow it up to a point. I am not at all sure what the point is because I was not wholly able to understand the amendment when I saw it in print nor when I heard it advocated orally by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
I do not wish to compromise the debate which will surely follow on the desirability of the principle of Clause 44, and therefore at this stage I make only the following comment. Damages are intended to compensate the plaintiff who has been wronged. That is the principle which is followed. However, in America a successful litigant —whether plaintiff or defendant —virtually does not receive his costs. He does not receive what we would call his "costs".
In recent years —and such a case took place during my second term of Chancellorship —not only have we not gone down the American path but we have destroyed the old basis of party and party costs, which at best gave one about two-thirds of what one had spent, and have awarded costs which more approximately represent what one has actually spent. That was done on the common fund basis which has now become the standard basis. Beyond that, one has solicitor and own client, indemnity costs and so forth. We have gone down the opposite road in order to compensate the plaintiff for what he has suffered, if he has suffered any wrong, and also to say that the unsuccessful defendant should pay the costs of maintaining the case at the cost of the legal proceedings.
It is as well to look at the situation in America. It has the civil jury, which accentuates all the evils which the contingency fee system may or may not involve. The civil jury aims off for the contingency fee. Therefore, it awards against the unsuccessful defendant a sum approximately twice that to which he is entitled by way of compensation. Thus the American civil jury substitutes for our scientifically balanced system of costs an excessive award of damages. It may be that in some fields civil juries in this country do that but for different reasons. However, we shall not go into that matter today.
After two world wars, and stage by stage, we have gradually moved towards a judge-alone system. We have done so to great advantage, in my opinion, though against the natural conservatism of my profession. However, even if we retain that system —particularly in cases of personal injury —it is my experience that if you scratch a judge you find a civil jury underneath, though not quite to the same extent as a civil jury of 12. Perhaps when you scratch a judge you get one-twelfth of a civil jury. In other words, you are introducing the same evil because the judge too will aim off.
Baroness Phillips: I understand that the Committee will debate the Question, That the clause

531
stand part. However, I hasten to intervene in order to remind Members that one of the reasons why I, among many clients, welcomed the Bill —the word "consumers" does not appear to be favoured —was because it would enable 80 per cent. of the population who neither qualify for legal aid nor are rich enough to contemplate action to enjoy the due processes of law.
I am touched by the vision of a profession which does not work for money. I am deeply touched by that. Nobody would suggest that its members would automatically force up costs in order to obtain more, so why should they be in a position where they are not properly rewarded? I believe that the whole issue has been confused. I originally understood that the clause was intended to enable more people to obtain the benefit of the operation of law which exists for them.
All Members of the Committee know many people who will not go to law when they have a good case simply because they are frightened of the final amount and that they may not gain anything. In other words, it is the old question; "Why throw good money after bad?".
The Lord Chancellor: I too am anxious not to pre-empt the main debate on clause stand part. However, in the light of the consultation which we held on this matter, I concluded that the correct principle was that the legal profession should be able to take on conditional fee arrangements—conditional on the success of the case but also conditional on the principle that the remuneration should be related to the work done.
That is what my proposal means; namely, that the only basis for remuneration will be the taxed costs awarded against the other side. In other words, it will make no difference as regards the other side whether, for example, the plaintiff is funded in that way or funded out of his own pocket. The actual price or payment which the other side must make if it loses is the sum of any damages awarded plus the taxed costs. It is those taxed costs plus, if necessary, a percentage uplift which would be permissible but nothing based on the award of damages.
The reason that I did not do that is that there is nothing at all necessarily connecting the size of the award of damages with the amount of work done. For example, there could be a huge award of damages to a paraplegic where liability was admitted and the amount of work done by the lawyer was very small indeed. That seems to me to be wrong in principle. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham pointed out, we have a system available to us which is quite different from the American system because that does not have an award of costs, for example, to a successful plaintiff against a defendant. Therefore the sort of arrangement which I propose is not open there.
However, I do not believe that it would be wise to go for anything more than that which we have proposed. Therefore, although I understand what has motivated the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, to suggest this, I feel that the principle
532
upon which I have stood is sound, subject to what we shall hear later, and that it would be wrong to go to anything which would allow professional remuneration to be related to the award of damages. It might be related underneath the percentage but not in the way suggested.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: As I explained at the beginning, I put forward this proposal rather tentatively. It gave rise to an interesting discussion in which the lawyers who contributed to the debate ran very much according to form and said precisely what I expected them to say.
It looks rather different when one is a consumer and cannot get legal aid and I go along with the earlier comments of the noble Baroness. However, I take the explanation which the noble and learned Lord has given. I have an uncomfortable feeling that in a few years' time, when, as I hope, this clause will have survived and will have been put into operation, we may seek fresh legislation. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191 to 194 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I rise to oppose the Question whether Clause 44 shall stand part of this Bill. This clause deals with the proposed conditional fee arrangement. I should have thought that even commentators who had been seduced by a belief that this Bill is one of reform to introduce cheaper and better access to justice would hesitate over this clause giving for the first time, as has already been indicated, advocates a direct financial interest in the result of a case.
I have no doubt that as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, clearly indicated in his last comment, if this clause and practice are permitted cases will develop into speculative litigation, some of which can amount at times to blackmailing action. Eventually, our jurisdiction will join that of the jurisdiction referred to, of which this is its worst feature.
The old system, the present system, is that the advocate must have a fee marked on his brief. There is no financial consequence to him arising from the result of the case. He does not have his brief marked when he appears for the Crown because those fees are laid down on a specific scale. Traditionally in this country an advocate has always been regarded as an officer of the court, as is a solicitor. He has a duty to the court and must have and must give that detachment. The fact that he has no financial interest in what happens to the case and the amount of damages to be awarded gives him that strength of detachment to enable him the better to exercise his duty.
It may be said that this Bill permits those with reduced means to have access to the courts. Forty years ago, at the time of a Labour administration, it was decided —and it has been maintained ever since —that that problem should be resolved by the

533
provision of legal aid. If you will the purpose, you must will the means. What has fallen badly away from the principle of those days and subsequent days is the proper funding of legal aid. That is the most serious of all the matters which face the consumer or customer at present. I fear that by this provision the Government give the impression of seeking some alternative —a demeaning alternative —to properly funding legal aid.
Perhaps I may indicate some of the mischief of which I had experience at the libel Bar and to which I referred on Second Reading. One held retainers for newspaper groups and one could see, even under the present system, that there were sufficient threats to bring actions for libel against newspapers which were of no merit whatever but which would cost the newspaper so much that it would do better to pay up and pay off the plaintiff in order to send him away.
Under the new system, if this clause is accepted, there will be a vast increase of that sort of mischief. We have seen the level of damages which juries have awarded. Was not £1.5 million awarded in damages to a noble Lord? If we develop into the American system some 40 to 50 per cent. of those damages will go into the lawyers' pockets —in the case I mentioned some three-quarters of a million pounds. That must encourage speculative action. The financial reserves of the newspapers had better be greatly increased if we start that process by introducing this clause.
That is the worst feature of the United States system, which has been referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. We have seen that. There is the ambulance chasing at the natural disaster or plane crash. We saw that that happened when there was that chemical leak in India. The American lawyers on the scene made offers to relatives of the injured saying that there would be no fee if there was no win. Those lawyers received 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of the damages. Members of the profession to which I am proud to belong acted like vultures. That all derives from the fact that if you give the lawyer a financial connection with the result or if you introduce this market philosophy into the administration of justice, not only is an economic principle being distorted with which many of us agree but the principle will be damaged if it is introduced into the field of justice.
I cannot recollect the statistic exactly, but about 80 to 85 per cent. of all actions in the civil courts are settled before they come near a court. What will happen in the circumstances of a conditional fee, with no fee no win? Will more actions be settled or fewer actions settled?
It is, therefore, something in which this Committee, which has looked so carefully at so many clauses of the Bill, must surely unite in saying to my noble and learned friend, "Increase legal aid if you want to give people more access, as you ought to do, but we beg you not to introduce this, the first step along a path which will lead to a very sad day for the administration of justice in the United Kingdom".
Lord Ackner: It was 11 years ago that the Royal Commission on Legal Services, under the
534
distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Benson, considered and reported against contingency fees. It was seven years ago that the Government, in the White Paper devoted to dealing with the recommendations of that Royal Commission, accepted that recommendation. We are entitled to inquire: what has happened since to justify the proposed volte-face?
It will be said that the Civil Justice Review committee has sat and reported. I in no way criticise that review body. It was presided over by laymen. It had a majority of laymen on it and they very responsibly considered the pros and cons of this suggestion. It ended by saying that the review has not been able to make a full study of the matter and suggested its re-examination.
That was followed by a Green Paper devoted wholly and solely to this subject. That provoked the no doubt uncharitable view that the Government are attaching such importance to this subject that it will act as a smokescreen and produce the answer, when more legal aid is sought, "But you do not need to extend legal aid; go and ask the solicitor to take on a speculative action. If you have such a good case he will be delighted to do so".
The Green Paper drew attention to what occurs in Scotland, but it gave remarkably little detail. It did not give us a breakdown of the type of case; the nature of the risk run; the number of refusals that arose; the number of cases settled or the terms of settlement, or the type of advocate who took the case. I therefore took the great liberty when I had the privilege of meeting the then Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Mr. David Hope, Q.C. —now the Lord President of Scotland —to ask him about his experience. He said that the figure of 1 per cent., to which reference has been made, was conjured out of the air because there were no statistics at all on this subject. It was merely an indication of how little use was made of the possibility.
I then asked in what circumstances, generally speaking, it was resorted to. He said that very occasionally a solicitor will go to a barrister whom he is used to briefing and say "I have a personal injury case. Time is running out to such an extent for the issue of proceedings that I will not be able to get the decision of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee before I must issue the writ and statement of claim. Will you be kind enough, therefore, to agree, without fee, to settling the writ and statement of claim and I will come back to you when I know what has happened with the Legal Aid Advisory Committee?" The barrister almost always agrees to do so. The solicitor returns and says "That is fine, we have legal aid", or he may say "No legal aid. They did not think it was a sufficiently strong case". The case is then either dropped or settled. In a great rarity of cases it may go on because the barrister and the solicitor do not share the view of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. One might have expected the Committee to have been given a little of this detail, but not so far.
The other thing the Committee might have expected when the Civil Justice Review suggests a re-examination is that the Government would turn to the Law Commission, which is both wholly

535
responsible and wholly independent, and ask for its views. There was plenty of time to do so. The Civil Justice Review committee reported about 18 months ago and there was time to get its views. They were not concerted. This stimulated the Law Commission, which thought the proposal a thoroughly bad one, to produce a report of about 33 pages, to some of which I shall refer.
That report was provided to the Government after the Green Paper but before the issue of the White Paper. One might perhaps have thought that it would be referred to in the White Paper; not a bit of it. All one finds in the White Paper regarding reactions —I read from page 47 —is this:
"There were over 500 responses on this topic. The majority of respondents (60 per cent.) were again solicitors. There was little support for a full contingency fee system. Many saw a more limited option as being ineffective unless the costs rules were changed. There was some support for legalising speculative actions, although it was again stressed that their use would be minimal".
It is that, apparently, which has justified the Government proposing what has throughout the years been condemned. In my speech on the Second Reading I describe the paper by the Law Commission as treating the Government's approach to this worrying subject as "shallow" and "superficial". I will make that good by a number of references from the paper itself. The Green Paper states that in 1979 the Royal Commission on Legal Services considered the question whether contingency fees should be permitted. It was overwhelmingly against it. It consulted widely with the public and the professions. It received an overwhelming weight of evidence opposed to it. The Green Paper then suggests that the rule which prohibits a legal adviser from acting for his client on the basis that he will receive a fee if successful but none in the event of failure, is a restrictive practice which is "feudal" in origin and which may operate against the public interest.
The Law Commission holds the view that in truth the rule is one imposed by the law with two principal aims: (a) to prevent the exploitation of litigants, and (b) to promote the interests of justice.
The commission further states that to suggest that to legalise contingency fees would amount to no more than "deregulation" —that is a quotation from the Green Paper —seems to betray a misunderstanding of the origin, nature and purpose which have led the courts to impose the rule. Of course it is right that public policy should be reviewed in the light of changing social conditions. If it becomes clear that such conditions have altered the public interest, the reasons which support the rule should be weighed against the changes. However, the commission would suggest a more rational approach is required to the question of reform than one based on the assertion that because the rule is a restriction, the onus is on those who support the status quo.
I make one or two further references. The report is now dealing with the need for rules if you bring in this radical change. It says:
"Traditionally in the solicitor-client relationship it is the client's interests that dictate the actions of his solicitor whose duty it is to consult his client's wishes and take his instructions throughout
536
the litigation. It is obvious upon reflection that a solicitor who is investing his own resources to support the client's litigation cannot be required to act on the client's instructions to the same unqualified extent. To take one simple example, after the solicitor has invested a substantial sum in the conduct of the case, it may become apparent that the chances of success are considerably less than they appeared when the client first instructed the solicitor. The solicitor may be unwilling because of his assessment of the chances of failure to invest greater resources. The client, on the other hand, may want to pursue the action. It will be necessary to develop new ethical rules to meet a situation such as this.
The commission quotes from the observations of Professor Caughey in the University of Chicago Law Report 1987, where he says in regard to contingency fees:
"It is more accurate to describe the plaintiff's attorney as an independent entrepreneur than an agent for his client".
The only other references I wish to make are these. The Law Commission points out that that will have the effect of increasing actions against professional persons. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham referred to the press as being the subject of blackmailing actions. I am far more concerned, because the press is capable of looking after itself —
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: More or less!
Lord Ackner: —with the individual professional man. The Law Commission says, that there will be an increase in medical malpractice cases. The official referees, in their submission to the Lord Chancellor on the Green Paper, make the point stronger. Members of the Committee will recall from previous debates that the official referees deal with building and construction dispute cases. They say:
"We think that architects, engineers and surveyors, also doctors and other professionals, could be particularly vulnerable to claims brought or threatened on a contingency basis. The damages recoverable in most construction cases would make receiving a proportion of them attractive, while for the professional even to report the claim to his insurers will probably result in an increase in his next premium. In consequence, however strong the professional's case, he might think it expedient to make a `nuisance payment' if the professional goes to his insurers and the action shows signs of being fully contested, with large costs involved, a speculative solicitor can always advise his client to discontinue."
4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I have waited until the noble and learned Lord finished an argument. I would not wish to be in any way confused, but so far he has spoken about contingency fees which many of us recognise as being an evil. Is not this clause directed to the conditional fees and not contingency fees?
Lord Ackner: We are talking about words. This clause is devoted to the solicitor obtaining his remuneration plus an uplift on the contingency that his client succeeds. That is a species of contingency fee; it was so described in the Green Paper and so dealt with by the Law Commission. I am fully aware of what the noble Lord has in mind, and that is a percentage of damages. I am not dealing with that.
Finally, I invite the attention of the Committee to what the Law Commission finally advised:
"The commission believes that greater research and more thought is necessary before it can be concluded that the introduction of a contingency fee would in fact significantly

537
increase access to justice in this country especially since many of the cases which in the United States makes use of the contingency fee system are catered for by our own legal aid system."
Secondly,
"Codes of practice and rules of conduct have not proved an adequate protection for litigants or apparently for the interests of justice in the United States."
Thirdly,
"To require the litigant to pay any significant sum out of his damages does of course detract from the fundamental principle of English law that the courts strive to put a wronged person back into the position he would have been had he not been wronged. One writer has said: 'Any time a litigant has to pay representation expenses from his award justice is not done' ".
It therefore concludes that far too little time, too little thought, and an excessively superficial approach have been allocated to this very difficult subject, and it is for that reason that I suggest that the Government should think again.
Lord Renton: When my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has heard all the arguments in this debate, I hope that he will feel the wise course will be not to keep this clause in the Bill. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in making clear that we are not discussing the type of contingency fee which involves taking a share of the damages if one is acting for the successful party. We are discussing a matter which is not very far removed from it; namely, a conditional fee agreement under which, in accordance with the clause, the solicitor and barrister, or the solicitor and advocate, acting for the lay client, will only be paid if they win the case. I suppose, as a slight compensation for the risk, they will be paid a higher percentage of fees than normal for a case of that type and for the issue involved.
Let us consider the reality of the matter. If the lay client loses his case, he will still have to pay the costs awarded against him including the fees of his opponent's counsel and solicitor though he will not have to pay his own counsel and solicitor. That is the first and most obvious factor. If the lay client wins his case, and if his opponent does not possess the means to pay the costs awarded against him, the successful lay client, as a result of the conditional fee agreement, will have to pay his own counsel and solicitor more than if there had been no such agreement.
I make no apology for mentioning the matter again and adding some further factors. This measure is a poor substitute for improved legal aid. On this occasion it is a question of cost to the Treasury. Under the Bill there will have to be a good deal of public money spent on setting up various new bodies; namely, the advisory committee, the ombudsman for conveyancing services and the conveyancing appeal tribunal. But it goes without saying that, marginally to some extent, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Director General of Fair Trading must have more officials. That will mean more cost. In the financial memorandum to the Bill it is pointed out that these new bodies will cost several million pounds. Altogether, between £5 million and £7 million will have to be spent in the first year, and more than that in later years when the system is underway. I suggest that the money would be much better spent on legal aid than on this poor substitute for it.
538
One difficulty has not so far been mentioned. When we discussed the cab rank rule last week my noble and learned friend said that he was in favour of it in principle. He had previously called it an important constitutional principle. I suggest that what is proposed in Clause 44 is inconsistent with that principle. I shall give two examples. The first is the barrister who says to his client, I am sorry, I won't enter into a conditional fee agreement because I consider that conditional fee agreements are wrong in principle". Most barristers already feel that that is so. He would then have to refuse the case, and it would be against the cab rank rule for him to do so.
My second example concerns the fairly young married solicitor or barrister with several growing children and no private means of his own. He decides to take one of these cases which lasts a long time. If a request is made to him to take another case with a conditional fee agreement which might also take a long time he would have to refuse. He could not afford to carry on taking difficult and longish cases without payment. That is another example of where he would have to disobey the cab rank rule.
This is a serious matter. Anxiety is felt in many quarters, and not only in the legal profession. I have heard other people say that they do not think it is right to try to solve the present difficulties of our system in this way. I most earnestly support those who say that Clause 44 should not stand part of the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I lack the learning of other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and so perhaps I may be forgiven if I ask a very simple and straightforward question. How many of us are really convinced that it would be right to make three distinct moves in the direction of the American system, and what gains would result from our doing so? First, it is proposed that we move towards the amalgamation of the two professions. Secondly, we are making substantial moves in the direction of setting up, in fact if not in name, a Department of Justice. Thirdly —this is the point with which we are here concerned —we are for the first time giving the advocate a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case.
In those circumstances I feel that it is a measure of the very great esteem in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is held that the Bill has had, relatively speaking, so smooth a passage. I speak with the utmost respect for my noble and learned friend when I say that in my anxieties I very much sought comfort from his words. Far from being allayed, my anxieties were however increased by words which he used. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I quote briefly from the Second Reading debate. My noble and learned friend said:
"I do not put myself forward as a prophet. I believe that if the proposals are rational and well based, and if we have set up a decent machinery for handling them, the results are likely to be beneficial. The machinery is capable of evolutionary change. I believe that we shall be able to proceed in an evolutionary way and to judge the results to some extent as we go along". —[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 248.].

539
I derive no comfort from those words. My considerable anxieties about the three basic changes proposed in this legislation, far from being allayed, are sharper than they ever were. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend will have second thoughts about this clause as well as, perhaps, about some of the other matters that I have mentioned.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I intervene briefly to refer more specifically to the clause itself. I appreciate that the purpose of the clause as it stands is restrictive. But apart from the reference of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil to the evolutionary process to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred at Second Reading, we have to consider the intervention this afternoon of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He quite clearly indicated that he hoped that this would be the thin end of the wedge leading to a form of future legislation which might be closer to the American system. The American system would at least have this disadvantage. It would be perfectly clear from the outset what the basis of the fee would be. If, for example, the lawyers appearing for The Sunday Times had agreed to accept 10 per cent. of the 60p damages, that might have been regarded as the best joke of all. As it is, it is not clear how the payments are to be made.
In Clause 44 everything really depends on orders to be made by the Lord Chancellor. Subsection (4) says:
"In this section "specified proceedings" means proceedings of a description specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of subsection (3)".
Subsection (5) provides:
"The Lord Chancellor may by order prescribe such maximum permitted percentages for specified proceedings as he considers appropriate".
Subsection (10) states:
"The proceedings mentioned in subsection (1)(a) are any criminal proceedings and any proceedings under".
There is then a list of possible proceedings, and then of course it is said at the end in subsection (11):
"The Lord Chancellor may at any time by order amend subsection (10) by adding or removing descriptions of proceedings".
So there is nothing certain in the clause.
Sir Harold Kent, who was first parliamentary counsel and then Treasury solicitor, says in his memoirs that when he was a young man he drafted a clause for which he was much praised by a senior civil servant —someone perhaps as senior as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale —who said, "Well done, my boy; nice and vague". And that is what this clause is.
Finally, I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether he has yet studied the 39th annual report of the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee. It was only ordered to be printed by the other place on 1st February. It may be of interest to those who do not think that lawyers ever speak for anyone but themselves. The relevant paragraphs are 74 to 77. The committee says:
540
"This Committee has always opposed, on the grounds of conflict of interest, the introduction of contingency fees whereby a lawyer is paid only if the client's case is won, with payment fixed by reference to a percentage or share of the award that is made".
I believe that most of us are opposed to that idea.
The committee continues:
"We are therefore pleased to note that the Government has rejected any type of fee involving a proportion of whatever damages are obtained. We remain somewhat apprehensive, however, regarding the proposal to allow conditional fees with a percentage addition to the normal costs".
The committee asks that it should be ensured that any such uplift is unlikely to impair impartiality in the conduct of a case —a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The report continues:
"Nonetheless, we believe that such conditional arrangements might occasionally prove helpful in cases where legal aid is not available … On the other hand, we doubt whether any such arrangements will have any major impact on financing litigation, first because lawyers will only be prepared to undertake cases on such a basis if they are reasonably certain of success, and secondly because of the disincentive effect of the costs rule".
In other words, the Legal Aid Committee, which advises the Lord Chancellor, sees little merit in the proposal. It points to two considerations which it finds especially relevant. The first is to ensure that conditional fees are seen as a supplement to legal aid and not as an alternative; and, secondly, it says that it is also concerned to ensure that the availability of conditional fees is not perceived as a reason for not maintaining legal aid eligibility levels, and for not extending legal aid to those areas where it is presently unavailable. The committee concludes:
"We do not regard the arrangements for conditional fees as a realistic alternative to legal aid … We think that it is important that the Government should ensure that there will be no loss of service to the poorer client before any of the proposals are actually implemented".
I suggest to those of the Committee who think that this is merely a legal argument that they bear in mind the views of the Legal Aid Committee, which clearly does not support the clause, and certainly not as at present drafted.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may —
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should willingly defer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but he has kindly deferred to me, which was wrong of him, if he will allow me to say so. I want to speak with as much studied moderation as I am capable of. I wish, however, to say that I seldom seek to talk in this place about morals; but I regard this as a straightforward moral issue. I believe a conditional fee of the type proposed, which is only one example of the contingency fee, although not the worst, to be inherently immoral. It undermines the whole ethic of advocacy, the whole ethic of the legal profession.
I have been for most of my life a barrister when I was not in office or in the army. I was the son of a barrister. I am the father of two barristers, one of whom is still in practice. This provision goes against everything that I was taught. It is against everything that I have practised. It is against everything that I have tried to teach my children. An advocate owes

541
three distinct moral duties. His first, and I believe his overriding, moral duty is to the court. His second, and his next most important, is to his client. The third, and it is important, is to his opponent.
The conditional fee, whether in the form proposed or in any other form, undermines all three of those duties because it gives the advocate a direct financial interest in the result of his case. The only defence which the Government put forward in their Green Paper is that they trust the honour of the profession. I am sorry not to see any bishops in their place, but I am afraid that I take a theologically different view from that of my noble and learned friend. He apparently believes in justification by faith alone. He will remember of course that a namesake of mine, the "Ettrick Shepherd" James Hogg, wrote a book entitled Confessions of a Justified Sinner in which the man ended by killing his own brother. I believe that if there is one doctrine of the Christian church which can be proved by experience it is the doctrine of original sin. If we make it pay to be dishonest, people will become dishonest even if they start by being honest. That is what this proposal will do.
The duty to the court is never to deceive the court, never to misrepresent the evidence, and even to bring forward legal decisions on a point of law which are hostile to the case that one is seeking to argue. One's interest of course is to do all three if a conditional fee is allowed. One's duty to one's client is to promote his interests. Let us suppose that one receives an offer of a settlement —I wish to return to settlements because they may be important in this connection —but one can earn a little more money, if the defendant is going to pay out something, by asking for two or three more sets of particulars and so prolong the case a little longer and run up one's bill. One is then making more money. The client's interests may be totally different. As regards one's opponent, one's object is not even to take advantage of an inadvertent mistake. All those factors are contrary to the conditional fee.
In what I thought was a rather simplistic speech O sancta simplicitas at an earlier stage of our discussions on the clause, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, seemed to think that 80 per cent. of the country was debarred from receiving legal aid. I shall return to that point also, if I may. Contingency fees are no substitute for legal aid —none whatever. We have gone so far down that road of accessibility to the courts not to be prevented, so far as is reasonably possible, by absence of means.
We then start talking about consumers or, as my noble and learned friend prefers to call them, clients. But there is no one class of consumer at all in contested litigation. There is a plainfiff, a claimant, and a respondent, a defendant. Their interests are directly opposite to one another. The fact is that litigation is a necessary evil, but still an evil. The object of all good litigation ought to be to settle, and to settle favourably, on equitable principles to both parties. It is only if it cannot be settled that you fight the thing to the end. The interests of the parties are opposed.
In an earlier debate, I heard my noble and learned friend say that this was equally favourable to defendants. I am quite sure that it is not. Supposing
542
you are having to advise a defendant in a personal injury case, whether or not he is supported by an insurance company, or a defendant in a libel case, whether or not it is a newspaper, or whether or not you are dealing with a defendant in a negligence case based upon professional negligence. A man without means comes and brings forward against you a vexatious, a frivolous or a frankly blackmailing case. You know that if he wins he cannot pay anything towards your costs. You are bound to advise the defendant to offer him something to go away.
But the contingency fee basis cannot meet that case. The courts will in fact be flooded with frivolous, vexatious and frankly blackmailing claims as they were in certain things before the war, which I well remember, where the first seven years of my practice at the Bar were spent and when there was no legal aid whatever. But you are bound to advise him to go away with a small sum of money, if you can. Of course, you will not have won the case. The contingency will be against you and the condition will not have been fulfilled. How can you make up your mind whether you have won or lost?
I invite your Lordships, if your Lordships think that I am just talking as a lawyer, to look at the subsection of this clause which excludes almost all family matters. Why do you supppose that they are excluded? They are excluded because it is impossible to say whether you have won or lost in a very large number of cases. There is no way in which you can define what constitutes winning or losing in a contested case, if your object is to come to an equitable settlement based on the principles of justice. And so obvious is it that that: is so, that in one whole area of the law—namely, family law —it is expressly excluded from the clause. I can only say that to me this is a stark and simple moral issue.
I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who seems to think in terms of plaintiffs and not of defendants, and who wants, as we all do, the maximum access to the courts when there is a good and reasonable claim. We are told that the Scottish system is a model for us all and the model indeed upon which this clause has been framed. The answer to that is that, at the most, we understand that 1 per cent. of the cases are contingency fee cases; and my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches, Lord Ackner, made a very good case for supposing that the figure of 1 per cent. is a gross exaggeration, that it is not anything like that. How does the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, think that this is to be a substitute for legal aid access to the courts? My own view is that it is not and cannot be.
In 1979, the late Lord Elwyn-Jones introduced a set of rules under which about 70 per cent. of the population were covered by legal aid to a greater or lesser extent. I am sorry to say that they have been whittled away, though I did my best to maintain them during my period of office. But I am bound to say that there is more than a suspicion in my mind that what actuates the Cabinet in this case, though I would be the last to suggest that my noble and learned friend necessarily is actuated by the same motives, is to provide a substitute for legal aid in the form of a contingency fee. Even if that is not the object, I am perfectly sure that the Treasury will use

543
it as an argument when the next set of regulations occur.
But it is not a substitute. The Scots have voted with their feet. They will not have anything to do with this evil thing. Less than 1 per cent. of the cases are fought on this basis. They cannot touch it with a barge pole and we are asked to imitate them. I hope that we do, if it goes through, which I hope it will not. This is an evil thing and it can only be described as evil and corrupting to an honourable profession.
Lord Mishcon: After that usual eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who mentioned as the main background of his argument the issue of morals, I wonder whether I might put a few thoughts to your Lordships. I do so with very great respect.
I ask your Lordships to realise what is the position today in regard to civil litigation, and what practitioners in the law, who seek to conform with their very honourable traditions, have to deal with? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was absolutely right. I know that it was one of the great prides of my late lamented and much respected friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, that he had brought to legal aid and its limits 70 per cent. of the population of this country. The noble and learned Lord, as one would expect of him, was absolutely accurate regarding that percentage. That percentage has dropped catastrophically and therefore, when one is dealing with the issue of morals, I will tell the Committee in all frankness the position that we on our Benches have to adopt.
It is literally true that 70 per cent. of our population, if faced with the necessity of dealing with civil proceedings either as plaintiff or defendant, if they were to be of any length or importance at all, would have to tell their lawyer. "I know that it is unjust, unjust to me and to my family, but I cannot afford to do it." If that is a moral issue, as I think it is, it is a very important moral issue and one with which we cannot deal with any equanimity at all at the present time.
The limits of legal aid are such —and I repeat it —that it would be literally true that without a grant of legal aid 70 per cent. of our population could not face a long civil case. What do you do about it? You do as I have tried to do, as others of my noble friends have tried to do, as those on the other Opposition Benches have tried to do and as some good folk on the Government Benches have tried to do. We plead with the Government, "Please, in the name of justice, in the name of morals, increase legal aid, unless you want to make a mockery of the famous ideal that our courts of justice are open to all for justice to be done, whether they be poor, whether they be of medium means or whether they be of wealth." Unfortunately the pleas have not met with success. I know, as Members of the Committee know, that if I had made this plea by way of amendment to the Bill —which would be technically impossible —I might say, "Let this clause go but put in its place a grant of legal aid", such as I believe was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. That would enable
544
the people whom I have talked about, the people of medium means, to enter the courts of justice with confidence and without feeling that if they continue to do so they will be ruined and so will their families. We all know, as a matter of reality, that even if such an amendment could be put technically, the Government would not accept it. Nor would they accept an amendment to the amendment which gave us even half of that.
What does one do, faced with the moral issue of whether or not our courts of civil justice are open to all? Unfortunately what one has to do is to compromise. If Members of the Committee ask me personally whether I like the compromise of conditional fees, I have already frankly confessed that I do not. That is not the view of many in my profession; it is not even the view of the Law Society.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Would be not agree that if we accept contingency fees, that would always be used as an argument against improving legal aid and weaken the case for more legal aid, which is what we on these Benches wish to see?
Lord Mishcon: The noble Baroness has anticipated the last part of my speech but she has put it very much more shortly. I am grateful to her, and I shall try to remember her words when I utter the last part of my remarks.
This cannot and must not be a substitute for legal aid. Even more than that, it is the very reason for Amendment No. 194A, to which I refer the Committee. The amendment says:
"where it appears to the Legal Aid Board that an agreement under section 44(1)"—
that is the very agreement that we are talking about—
"could or ought to have been entered into, that circumstance shall not be taken into account by the Board when performing its functions under section 15(3) of the Legal Aid Act 1988".
That means that if as a minimum —and this is why I am speaking on the Motion that Clause 44 stand part —the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not able to say to the Committee that the amendment is accepted, I take it for granted that I must adopt the principle that legal aid will be affected by the grant of approval to this clause of the Bill. My noble friends and I shall have to vote with those who are trying to set this clause aside. If, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord will give the undertaking that the amendment will be accepted, then I have to consider my position further when advising my noble friends.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble friend sits down, will he be kind enough to indicate whether the compromise which he is reluctantly prepared to accept includes what I understand to be the position under Clause 44? It is that this contingency fee arrangement —and I use the word in the wide form —applies not only to the barrister and the solicitor but to the layman who, under the radical changes proposed by the Bill, will achieve both rights of audience and rights to involve himself in litigation services.
Lord Mishcon: I have considered that position as carefully as I can. I hope that I am not being over-optimistic when I say that I have taken it for granted that the grant of rights of audience to laymen coming from outside the professions of both solicitors and barristers will be so limited that I shall not have to be concerned with the matter. That is the view that most people have taken when they bear in mind the eminence of those who have to decide upon the rules relating to rights of audience.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I have not had time to consider his proposals of compromise. As I understand them at the moment I find them wholly unacceptable.
Clause 44 contains two insuperable objections which cannot be met by any compromise. For the moment I leave aside the moral objection by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham with which I wholly agree. I leave aside any question of the application of the cab rank principle introduced by my noble friend Lord Renton and come straight to the clause. First, as a matter of principle, who has the say on a settlement under Clause 44? Is it the lay client or the solicitor? This is a crucial matter affecting the interests of the consumer which must be dealt with, spelt out and codified in primary legislation.
The second objection is the point taken by my noble friend Lord Rippon. The whole drafting is so wide and so unspecific that when the Motion is put that Clause 44 stand part, I for one cannot possibly vote other than it should not. The whole concept of the clause is so unspecific, so wide and prone to danger and so prone to induce the unjustices about which other Members of the Committee have spoken that as a matter of conscience I should find it impossible to vote that the clause stand part.
At Second Reading it was said assuredly by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that Clause 44 affords no substitute for the proper funding of legal aid. Other noble Lords joined us in that view. That is the problem with which we have to deal. The only way to deal with it is to bring forward another Bill and to vote that as a matter of principle Clause 44 does not meet requirements and should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hughes: I was interested in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had to say about the change in legal aid. He mentioned that the 70 per cent. which the late Lord Elwyn-Jones achieved had been whittled away. My noble friend Lord Mishcon confirmed the 70 per cent. figure. He said that the figure had been drastically reduced. When we on the Scottish Royal Commission considered legal aid we found that the position then —it obviously has not improved in the interval —could be summed up in the phrase which was put to us, which was that only the very poor and the very rich could afford to litigate. Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor prepared to allow legal aid to remain in that position?
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, suggested that this clause should be welcomed by the practising legal profession. For my part, I have some passing doubts as to whether she is right.
Baroness Phillips: If the noble and learned Lord looks at Hansard, I am sure he will find that I certainly did not use that phrase.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: If I misunderstood the noble Baroness I apologise, but others may take that view. However, for my part I shall put that on one side as I regard it as a total irrelevance. What really matters, and what troubles me greatly, is whether this clause is in the interests of the client as a consumer and whether it is in the interests of the efficient and proper administration of justice. While I accept that there should be innovations in the administration of justice and in the way in which both branches of the legal profession are practised, I have regretfully come to the conclusion that this measure is not in the interests of the client as a consumer. Furthermore, it is wholly contrary to the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice and therefore contravenes the general principle and the statutory objective which are set out in Clause 14.
First, I shall discuss the position of the client as a consumer. This clause seems to me to create an absolutely classic case of conflict of interest between the client and his lawyer. The basic proposition must be that the better the prospects of the client the less reason he has to agree to a conditional fee agreement. Conversely, the worse his prospects are the less the lawyer should agree to enter into any such agreement.
However, we must bear in mind that the scenario on the ground is of a client walking into a solicitor's office and saying that he has suffered a misfortune. That may be a running down action in which he proposes to be the plaintiff, or he may be in the position of a defendant. It is less usual for individuals of small means to be defendants, but that is not unknown. Either way the client enters the solicitor's office, tells his story and asks the solicitor what his chances of success are. At the moment he will receive an entirely dispassionate answer. However, under the terms of this clause the client then has to ask, if he has heard of conditional fee agreements, whether the solicitor is prepared to take his case on the basis of a conditional fee agreement.
That seems to me to put the lawyer in a wholly impossible position. Is the client to be told, as he would be told under any ordinary application of the present rules of the solicitor's profession, that he cannot be advised because there is a fundamental conflict of interest? He would be told that he must go to another solicitor who will advise him whether or not to enter into a conditional fee agreement with the solicitor he first approached. That practice would be strictly in accordance with the highest traditions of both branches of the profession. I am bound to say that I fear it would be met by the client saying, "They are at it again. Now they are trying to make

547
fees for two solicitors." However, that would be quite untrue.
So, first of all, consideration would have to be given to whether there should be provision for the client to be independently advised. Furthermore, it is not just a question of whether or not one enters into the agreement. It is the terms of the agreement which are of vital importance. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, treated this clause as if it were a no win, no fee clause. However, it is not. Clause 44(1)(b) states that a conditional fee agreement means an agreement which,
"provides for that person's fees and expenses, or any part of them, to be payable only in specified circumstances".
I do not believe that those circumstances will be specified by subordinate legislation. They will be specified in the agreement.
Advising someone on what specified circumstances should be put into the agreement seems to me to be a highly skilled and difficult operation. Is one to say, "I shall waive my fees provided that you do not secure more than X pounds as damages"; or does one say, "I shall only waive my fees if you lose wholly and have to pay the costs"? I shall not weary the Committee with all the possible combinations, but they are almost infinite. Is the lawyer to advise his client as to what the terms should be? Is he to put all personal protection on one side and try to devise for his client the best possible agreement that the client can possibly obtain against him? That is unthinkable.
Curiously enough, although the clause is hailed as being a magnificent step forward for the client as a consumer I find it surprising that nowhere in the clause is there any suggestion that the client should have a provision which is now traditional in consumer legislation; namely, a cooling-off period. If seven days later he begins to think that the course he took was not the wisest one possible he is stuck with the agreement. I do not doubt that most if not all solicitors would say, if the client went back to them, that they understood and that they would start again. However, we are trying to legislate for the system and that should not depend entirely upon the good will of solicitors.
I fear that there may be a feeling that we are not involved with large sums of money in these cases. However, I regret to say that we are. It is not a matter of satisfaction to me that the costs of litigation are as high as they are. It has to be faced that in personal injuries litigation, to take a typical case, costs can quite easily run into thousands of pounds. Therefore, what the solicitor, and counsel if he joins in, have to consider is whether they are prepared to risk thousands.
Let us not forget that this is not just a question of time. When I was at the Bar I might have been prepared to give my time in the sense that if I did not get paid for it that was just one of those things. But from the solicitor's point of view what he is being asked to do under an agreement such as this is not only to give his time, potentially for nothing, but also to pay disbursements and to pay experts who may be extremely costly. He will of course have
548
to pay all the copying charges, which one does not think of as amounting to very much but which solicitors tell me are a not inconsiderable burden in modern litigation.
Against that background there is no doubt that there is one piece of advice which a solicitor could give without any difficulty whatsoever; that is, to tell the client that before they discuss conditional fee agreements they should determine whether the client is eligible for legal aid because legal aid will, in 99 cases out of 100, be infinitely preferable from the client's point of view to a conditional fee agreement. I say that because his liability to pay his own lawyers will be strictly limited to his contribution, and, even more important, he will not normally be liable for his opponent's costs, save a small contribution which may be assessed against him. At the moment it customarily never exceeds the contribution which he has to pay to the Legal Aid Fund. So legal aid is enormously more attractive. However, I accept, and regret, that there is a large litigation poverty trap. If the client finds himself in that poverty trap he will have to look at the alternatives. Just as I have no doubt that legal aid is far preferable, I believe that the conditional fee agreement is not as attractive as it looks.
Clients —and perhaps one or two other Members of the Committee —will think of a conditional fee agreement as meaning that if the client loses he pays little or nothing and if he wins he recovers his costs from the other side. It is very much not so. If he loses he will remain liable for all the costs of the other side. If he wins he will have to pay the uplift of costs. I have no idea of the percentage figure of costs that anyone has in mind. If the basic costs are several thousand pounds, even a small percentage uplift will be a not inconsiderable figure. The client will also have to pay the difference between what are called standard costs which he will recover from his opponent and the costs which his solicitor is entitled to charge.
Standard costs have been fixed upon the basis—which to some extent is fictional —that it is possible to conduct a case for that sum and that every lawyer ought to be prepared to do so. I asked the chief taxing master the other day what in his experience was the difference between standard costs and what I used to call solicitor-known client costs. He said that that was an impossible question because it varied enormously. When I asked him to give me some idea he said that there are some cases which are dealt with on the basis of standard costs but they are relatively few. One could well be looking at a figure of 25 per cent. of the costs as the difference between standard costs and solicitor-known client costs. Therefore, in addition to the uplift, the client who has entered into a conditional fee agreement may be faced with a substantial part of the costs which he still cannot recover from the defendant.
That assumes that the defendant is good for the money. If the defendant is not good for the money, the client will be left to bear the whole of his own costs, including the uplift, for no benefit whatever. That would be the case unless he had had the prescience, or had been advised by his solicitor, to include a clause which provided that he did not have

549
to pay his solicitor unless he could recover costs from the defendant. The solicitor is then faced with a further difficulty. How is the solicitor who enters into such a conditional fee agreement to find out what the chances are of his client being able to recover costs from the other side if he is successful?
I hope that the Committee will forgive me for exploring the matter at some length and in some detail. However, in a sense I am a worker at the judicial coalface and I see such cases from day to day in real life.
Perhaps I may turn now to the question of what happens when litigation begins. Conflicts will abound. What happens when the client fails to come up to proof? He may have gone to the solicitor and told him a coherent story, on which his claim is based. He goes into the witness box and tells the same story when examined by his own counsel. Cross-examination then supervenes and the position is found to be very different from what he said it was in examination in chief and from what his own solicitor thought that it was. What happens then?
I am not talking about the extreme cases of which all judges have some experience. I am not talking of the personal injury plaintiff whose action grinds to a startling halt —the plaintiff having claimed to have a broken leg and to be totally immobile —when the defendant produces a video recording showing him skipping around with his children. I am talking about the case in which the situation as revealed in court is totally different from that which the client had led the solicitor to expect. Is the solicitor to be able to get out of the agreement on the grounds of fraud, on grounds of misrepresentation or on grounds of non-disclosure? That aspect has to be looked at seriously.
The question may arise, perhaps at a later stage, whether a client should discontinue a claim. There are cases which are brought bona fide but which on preliminary investigation appear not to have the substance which the plaintiffs genuinely thought they had. In those circumstances anybody would advise the client to discontinue the claim. In such a case the lawyer is likely to say to his client, "It is perfectly true that I have a conditional fee agreement but I advise you to stop these proceedings". If the client turns round and says, "No, I don't agree with you. I am going ahead", what happens? Is the lawyer expected to throw unlimited good money after bad knowing that the case cannot possibly succeed?
If an offer of settlement is made should it be accepted? I am not talking about a lawyer who grabs a settlement in order to obtain his fee but about the lawyer who looks at the matter totally objectively, notwithstanding the existence of a conditional fee agreement. He may say to his client that he ought to accept the settlement. The client may say, "If I go on and lose I shall not have to pay you. It is true that an order for costs will be made against me but all my assets are in my wife's name, so I would rather go ahead". There may be variations that are more reasonable than that scenario. What happens? Is the client to have the right to go ahead and involve the lawyer in much further expense? That would have to be provided for in the conditional fee agreement.
550
Who is to advise the client what provision should be included?
Suppose a conditional fee agreement includes a success condition —that the lawyer shall recover not less than £5,000 damages, and assuming costs of £2,000 —what happens if the defendant offers £6,000 as an all-in settlement? what is recovered? Is the lawyer recovering £6,000 and nothing in costs, which meets the success condition, or is he recovering £4,000 damages and £2,000 costs which does not meet the condition? That is another matter that will have to be looked at.
What about appeals? Suppose the client wins in the lower court and the condition in the conditional fee agreement is met and the lawyer is entitled to his fee? What happens when the other side shows signs of appealing? Is the lawyer bound to go on with the case? Does he duck out and say, "That is the end of the proceedings as far as I am concerned"? That again has to be looked at in the conditional fee agreement. There would be real problems if the conditional fee agreement said that one stopped at the end of the proceedings in the court of first instance. The client might be obliged to pay his lawyer the full costs, plus the uplift, and then lose everything in the Court of Appeal and have to pay the other side's costs both in the court below and in the Court of Appeal.
Those are some of the problems facing the consumer. Perhaps I may deal rather more briefly with the problems for the administration of justice, although I regard them as much more serious. As the Committee has already been reminded, lawyers owe a duty to the court which overrides the duty to the client. We are all brought up to that and we all accept it. It is not easy to balance one against the other. The scheme would add a new conflict. There is the lawyer's duty to the court which AS paramount, the lawyer's duty to the client which comes next and now the lawyer's duty to protect himself against undue liability under the conditional fee agreement.
The court relies upon the professional detachment of the lawyers who prepare the case and of those who appear before it and present the case. If the clause were to be passed and put into operation, every judge would want and need to know whether the lawyers appearing before him to argue the case or appearing before him as having prepared the case were also litigants in person because there would be no difference so far as concerns the fees between them and their clients. Both would have a strong interest in winning.
The very notification to the court that the lawyer was appearing on a conditional fee agreement would be objectionable in itself, although essential, because it would tell the judge, "I, the lawyer for the claimant, think this is a good claim, otherwise I would not have entered into the conditional fee agreement". In those circumstances, is the defendant's lawyer who is not on a conditional fee agreement able to stand up and say, "Well, I think my client has a good claim too"? We have never conducted cases on the basis that the judge wishes to know, or can ever be told, what the lawyer thinks of the case for the very good reason that cases should be tried on the evidence and not on the views of lawyers.

551
As I have said before, there is a problem here; namely, the problem of the litigation-poverty trap. However, the answer to that, once legal aid, expanded to the maximum extent that government resources permit, has been exhausted, is legal expenses insurance. That is growing rapidly. Or there might be —I do not put this beyond the ability of the market—special insurance to meet one's own costs if one loses. It would be a question of working out a premium on the facts of each case. So far as I know, no one has considered it for reasons which I do not pretend to understand; but it must in theory be possible.
It might also be well worth exploring, as the Law Commission suggested, a contingent legal aid fund as suggested by Justice. I do not put forward any of those ideas in preference to another. I merely say that any of those solutions are better than this clause which I believe to be wholly contrary to the interests of the client as consumer and to the interests of justice.
Lord Morris: Like my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, I regret the fact that there are no bishops here, but for very different reasons. I have always believed that it is they who have a problem seeing what makes the world go round.
I want to put a completely opposite point of view from that put at the other end of the Chamber and explain how the matter is perceived, rightly or wrongly, by the ordinary man in the street. The basis of the case put by noble and learned Lords at the other end of the Chamber, not least by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, was that the fact that the lawyer had no direct financial interest in the case was a positive virtue. I suggest that 90 per cent. of the people in this country think that that is a positive evil. It puzzles them greatly. It is not just founded on ignorance. They see over and over again that, if the lawyer has no financial interest in the outcome of the case, he has little or no reason to concern himself too fully in the conduct of the case, litigation and advocacy.
I do not suggest in any way bad faith, but, if noble and learned Lords do not believe this, they should listen to what people say about the casual attitudes that they have encountered among people who conduct their cases and among people in the profession generally. They should speak to the people who work in the magistrates' courts and to those who work in the lawyers' courts. They strongly believe that, if a carefully geared financial interest were placed in the lawyers' hands, it would concentrate the minds of people conducting cases a great deal more.
If the ordinary man in the street had spent all his time with the buttress of clerks, and advocates had spent their time with the buttress of solicitors shielding them from the problem of fees and the terrible burdens that have been brought to bear on clients, we would have a much better system in this country. Rightly or wrongly, that is the view of a great number of people to whom I have spoken on this subject.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Is the noble Lord suggesting that a lawyer in a magistrates' court should be paid more if he secures an acquittal? Is that the basis of what he says?
Lord Morris: I fail to understand how the noble Lord inferred that from what I said.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: What is the financial interest in a case in a magistrates' court? That is what I cannot understand.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe in the doctrine of justification by faith alone and in the doctrine of original sin. I also believe that faith without works is dead, being alone, and, therefore, that the faith which is important is that which manifests itself in the way that people conduct themselves in their daily lives.
Perhaps I may begin by answering the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. There is no question in my mind —I am perfectly prepared to make this as plain as I can, if necessary formally —that the clause is not a substitute for legal aid. It will be no part of the conditions required for an applicant for legal aid that he should first try for a conditional fee arrangement. There is no question of that.
However, for all the time that legal aid has been in existence, including the best possible time of the late Lord Elwyn-Jones—if I may put it like that for the purpose of argument —there has always been a top level of eligibility and therefore a position which is above the legal aid limit. A person may have a perfectly good case and no ready financial resources, and still not be able to take on a good case because he cannot finance it. Until now, it has been unlawful in this country for a solicitor, or a barrister for that matter, to take the case on the basis that he agrees in advance that he will be paid if he wins and not paid if he loses. I understand that to be the position.
A working party of the Bar considered the issue some time ago and drew attention to two matters which I wish to lay before noble Lords. It stated:
"We believe that some solicitors may already be prepared to take meritorious cases in certain circumstances even though their client's means may be such that the solicitors are aware that there is no realistic prospect of them receiving any remuneration for their services unless the client's claim succeeds. Moreover, most laywers will have had experience of cases where for one reason or another they have felt it right to waive their fees in whole or in part, after a case has been decided. Neither type of conduct has, so tar as we are aware, given rise to any real problem. Likewise, we see no real likelihood of difficulty if lawyers and their clients are allowed to achieve the same result by formal agreement made before the litigation is commenced".
I shall not read the whole extract. There are many other points, but the one that I want to make concerns what happens at the present time.
Next, I want to say that my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson drew attention to a number of matters which would need to be dealt with in relation to a conditional fee. When a person goes to his lawyer he makes arrangements with him about the work that he is to do and the terms on which it is to be done. He does not go to another lawyer for advice about that because in that case the other

553
lawyer would need to have some view about the terms on which he was to work, and so on. So some arrangement with one's lawyer is a prerequisite for the lawyer to do any work at all.
The nature of the lawyer's authority is also something that has to be considered. The lawyer will act for the client and he must know what the client wants, the nature of the authority that is conferred and the terms on which the client will have his work carried out. So questions about the nature of the agreement with the lawyer are inherent in the present situation.
In this clause I do not seek to do more than make possible such conditional agreements. There is still full room for the professional bodies and the bodies which in any case regulate rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation to make detailed rules about precisely what is to happen. However, I firmly believe that it is not right to maintain a situation in which all types of conditional fee agreements are outlawed. This clause simply makes it lawful to have a conditional fee agreement which is related to the fees which would be earned apart from a conditional fee agreement, with an uplift (which I described in the White Paper as modest) to take account of the fact that, as my noble and learned friends and other noble Lords will know, the lawyer has to deal with outlays such as costs of photocopying, experts' reports and such matters.
A modest uplift to deal with that strikes me as perfectly reasonable. The detailed arrangements under which that is to take place can be laid down by the professional bodies. The three fundamental duties, which I accept my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham described accurately, in my judgment are in no way inconsistent with the duty that would arise when a solicitor took on such an arrangement.
My noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Ackner referred to the Scottish position; namely, that these arrangements —that is to say, speculative actions, as we call them, in which the lawyer takes on the client on the basis that he will be paid the taxed costs if he wins and not if he loses —have been lawful for many generations, although the percentage related to the amount of damages has not.
The question of the extent to which such an arrangement is taken up is a separate or different matter. The first question is: is it moral, or is there anything immoral about it? I cannot believe that the distinguished lawyers who have operated the Scottish system over many years regard it as in the slightest degree immoral. Of course precautions have to be taken. People have to be reasonably satisfied that a good case exists before it is taken on, but their natural instinct lies in that direction. Their interest in the whole matter is in the direction of not taking it on unless the case is a good one. I believe that that is fundamental.
With regard to settlements, there is said to be special difficulty. I find that quite hard to accept. I take it that it depends on the precise nature of the agreement. As I said, I seek only to take away the complete blanket of unenforceability and illegality
554
which characterises such agreements at the moment. But let us take the simple case in which the lawyer agrees with the client that he will only receive his fees if the client obtains them from the other side. When an offer of settlement is made and a payment into court is offered, for example, the client takes the risk, as would also the lawyer, if he does not accept that offer that the costs will go against him.
I have always regarded that as one of the most difficult matters on which to advise. When faced with an offer which will have an effect on costs, what does one do? I have often taken the attitude when advising clients that this is an extremely difficult matter and I must put the full facts before them. It is the client who has to take the decision. Clients have often asked me, "What would you do if it were your own money that was at risk here?" I think that the client regards that question as a very good test.
I have not advised for a considerable time now but in the past I always did my best, judging the issues and risks as best I could, to put myself in the position that it was my own money that was at stake. I have to say that in nearly all the cases that I undertook—except for one notable instance which still stays very much in my memory —the client turned out to be on the right side of the matter. But it is impossible to forecast absolutely accurately.
However, all that is required here is for the lawyer to put himself in a position whereby his situation is affected by the advice in the same way as is the client's situation. It seems to me that from the moral point of view there is no objection whatsoever to a situation of the kind which I have sought to make legal.
I entirely agree that there are other possible matters to be considered but these are matters of detail which can be dealt with. I am simply concerned to remove the law which states that all such agreements, however meritorious they may be in particular circumstances, are not enforceable. The availability of such a right over and above legal aid strikes me as a valuable one for the client. I want to make it as clear as I can that I do not present this provision as a way to some greater type of case. I have founded it on a principle which altogether distinguishes this from the American type of case; namely, that the lawyer's return or remuneration that can be asked for in an agreement, which I am prepared to see as lawful if this clause goes forward, is to be related to the work done and not related to the amount of damages.
My noble friend Lord Peyton suggested various matters. I shall not deal with all three of them. The main point that he mentioned which particularly affects this clause——
Lord Renton: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will be so kind as to allow me to interrupt. I think that we should be quite clear about this matter. What he has just said about this not following the event —no pay, no win —does not seem to be consistent with what is in the White Paper. Paragraph 14.2, which refers back to the Green Paper, states:

555
"There was, however, little objection to the proposal that arrangements following the model of the Scottish speculative action (payment of normal fees only if successful) should be allowed in England and Wales".
I think it quite natural that those who considered this matter in relation to this clause should have assumed that what my noble and learned friend was getting at was what he stated in the White Paper.
The Lord Chancellor: I hope that I have said nothing that suggests the contrary. That is precisely what I am getting at. An agreement under which the lawyer is paid if he succeeds is an agreement which may be lawful. The detailed rules about it would certainly be capable of being dealt with by professional bodies. There is nothing outlawing the nature of the rules that they can make.
I am concerned with the general law that makes such agreements unenforceable. That is exactly what I am talking about. I hope that I have said nothing that puts that into any doubt.
Lord Diamond: The noble and learned Lord referred to these arrangements being unenforceable. He has referred to them as being illegal. Are they illegal and therefore unenforceable; or are they only unenforceable?
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The accurate position is that they are unenforceable by reason of their quality. That is to say, the law does not regard them as allowable and therefore they are unenforceable agreements. That is my understanding of the position, on the basis that public policy is against them. It is quite difficult to have such a public policy —which is the policy of the legislature of the United Kingdom —which allows them in one jurisdiction but not in another.
In my submission therefore it is right that they should no longer be regarded as unenforceable provided that they conform to the conditions that I have specified, and any other conditions that may be laid down.
Lord Ackner: Will my noble and learned friend confirm whether the Scottish model is to be extended in Scotland to non-lawyers? As I understand the clause, it will cover not only barristers and solicitors but non-lawyers who have achieved the right of audience or the right to litigate.
The Lord Chancellor: The provision would apply to those who have been afforded rights of audience under the machinery that is set out in the earlier clauses, including the right to conduct litigation.
Lord Ackner: My inquiry was whether that will also apply to Scotland, or whether the Scottish situation is to remain as I understood that it was: limited to barristers and solicitors.
The Lord Chancellor: As I understand it, the Scottish situation is that an agreement such as has been described is not unlawful, and is enforceable
556
in Scotland. Therefore I do not think that my noble and learned friend's question arises. It would not be unenforceable, whoever made it, because such an agreement as I have described is regarded as appropriate, not contrary to public policy.
The final point that I wished to make in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was in relation to Americanisation, or something of that kind. In my submission, the provision is fundamentally distinguished in principle from the American system which relates to the payment of remuneration to the lawyer that is related to the amount of damages recovered and is not related to the work done. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to relate payment to the work done. I distinguish that from a situation in which the payment has nothing whatever to do with the work that one has done but is related to the amount recovered.
I should have mentioned one other point. There have been so many; I hope that I have dealt with the principal ones. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham referred to an earlier point that I made about plaintiffs and defendants. I said then that such an arrangement applies to a defendant just as much as to a plaintiff. He made a point —if I remember rightly in the debate on the Green Paper when speaking in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton —that such an arrangement could not apply to defendants. My point is that the arrangement that I have suggested is permissible under the clause is available to plaintiffs and to defendants. I believe that there is very considerable security against any abuse of the system because, as has been pointed out, the award of costs against the plaintiff would still be available if the plaintiff does not succeed. These cases therefore are not likely to be taken unless the plaintiff has a good case.
The injustice that these arrangements address is this. At the present time if somebody is not eligible for legal aid —however high the legal aid limits were, there is a possibility of people being above them although they have a good case—unless he has the finance to undertake what might be quite an expensive litigation, he can do nothing. That makes such a method possible, subject to any detailed rules that the professional bodies in control of the citation might think it right to lay down.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: If my noble and learned friend will forgive me, before he finally sits down, I wish to put on record that the point I was making was not that the arrangement under the clause was unavailable to defendants, but that it was virtually useless to defendants against a vexatious, frivolous or blackmailing plaintiff. The economics are against the defendant being able to enjoy that arrangement. My point was not that it was unlawful for such an agreement to be made in favour of the defendant.
The Lord Chancellor: That is a different point from that with which I was dealing when I spoke. My noble and learned friend now makes the point that such an arrangement could give rise to blackmail. I do not accept that. I believe that the arrangement would include the requirement, with

557
regard to the professional rules, that the client had a reasonable case. It is well known that under the present arrangement somebody with a small amount of money can start a case. People settle cases on the basis that it is economical to settle them even if they think the client does not have a good case. That is particularly so in relation to legal aid. However, I do not believe for a minute that such consideration should tell against the lawfulness of the legal aid system.
People may think that they have a good answer. All that is required is a reasonable case on the merits for legal aid. That is not a reason why legal aid should not be allowed. In this case the defendant would be even more protected because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out, at present under legal aid arrangements the defendant may not be able to recover his costs and may certainly not be able to recover them against the plaintiff. I hope that the Committee will feel that it is a proper arrangement to provide, while leaving it to the professional bodies to make the detailed rules, and on the understanding that such provision is not a substitute for legal aid but available over and above legal aid, whatever the legal limits were.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble and learned Lord finally sits down, I have put to him —I hope in clear and fair terms —that I hoped he would accept Amendment No. 194A when it was moved. I understood him to say that he accepted the principle behind the amendment. If he could kindly give me his assurance that that amendment will be accepted when it is moved I shall know where I stand. If he does not, I do not know where I stand.
The Lord Chancellor: I certainly agree with the principle of the amendment. I am perfectly content with the amendment as it stands, subject to any later drafting which the draftsman may suggest. However, I am now prepared to accept it as it stands.
Lord Mishcon: I am obliged.
Lord Meston: I hesitate to interrupt but Members of the Committee should be aware that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is as good as far as it goes but I do not believe that it goes far enough. Clause 44 will still have the potential to erode legal aid. Financial eligibility for legal aid is not determined by the Legal Aid Board but by the Treasury. Although the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will bind the Legal Aid Board, it will not bind the Treasury in determining eligibility for legal aid.
The Lord Chancellor: That is why I indicated that I am perfectly content with the principle that the availability of a conditional fee agreement in no way affects eligibility for legal aid. I hope that I made absolutely plain what I have in mind; that whatever the eligibility limits, the agreement would be available over and above eligibility for legal aid.
I cannot see the argument that availability of such an agreement would take the place of legal aid. They are quite different. As was said by my noble and
558
learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the protection afforded by legal aid to the client is much greater, although in some matrimonial cases it is not as great as some people think.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: If the clause is accepted will not the Lord Chancellor be able to say to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "I am now in a much better position to resist any improvement at all in legal aid"?
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly not. The Legal Aid Act makes provision for those of poor or moderate means. I do not believe for one moment that this would be an appropriate answer to legal aid. This is an additional provision over and above legal aid. I believe that it is right to make possible that agreement under such conditions as thought appropriate by the bodies regulating rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation.
5.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 56.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Greenway, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Griffiths, L.

Allerton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ardwick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Barnett, L.

Hayter, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hives, L.

Bethell, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hughes, L.

Brightman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jeger, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterworth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Johnston of Rockport, L.

L.

Joseph, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Carnock, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Killearn, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Layton, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Long, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Derwent, L.

Lyell, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Lytton, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Elibank, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Faithfull, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Mancroft, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Margadale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Galpern, L,

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Goold, L.

Merrivale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mersey, V.

559

Middleton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Milverton, L.

Serota, B.

Mishcon, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strathcona and Mount

Nelson, E.

Royal, L.

Nicol, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Nugent of Guildford, L.

E.

Orkney, E.

Sudeley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swansea, L.

Pender, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Phillips, B.

Terrington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Underhill, L.

Rea, L.

White, B.

Reay, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Renwick, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rodney, L.

Wise, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kennet, L.

Amherst, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ampthill, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Melville, V.

Aylestone, L.

Meston, L.

Benson, L.

Moyne, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Brandon of Oakbrook, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Byron, L.

[Teller.]

Caccia, L.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Richardson, L.

Crook, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Diamond, L.

Roskill, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Elles, B.

Seear, B.

Ennals, L.

Shannon, E.

Falkland, V.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Somers, L.

Grantchester, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Templeman, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Teynham, L.

Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tryon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Inglewood, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Jenkins of Billhead, L.

E.

Kearton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 44 agreed to accordingly.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 194A:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of legal aid client in conditional fee agreements
.Where it appears to the Legal Aid Board that an agreement under section 44(1) could or ought to have been entered into, that circumstance shall not be taken into account by the Board when performing its functions under section 15(3) of the Legal Aid Act 1988.")
The noble Lord said: I do not believe that it is necessary to do other than move this amendment which I understand the noble and learned Lord is prepared to accept.
Lord Renton: Before my noble and learned friend replies, there is one matter which I find rather
560
strange; that is, the words "or ought to have been". I did not believe that it was within the principles which my noble and learned friend expressed or in Clause 44 as it stands that there was to be any obligation to enter into a conditional fee agreement. The words "or ought to have been" suggest that there is such an obligation. Therefore, when further considering the drafting of this amendment I hope that my noble and learned friend will bear that in mind. I believe it is quite wrong to have those words in the amendment.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend replies, it should be put on record that there is another acute difficulty which I do not believe has been faced up to. What is to happen when the lawyer for the plaintiff who has engaged himself on a contingency fee finds that the defendant is awarded legal aid to combat him?
Lord Mishcon: I refuse to use the words "contingency fee" because that is not the phrase which occurs in the Bill. It is not a phrase I shall use; it is not a phrase which I should have supported in the Division Lobby. The amendment is not to be deemed to be in substitution of legal aid. When an applicant for legal aid appears before the legal aid authority or his application is dealt with, the fact that this sort of arrangement may have been entered into should not be taken into account at all by the legal aid authority. That is all that the amendment says; that is all that it is meant to say. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will consider the words "or ought to have been", although I cannot see any harm in them.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that my noble and learned friend will pay some attention to the words "or ought to have been". I do not know what they can mean in those circumstances. By what criterion does the obligation come into an agreement of this kind? If legal aid is to be granted and it is a suitable case for legal aid, how could it possibly be right for such an agreement to be entered into?
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may give an example, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will find it fitting because we have spoken so much about personal injury cases. Let us take for granted that a plaintiff is knocked over by a car which has mounted the pavement and the driver is drunk. That person goes to a solicitor for help. The solicitor applies for legal aid. Without this amendment the board might conceivably say, "But you know this is just a case of the matter speaking for itself. It is re ipsa loquitur. It is impossible to lose this case. Why apply for legal aid? You should have talked to your solicitor or your solicitor should have talked to you about entering into one of those agreements. Have you discussed that with him? Why do you not want that?" I want to make it clear that there is no duty upon that person to say why he or she has not applied for it or on the solicitor to say why he has not discussed that with the client.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: If legal aid is likely to be given —and of course it would be, means test apart, because the merits of the case are so obvious, as the noble Lord pointed out —then surely it is obvious that legal aid is the preferable alternative of the two.
Lord Mishcon: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying that I am still in the position where I thought that my argument for the amendment was abundantly clear. It is not that the Legal Aid Board might say that legal aid is obviously preferential. It is to stop the legal aid authority saying to an applicant, "But do you realise that there is another course open to you? Have you discussed it with your solicitor or has your solicitor discussed it with you because that should be a matter for consideration and you should not trouble the Legal Aid Fund". In this amendment I am setting down a provision to stop any such question or discussion.
The Lord Chancellor: I said earlier that I accepted this amendment subject to any question which may be raised by the draftsman as regards the precise wording. I shall take into account what my noble friend Lord Renton said. I believe that that is the best way to proceed. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be quite happy that we should seek to meet those difficulties so long as the principle is accepted.
I do not wish to create any impression that there is an obligation on anyone to enter into a conditional fee agreement. That is an option. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had in mind when drafting this amendment that the Legal Aid Board might consider that there was an obligation. We want to negative that. Subject to the drafting of this amendment I accept it. I believe it is best that this amendment should now be written into the Bill reserving the right to come back on the detail of the drafting to try and meet those concerns because, as I said, I wish to meet them if I possibly can.
Lord Renton: In order that we can be constructive as well as critical, I suggest that the words "or ought to have been" could be replaced by the word "reasonably".
Lord Mishcon: The last thing in the world I want is the importation of the word "reasonably". I want that to be completely out of the discussion when the Legal Aid Board considers these applications, reasonably or unreasonably.
6 p.m.
Clause 45 [Regulation of right of Scottish and Northern Ireland lawyers to practise in England and Wales]:
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 36, line 11, after ("Lord Chancellor") insert ("with consent of the Lord Chief Justice").
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 195, 196 and 197, all of
562
which deal with the right of Scottish and Northern Ireland lawyers to practise in England and Wales. I am qualified under this proposal because I am a member of the Northern Ireland Bar. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know all about the Scottish advocates.
All I suggest here, as I have suggested before, is that where it is a matter of permission being given to a practitioner qualified in Scotland or Northern Ireland and the Lord Chancellor is making the regulations, he should do that with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice is the permanent head of the judiciary in this particular jurisdiction and it seems only right that in England we should have at least the head of the English judiciary as the person who will consent to regulations whereby persons from other jurisdictions come and practise in the courts of this country. That is the proposal in Amendment No. 195 which is followed by Amendments Nos. 196 and 197. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope my noble and learned friend will not accept this amendment. It seems to be quite wrong in principle that when a Minister of the Crown seeks to make regulations he should require the consent of somebody else. It puts him in the obvious difficulty that if consent is withheld, he cannot make the regulations which he feels he ought to make and which he may very properly be being pressed in either House of Parliament to make. Therefore to place a veto on the Lord Chancellor's regulation-making power in this way —even in favour of a deeply respected figure like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice —is quite wrong in principle.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend may take it that in contemplating regulations of this kind I should certainly wish to take the mind of the Lord Chief Justice as well as the other heads of division. The purpose of this clause, however, is to mirror as between the constituent law districts of the United Kingdom the rules made for the European jurisdiction. These are made under directives, as my noble and learned friend knows, and the Lord Chief Justice is not directly concerned in that procedure, though his views would necessarily be important.
I therefore think that, with the greatest respect, it is not appropriate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice should be mentioned particularly here. However, my noble and learned friend can be assured that in any regulation under this clause the Lord Chancellor would consult the heads of division.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for those comments. They are very different from the authoritarian attitude of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who does not want to see on any basis, when we are introducing a Minister to matters of the legal profession, the introduction of the judiciary. As he ought to appreciate by now, we are starting on uncharted ground with a regulation affecting the independent legal profession.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me to intervene. If he is good enough to make a personal onslaught on me for being authoritarian, perhaps I may suggest that he is being authoritarian in as much as he is seeking to put part of a regulation-making power into the hands of a very distinguished judicial figure who is not responsible to Parliament. If anything is authoritarianism, cutting out Parliament in that way is precisely that.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I am sorry that my noble friend is so sensitive about the word "authoritarian" which I boomed at him over his right ear. I received a copy of a letter which was addressed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, supporting the Lord Chancellor and complaining about the "crusty old men Lords Rawlinson, Hailsham and Boyd-Carpenter". Whether he likes it or not, he is aligned with us.
The view I have always expressed is that because this has a particular kind of ministerial interest —control over an independent legal profession —we should always have allied with it a member of the judiciary. I have consistently argued that throughout the course of the Bill. However, having regard to the way my noble and learned friend, with such grace as always but with such reasoning, has spoken in reply I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 195ZA:
Page 36, line 13, leave out ("in such capacity as may be prescribed") and insert ("in that capacity").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 197A. Both of these amendments are probing amendments and, as I understand it, the object of Clause 45(1) is to enable the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to ensure that lawyers from other parts of the United Kingdom are able to exercise rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation in England and Wales which are not less than lawyers from other member states under the lawyers' services directive of 1977.
Under this directive lawyers from other member states of the European Community, have the right to provide such services in this country, or indeed in another member state, from an establishment in their own home state in their capacity as lawyers of their home state. The matching provisions within the United Kingdom should therefore follow the same lines. For example, any right of audience exercised in English courts by a Scots advocate should be exercised in his capacity as a Scots advocate and not in any other capacity. To say that he may do so in some other capacity will cause difficulty if not a little confusion. It requires a little clarification and perhaps the noble and learned Lord may be able to help. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sorry to say that I am not absolutely clear precisely what it is the noble Lord seeks to achieve by this amendment. The proposal is that a Scottish advocate will have rights of audience in England, for example, on the same
564
basis as if he were a member of a profession in Germany that had rights of audience in the courts there.
That I think is what is sought by both of us. For example, a Scottish solicitor has very different rights of audience from an English solicitor so far as the different levels of court are concerned in Scotland. Some form of adaptation may be required if one crosses the boundary. I believe the regulations should have sufficient flexibility to enable us to do that. That is why we have the phrase,
"in such capacity as may be prescribed".
It is in order to cope with that situation. It is to try to lay down what rights in England the person from Scotland might have when there is no absolute correspendence between the different categories of profession in the two jurisdictions.
The Earl of Selkirk: My noble and learned friend appears to be saying that when a Scots solicitor comes to England he will be allowed to appear in the equivalent of the sheriff court. Is that what my noble and learned friend is saying; or is he saying that as a solicitor he will be entitled to appear in the High Court?
The Lord Chancellor: That is one of the difficulties the clause has to deal with. I seek to mirror the arrangements that we have so far as the EC is concerned. To take the example of my noble friend, there might be difficulty in the idea that a Scottish solicitor should come to England and have a right of audience in a court here where no English solicitor had a right of audience. We are trying to cope with that situation by allowing us to have the capacity to prescribe rather than making it completely automatic. These directives are difficult to apply across the nations at the moment and we simply want to achieve a similar result, so that a Scots person should not be able to say that in England he has fewer rights than a Frenchman or German in similar situations. Conversely, an Englishman going to Scotland would have no fewer rights than a corresponding Frenchman or German would have in the same situation.
Lord Hacking: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It fortifies the mainstream argument that lawyers in Scotland, England and in Northern Ireland should have similar rights of audience as a result of which these problems would not arise. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his exposition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 195A.
Page 36, line 17, leave out from ("litigation") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 13.4 of the White Paper Legal Services: A Framework for the Future points out:
"that lawyers qualified only in one part of the UK already have, and will increasingly have, greater opportunities to practise in other EC member states than they do in other parts of the UK. This is clearly anomalous".
The purpose of Clause 45 as a whole is to give effect to paragraph 13.5 of the White Paper which states:

565
"The Government therefore proposes that the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be given power to make regulations which will ensure that UK lawyers have rights to practise in other parts of the kingdom at least equivalent to those available to lawyers from other EC countries".
The general objective of giving lawyers from one part of the United Kingdom at least as many rights regarding practice in other parts of the kingdom as lawyers from other EC countries is supported by the Law Society. It is at its request that I move this amendment. However, it is not appropriate or necessary for this purpose to enable lawyers from one part of the United Kingdom to provide conveyancing or probate services in other parts of the kingdom.
The EC lawyers' services directive 1977 enables lawyers from one member state to provide occasional services, including litigation and advocacy, in another member state subject to certain conditions. It expressly enables member states to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the preparation of formal documents for obtaining title to administer estates of deceased persons and the drafting of formal documents creating or transferring interests in land; namely, conveyancing and probate.
The Order in Council implementing the directive in the United Kindom accordingly excluded lawyers from other EC countries from the right to provide conveyancing or probate services in the United Kindom. In most other member states such services are generally provided by notaries who are not within the lawyers' services directive at all. In these circumstances it seems that references to conveyancing or probate services in Clause 45(1)(b) are inappropriate. This amendment proposes their omission. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I accept this amendment in principle. There is a slight problem concerning the consequent drafting. Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to make the corresponding alteration in terms that the draftsman would wish. I do not believe that this particular clause is inconsistent with the undertaking that I gave in the White Paper to make regulations which will ensure that United Kingdom lawyers have rights to practise in other parts of the kingdom at least equivalent to those available to lawyers from other EC countries. But the clause as drafted goes further in making provision for such cross-border practice than the service directive does with regard to inter-state practice. That was not my original intention, and for that reason I am prepared to accept this amendment in principle.
The amendment as drafted would leave the clause with a list at subsection (1) consisting of paragraph (a) and nothing more, and that is a matter I wish to deal with. I accept the amendment in principle and I undertake to bring forward at Report stage an amendment to the same effect as his.
Lord Coleraine: I am delighted to learn that the amendment is accepted in principle by my noble and learned friend. Therefore in order that he may see the drafting corrected, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 196 to 197A not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In the interests of constitutionality and economy of words in the statute book, I draw attention to two matters on this clause. The first is the relationship between subsections (2) and (3). This subject is an old favourite in that,
"The Lord Chancellor may by regulations",
do such and such. Subsection (3) says that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor "may, in particular" make regulations. Those are the particularities of subsection (2). When this matter arose before, there were about 15 lines similar to subsection (3). This time there are 13 lines. So the issue mounts up in size.
I said that the equivalent of subsection (3) was unnecessary. My noble and learned friend said that, strictly speaking, it was unnecessary. There was undoubtedly the implication that he thought that there were nevertheless reasons to put the subsection in. We can return to the matter and discuss it at Report stage when I shall table an amendment to leave out subsection (3). I thought that at this moment I would draw to the Committee's attention what I and I am sure other Members of the Committee regard —particularly the noble Lord, Lord Renton —as completely unnecessary verbiage. It is mounting considerably and soon we shall have a whole page of the statute book in the Bill.
The other matter is the regulation-making power in subsections (2) and (4). In both cases they are subject only to the negative resolution procedure in Clause 82. As regards subsection (4). there is yet another Henry VIII clause in which a Minister seeks power to amend the existing rule of law or practice. I do not take a categorical view against Henry VIII clauses. I am content with the line that is drawn by the Donoughmore Committee. In other words, each clause must be justified on its own merits, the onus being against the person putting forward a Henry VIII clause who must show that it is necessary and justify it to the hilt.
No attempt has been made to approach any of the Henry VIII clauses on that basis. There is a later amendment which, if the Government business managers have their way, will come on in the early hours of the morning. I fear that the hour is likely to be later than that. It is an amendment to make all the regulating powers under Clause 45 subject to affirmative resolution. I am simply indicating that at the moment they are subject only to the negative procedure. That situation is particularly blatant regarding subsection (4) which is a Henry VIII provision.
Lord Renton: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has drawn attention to a clause which could have been expressed much more succinctly. Several of the subsections overlap. I should have thought that the draftsman would be well advised to consider a complete revision of the clause without altering its meaning or effect. It is one of the few clauses of the Bill which I favour.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to know that my noble friend favours this clause. Perhaps as we go forward he will find others that he may favour. I understand the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I have sought to explain before that I give this kind of detail in order to try and give notice of what is in mind. He is correct that at present the regulation-making power is subject to the negative resolution procedure. No doubt we can consider later whether that is appropriate. The idea is to give effect to the principle of directives. That was the reason for it. I hope that the Committee will approve the clause.
Clause 45 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to make clear the precise meaning and implication of the clause. Subsection (1) seems to say that barristers may be directly approached by members of the public and may enter into contracts for the provision of legal services. Does "a contract with his client" mean with his professional client and/or with his lay client? I presume that the implication of the clause is that from now on any advocate, be he barrister or solicitor, may be directly approached by any member of the public. Is that what the clause means? Under subsection (1) the Bar may make rules restricting that direct access if it so wishes. Does that mean that other advocates may not make such restrictions?
The question of direct access has not hitherto come up for discussion under the Bill. I should like to raise other matters, but I shall not waste the time of the Committee if the noble and learned Lord can explain straightaway whether I have understood the clause entirely wrongly or whether what I am saying is the implication of the clause.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is not wasting time. An extraordinary situation arises under the clause. I did not understand it until I read the Notes on Clauses. Under the heading "Policy Objectives", which follows the detailed explanation of the contents of the clause, its aim is set out:
"Subject to regulation by the profession, to facilitate direct access to barristers by persons other than solicitors and to help to ensure that the law does not unnecessarily restrict the ways in which barristers may offer their services".
It goes on to say:
"It will enable barristers to sue for their fees and, subject to their immunity from suit in relation to advocacy work, to be sued".
It adds:
"The General Council of the Bar is to remain free to make rules if it so wishes restricting barristers' rights to enter into contracts".
I have two comments on what appears to be the purpose of the clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, pointed out, it is an indirect way of abolishing the rule that barristers can accept instructions only from solicitors. They cannot do so direct from lay people. Secondly, it will enable barristers for the first time to sue for their fees and to be sued. They can be sued at present for negligence
568
in respect of non-advocacy work. Those two things are done in a rather indirect and hidden manner. What I find most extraordinary is that having said, and having enacted directly or indirectly, that any rule of law which prevents a barrister from entering into a contract with his client is abolished, it goes on to pass the buck to the General Council of the Bar to decide whether or not his new rule of law shall apply. I find that a rather strange method of legislating.
In the past these matters have been left, and left successfully, to the profession. Here we say in one subsection that it does not need the profession to make a rule, and then in the next subsection we say that the General Council of the Bar can restrict the barrister's right of entering into contracts. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can explain the methods he has used in this clause.
The Lord Chancellor: There is a fairly strong view that a rule of law prevents a barrister as such from entering into a contract with his client for the provision of his services as a barrister. That prevents him from among other things suing for any fee that may have been arranged in advance. If there is such a rule I have sought in this clause to take it away but make it absolutely clear that the General Council of the Bar can regulate any matter in this connection. It is therefore entirely open to the General Council of the Bar to make any rules it wishes about it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will know, part of the present arrangement at the Bar is that access can be had through other than solicitors. It is important that barristers should if they wish be able to make arrangements enforcible at law if that is to be allowed to happen as concerns advice services. I wanted therefore to give the maximum freedom to the Bar to make what rules it wishes. As barristers can be sued in certain contexts, it is right that they should no longer be obliged to accept a situation in which they cannot get money out of a client, even if he has money, just because the client refuses to pay. I think I am right in saying that at present direct access by professionals —for example, accountants and patent agents —is allowed. The possibility of having contractual relations will be helpful in that connection. This clause is in no way intended to deal with the Bar's rule restricting direct access by lay people. There is a nothing in the clause concerning the propriety of the rule. That matter is left entirely to the Bar to regulate. If the Bar were to take the view that in some cases direct access should be permitted, then it might think that a contract was appropriate. The whole idea is to give the Bar Council maximum freedom to make the arrangements, consistent with its professional standards, which it thinks best for the organisation of the profession.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has appreciated the point that I am trying to discover. If the law allowed an advocate to enter into a contract with his client for the provision of his services that must mean that

569
that client can have direct access to that lawyer; otherwise how can he enter into such a contract? It seems to me that once that is permitted the implication must be that the clause permits direct access by a member of the public to the advocate. That member of the public will say to the advocate, "Will you represent me in this case in the Crown Court next week?" The advocate then says, "Yes, I will, and we will have an agreement as to the terms upon which I represent you". If that is the implication of the clause, I should like to say a great deal more about it because the playing field envisaged in subsection (2) is ludicrously bumpy if a restriction on direct access applies only to members of the Bar and does not apply to other advocates.
The Lord Chancellor: The clause applies only to barristers and no one else. So far as I know, such a rule applies only to barristers. Therefore there is no bumpy or exceptional playing field. The General Council of the Bar is the professional body having full authority over every person covered by the clause. So there is nothing in the clause to oblige or enable a barrister to have direct access with a lay client in the Crown Court if the General Council of the Bar prohibits it.
It is not necessary to have direct access to have a contract. One could have a contract under which a solicitor, acting on behalf of his client, instructs a barrister and makes it clear that any instructions to the barrister from the client are to come through to the solicitor. One of the things that can happen under the present arrangements is that, the solicitor having instructed counsel on behalf of his client, the client may decide, for whatever reason, that he is not going to pay for the work that the barrister has done. If the solicitor decides that he does not want to do anything about it, there is nothing that the barrister can do at law to recover his just remuneration. That is no longer consistent with the present situation.
The clause gives the barrister the right, if he does not have it at the moment, to enter into a contract with his client in any way permissible by law, and leaves it to the General Council of the Bar, which rules every barrister, to make the rules necessary to deal with that matter. To take the example of direct access: the Bar's present rules, restricting direct access by lay clients to barristers, are in no way affected or reduced by the clause. I hope that the noble Lord sees what I have sought to achieve. My understanding is that the General Council of the Bar supports the clause —I hope that I am right about that —as being desirable in the interests of the Bar in the present situation.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, in the interests of clarity will he consider making it clear on Report that "client" includes lay client as well as professional client? Some people may think that it is the solicitor only who is their client in this context. It is a point that may be worth making.
Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to welcome subsection (2). Without it, everyone would have been in real difficulties because it would be said that the will of Parliament is not only that the
570
rule should be abrogated but that there should be a positive right to make a contract. The subsection makes it clear that the Bar Council is free to decide. I welcome the subsection.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. The whole idea of the clause is to preserve subsection (2). Subsection (1) merely gives the additional right to barristers, over and above what they have at present, if a rule of law such as the clause deals with exists. I shall consider whether we need to make the point plain. I had taken it that "client" would include the lay client. I shall take advice as to whether we can clarify the point.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Immunity of advocates from actions in negligence and for breach of contract]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 37, line 14, leave out ("barrister") and insert ("authorised advocate").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200. I do so with rather greater enthusiasm than I managed to muster for the earlier amendment that I moved about conditional fees.
The effect of the amendments is to put an end to the immunity from liability for negligence which barristers enjoy in relation to advocacy in court. The clause, as at present drafted, extends that immunity to the new advocates provided for in the Bill. Solicitors are already covered. Incidentally, in doing so it defines the existing rule of law in rather wider terms than I had understood it to be. That, however, is a separate point not to be pursued in the present context.
The rule of law in question is one for which the judges were responsible, and this could well be the first time that that issue has been considered in the context of legislation before Parliament.
It would be possible to speak at great length about the amendment, but the main arguments can be summarised briefly. I am not a lawyer and perhaps I shall be forgiven if I get some of the technical terms wrong. If a barrister or solicitor appearing as an advocate in court on his client's behalf is guilty of negligence, there is nothing the client can do about it. He is entitled to no kind of redress or compensation no matter how dire the consequences are to him. If a barrister settles his client's case at the door of the court for a derisory sum in order that he can get rid of that case and free himself for something much more lucrative, he remains immune from any proceedings against him.
In a leading case in Canada, a plaintiff counsel failed to turn up at the trial and sent along an inexperienced replacement who failed to call vital evidence. The leading case here, which was settled in this place —Rondel v. Worsley —established that the rule was justified as a matter of public policy and not, as I had once thought, because there was no contract between barrister and client.
There seem to be two main arguments. The first is that the barrister needs to conduct his duties fearlessly and independently and that in doing so he must put his duty to the court —for instance, not to mislead —before his duty to his client, something we have already heard referred to on a number of occasions today. The client as a consequence may well feel aggrieved, but it seems to me unthinkable that if he brought an action any barrister could be found negligent for giving priority to his duty to the court.
The second argument is a point of more substance; that is, the risk of relitigation, having to go over the original dispute afresh in the courts. I can well see the force of this argument. But relitigation of a kind already takes place in the appeal system and, anyway, it seems to me that it is a lesser evil to make it possible for a grave injustice to be put right than for a client who has suffered an injustice to be left with no remedy. As Mr. Justice Krever concluded in the case in the Ontario High Court to which I referred just now, it seemed to him better that relitigation should occur than that the client should be left without recourse.
The disincentives to any aggreived client taking proceedings are quite considerable. He will be faced by a trained lawyer and the issues will be decided by the professional colleagues of that laywer. He would find it difficult to get legal aid unless it was thought his case was strong, and the welfare litigant who mounted a case which was found to be vexatious or frivolous could have it struck out.
The immunity of advocates is not universal. It does not exist in France, Germany or Belgium, without, so far as I know, any major difficulty having arisen; and in Ontario, to which I have already referred, there have been quite a number of cases establishing that it does not apply. To be fair, it applies in Australia following their understanding on a majority decision in a criminal case, and it applies in New Zealand, but I believe that it does not apply in the United States.
As your Lordships will be well aware, it applies to no other profession here. The surgeon, the anaesthetist, the constructional engineer and all the others are liable to claims for negligence. I have some sympathy with my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, who I am sorry is not here. When we were discussing the advisory committee earlier in the proceedings on this Bill, he asked why the legal profession in that context should be treated differently from all other professions. This amendment poses a similar question.
There are undoubtedly arguments both ways, but it certainly seems to me that on a balance of the arguments the case for putting an end to the immunity rule comes out much the stronger. It is not easy to reconcile its continued existence with the objective of this Bill of ensuring that there are no obstacles to access to justice. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The immunity rule does not stand alone in respect of lawyers. The attitude
572
of the law is consistent throughout only to give immunity so far as it is necessary in order that the person given the immunity should perform his duty to the public, and it is very narrowly drawn. For example, an ambassador at common law is immune from suit. It may be that certain people would find it difficult to bring suit against him, but the public interest demands that he should not be plagued by actions at law. But it is very narrowly drawn. The ambassador is only immune when he is in post and for a reasonable time thereafter.
So too with judges and so too with arbitrators. A judge is given immunity only in so far as he is performing judicial duties, because he could not perform them adequately if he was consistently worried about whether he was subject to suit. It is the same with an arbitrator. He is given immunity only in so far as he is carrying out his official duties. It is the same with an advocate. He has a supervening duty to the court. That may be very irritating to the lay client, as it was in Rondel v. Worsley. My noble friend said it was very unlikely that a suit could be maintained, but it was in Rondel v. Worsley and indeed it was fought up to the House of Lords.
So public interest demands that just as the judge and the arbitrator are protected, so the counsel, the advocate, is protected from suit altogether while he is performing duties where he has a supervening duty to a court; but no further than that. If he is negligent in writing an opinion in chambers, for example, he enjoys no immunity. The immunity as in the case of ambassadors, as in the case of judges and as in the case of arbitrators is very narrowly drawn, and those who read the judgment in Rondel v. Worsley and the cases which followed, such as Aronson, for example, will see how very narrowly it is drawn and how necessary within those limits it is on the grounds of public interest.
It is simply no good saying that a suit is likely to fail against a barrister, against a judge or against an arbitrator. Rondel v. Worsley showed that a discontented litigant is quite ready to have a go. So I hope that my noble and learned friend will not accept this amendment, which is an amendment to subsection (1).
Subsection (2) seems to me to follow directly from the fact that this Bill now creates a contractual relationship between an advocate and his client, and it is absolutely necessary, although I quite understand that my noble friend will wish it to go if he succeeds in saying that the immunity rule is hereby abolished.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: A few lay people have the opportunity of addressing noble Lords in this Committee stage of this very important Bill. Before starting I should like to pay a very deep tribute to all the people who have taken part in the proceedings on the Bill. I have learnt a great deal, but I listened with a great sense of not being as clever as I perhaps hoped I might have been when the noble Lords addressed us at all stages of this Bill, led by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Their speeches have been impressively brilliant. However, in view of the essential qualities which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, described to

573
us last week, it is obvious that advocates who are members of the Bar are exceptionally brilliant and talented men and women.
Clause 47 defines the existing rule of law by which advocates are immune from liability for negligence in relation to advocacy in court. Subsection (2) extends that rule in such a way that it provides immunity not only for lawyers acting as advocates but also for lay persons to be given new rights of audience under Clause 8. As we all know, there is to be a big and welcome change under Clause 8 in which only exceptional people of high quality will be able to obtain rights of audience and represent their clients in the higher courts.
In view of what I have said about the brilliance of the learned members of the Bar, perhaps it does not come amiss that it seems to me that because of their brilliance they have no need to claim immunity. It does not seem to me that one goes with the other. The Consumers' Association, with which I have been in touch, has had wide experience in the small claims court through the service known as the "Which Personal Service". The association is against all immunity for all advocates. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, and as I am advised, this is the only profession which claims immunity. That seems quite extraordinary. I sincerely believe that the top people in this country should not avail themselves of the opportunity to hide, as some people might say, behind the skirts or trousers of immunity. They should have the courage of what they say, knowing that they are right. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to forgo the immunity for all advocates in our courts.
Lord Ackner: I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness that there is some cause for anxiety that the Rondel v. Worsley immunity is to be extended outside the field of the qualified lawyer. This is an old refrain because one of the most intolerable aspects of the whole Bill is the bringing into the courts, either as an advocate or later as a judge, a person who is not the lawyer obliged, by the discipline of his profession, to adhere to imposed and accepted rules.
Rondel v. Worsley runs to 104 pages. I have a photostat of the judgment here. I know that Members of the Committee hope shortly to adjourn so I shall make but a few references to it. I wish to refer in particular to the anomaly which the legal profession enjoys. It comes in the speech of Lord Pearson which is to be found at page 273:
"Great stress is laid on the argument that the immunity of the advocate is 'anomalous' to other professions. But the whole judicial process is anomalous to other professions. It is a thing on its own. It is a unique and important process of the community. The various ingredients of it —"
I shall refer to them in a moment —
"are immune in respect of the occasional hardships they may create by any failure on their part. And even the Press which is not part of it but which performs a service in respect of it shares this immunity. It can just as well be said that it would be an anomaly to make the advocate, alone among the other ingredients, liable for his failure in the judicial process. In truth, the facile use of the word 'anomalous' does not advance the matter".
In the five ingredients, Lord Pearson was referring to the parties, the witness, the judge, the juror and
574
he added the advocate. All those are Immune from a variety of other possibilities of claims: claims on the basis of perjury, incompetence, negligence and the like.
In many ways I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I shall refer again to these judgments at the Report stage. Each and every one emphasises the importance of the cab rank principle and how vital it is to the administration of justice. I believe that in this Committee it has not yet been properly emphasised.
Lord Mishcon: I wish briefly to explain to the noble Baroness in simple language two reasons why a somewhat illogical-looking rule must apply for the public good. The first one is that if there were no such rule, in order to protect himself the advocate would have to quote every point that might have been made in a brief; and, worse still, every point that a client has asked him to put forward, even though the barrister knows perfectly well that to put forward some of those points might be inimical to the interests of the client. That is the first reason among many.
The second reason is that if one sues an advocate for negligence in the conduct of a case which he has lost, inevitably the case has to be retried. That is obviously undesirable and contrary to public policy. The case has to be retried in order to see whether there could or would have been a different result from that which the advocate achieved. My purpose in rising was only because I well understand how those who are not lawyers and who are Members of the Committee may think that this is a most unfair example of immunity and privilege which is given to advocates.
I rise for another reason. It may be that as a result of my ignorance—and if so the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will point it out to me in his usual gentle way —I had always thought that the immunity was limited to an advocate performing the duties of an advocate at a trial. Clause 47(2) contains the words,
"in relation to proceedings or contemplated proceedings".
I thought that that might give rise to a great deal of misunderstanding as to whether or not the immunity rule is not as it was but is extended by the Bill. I cannot imagine that the noble and learned Lord intended in this clause to cover, for example, the opinion of counsel who —and I emphasise this—neglecting certain facts that were given in his instructions and also neglecting certain principles of law of which he ought to be aware, gave advice in contemplated proceedings that the plaintiff has no case. That might be an opinion which is absolutely negligent. Those would be contemplated prodeedings. Normally contemplated proceedings never get near a court for there to be any advocacy.
There might be the odd case of somebody intending proceedings and asking leave of the court to serve out of the jurisdiction or matters of that kind, or asking leave to issue a writ out of the jurisdiction. But these are cases which are obviously exceptional. Therefore I ask the noble and learned Lord whether these words, "or contemplated

575
proceedings" come into the Bill inadvertently or are covered by some matter of which at the moment I am ignorant.
Lord Renton: We can again take refuge in the Notes on Clauses which are absolutely clear and succinct. They state that the intention of the clause is to extend the immunity to new classes of authorised advocate and authorised litigator and to those exercising rights of audience or the right to conduct litigation by virtue of directions made by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 8. I should remind the Committee that that clause is in Part I and it is the clause which deals which people who will be given the right to pursue small claims on the part of creditors. That is what the Notes on Clauses states.
7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I must not jump up and down. I promise the Committee that this is the last time I shall jump up. After this I shall sit down. However, I was dealing with the phrase "contemplated proceedings". Even if this measure now extends to a body of people whom we would not have contemplated but for the Bill, I was asking whether in any circumstances advocacy could or should cover from a practical point of view contemplated proceedings. That means proceedings which have not been started yet.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of this clause is to apply the existing rule of law only to advocates, whether they be barristers or solicitors or persons who act as advocates under Clause 8. It is the existing rule of law only that is being applied because we have defined the immunity rule as any rule of law which confers immunity from liability for negligence in respect of any act of omission. So in order to find out what the immunity is one has to go to the existing law which tells one what it is. There are cases in which the stage at which the immunity applies has been determined. I have no wish whatever to disturb those or enter into an attempt to define what they say. Therefore, I have used the expression "the immunity rule" as referring to the existing law. I hope that that is reasonably plain.
On the question of principle, however, the first point I have to make is that I believe that the principle reason for the immunity is in order that the integrity of public justice is maintained. The passage in the speech of the late Lord Diplock in a case called Saif Ali v. Sydney Mitchell & Co. puts these matters clearly. The noble Lord said:
"The retrial of the issue in the previous action if it depended on oral evidence would have to be undertaken de novo. This would involve calling anew after a lapse of time witnesses who had been called at the previous trial and eliciting their evidence before a different judge by questions in examination and cross-examination that were not the same as those put in the previous trial. The circumstances in which the barrister had made decisions as to the way in which he would conduct the previous trial and the material on which those decisions were based could not be reproduced in the retrial. The initial question in the action for negligence on whether it has been established that the decision adverse to the client reached by the court in the previous trial was wrong would become hopelessly entangled with the second question.
576
It seems to me that to require a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction to try the question whether another court reached a wrong decision and if so to inquire into the causes of its doing so is calculated to bring the administration of justice into disrepute".
That is the reason for the rule that I found my case on. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, there are other reasons as well.
This matter was also considered in the High Court of Australia in the case of Giannarelli v. Wraith, and Shulkes v. Wraithe on 13th October 1988. Much the same reason was given by the Chief Justice. It was a rather narrow decision at four to three but the decision of the court was in favour of maintaining the rule. The Chief Justice said:
"The second aspect of public policy that calls for attention is the impact on the administration of justice of allowing court decisions to become the subject of collateral attack by means of actions against counsel for in-court negligence. Exposure of counsel to liability for such negligence would unquestionably encourage litigation by unsuccessful litigants anxious to demonstrate that, but for the negligence of counsel, they would have obtained a more favourable outcome in the initial litigation. That would be the central issue for decision in secondary litigation of this kind. If the plaintiff were to succeed, the resolution of this issue by a different court and on materials which might well differ from those presented in the initial litigation, due to lapse of time or other reasons, would undermine the status of the initial decision. Yet an appeal against that decision might not succeed with the result that it would stand, though its status would be tarnished by the outcome of the collateral proceedings. The impact of a successful challenge to a criminal conviction resulting in a sentence of imprisonment would be all the greater. It would be destructive of public confidence in the administration of justice. And for this very reason there would be a strong incentive on the part of a disappointed litigant to sue counsel for negligence as an indirect means of calling in question the decision in the initial litigation".
We raised this matter in the consultation and there was a difference of opinion in that the consumer bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve indicated, were in favour of doing away with the immunity. However, I think it is of particular importance that the Association of British Insurers which, assuming this immunity were to be taken away would have a new line of business, agreed that immunity from actions in negligence should in the future extend to all recognised advocates. Therefore that body believes that the rule has a proper place. I believe this rule is an appropriate one. We placed it in the forefront of consultation right from the start and I believe it is right that we should adhere to it.
Lord Mishcon: Will the noble and learned Lord clarify the point about contemplated proceedings, if only to put me in my place?
The Lord Chancellor: I believe I started with that point. I started by saying that the rule of law is the immunity rule which exists at the moment. The question of where the immunity starts in relation to a particular matter has already been decided. I do not wish to reopen that question. It is necessary to cover the matter of contemplated proceedings because the question may arise of how far along the road the matter has gone. That is why we use the phrase "contemplated proceedings". I am using it solely to make it clear that we are not making any change to the existing law and that that law continues as it was.
Lord Hacking: I am sorry to interrupt the Committee after the noble and learned Lord has spoken but I continue to have concern about the drafting of Clause 47(2). I heard exactly what the noble and learned Lord said about not intending to extend immunities. However, if one applies that practically against a member of my side of the profession, in the case of a failure to issue a writ within the limitation period or of conducting a litigation so slowly that it is struck out for want of prosecution, within the wording of Clause 47(2) both of those instances would seem to apply. That certainly extends the immunity.
The Lord Chancellor: The measure would not apply in those circumstances for the reason that they do not come within the immunity rule which is referred to in Clause 47(1). The immunity rule would not cover those matters and therefore nothing in any of the other clauses extends the immunity rule. It simply gives the subject matter to which the immunity rule may apply. However, as the immunity rule does not cover the matters the noble Lord referred to, nothing else brings it in.
Lord Mishcon: I rise for the last time and I do it only in order to extend what I have said and not to repeat what I have said. I know that the noble and learned Lord will consider, as he always does, the fact that these Acts of Parliament are read by lay people who ought to be able to understand them. No layman who read Clause 47(2), not knowing the abstruse ruling that was given in the cases to which the noble and learned Lord referred in regard to the immunity rule, would understand that contemplated proceedings came within the immunity rule which deals with advocates who are dealing with the matter at a trial. It may very well be that the immunity rule needs to be spelt out more clearly in the Bill or that some alteration has to be made to the wording. I merely ask the noble and learned Lord to consider the matter before Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall certainly consider the matter. I have sometimes found that non-lawyers in this Chamber find it easier to understand what I intend in the clauses than some of those who are not laymen. However, I shall take account of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Coleraine: Having listened to what the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hacking, have said, I believe that there is one respect in which my noble and learned friend might consider the matter again, because it is misleading. Perhaps he would consider the possibility that Clause 47(1) might read:
"The provision by him of legal services by way of advocacy in relation to proceedings or contemplated proceedings".
The Lord Chancellor: I have considered carefully whether I should attempt to restate the immunity rule. Having studied the cases I have concluded that that would be rather unwise. Therefore, I thought it best to take the rule as it stands and allow the judges to develop it, not attempting to formulate or reformulate it in any way. However, I shall certainly consider whether anything can be done to eliminate
578
the misunderstanding into which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, appears to have fallen.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: In my opening remarks I said that I thought that the rule of law had been defined too widely. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pursued that point. However, it appears not to arise in connection with my amendment in which I propose to delete the rule of law altogether. We seem to have strayed into a discussion on clause stand part.
Perhaps I could bring the discussion back to the amendment under consideration. I am a little disappointed in that I have heard no new arguments from the lawyers who have spoken to add anything to my previous knowledge, except possibly for a reference to judges and arbitrators by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the relevance of which escaped me. I have read Rondel v. Worsley—page after page of it. It is beautifully phrased and carefully developed. I fear that I still find it unconvincing. I am comforted by the knowledge that a substantial minority in the Australian case to which the noble and learned Lord referred and a majority in some of the Canadian cases which I have looked at have also found it unconvincing.
I do not want to test the opinion of the Committee tonight. I should like to read carefully what has been said and consider it. I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage if need be. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that this would be a suitable time to break for dinner. I suggest that the Committee stage does not begin again before 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount how late it is proposed that the Committee should sit tonight, or tomorrow morning. When the Committee began today we had dealt with just over half the number of clauses in the Bill. It is fair to say, however, that the Committee had also dealt with some substantial schedules. However, there is one large schedule —Schedule 7 —to come. What is more, there is an amendment of considerable constitutional importance down for a very late clause, Clause 82. That amendment raises the question of the Henry VIII clauses and what should be proper parliamentary control.
As Members of the Committee know, a Henry VIII clause is a clause empowering the Executive to repeal, modify or amend a provision of an Act of Parliament. That represents an age-old struggle between Parliament and the Executive. In the famous words that have been used, that was the cause for which Hamden died in the field and Sidney on the scaffold. It is highly undesirable that this Chamber should have to deal with such a matter in

579
the early hours of the morning, particularly when annexed to it is the question of whether the affirmative or negative resolution should be applicable to such provisions.
Moreover, I understand that the intervening business will take longer than an hour. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is present. He said, very reasonably, that he would consider how the matter went. Inevitably we had a long debate on Clause 44, although there was considerable self-abnegation in discussion of that clause. We are now only at Clause 47 and there is a great deal to discuss. There is certainly two days' business ahead. I ask the noble Viscount or the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal to say that an extra Committee day will be vouchsafed.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to write to me today to warn me that he would raise the matter, probably at this hour.
There are two points that I should make. The first is that early on in the proceedings on the Bill some perfectly reasonably points were made about how the amount of time allocated to the Bill in Committee compared with other legislation considered previously by your Lordships' House. The Children Bill was mentioned. The moment has come for me to make it clear that we are now proceeding through a sixth day in Committee on the Bill. That is an additional day compared with the Children Bill in the last Session. As many Members of the Committee will remember to their cost, that was a Bill to which hundreds of amendments were proposed. As we have gone along we have agreed through the usual channels to allocate first a fifth day and then a sixth day.
Therefore, the second point I should like to make is that at the end of this sixth day we should reach the point agreed by the usual channels, namely, the end of the Marshalled List. If we do not do so Members of the Committee will be at a disadvantage, finding that they would have to continue with the Bill on a day which they had not catered for in their diaries.
To revert to my first point, as Leader of your Lordships' House I feel that we are being reasonable. We have an additional day compared to the enormously long proceedings on the Children Bill. I hope that that means that we shall not have to go too late tonight.
House resumed.

Irradiation of Foodstuffs: ECC Report
7.18 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Irradiation of Foodstuffs (4th Report, HL Paper 13).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to take note of the Select Committee's report on irradiation of foodstuffs I am well aware that we are moving on to ground that has been well trodden. Of 23 noble Lords who took part in the Second Reading debate on the Food Safety Bill, 15 spoke about irradiation although the word did not appear in the text of the Bill. When the House was in Committee on the Bill on 18th January discussion on that subject filled no fewer than 25 columns of the Official Report. From the attention it has received both in this House and outside, it is clear that, like all matters of food safety, it is exercising the minds of many noble Lords and of the public generally.
During the past few weeks, my noble friends Lady Hooper and Lady Trumpington have spoken fully and frequently in this House, explaining and justifying the Government's plans for legalising irradiation.
Before I deal with the report itself, I should like to refer to the research which lies behind the Commission's proposals regarding the use of irradiation in the European Community. Running through the debates in this House and outside is the charge that not sufficient scientific work has been done to justify establishing the process in the United Kingdom as a means of enhancing food safety. In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that it was,
"not desirable at this stage to proceed with the introduction of irradiated food until there has been an independent scientific survey". —[Official Report, 18/1/90; col. 763.]
On the same day in col. 764 the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said:
"We do not seek to ban irradiation. We say, please do some work on it".
As we say in Part 2 of the report, ionising radiation was first suggested in 1896. In the 1950s studies were made here and in the United States with laboratory animals. In the 1970s research was carried out under the aegis of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Authority which led to reports on the wholesomeness of irradiated foods in 1976 and 1980. After considerable work, the Commission's own scientific Committee on Food reported in 1987. In 1982 our own Government set up the independent Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods, which reported in 1986, agreeing with the findings of the FAO, the WHO and the IAEA Committee. In 1987 they reported again. Research into methods of detecting irradiated food are in progress now. That adds up to a substantial amount of scientific work —more, I have heard it said, than has gone into any other form of food treatment.
Sub-Committee D began its inquiry into the Commission's draft directive last summer and during the whole of our work we had the benefit of the great knowledge and experience of our specialist adviser, Professor Bevan Moseley, head of the Reading Laboratory at the AFRC Institute of Food Research. In addition to hearing witnesses here, we also visited Holland where we spoke to food scientists and to Dutch Government officials. We visited a Dutch irradiation plant in action. The

581
sub-committee also visited the British food manufacturing industry's research laboratories in Leatherhead where members tasted a number of samples of irradiated food.
The main thrust of our report is to give cautious support to the use of food irradiation. As I have said, the process has been extensively researched and the general consensus of the research is that it is safe. We accept that consensus, though we are conscious of the need to assure the consumer of that fact. We therefore stress the need for further research in some areas and for continuing monitoring of the process, particularly of its nutritional effects since, like most other forms of food processing, irradiation increases the loss of nutrients in foods.
I do not agree with the argument that calling, as we do, for further work is inconsistent with accepting the overwhelming weight of evidence that irradiation of food on the limited basis proposed by the Commission is safe. As we say,
"the process must remain subject to constant scrutiny and re-evaluation like any other technique".
Irradiation has several purposes, but the main effects are to decontaminate foods by killing potentially dangerous bacteria such as salmonella, listeria or campylobacter, and to extend the shelf or storage life of foods by killing insects and spoilage organisms.
Some witnesses have argued that irradiation is not really needed to reduce the level of bacteria in foods. According to that reasoning, bacteria are only present because of sloppy production and processing standards. It is said that irradiation would merely allow manufacturers to continue to evade their responsibility by cleaning up what was a sub-standard product. Other witnesses pointed out that there is little enthusiasm amongst anyone for the use of irradiation to extend storage or shelf-life, and that the freshness of food is a major selling point.
We agree with the second point of view, but not with the first. We think that it is an unavoidable fact that modern food processing techniques will lead to some products containing potentially high levels of contamination. We therefore support the use of irradiation as an additional means of raising food safety. To the charge that such a state of affairs means that food processing techniques should be improved, we say that that is precisely what irradiation would do. Its introduction would be a means of improving food processing technology. However, as we say, irradiation must not be used as an excuse for any relaxation of the present hygiene and handling requirements in food manufacturing or processing.
We think that there is a public health justification for the introduction of irradiation. We do not however think that irradiation should be allowed without specific criteria for the approval of each food which manufacturers wish to irradiate. We think that those criteria must involve the evaluation of other methods of food processing and that irradiation should be approved only if it represents an advantage to the consumer over those other methods.
Because irradiation in small doses affects the appearance and texture of some foods so little, it is extremely difficult to detect whether a food has been irradiated. Research on that point is continuing and detection methods may be available within a few years, or less. Nevertheless, the absence of such a method makes consumers—already probably wary of a process which involves irradiation —very suspicious of the process. We therefore emphasise that if irradiation is allowed its use must be closely controlled. These controls should include the stipulation of maximum and minimum dosage levels, the banning of reirradiation, except for ingredients included in compound foods, and requirements over the use of packaging materials.
The Commission has proposed controls on irradiation plants based on the internationally accepted Codex Alimentarius recommended standards. We endorse those and we attach a great deal of importance to that area of control. We support the Commission's proposals that irradiated foods should be labelled as such from the moment they leave the irradiation plant. We recommend that irradiated ingredients should also be labelled, whether or not they are currently required to be listed on product labels. We think that the most pressing applications of irradiation are for herbs and spices, poultrymeat and shrimps and prawns.
The Commission suggested that initially irradiation should be approved for eight classes of foodstuffs, including herbs and spices, shrimps and prawns and deboned poultrymeat. The committee makes the comment that there is no scientific justification for such a limitation, and recommends that "all poultrymeat" is substituted for "deboned poultrymeat". But on the whole we thought that an initial limitation on the use of irradiation would be a good thing. It would help consumers to get used to the process and enable the control and regulatory framework to be established.
Lastly, we examined the consequences of permitting irradiation. The committee considers that it is unlikely that irradiation will be widely used for some time because of its great expense and doubts about the likely demand from consumers. However, irrespective of that fact, we think that it would be desirable for the Government to try to ensure that consumers are better educated about the issues. The Government have said that they will talk to consumer groups about developing an education programme. The committee endorses that approach.
On the matter of timing, it was noted that the Government are still maintaining the option to permit irradiation in this country before the Council agrees the draft directive. In accordance with the committee's cautious approach, we believe that it is essential to have a Community framework for the regulation of irradiation. The committee therefore concludes by recommending that the Government postpone their detailed plans for allowing and regulating the process until the directive is agreed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Irradiation of Foodstuffs (4th Report, H.L. Paper 13). —(Lord Middleton.)
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in speaking second I shall try to set a good example of brevity. I do not know whether to congratulate the committee or sympathise with it. I congratulate it on a job well done and sympathise with it for having had to explore so many blind alleys in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The Leatherhead food research association and the Scientific Committee on Food were mentioned. What have they been up to for all these years? Why do we have to wait on Europe to have safely irradiated food? Legislation is a batch process from time to time. The process of science and technology is a continuous process and legislation always lags behind science. Knowledge is always ahead of the law.
Is there then no domestic legislation of a subordinate character, by statutory instrument, to enable the present law to implement the recommendations of the committee? If not, I ask the noble Baroness who will reply for the Government whether it is contemplated putting something in the way of an enabling clause into the Food Safety Bill so that food safety can be kept up to date in the light of science without requiring extra legislation and parliamentary time.
There are two matters —to my mind, minor —that I like to think would bring common sense to bear upon the conclusions of the committee. One concerns the fact that packaging materials may acquire a bad smell if they are irradiated. In that case I recommend to noble Lords that they do not buy products in that particular type of packaging. I cannot believe that people would package their product, then irradiate it and give it a bad smell. I do not see a commercial future in that. I should have thought that common sense would come to the rescue there.
My second point relates to a recommendation by the committee that catering outlets should be brought under the scope of the law and have a logo. I may go into a pub and order half a pint of bitter and a ham sandwich. How can one put a logo on a ham sandwich? I simply do not know. No doubt were I to dine at Claridge's every single item on the bill would have a logo on it. From that point of view, I cannot pay much attention to that suggestion.
I have said what I had to say in two minutes. I hope that it will be sufficient.
7.34 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in that the excellent report from the Select Committee of your Lordships' House should be squeezed into such a short time between other business. I came to this Chamber principally to learn. As noble Lords know, we discussed this matter to a certain extent in the preliminary stages of the Government's Food and Safety Bill. Noble Lords held themselves back, if I may use that expression, in order to learn more from the members of the committee. I am disappointed that there should be so few of that committee here tonight. Nevertheless,
584
the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has introduced the report in a most eloquent and concise way.
I do not exaggerate when I say that there is enormous concern throughout the country. That concern may be misguided and centred on certain parts of our society. I do not assert that everyone goes about business every day with a worry in the back of the mind about the irradiation of food. That certainly is not so. But there are groups of people—particularly, if I am to judge from the amount of correspondence that I have received in the past few weeks, women and women with children —who are especially concerned about the introduction of this technology. However, I have never heard anyone condemn it outright. The general trend is to say, "We just do not know enough about it"
We accept that irradiation has been around for a long time. It has been used satisfactorily in areas other than food. However, the Government now propose to introduce the possibility of irradiated food to be consumed in this country and indeed imported into this country through the mechanisms of the regulation procedures in Parliament. That has given rise to some concern because, in the absence of knowledge about the process, it seems to many people that this way of going about things does not allow for adequate debate.
Most of the questions which people first ask centre around why the process is required in the first place. The Government say that it is based purely on food safety grounds. That is said against a background of fairly alarming developments in this country over recent years culminating in very high levels of food poisoning over the past 18 months.
I do not say that food safety in this country has deteriorated but there is no doubt that patterns of consumption and habits of cooking have changed. I read in one newspaper that we have been transformed from a larder society into a microwave society. The implication is that people pay less attention to buying the ingredients and the preparation of food than they did even 10 or 20 years ago. People are buying convenience foods which are quickly prepared and they rely more on the information on the label of the foods that they buy in supermarkets rather than on the housewife's prudence which is still to be seen in some other countries in Europe. It is to be seen in Italy, for example, where I have observed that the introduction of irradiated food is certainly not something which at this stage would be very welcome, certainly not in the way that it is proposed to be introduced here.
Another matter of concern is how this process can be controlled. The report mentions the lack of a detection test. The committee nevertheless considers that there is every justification for introducing this process without the certainty of a detection test. But how, then, can we avoid the potential for misuse of this process? I do not think that we should take that matter too lightly. I hope that I shall not be accused of being either political or alarmist in mentioning that particular point.
Many people—I dare say they include Members of your Lordships' House —are concerned about the

585
potential for misuse. We are told that it is unlikely that any cheap or reliable test can be developed in the near future. I ask the noble Baroness who will reply to this debate whether the Government are committed to establishing a reliable and economically viable test or whether they regard it as unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said that the consensus of opinion is that this process is safe. That implies that it is not absolutely safe. During the early stages of the Food Safety Bill, I gathered from the noble Baroness on the Government Front Bench that the Government's attitude is that if it is not absolutely safe it is as near safe as can be. I very much welcome further amplification on that. When I turned on my television set last week it was a great pleasure to see the noble Baroness. For some reason she was cut off when she was talking about irradiation. It seemed that the discussion did not develop. Perhaps she was relieved about that. I found it disappointing because I wished for her to amplify the Government's view as I understand it, about the safety of this food.
It is surely absolutely vital for consumers to know whether the food that has been irradiated was, in its initial stage, wholesome. It seems to many people that if food is wholesome one does not need an irradiation process. But what about hidden hazards which irradiation could undoubtedly conceal? Perhaps the Government do not agree with my word "undoubtedly". Many people believe that there is a concern here. Bad fish apparently does not give off its usual warning smell when treated by this process. I am told —perhaps others better informed that I am will mention it —that there is increased risk of botulism. Botulism might flourish in conditions where competing micro-organisms have been destroyed by irradiation. Are the Government certain that the problem has been correctly and thoroughly addressed?
We now move to what is an even more worrying aspect of the condition of food before it is irradiated. I suppose it is certain that irradiated foods will be allowed to be imported into this country. What controls shall we have over imported food, such as sea foods from Asia? There is a well-recorded case that I do not wish to go into in any detail. At the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill I mentioned various cases on record where unsafe foods have been treated with irradiation. Attempts have been made to pass these through stringent tests in order to put them on the market.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill I asked the noble Viscount for the source of his information. I do not think that he answered me then. He read me a lot of stuff at the end but I do not think he gave me the source. Would he be so good as to do so now?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I gave the source and it caused a certain amount of exhalation of breath and muttering on the Government Front Bench between the two noble Baronesses. It was the
586
London Food Commission. It has again caused a great deal of mirth and amusement on the Government Front Bench. I do not know what there is about the London Food Commission. However, I have received some fairly sensible-looking papers from this body. Perhaps I am misled about it. Perhaps we are dealing with people who are pretending to be what they are not. However, I have checked the cases that they have given me which have led to court action. They proved to be correct in every case.
I did not mention one well-known British company that had found a consignment of Malaysian prawns to be unsafe. They had been treated in Holland by the irradiation process. It was then sought to market them illegally in the United Kingdom. That was fully admitted. The one case has caused an enormous amount of concern. If this occurs when such importing is not allowed, what will happen when it is perfectly legal to import irradiated food into the country?
Do not let us forget that the food business is a very large business with large amounts of money changing hands. Even without irradiated food, there is an enourmous amount of petty corruption in every country, not just this country, over which large companies buy what. There is much pressure on people to buy products, and undoubtedly there are inducements for people to favour one product over another. Doubtless I shall be accused of being alarmist. I should be prepared to bet that in the five years one will have several cases of unscrupulous importers of food seeking to sell into this country unwholesome food that has been treated in this manner in an attempt to hide its original state.
I have spoken for very much longer than the noble Earl. However, I feel absolutely justified in doing so because I believe that I am voicing a concern that is growing in the country. The Government may not agree. They may not care that it is growing; but it is. I feel that it would have been irresponsible for me not to cover the aspects that I mentioned.
There have been two television programmes on the subject of irradiated food. Both have left us —the viewers, the public, the consumers—absolutely where we were at the beginning. On Channel 4 one programme went over a number of aspects of food irradiation including some very worrying events in India. Experiments were made on living people—malnourished children —and after a period of weeks it was found that there were some very worrying effects on the children from eating wheat-based products that had been irradiated. The experiments were stopped. The programme on Channel 4 devoted some 10 minutes to that subject. The "Horizon" programme on BBC 2 appeared to take a different stance. It accepted fundamentally the Government's position and proceeded to support that view. We were therefore left in the dark. The Hyderabad affair —to which I have referred —was not mentioned in the BBC 2 programme. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether these experiments, and the results of them, have been completely written off as meaningless by the Government. Can she tell us something on that?

587
Finally, will the Government take seriously those many organisations which have called for research into the subject of food irradiation? I refer to the British Medical Association, the Consumers' Association, the British Poultry Federation Ltd. and environmental health officers whom I mentioned last time when we spoke on the subject. There are many others, including the European Parliament. How seriously do the Government regard the concerns of these organisations?
I support absolutely the recommendation of the committee which states that it is desirable that the Government wait until we have the European Community directive on this subject. What is the advantage of proceeding before the European Community directive is published? All countries within the European Community can then get together if they feel so inclined, and can proceed in unison. Why do we have to proceed before it is published? I apologise for going over my intended time but I felt that these points had to be made.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it had also been my intention to speak on food irradiation during the discussion on Amendment No. 73 of the Food Safety Bill which was before your Lordships' House on 18th January. However, following the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I was persuaded to postpone my remarks until the full debate on the findings of the Select Committee.
Tonight's debate gives me that opportunity, although I too am disappointed that nine members of the Select Committee are not contributing to our debate and I should have wished to hear their opinions. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to take note of our debate this evening, be sufficiently open-minded to reconsider her objection of the argument against irradiation and think again about her statement:
"I am quite satisfied that there is no need to delay the introduction of the enabling provision for food irradiation for any of the reasons set down by the noble Lords".—[Official Report, 18/1/90; col. 771.]
The Select Committee deserves congratulation on its comprehensive analysis and examination of the controvertial problem. I was particularly pleased that they recognised the need for continuing research into and monitoring of the toxicology of irradiated foods. Further, that it recommends that the toxicological implications should be thoroughly investigated before approval is given for the irradiation of any product containing additives.
Among other pro-irradiation statements in the summary of my Members' brief on food irradiation, I see that the WHO and FAO have confirmed that it is a totally safe process. Independent scientists advise that it should be permitted. That may well be the opinion of the WHO and FAO joint expert committees, the UK Government advisory committee and the European Commission's scientific committee on food. However, the advisory committees of the Australian parliament, the Canadian parliament, the European parliament and
588
the Danish parliament's consensus committee and the International Organisation of Consumers' Unions take the opposite view.
It is a fact that chemical changes take place in food which has been irradiated. Although there is controversy about how the changes may affect future generations and the people who now eat the irradiated food, some of the changes that occur are harmful. Everyone knows that high energy radiation is dangerous. It can cause mutations, cancer, atherosclerosis, cross linking (that is the loss of tissue elasticity) brain damage and immune system damage. In fact, that is also a list of the damage caused by ageing. The similarity is not coincidental.
Nearly all high-energy radiation causes its damage by creating dangerous, highly-reactive chemicals called "free radicals". If uncontrolled, free radicals can damage proteins, fats and nucleic acids (that is! DNA and RNA; the master and working copies of our genetic blueprints). The most important sources of the free radicals which cause ageing come from the abnormal oxidation and breakdown of fats and the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide.
A healthy individual has control systems for free radicals which include enzymes and natural free radical scavengers such as vitamins C and E. However, they cannot control the free radicals perfectly. Some of them escape and cause damage which can accumulate over the years. Mutations to DNA caused by free radicals are thought to be a major cause of cancer. Free radicals can make blood clot abnormally in the arteries by destroying the body's ability to make prostaglandin. They are implicated in arthritis and the ageing process which makes our tissues less elastic leading to a loss of flexibility, emphysema of the lungs and cerebral hemorrhage. They also cause a pigment accumulation that slowly chokes brain cells to death and results in brownish age spots in our skin.
The UK advisory committee acknowledges that irradiation produces the hazardous free radicals, and that they initiate a chain reaction leading to peroxidation and epoxidation in polyunsaturated fats. The process often continues for several weeks after irradiation. Free radical damage is preventable with a normal intake of the nutrients which provide protection by virtue of their antioxidant activity. These include vitamins A, C, E, B1, B5 and B6 which are mostly contained in the foods which we are being encouraged to eat; for example, white meats such as chicken and fish, in preference to red meats, whole grains in preference to highly-processed carbohydrates and more fruit and vegetables. Of course, they are the very foods that will be targeted for irradiation and all will undergo some degree of damage to essential nutrients.
It is also admitted that irradiation causes damage to many vitamins. Vitamin A and its precursor beta-carotene, the B vitamins riboflavin, niacin, B6, B12 and folic acid, vitamins C, E and K are all damaged by irradiation. Generally speaking, the more complex the food the less it suffers vitamin loss during irradiation. Research has shown that losses of between 20 and 80 per cent. are not uncommon and there are still many gaps in the available scientific data.

589
The Select Committee stressed the importance of that in paragraph 50 of its report. In paragraph 51 it continued to say that the nutritional implications of irradiation on vitamins should be monitored by the steering group on food surveillance. It is my opinion that even small losses will be significant for some groups within the population —for example, the elderly, the young, the sick and the poor —many of whose diets are already deficient.
The average European diet contains only about half the vitamin C that the USA recommends as the essential daily intake. When there is not enough fresh fruit in the diet potatoes are the main source of vitamin C. If they are irradiated, as has been suggested, the amount of vitamin C in the diet could be reduced to such significant proportions that the health of those with marginal intakes could be severely compromised.
I know that the Minister will tell me that the vitamin losses caused by irradiation are not significant because they are comparable to those occurring naturally in cooking, storing and other forms of food processing. That is misleading because many of the foods intended for irradiation —such as fruit and vegetables —are eaten fresh and often raw. Comparisons with cooking and storage do not apply.
Some vitamins —for example, B1 and E —actually undergo accelerated losses during storage after irradiation. As one of the objects of irradiation is to increase storage time while retaining the appearance of relative freshness so storage losses will be increased beyond those occurring normally. The food can thus undergo initial losses on irradiation, accelerated losses as a result of longer storage times and then lose further vitamins during cooking. For those consumers who are increasingly conscious about the quality and vitamin contents of fresh foods, irradiation counterfeits freshness and conceals what may be significant losses of essential health-giving nutrients.
There is no dispute that there is a serious problem in the rise in food poisoning outbreaks. There has been a threefold increase in reported cases since 1983 and an estimated 10 to 100 times that number not reported. Even if those defects of irradiation were acceptable the concept of removing microbiological contamination by irradiation rather than preventing it in the first place is illogical.
Much needs to be done to improve hygiene and not only in developing countries. We have recently been reminded of the UK Ministry of Agriculture's meat hygiene division findings: that out of 919 slaughter houses in the UK, the standards in 845 were so low that the meat could not be sold for export to the European Community.
Irradiation is not the answer to those problems. All food has a bacterial content much of which is beneficial. Irradiation does not kill all the different types equally; some are more resistant than others. Therefore, the delicate balance of competing micro-organisms becomes altered. Irradiation destroys yeasts, moulds and the bacteria which give the warning smell when food is going off. Irradiation will create a serious hazard by allowing the more resistant dangerous bacteria to proliferate.
590
It has been found that, while storage times can be lengthened with increasing doses of irradiation, the time taken for surviving clostridium botulinum to produce dangerous levels of toxins, for example, becomes shorter. The Government must think again. Despite the extensive examination of the scientific evidence, there are still opposing views from highly respected authoritative bodies. Those different conclusions can be expected when much of the evidence is inadequate, incomplete, inconclusive and in conflict.
In conclusion, I look forward to hearing the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and hope that he and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will consider further amendments to the Food Safety Bill at its next stage. They can rely on my support when I hope I shall be able to give some of my own selfish reasons for wishing to avoid irradiated food without the guarantee of a reliable and positive test.
8 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, I thought that we had a somewhat truncated debate on irradiation in Committee on the Food Safety Bill since it was pointed out there that there would be an opportunity to go into the arguments more fully when we discussed the Select Committee's report. Now we find that we are compressed into the dinner hour which is not the ideal time for a subject of such wide-ranging interest. We may be similarly constricted during the one-day Report stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, I shall not take any more time than I have to.
In an attempt to be brief I shall reluctantly skip over the many good features of the report we have before us and say only that I was mostly impressed by its tone and that I agree with a good many of its conclusions. However, I cannot agree with the conclusion that the weight of evidence for the safety of the irradiation process is overwhelming. Since we are short of time I shall concentrate on that one issue. In doing so, I propose to widen the context of the debate.
One of the interesting things to an outside observer of high-powered committees is the extent to which they disagree with each other, both across countries and across time. The Government have convinced themselves that there is no disagreement about the complete safety of irradiated food. My Lords, that is just not so.
An expert committtee reported to the Canadian Parliament in 1987:
"There are some data indicating unusual and unexplained effects … it would be prudent to resolve the remaining questions before proceeding with widespread application of the technology".
In the event, the Canadian Parliament decided not to accept that advice.
In New Zealand in 1987 members of an expert committee were unable to agree among themselves as to the safety of irradiated food. In November 1988 a report of the House of Representatives all-party standing committee to the Australian Government was similarly not prepared to endorse the safety of

591
irradiated food and the government accepted its recommendations in terms to which I shall refer later.
The European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has stated that practically all scientific studies admit a considerable degree of uncertainy about the effects on health. The American Food and Drug Administration does not agree with the joint expert committee of the WHO that no further testing is warranted up to to a dosage of 10 kilograys. The British Medical Association's Board of Science still has reservations about long-term implications for health. Are all those doubts of no account?
The Government talk of "independent" committees being unanimous but I am not sure what they mean. Most of those which I quoted are independent enough. For that matter, how independent is a committee whose chairman and technical adviser have directorships in radiation technology firms? I refer to the UK committee which is constantly quoted in support irradiation; that is, the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods which reported in 1986.
The question of unconscious bias is important and not at all peculiar to this particular subject. In Committee the noble Baroness sought at one point to make a distinction between political and scientific decisions. It would be comforting if such a clear distinction would be made but in fact research is riddled with non-scientific considerations which govern, for example, which projects are to be funded, how they are set up, who pays the piper, how the data are interpreted, what is a socially acceptable safety margin and who referees the resulting papers for publication. There have been genuine worries in that area and it is interesting to note that those reports in favour of irradiation have generally been unreferenced, relying on too many papers not subject to peer review and emanating from behind closed doors.
The interpretation of data is of course crucial. Unfortunately, lack of time prevents me from giving examples but there are certain indications that findings in favour of irradiation may have been accepted more uncritically than those against. I am afraid that the purity of science is a myth however much one may wish to believe that scientists shed their human foibles when they don their white coats.
I shall mention two sources of unconscious bias in this case. The first is the close involvement of nuclear interests, most noticeably in the joint committees with the WHO. The other is the simple fact that scientists want to practise their science. To go ahead with the use of this technology represents progress in scientific terms and is almost irresistible. I must stress that I am not impugning people's integrity. These matters are at a very deep level and we are none of us immune.
No review or committee report can be better than the source material on which it is based. Who reads the original safety studies? It is not the Members of the noble Lord's committee I am sure. One would not expect them to. Who does? The answer is that
592
we rely on the diligence, accuracy and freedom from bias of a very few people, and also on the accessibility of a good database.
Again, time prevents me from detailing the worries which still exist but I refer particularly to methodology, which is at the heart of it. You cannot test irradiated food in a controlled way on human populations so it has to be done on animals instead. You cannot irradiate to many times the safe dose in the accepted way of scientific trials because the food would be uneatable even to rats. Therefore, the statistical reliability is lost in safety terms. In giving large vitamin supplements which most of the quoted trials seem to have done in their attempts to isolate the purely toxic effects of irradiation, if any, you confuse the picture so that few valid conclusions can be drawn. I believe if it were generally realised to what extent the methodological tail has had to wag the dog in assessing the safety of the irradiation of food, the cumulative unreliability of the evidence would be plain for all to see.
My final point concerns the database —the repository of all the scientific studies which is located at Karlsruhe in West Germany. That is a shambles. The London Food Commission, which may not be the Government's flavour of the month, took the trouble as serious researchers to go there in an attempt to pull out certain information. It was found impossible to do so. Your Lordships would find their December 1989 report on the visit interesting reading. The former director of Karlsruhe accompanied the visitors and did not disagree with their findings. I only have time for two short quotations:
"We found the data so disorganised that it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to attempt to review any data other than the data actually submitted to the JECFI",
and:
"It is clear that the database cannot be used in its present form to either re-evaluate the safety data below 10 kilogray or provide information on safety above this level without considerable work by skilled information technologists".
Lack of funding is the problem and the London Food Commission is surely right in asking for action here since, in their words:
"It is after all being promoted as the definitive body of knowledge on what is claimed to be one of the most thoroughly researched food safety issues ever".
When there are such doubts about the safety trials themselves, their interpretation and their recording for subsequent use, it is small wonder that review bodies come to different conclusions about them.
If I have strayed from the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, it has been for the sake of addressing the most important of its conclusions; namely, that embodied in paragraph 142. If what I have said is accurate —and I have tried hard to stick to facts rather than opinion —then I suggest that the true position is rather better reflected by the conclusions of the Australian committee which I mentioned earlier, which had a status comparable to your Lordships committee and which over two years had an even more comprehensive look at the evidence. I end by quoting from its report at paragraphs 5.142 and 5.143:
"The Committee accepts that the majority of studies undertaken suggest that the ingestion of irradiated food will cause

593
no harmful effects. Notwithstanding this comment there are two areas which are of concern to the Committee. First there are some studies which do indicate that irradiated food may be harmful in some instances. Secondly it notes the comments not only by witnesses opposed to food irradiation but also some regulatory authorities such as the FDA which indicate that many of the earlier studies are inadequate to make a judgment either way concerning the safety of irradiated food.
"In addition the Committee notes that JECFI in its various reports recommended that further studies be conducted. The Committee also notes the views of its advisers that animal feed trials would be unlikely to show adverse effects because cells of all living animals have evolved mechanisms designed to protect against the radiolytic products formed in irradiated foods.
"Accordingly the Committee recommends that:
the Australian Government request the World Health Organisation to:
review existing data relating to the safety of irradiated food; produce a fully referenced report on the safety of food irradiation, and identify those areas where further research is required".
That is not politics. That is good sense.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we should all be immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Middleton and to his committee for the enormous amount of work that they have done; for all the evidence that they have listened to and indeed for the very firm, clear conclusions that they have set out in the report that we are debating briefly this evening. Most of the points —scientific and esoteric —for and against this process of irradiation have been very well made this evening. I wish to raise three or four points which seemed germane to me in scrutinising the report of the committee.
In paragraph 87 at page 21 of the report we find a definite conclusion that irradiation should not be used as a substitute for good manufacturing and agricultural practice. Those of us who are involved in the agricultural industry or who have had responsibility for it in another channel at any time, certainly ought to support that. That is one of the points that should be borne in mind by all of us this evening.
In paragraph 80 at page 20 the report mentions that irradiation can serve as a useful means of reducing the contamination of some foods by certain organisms. That is possibly something quite short taken from one of the conclusions in the report, but it sets the seal on this particular process of irradiation together with what we are discussing this evening, let alone in the Food Safety Bill; that at no time will it be compulsory or obligatory to eat irradiated food. We should consider that against the background of this evening's discussion.
In paragraph 143 of the report, in the conclusions, we find a recommendation that we should continue our present high standards to minimise and indeed defeat the clostridium botulinum which was mentioned both by my noble friend and by the noble Viscount. From paragraph 22 of the evidence —page 16 —and in reply to a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, we find that experts from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it fairly clear that irradiation is no panacea nor indeed a cure for this attractive clostridium botulinum which is well known to my noble friend the Minister. She may remember discussing this with me.
594
At paragraph 8 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food report, page 2, there is one particular fact which is germane to this process of irradiation and to what we are discussing this evening. I have not heard it discussed or denied that approximately 90 per cent. of all food-borne illnesses throughout the world are caused by two particular problems. One is salmonella, though I could not necessarily tell which one of the 1,200 strains. We well recall salmonella enteritidis, which was all the rage late in 1988. The other problem which causes 90 per cent. of food-borne illness is campylobactor. Both are inhibited by irradiation, certainly by the permitted dose. My noble friend mentioned fairly high dosages. I was given to understand in the report that a dosage of 3 kilogray would be sufficient to inhibit, if not entirely to remove, salmonella and campylobactor from chickens and fowl. All of us know that if fowl has been irradiated, they must be clearly labelled.
I was also somewhat startled to see that 20 per cent. of the weekly meat consumption in the United Kingdom is chicken —up to 8 ounces per person per week. That does not include me because I am a red meat addict and doubtless that will give some indication of my rude but normal health.
There are two further aspects to which I briefly draw attention. I refer to page 11 of the report and the Food Science Division of the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This will be germane to what was said by my noble friend Lord Colwyn and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Two studies were carried out at Queen's University in Belfast both to identify irradiated food. The first was to search for lipid radiolysis detection using capillary gas chromatology and mass spectrometry. The second was searching for stable free radicals. Indeed, until my noble friend explained that to me I thought it could have had something to do with the political party of my Swiss friend —the free radicals —with whom I was skiing two weeks ago; but my noble friend explained it well.
I was very pleased that Queen's University seemed to be on the way to attempting to identify irradiated food using those two methods. I was interested to see electronic spin resonance together with thermoluminescence going some way to discovering the sex of chickens in chicken carcases. That is particularly valuable work being carried out in Belfast and I commend the university. I also commend my noble friend's Ministry for what it is doing.
In conclusion, we need only glance at page 85 of the evidence in the report where The Food Safety Advisory Centre states:
"It is our view that irradiation can be used to reduce or eliminate food spoilage organisms, food poisoning organisms and parasites".
However, it goes on to point out that this does not in any way reduce the need for the highest standards of hygiene and good management practice. If we remember that, together with what we are attempting to do with irradiation, it is not a panacea but it is to try to inhibit and perhaps eliminate two of the

595
sources of 90 per cent. of the food poisoning outbreaks in the world, then tonight's debate will have been worthwhile.
8.18 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, it is clear from tonight's debate and from outside discussions that the most important aspect of the proposed introduction of irradiation into the UK is that of safety. If that could be established without argument, other considerations would be of lesser importance.
The committee received a great deal of evidence on this vital point and paragraph 29 of the report sums up succinctly that in its view there is no scientific evidence of danger to the health of the potential consumer. I do not think the time is right to go through that paragraph or reiterate all the evidence, but that was the conclusion. However, there still remain various caveats which are pointed out and certainly many worries in the minds of the public and other organised groups.
A great deal of this concern would evaporate if there was a test for irradiation. We have already heard that despite extensive efforts nothing at all is imminent in this line. That is a pity. I hope that the work in this direction will continue to be funded with the help of the Government. Not enough research has yet been carried out on other aspects such as packaging materials and pesticide residues. In fact, the report specifically recommends further investigation of the toxicological implications. As regards these last points and the Food Safety Bill, I wonder how the Government see this further research being funded.
The other aspect of the safety question is that of the microbiological implications. The great advantage of this process is the killing of the pathogenic bacteria in foods. We have already heard about that as regards salmonella, listeria and campylobacter which are the main targets. The point here is that once these pathogens have been killed it is vital that the foodstuffs are not reinfected by adjacent products. In written evidence, the Co-operative Wholesale Society noted:
"If an irradiated product is subsequently contaminated with a food poisoning organism it can grow with minimal competition"
and with great haste. So post-irradiation handling and storage regimes of high quality are vital; in other words, they must receive exactly the same care as other preparation processes demand.
Therefore, I think that the argument about bad food being dressed up in good clothes is a red herring. The eye, nose and the tongue will still detect change caused by spoilage. Microbiological standards can still be tested before irradiation takes place. One or two of your Lordships have alluded to various well-known cases to do with prawns and mussels. The fact that irradiation came to light indicates that the tongue and the nose were not lying and hence the malpractices were discovered. I am glad that the committee was able to conclude that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that irradiation up to the dose of 10 kilograys is safe.
596
So it is a matter of pity and concern that last November the Commission issued revised proposals for its directive. That reduced the number of the products to be irradiated. In particular the Commission removed from the list all poultry bar deboned poultrymeats. This must be a missed opportunity for it is acknowledged that all raw chicken carcasses are contaminated by campylobacter and many by salmonella and listeria; and perhaps up to 60 per cent. in the last two instances. There would have been an excellent chance here to increase the margin of safety for the consumer. However, by the end of this year the dangerous treatment of herbs and spices by ethylene oxide will be stopped and irradiation substituted.
The crux of this discussion must be individual choice. It is not the intention of any legislation or directive to impose irradiation on consumers. Indeed it is going to add a few pence per kilo to the bill. Everyone will be able to make up their own minds as to whether they wish to avail themselves of this safety belt. That is as long as irradiated food is properly labelled and identified.
I cannot see that this aim should cause undue difficulties. All packaged foods should have their ingredients listed on them and therefore annotated if irradiated. Treated loose products can be marked alongside the price ticket and on restaurant menus it will be easy to inscribe something suitable. All this would be made much easier by the adoption of a single clear logo throughout the trade right down to the consumer.
I trust that the Commission has withdrawn its original logo only to replace it with a more realistic design and that its use will be extended beyond that originally proposed. I believe that the process of irradiation is safe and that, as it is to be authorised, the consumer should feel satisfied and willing to experiment, choosing from well-labelled products. It is a shame that many consumers and retailers have already vociferously come down against irradiation before either studying the implications or sampling the products as the committee was fortunate enough to do during its investigation and also at the Leatherhead food research association. Irradiation must be part of the way forward in food safety.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too was a member of the committee and I greatly enjoyed the proceedings. I learned a great deal. I started with a prejudice against irradiation and finished with a prejudice against it. However, I have to endorse the main finding that irradiation is a safe process subject to a great many qualifications. Our recommendations begin by saying that irradiation is a safe process. However, the result is like a series of rather doubtful accounts: it is heavily qualified with a whole series of conditions which need to be met before the process is satisfactory.
We examined all kinds of people. While I share the doubts of my noble friend and others who are against irradiation, those to whom we spoke and from whom we took evidence were not fly-by-night people. For example, there were able scientists who

597
had investigated their subject. The main fear everyone has is that food will become radioactive and that people will get leukaemia. That fear was completely dispelled in the course of much evidence that we took.
It was particularly interesting when we went to Holland. The politicians there were very wary. There is a research station in Holland where probably more work has been done on the subject than anywhere else. But the politicians were extremely wary about the process. They knew that there was a natural reaction among the public against irradiation. So they wanted to investigate every single aspect. We had to take great note of what was said. The politicians wanted to follow public opinion.
There is one minor point in the report with which I disagree, namely, that the process has no real commercial advantage. For example, I understand that oranges and other fruits can be irradiated at a low level and then picked nearly ripe. On reaching market the orange will taste as though it had just come from the tree. That may be attractive. It is not a procedure that I wish to see happening though there are commercial advantages as regards shelf life.
If the prejudice of the public is overcome I believe that irradiation will have a considerable commercial application. I am not saying whether that will be a good thing or not. The question of what happens when food is irradiated interests me. For example, when we visited our own research station we were shown irradiated eggs. The whites had broken up and the taste I understand, is awful. This means that unexplained processes go on. We were told that a great deal of research needs to be done before every fresh permitted irradiation subject goes on the market.
We must also look at the evidence of our experience in this country. It is true, as several witnesses said, that there is an increase in serious cases of food poisoning. In defence of irradiation some quoted pasteurisation. It is perfectly true that pasteurisation does not make milk taste very good and destroys a number of healthy factors in it but it has done a tremendous amount to cut down tuberculosis in milk. We cannot object entirely to the process but research is needed.
We need also to look at immunity. I do not suggest that we should eat dirt but there is an old saying that a speck of dirt never did anybody any harm. It is true that Egyptians do not get gippy tummy to the same degree as others and that Mexicans do not suffer from what is called Montezuma's Revenge. I was travelling in Mexico with a young vet. We had had a long hard day when we stopped at a roadside stall where a chap with a charcoal brazier was selling food. My companion said, "Oh, I must have something to eat". I said, "What a good idea". He said, "You lay off, you have a delicate stomach", something I had never thought before. He tucked in to the most delicious-looking cooked meat, bread and chillies. However, what he said was perfectly true. He was conditioned. We eat so much clean food that our immunity has been lowered. I do not suggest that we should eat dirty food but we should
598
investigate whether we are destroying our immunity. We are probably now on the back of the tiger: we shall be eating cleaner and cleaner food until soon our food is completely sterile.
One of the most important points made in the report is that the Government must not introduce the legislation until the EC directive is settled. My noble friend referred to switching prawns from Malaysia back to Holland and then back to this country. That point would be covered in the case of EC regulations which apply over the country. Certainly close control has to be kept on the whole process, on the plants themselves and on the product.
The public must have a choice. They must be able to refuse to eat irradiated food if they so wish. Labelling is therefore of supreme importance. I do not suggest that every item on a restaurant menu should indicate whether or not it has been irradiated but any restaurant serving irradiated food should say so. The public must have a choice. But, subject to the precautions in the report, I am afraid that our first conclusion is correct. It is a safe process from the simple point of view. But the results of eating irradiated food over a long period need a great deal of investigation before we can be sure that it is not harmful.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all say to the committee, its chairman and its specialist adviser that they have given us a wonderful report. It is a document of great skill and lucidity for which the House is duly grateful. The position as regards irradiated food has undoubtedly been complicated by the decision of the European Parliament and the provisions of the Single European Act. When we put our hands up so gaily for enacting the Single European Act we did not envisage some of the complications that might flow from it. Certainly such a complication exists as regards this directive.
The Government in consequence seem determined to press ahead with and indeed to go beyond the proposals in the directive. I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to the discussion whether this is now the Government's position. If it is, is MAFF not in danger of destroying any hope of a bipartisan policy for food in this country? If that is the case, and if that is a consequence of precipitate action in this field, the loss will be greater than the gain.
The opinion of scientific advisers is, as the report points out, mainly in accord and in favour. But this does not obscure the fact, as has been brought out in our discussion, that if side effects are possible over the years, particularly as a consequence of over-dosage of irradiation of particular foods, these may not be apparent in our present state of scientific knowledge. At paragraphs 41 to 43 I endorse the committee's recommendations about the need for continuous monitoring of toxicology, including packaging materials. Has thought been given to the disposal of such packaging materials by domestic users, and are they to be included as normal domestic rubbish? If so, what will happen to them? We also

599
need to consider the effect of irradiation on pesticide residues. This point has already been mentioned. Will the Advisory Committee on Pesticide Residues be asked to report?
Nutrition is still a somewhat neglected area in food policy generally in this country; so the committee's recommendation in paragraph 50 is of considerable importance. As regards food quality, the point is rightly made that irradiation cannot improve quality but it can certainly disguise the consequences of prior bad handling. This is dealt with in paragraph 67. The report goes on to emphasise the role of environmental health officers in the inspection of quality prior to irradiation at plants. This is of considerable importance. Will this inspection by environmental health officers readily take place? The Government's thinking on the matter is that a centralised licensing system and operation ought to apply for irradiation. Within that, I should like to know whether the local environmental health officer will have full access as of right to plants. We are reminded in the report that there are 10 irradiation plants in the United Kingdom. Are these existing plants suitable as they stand for the commercial irradiation of food? If new plants are constructed, will they require special planning consent? If so, by whom will that consent be granted?
Safety is dealt with at paragraph 87. The Commission's proposal here is that approval is conditional on the safety of the application being established and on criteria to assure consumers that irradiation is used only where a proper justification has been established. Will the Government endorse these criteria if they decide to go it alone?
I turn now to the approved list of commodities in the directive. If there is no Community initiative in the near future, will the Government follow the original approved list of commodities or widen this list from the outset? Are any limitations of the list envisaged pending practical experience? On minimum dosages, we need also to ask whether the accepted principle, recommended by the committee at paragraph 105, of overall minimum dosages is accepted.
I turn now to the important question of detection. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and others have asked whether the Government are fully committed to research aimed at establishing a simple diagnostic test. This leads me to ask how imports of irradiated food will be tested for dosages and where such tests will be carried out. Who will check the labelling on imports? So far as concerns information, the report stresses —rightly, in my opinion —the importance of a full and thorough information campaign so that consumers are given full information about irradiated food. I should like to make a plea that manufacturers are included in the consultation process about information with a view to ensuring good coverage, a well-co-ordinated information system and the avoidance of duplication.
Can we also be told by the Minister what labelling standards for irradiated food are envisaged for the United Kingdom? On timing, I also support the committee's view that Her Majesty's Government
600
should proceed only in step with the Community on a serious issue which concerns a large section of consumers. If, however, the Government are determined to go it alone, as I believe they are, the affirmative parliamentary procedure should be used. I hope that when we come to that on Monday next the Government will respond sympathetically and positively. Perhaps I may once again congratulate the committee on its report.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have immediately to make apologies because I am under certain timing restrictions. I should like to apologise in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I shall write to him with, I hope, answers to the many questions that he asked.
I listened with the greatest interest to my noble friend Lord Middleton, who as usual spoke in a clear and lucid way in explanation of the well-reasoned and balanced report of his committee. The Government are considering the report, and a formal response will be placed in the Library as soon as possible. I also appreciated the balanced words of my noble friend Lord Lyell and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. I shall try to deal with as many points as I can. I am not surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is confused; neither am I surprised that his lady correspondents are confused. So much biased and misleading information has been published that perhaps on this occasion the noble Viscount will listen to the findings of Sub-Committee D, if not to me.
The World Health Organisation and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation have declared themselves satisfied as to the safety of food irradiation. They recognise its value in killing salmonella, campylobacter and listeria. In other words, they recognise that it has a valuable part to play in combating the bacteria responsible for no less than 90 per cent. of the world's food-borne illness.
Those two world authorities concerned with food safety and public health are encouraging governments to take up the process. The World Health Organisation has, indeed, gone further. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, pointed out during our recent discussions in the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill, their published food safety rules advise consumers to choose irradiated poultrymeat. I think those few comments make crystal clear the position of the leading world bodies on this subject.
As the report of Sub-Committee D states and as my noble friend reminds us, we in this country set up our own independent scientific review of that process, for which we assembled a most distinguished scientific team with expertise in all the branches of science relevant to assess the safety and the wholesomeness of irradiated food. We brought together medical experts, specialists in toxicology, in microbiology, in nutrition and in radiological protection. On the more specialised aspects of its work, the committee consulted other scientific committees with a still greater depth of experience

601
in one aspect or another of the subject, so that in all over 50 individual scientists were involved. The recommendations of those eminent, highly qualified experts are in line with the findings of the scientific backing to which the European Communities Committee has referred in its report.
I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, would care to repeat his allegations and name the member of our expert committee outside this privileged place.
Attempts have been made to cast doubt on the conclusions from certain isolated studies among the mass of scientific data; but the criticisms are mistaken and any doubts entirely misplaced. All the matters that have recently been raised as though they were new have already been carefully considered in the past. The view of the distinguished independent scientific committees is quite clear: no credible evidence of adverse effects has been produced.
I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for forgetting that he had given me the source of his information. The London Food Commission has supplied a document which lists cases where abuse is alleged. In only one case, and that back in 1985, is it demonstrated that an illegal importation of irradiated food was made into the United Kingdom. Three comments are necessary on that case, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, also referred. The produce (prawns) was not substandard. The purpose of the irradiation was to maintain its quality. The import of irradiated produce was, however, in itself an offence.
It is not true to argue, as the London Food Commission frequently does, that no official action was taken. The appropriate authority (Dover Port Health Authority) investigated the matter, took formal statements in the presence of solicitors, and issued a formal warning which was given publicly as a deterrrent to others. If that action is criticised as insufficient, it should be borne in mind that neither the LFC nor anyone else has subsequently suggested that the firm concerned has repeated the offence.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about studies on irradiated wheat carried out by the Indian National Institute of Nutrition. The conclusions of those researchers have been rejected by the WHO, FAO, the EC Scientific Committee for Food, expert scientific committees in the United Kingdom, and by the USA FDA, Canada, Denmark and India itself. The verdict of the world-wide scientific community is that the results of the studies do not lead to the conclusions claimed by the researchers.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked about the Australian Committee of the House of Representatives. That was not a committee of scientists, and its report cannot have the standing of the judgments reached by eminent toxicologists and all the other eminent scientists I have named.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn mentioned various countries or bodies that have come out against food irradiation. None of them has referred the matter for the advice of an independent scientific committee. My noble friend also asked about the danger from vitamin losses. Any process, even cooking, causes vitamin losses. There is no risk to
602
nutrition from the irradiation of any food now being irradiated anywhere in the world. If that were not the case, the process would hardly have the support of the world-wide expert organisations and councils about which I have spoken.
Perhaps we should bear in mind the analogy of the pasteurisation of milk which also reduces the vitamin content; but that effect is clearly outweighed by the elimination from milk of potentially pathogenic bacteria. With irradiation the benefit is clear since, with the low dosage used in food, vitamin losses are in any case small. Nevertheless, the Government will be monitoring the situation, and the Select Committee agreed with the Government's reaction.
My noble friend also spoke about free radical production. Free radicals are continually formed in the human body. The Medical Research Council has commented that they are present in the majority of foodstuffs. A long-term study of that specific issue produced no indication of any harmful effects. Free radicals, I am reliably informed, are present on the surface of toast.
I have to take up the point my noble friend made about this country's slaughterhouses and put him right. The differences in requirements between our slaughterhouses and EC slaughterhouses are purely structural and are not matters of hygiene. It is over structural matters that some of our establishments do not meet EC standards.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about a possible increased risk of botulism. In the international arena that risk is discounted by the International Union of Microbiological Societies. In the United Kingdom, the Standing Panel on Hazards from Microbial Contamination of Food took a similar view. Food microbiologists understand very well the procedures necessary to avoid botulism. A combination of irradiation with existing techniques will do this. Irradiation is no different from other processes that do not sterilise. Research into irradiation will continue. Research into a definitive test for irradiated food will also continue, as I said at the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill, and I reassure the noble Duke that that research will be funded by the Government. There may be outside interests also pursuing the same aim, but there will be research by the Government. As to the Government's view of the need for a detection test, as raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the Government stated, as did the Select Committee, that a detection test would indeed be useful but is not necessary.
We are not alone in taking this view. The WHO thinks so and the Codex Alimentarius Commission also thinks so. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, suggested a need for full labelling. I entirely agree, and I repeat the assurances previously given that there will be full and clear labelling so that consumers can exercise that right of choice.
It has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that further research is necessary on additives, pesticide residues and packaging materials. Additives and pesticide residues are two subjects that produce an emotional response out of

603
all proportion to any threat to health that they could possibly cause. We are talking about minuscule quantities—a few parts per billion. To assist your Lordships in visualising that, one part per billion is the equivalent of two grains of salt in a swimming pool. For the benefit of less sporting Members of your Lordships' House, that is about the same as the width of a credit card set alongside a distance of 600 miles. I think that puts the matter in its true perspective.
As for packaging materials, it is open to us in the UK to lay down a precise condition within an individual licence. We certainly accept the importance of close control over the materials that can be used, and we shall reflect carefully on the various alternative ways of achieving that.
Yet again this evening we have heard the tired old argument that irradiation could be misused to make bad food good. On that, let me simply refer the House to the response on the subject made in the recent "Horizon" television programme. The director of Leatherhead Research Association—a man of very wide experience—said that if that was what he wanted to do then irradiation certainly would not be the way he would do it, because that would not work.
Let me turn to the comments that have been made about the products for which the process should be allowed, and the question as to whether it might be reasonable to hold back here in the UK until the EC has acted. It is clear that there no scientific justification to limit the list of products. The Select Committee has underlined that point. It has been suggested that nonetheless there might be benefit in a limited introduction of the process so that experience with it can be steadily built up.
That is just what will happen anyway. We are proposing to introduce a licensing system. Each applicant will have to satisfy the licensing authority as to the technological purpose of treating each product. The authority will need to be fully satisfied that that is a sound use of the technology and that the applicant is competent in every way to meet our detailed requirements. That method of approach will in practice achieve a limited introduction of food irradiation without the need for any artificial restrictions on products. And of course each irradiated food will be clearly labelled at the point of sale.
As for delaying introduction, we certainly concur in the wish to have one harmonised set of rules across the whole EC. But I wonder whether the committee's recommendation on that largely reflected its belief that agreement was close. That has been suggested. However, it would be a brave Minister who would now risk a forecast as to what is likely to happen and when. Let us keep two factors very much in mind. First, the difficulties in Europe are political; they do not concern the safety of the process. Secondly, what we are seeking are public health benefits through enhanced food safety. Let me draw attention to the written evidence of the Medical Research Council to the Select Committee. The council said:
604
"The public health implications are substantial, particularly in the case of poultry meat which at the present time is a major source of salmonellosis".
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, asked: why do we have to wait for Europe in order to have safely irradiated food? The noble Earl also asked me whether we could use existing provisions to introduce irradiation now. I must tell him that the powers exist, but they are not sufficient to allow us to introduce the full licensing controls that we and the Select Committee consider necessary. Astronauts have been given irradiated food. In the United Kingdom, irradiated wine corks, irradiated animal bedding and irradiated medical equipment are already permitted and sold here. I see no reason whatever to deny the British consumer clear benefits, which incidentally are already in use in several EC countries, just because of political disagreements in the EC. I suggest to your Lordships that the British consumer should have the opportunity to make his or her own choice.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Several of them have suggested that there remains an element of uncertainty about the effects of irradiation. That may be so, but perhaps your Lordships should consider what is certain. What is certain is that outbreaks of food poisoning are multiplying yearly. Modern mass-produced food can be very unsafe. As we say in our report, up to 60 per cent. of uncooked untreated chicken carcases contain salmonella or listeria or both. That is certain. Recently a number of people in Holland died after eating untreated prawns. That is certain. Those are the kind of certainties that must be considered when making a judgment about whether a very thoroughly researched process should be adopted in aid of food safety, and the judgment that the Select Committee came to is summarised in paragraph 74. I am sorry that some noble Lords are unhappy with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, spoke with great knowledge. He expressed many of the reservations and doubts of the BMA whose written evidence we were grateful to receive. We agreed with nearly all their recommendations, but we believed that their fears, which are shared by the noble Lord, about radioactivity were not justified. I recommend to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that he looks at the paper submitted by the National Radiological Protection Board, which is printed on pages 112 to 115 of the report, especially the conclusion that they came to on page 115.
Finally, I should like to thank specially my noble friend Lady Trumpington for giving the Government's view. I hope she will feel that, though she has been called upon yet again to speak on food irradiation, she can agree with me that there is a continuing need for the public to be informed about the subject. I hope that she and your Lordships may feel that this report can contribute to that end, so that people can more easily choose, when the time comes, whether they want to have irradiated food or whether they do not.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
9 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.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AIREDALE) in the Chair.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 200A:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of the Law Society to find a solicitor on behalf of those reasonably requiring litigation or advocacy services.
.—(1) Where a person applies to the Law Society stating that they cannot obtain litigation or advocacy services from a qualified legal practitioner, the Law Society shall determine whether that person reasonably requires such services.
(2) Where the Law Society determines under subsection (1) above that a person reasonably requires litigation or advocacy services, it shall be under a duty to find a suitably qualified and able practitioner to act for that person.
(3) In performing its duty under subsection (2) the Law Society may require one or more of its members to act for the applicant.
(4) Where a member fails to comply with a requirement made by the Law Society under subsection (3), the Law Society may apply to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for them to exercise their powers under section 47 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against that member.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when we were dealing with the cab rank rule part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I spoke in support of the proposal when it was referred to en passant in the cab rank debate. It is only in order to reculer pour mieux sauter that I rise to continue to support the amendment, but I support even more the cab rank rule. One is not an appropriate alternative to the other.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord is always welcome in this Chamber, whether he reculers or does not reculer.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Talking English, I support the amendment in a half-hearted manner. It is a poor amendment, not a cab rank amendment. The idea is that a person seeking representation in an unpopular case must go round the mega-firms and be refused and then go round to the groups of advocates in the Crown Court and be refused. Then he has to make an application to the Law Society which decides whether he reasonably requires representation. When it has decided that, it sets out to find a suitably qualified practitioner.
One could hardly get further away from the simple cab rank principle which has been followed for many a long year in serious criminal courts by those who have rights of audience there. The principle is perfectly straightforward and simple: the client is entitled to the advocate of his choice. He does not have to go before some body which decides whether he reasonably requires some advocate, and then have that advocate told to represent him.
606
If anyone suggests that this is a substitute for a cab rank, I regret to say that it is yet one more example of the downward path of the Bill regarding advocacy in the future. However, one has to go out and grasp whatever one can. So I support the amendment in a half-hearted manner.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and support the amendment, as one must, because at least it is something. Over the weekend I read of two prominent firms of solicitors who engage in criminal practice. They publicly announced that they refused to take in certain admittedly very unpleasant types of criminal cases. They refused ever to take the defence of persons accused of the offence of rape. These were two solicitors practising to a considerable extent with much criminal expertise. They publicly announced that any defendant who came to them under an accusation of rape would not receive any assistance from them. That is what we shall be up against.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is doing his best by producing this clause. As was said, it is, at any rate, something. It is a humble exchange for the cab rank principle. However, what happened over the weekend demonstrates how sad it is that the Committee rejected the arguments insisting that the cab rank principle should apply to every advocate. Therefore I join half-heartedly in supporting the clause.
Lord Meston: I do not wish to repeat what has been said about the amendment which I agree should be a last resort rather than a substitute for the cab rank rule. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would consider improving the wording of subsection (2) in order to impose a duty on the Law Society to find a suitably qualified and able practitioner as quickly as possible.
What one can see happening, particularly in civil litigation, is that if a litigant is abandoned by his legal advisers shortly before trial, there will be delay. In civil litigation the delay could be harmful to the other party and necessitate an adjournment. This system may work to the advantage of all concerned if the Law Society's duty is a duty to act as swiftly as possible.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand the spirit in which the amendment has been put forward. However, I take the same attitude to it as I took to the amendment dealing with the cab rank principle. These are matters that are best dealt with in considerable detail in the rules that will be set out for dealing with them when they arise. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made about the rule shows that the details need to be worked out closely. I should have thought this was one of the considerations that it would be right for the profession, the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor to have in mind when considering the report and the advice of the advisory committee. That committee should be asked to comment on it.
Strength comes through the detail of these rules and the way in which they are applied. That is true

607
of the existing rules of the Bar relating to the cab rank and the rules that should prevail in future regarding the Law Society. I hope that the noble Lord may feel in the light of that response that the point he is putting forward in this amendment will certainly not be lost sight of. However, I believe it is best dealt with in the way I have mentioned. Where the Law Society has a duty to find someone fairly detailed rules would be required in that connection.
Lord Mishcon: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has just said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Multi-disciplinary and multi-national practices]:
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 37, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 202 which stands in my name. These two amendments to Clause 48 are fairly self-explanatory. The purpose of both amendments is to prevent the two legal professional associations, the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar, from having a quite unreasonable restrictive power over the individual freedom of both solicitors and barristers to enter mixed disciplinary practices.
The current situation as described in subsections (1) and (5) is that both are prevented by statute from entering a multi-disciplinary practice. The clause as it stands quite rightly states that this restrictive practice should stop. However, the freedom does not extend very far because it puts the power to enact provisions in this regard into the hands of the lawyers' professional associations whom I understand from their past record are not particularly favourable to this kind of freedom for their members. The clause puts that power into their hands effectively to prevent their members from entering multi-disciplinary practice and getting such an organisation off the ground. That means that the provisions of subsection (1), or alternatively subsection (5), are effectively repealed. Surely that is illogical nonsense.
In my view, the public would benefit from professionals embracing a number of diciplines and offering services from under one roof. While from time to time conflicts of professional interest and responsibility could arise, there is nothing that could not be resolved with thought and good will. That must have been realised when drafting subsection (1), or alternatively subsection (5).
A varied array of disciplines co-operating from the same office may well be able to offer the consumer a saving of time, an efficient throughput of work, a fertile ground for practical improvements, and could also provide a structure which could attract capital investment to finance a more professional service for the house-owning public. Like every other business structure, there can be no absolute guarantee of success but at least it should be on offer to the public.
The clause as it stands runs against the trend of the welcome changes which we have seen in the property market in recent years. It is also odd that the desirable provisions in subsections (1) and (5) of this clause are effectively removed in subsections (2) and (6). Although no amendment has been tabled to that effect, similar objections could be made to subsection (4). I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: It would be regrettable if the two amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, were accepted. I regard subsections (2) and (6) as shining lights in a rather gloomy Bill leaving for both sides of the legal profession the possibility of regulating their own affairs in at least one area, not for their own benefit but for the benefit of the public whom they seek to serve. The noble Earl has not addressed himself to some of the problems that would arise in the creation of multi-disciplinary practices. There is the question of conflict of interest. If accountants and lawyers practise in the same firm and a will or a probate case arises and the client goes to an accountant who passes him on to a lawyer in the same firm, who will the lawyer act for if the case concerns a family problem? Legally binding confidentiality exists between a client and his lawyer, so how can that be dealt with when a client is passed down what I might call the assembly line of professional help offered under one roof? These different professions are subject to different rules of professional conduct. What one wants for the client is certainty. No client going to a mixed professional practice would know what rules applied to the people with whom he was dealing. That would be very unsatisfactory.
There are other cogent reasons why the amendment should be rejected. The President of the American Bar Association has already stated that if multi-disciplinary practices were allowed in England and Wales there would be a very grave risk that lawyers in those firms would not be able to practice in some states in the United States. Furthermore, lawyers would be unable to practice in certain member states of the European Community in which multi-disciplinary practices are barred.
There is one further cogent reason why the amendments should not be accepted. United Kingdom delegates on the CCBE—the Law Societies of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales together with the Bars of those countries —are all against the setting up of multi-disciplinary practices. I hope that the clauses will remain in the Bill and will be used by the profession for the benefit of the public.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I should like to intervene briefly on this matter. It was proposed in the Green Paper that solicitors and barristers should be allowed to go into partnership. That is one of the consequences of the amendment.
Perhaps the strongest and most consistent critic of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was the Director General of Fair Trading. In 1986 he wrote a memorandum addressed to all Ministers pointing out that the effect would be a strong step

609
towards fusion. It has always been the expressed sentiment of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that he was against fusion. On the occasion of the introduction of the White Paper he spoke of the need for a strong and independent Bar. That could not exist if the two amendments were accepted. Accordingly, I suggest strongly that they should not be agreed.
The Earl of Lytton: Perhaps I may speak briefly in favour of Amendment No. 201. It has a direct bearing on my own amendment, Amendment No. 201A.
We have already heard the opposing views that have been put forward. Professional bodies should be in a position to regulate to a large degree what their members do. However, it seemed to me that the Government's intention was to remove the statutory embargo on multi-disciplinary practices. If that is the case, it is curious to say the least that the same embargo should effectively be placed on the members of a professional body. I speak not as a lawyer but as a chartered surveyor. My own profession is one of the most deregulated professions in the land. It does not square with the purposes of the Bill that it should be transferred from a statutory provision to wording which seems to me, as a layman, to lead to the assumption that it is in order for professional bodies to have such forms of embargo.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has already explained, there are misgivings among the members of the Bar, and no doubt also in the Law Society, about how that would work in practice. The criticisms are based on a supposition that multi-disciplinary practices would not adhere to the general rules that prevail among the various professions concerned. It is no doubt the case that the rules of the Law Society and the Bar are very different from those of my own profession. However, I do not believe that they differ materially in their aims and objectives in so far as concerns conflicts of interest and confidentiality of clients' affairs. After all, in a legal partnership the fact that one partner deals with a client's affairs and makes that fact known to his partners presumably is not considered as a breach of that duty of confidentiality towards the client. It is perhaps unfair on the other professional bodies to imply that they are not capable of keeping a confidence or are not bound by rules and regulations as to their conduct. All professions are most severely bound by those constraints. That is what generally makes our professions the pillars of our society.
Baroness Elles: The noble Earl may not be aware that confidentiality between a client and his or her lawyer is bound by law. I do not think that that is the same for the other professions.
The Earl of Lytton: The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, speaks with much greater knowledge on this matter than I do. I could not begin to tell her what the situation was regarding even my own profession, save to say that I could be expected to have legal action taken against me were I to breach a confidence. I am not competent to say whether it would make any difference if that were backed by
610
force of statute or by force of the wrath of one's client, but I take her point.
I should like to make one or two further points. First, with regard to my Amendment No. 201A, to which I shall speak briefly but which I shall not move at the moment, it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that it seeks to have all such rules or bars against multidisciplinary practice referred to the Director General of Fair Trading. The idea behind the amendment is that the matter should be subject to the scrutiny of someone whose primary interest is in fair trading and the public interest side of the matter.
Secondly, I understand that such a provision would be a direct parallel to the legislation introduced in Scotland under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill on the precise details of which I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can enlighten me. The purpose of my amendment is in keeping with what I understand is the Government's policy on competition and is based on Clause 23 of the Scottish Bill. I do not know whether my amendment goes as far as or perhaps a little further than the amendment of my noble friend Lord Shannon, but I support the principle of his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee —it would certainly save time —if I were to address noble Lords on Amendments Nos. 201B and 201C because the matters with which we are now dealing are dealt with by those amendments. Anyone who has read those amendments will wonder why there are two amendments which say the same thing. Reflection made it apparent that Amendment No. 201C was better worded. I therefore ask noble Lords to consider only that amendment.
Clause 48(2) states:
"Nothing in subsection (1)"—
subsection (1) recites a section of the Solicitors Act 1974 which prevents solicitors from entering into partnership with persons who are not solicitors —
"prevents the Law Society making rules which prohibit solicitors from entering into any unincorporated association with persons who are not solicitors, or restricts the circumstances in which they may do so".
Noble Lords may recall the answer given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on a previous amendment which affected the Bar. "All that I am doing", said the noble and learned Lord, "is to give a power to the professional bodies to make such regulations if they see fit. I am not forcing them to do so. I am merely saying that I am loosening the force of Section 39. I am taking away that inhibition and giving the Law Society the power, if it wants, and only if it wants, to use it, to make rules which might enable solicitors to enter into an association with people who are not solicitors".
In those circumstances the Committee may wonder why I rise to oppose this subsection as emphatically as I can and ask the Committee to accept the amendment that I shall move in due course. I assure the Committee that my objection is not to multinational practice as between lawyers but to multidisciplinary practices; namely, that there

611
should be the possibility of solicitors going into association or professional partnerships with those who are not lawyers.
The reason for my strong objection is that, if there were no statutory inhibition on the Law Society permitting such practices, the very gentleman who has been mentioned in the course of this debate —the Director General of Fair Trading —would be able to challenge the Law Society if it did not make regulations which allowed associations between lawyers and those who are not lawyers.
I remind Members of the Committee —I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will remember —that the restrictive trade practices tribunal under the proposed competition legislation announced in the DTI White paper called Opening Markets: new Policy of Restrictive Trade Practices, that the judgment as to whether rules are anti-competitive will be primarily made on economic criteria rather than general public interest criteria. In other words, economic criteria are to rule and the Director General of Fair Trading will be governed by those criteria when making his recommendations and challenges to any professional association that in his view acts contrary to those economic criteria. Indeed the Director General of Fair Trading published a report in August 1986—Restrictions on the kind of organisation through which members of professions may offer their services—and concluded that the statutory and practice rule restrictions on mixed partnerships should be removed.
My professional organisation, which is the Law Society —I should be very anxious if it did not hold such a belief—believes that that recommendation just did not take account of the special position of lawyers, which was so eloquently and, if I may say so, clearly explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, nor of their obligations to the courts and their unique legal position regarding confidentiality. That was a matter to which the noble Baroness specifically referred. Therefore it is my submission that it would be completely unsafe under subsection (2) to remove the statutory inhibitions which are contained in Section 29 of the Solicitors Act 1974 because it would mean —I repeat —that the Director General of Fair Trading could challenge the Law Society and say, "There is the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Look at Section 48(2). The statutory prohibition has gone. Why are you not encouraging mixed partnerships between various professions? Why are you not dealing with the matter on the basis of economic criteria? We say that you should". Then there will be a battle. If that battle is lost by my profession, in my view a most dangerous situation will be set up with different rules of discipline and ethics binding the various constituent parts of a partnership. I should have thought that that was a very sorry event.
I therefore hope that subsection (2) goes. I hope that when I move Amendment No. 201 it will be accepted by the noble and learned Lord; and if not by him by the Committee. I very much hope that on the question of multinational practices, as the noble and learned Lord indicated at Second Reading, there will be provision to introduce regulations that will
612
deal with those multinational partnerships. I hope that we shall see that the same rules which apply to our English profession will apply to such partnerships whether on competition matters or otherwise.
I have spoken to amendments that I have not yet moved. However, I hope that my contribution to the debate will clarify the issue, which is very important for my profession.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Templeman: Amendments Nos. 201 and 201A on Clause 48 raise questions of fundamental importance. First, is there a difference between a business and a profession? Secondly, is it wise or right to believe that anybody can do anything in any trade or profession whether trained to it or not? Thirdly, is it right that if there is a difference between a business and a profession, this legal profession should be left, within limits, to govern itself and lay down its professional rules?
The net result of the amendments moved by the noble Earls, Lord Shannon and Lord Lytton, would have the effect of destroying the profession. One could have a token lawyer in any firm. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke about the profession of a surveyor. There is no such profession. There is a noble profession of chartered surveyors. All kinds of people can call themselves surveyors and take part in multi-disciplinary partnerships in whom no reliance whatsoever can be placed.
It does not rest only with surveyors. All kinds of fringe people could become partners or directors of a company, so long as it had a token lawyer. All lawyers are subject to discipline. No one has explained how it will work in this great multi-disciplinary partnership, which will have different approaches. Its main thesis may simply be, "As long as we are making money out of it, let us go on".
Secondly, in my submission it is not right to assume that anybody can do anybody's job: that if one has a token lawyer one can engage on any work whether it includes law or any other area. It is the other way round. One ought to try to get every man to keep to his last. I know that my form of law occupies me quite long enough without my wanting to engage in partnerships with other professions and trades.
I believe that it would be detrimental to the public to have conglomerates which pretend to do everything and which are jacks of all trades but masters of none. It may be said that they may be found out. So was the Clowes organisation. Some other trades, industries and professions have been found out, but only at the cost of millions of pounds to poor investors and with great trouble and tribulation both for the Government and for everybody else.
Thirdly, if there is no case for a separate profession let us abolish every profession. Let everybody be able to do everything. But if there is a case for having a profession there surely must be a case for the legal profession. I know that in certain quarters that is thought to be elitist, as though we were trying to obtain some special privilege, but that is not so.

613
Those of us who are no longer concerned with receiving fees and adding them up should at least be listened to when we say that beyond that there is a professional duty which we all respect because it is a duty to the public. We genuinely believe that if you throw everybody into the melting-pot or if you take all your eggs, break them and make them into an omelette, the one bad one will affect the rest.
We are asking for a separate profession. If there is a separate profession, albeit subject to the rules which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is introducing in order to ensure that they are competitive and so forth, it must have self-government within separate rules.
If the amendments tabled by the noble Earls, Lord Shannon and Lord Lytton, are carried, the provisions will destroy the profession because there will be no distinction between one company and another. While there is one man who is qualified for the Bar or who is a qualified solicitor you can do anything.
I hope that the two amendments will be defeated and that the Committee can turn to the more difficult amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Renton: This is a most important matter. The formation of multi-disciplinary partnerships by members of the Bar is against the public interest. It conflicts with the independence of the Bar and with the individual responsibility of the barrister to represent his client in accordance with the rule of law and to be answerable to the court for doing so.
It is a most extraordinary way of legislating. On the one hand we say that solicitors shall be allowed to enter into partnerships with people who are not solicitors. On the other we declare that there is no rule of law preventing barristers from entering into unincorporated partnerships with people who are not barristers. That is the foundation of the clause. Yet, in spite of Parliament enacting those two provisions as part of the law, we pass the buck to the Law Society and the Bar Council respectively for doing exactly the opposite to what Parliament has declared.
That is a strange and unprecedented way in which to legislate—although it is not totally unprecedented because we did so two clauses earlier but in a slightly different context. So far my noble and learned friend has been most successful in carrying highly controversial provisions contained in the Bill. I plead with him to take away the clause and look at it totally afresh in the light of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
However, if we must have the clause I agree that Amendment No. 201C tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should be enacted. I am reluctant to say so but, strictly speaking and if we follow his speech, the word "shall" in the first line ought to be the word "may". I speak for myself and perhaps some of my noble friends when I say that on Report it would be right, proper and logical for a similar subsection to be added affecting the Bar Council in the same way as the noble Lord's subsection affects the Law Society.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord said that the word "may" should be substituted for the word "shall". Does he remember his own words; namely, that he would wish to see the multi-professional association prohibited?
Lord Renton: Yes, I do. However, I was referring to what the noble Lord said in his speech and it may be printed in Hansard tomorrow. I understood him to say —and he must correct me if he did not say it —that the Law Society would not be bound to do that but it should be given the opportunity of prohibiting. If he did not mean to say that or did not say that, then I withdraw it.
Lord Mishcon: I started my speech —and I am sorry if I was not sufficiently clear —by saying that it might be thought that we did not have to worry about this matter because the noble and learned Lord might say, as he said previously in regard to another amendment which affected the Bar, that the Law Society does not have to enable multi-professional associations to exist. Therefore, why not give the Law Society that power? I then went on to say that the reason is that we are in danger, if that is done, that the Director General of Fair Trading, if there is not a statutory prohibition as I have tried to make it—and that is why I use the word "shall not" —could challenge the Law Society and on the ground of economic criteria say, "I am awfully sorry, but you are acting in an anti-competitive way. You have been enabled by an Act of Parliament to permit these things. Why are you not doing that?"
Lord Renton: That is splendid. However, it makes the clause, if I may say so, even more nonsensical. On the one hand, the Law Society is told in one subsection not to prohibit and in the other subsection it would be required to prohibit. we have got ourselves into a ridiculous situation. I hope that on Report my noble and learned friend will see that we put some sense into the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: With the greatest respect to my noble friend, it is not a nonsensical situation at all. The present law prohibits the Law Society—and I take that first—from allowing partnerships with anyone who is not a solicitor. Of course, that includes lawyers in other countries. Therefore, the existing law makes impossible having a partnership between, for example, a firm in London and those who practise the law in France or Germany.
As I understand the position, the Law Society is of the view that that prohibition should not continue. Therefore, the statutory prohibition must be removed and I agree with that. The only question is: what should be substituted for it? I believe that the right substitution is that the Law Society should have the power to regulate this. Instead of there being a blanket prohibition in the statute as we have now, the Law Society should be given the power to make these regulations. It has the good of the profession at heart, and will make such rules as it thinks to be right in this connection. It is right that that responsibility should rest with the Law Society. That is what the clause does.

615
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his amendments to which we shall come later, is endeavouring to fight a battle in advance which he may have with the Director General of Fair Trading. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner pointed out, the Director General of Fair Trading can be a great friend in some situations although he may not be quite such a friend in others. In his responses he has distinguished very clearly between the Bar and the Law Society in that connection.
This provision leaves it with the Law Society to make the rules, and I believe that that is entirely right. It can regulate the circumstances, and so on. If another law comes along which has to do with that, then the Law Society will have to deal with that as it arises. For example, it is quite clear from the Department of Trade and Industry's White Paper that it envisages that professional rules which are justified as required to avoid conflicts of interest would be perfectly acceptable under the legislation proposed from that department.
What we have in this clause is entirely sensible and right, leaving the matter to the Law Society. If we are to do that for the Law Society, there is no statutory prohibition on the Bar, so far as I know; but it is thought by some that there may be a common law rule. It is not at all clear that there is, but in order to make clear that the Bar should have the same sort of right to make rules, Clause 6 makes that perfectly plain. It takes away any concern there may be about existing law and replaces it with a clear power for the General Council of the Bar to make rules which have the effect of prohibiting barristers from entering into any such unincorporated association or restricting the circumstances in which they may do so.
I strongly urge the Committee not to accept Amendment No. 201, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, because I believe that this is a matter for the profession. The profession has pointed to considerable difficulties, which my noble friend Lady Elles has summarised, in allowing anything of the kind. These difficulties would certainly have to be dealt with before any rule could be contemplated which would have the effect of allowing multidisciplinary practices between solicitors and other professions in this country.
I believe that these are matters for the Law Society to consider. It has considered them and no doubt will continue to do so in the future as the situation develops. I believe it is right that the matter should be left with the Law Society. We are not encouraging the society in any way but merely making clear that it has this power and that it is for the society in its professional judgment to decide what is right. I am certainly of the view that it is correct to do that.
The same remarks apply as regards the General Council of the Bar and Amendment No. 202, to which the noble Earl spoke. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment and, if not, that the Committee will negative it.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is, it seems, at one with the Law Society in wishing to sweep away any restriction on multi-national partnerships and associations. But he has gone on to sweep away more than that. He has swept away any restrictions on multi-disciplinary partnerships and associations. In doing so he has failed to recognise the point validly made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the Law Society would be left open to objection by the Director General of Fair Trading on the grounds of setting up a restrictive practice if it took advantge of the power given by my noble and learned friend to inhibit multi-disciplinary practices. The only answer from my noble and learned friend appeared to be, "Well, the Director General of Fair Trading may not take that adverse view of the action by the Law Society". I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would reply to that, "Well, he may not, but on the other hand he may". It is because he may that we want the protection.
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly the only point is whether it is right to exclude altogether any question of this sort. The Law Society being empowered to make the rules —and this is what I intend—any question of that kind is left for any legislation which may follow. However, as regards present law, it appears to me entirely right that the Law Society should have complete freedom in this area and that it should be able to make the rules it thinks right in the light of its consideration of these matters.
Lord Mishcon: I rise only to save time on the amendments when I move them. There are occasions —and I say this with the utmost respect to the noble and learned Lord —when his agility of mind supersedes his willingness to concede an obvious point. I hope that this is not going to be one of those occasions. Has one ever heard of a body generously given power by the noble and learned Lord which declines to accept it unless it be for very good reason? The noble and learned Lord is talking of giving power to the Law Society in order to make it possible for it to include multi-disciplinary practices which are now prohibited by statute. I can tell the noble and learned Lord that the Law Society does not want that power. While it appreciates his generosity, the Law Society tells him in no uncertain terms, "Please do not give it to us".
It gives a reason. It wants the multi-national practices and my amendment will provide for that when we come to it. The reason it does not want it is because there have been writings by the Office of Fair Trading which are sufficient to put the fear of the Almighty into any professional body. Those writings say: "We are after competition and trading in a fair manner. If we come across, through economic criteria, the acts of people who are empowered to have multi-disciplinary associations and they have not got them, we say that they should have them".
That is a very important matter. It is for that reason that I say to the noble and learned Lord: please do not give gifts which are not desired because those who give them create fear. That is exactly the situation here. I do not have to quote the classical

617
phrase to the noble and learned Lord, who knows Latin and Greek much better than I do. We fear these gifts and we say to the noble and learned Lord: "We do not want them and we have given a very good reason as to why we do not want them".
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: There are times when I wonder whether this is not a private discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor into which two noble Earls have butted unintentionally. I am about to say something intentionally. The reason I say something intentionally is because of the doctrine well known to lawyers as estoppel. I do not wish it to be said hereafter that I cannot take the point because I did not take it at this stage. So let me take it now and clearly.
As regards the utterances of the Committee, I do not accept the proposition that the competition board will have any power to interfere with the exercise by the Law Society of its powers proposed in this subsection. I say that for this reason. I imagine that we all agree that where rules of conduct or practice affect the process of litigation they have to be dealt with through the procedure laid down in Schedule 4 as regards the advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges. I do not believe that to be controversial.
I fancy that there is a deal of controversy between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and myself which concerns what happens when a partnership of solicitors wants to do something in the non-litigious role. I take the view that the answer is self-evident, though I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor takes a different view. In my opinion it is self-evident that A and B cannot be in partnership for one purpose and not another. A solicitor cannot be in partnership with a surveyor for non-litigious purposes, but not in partnership for litigation purposes.
The solicitors who will be partners in both partnerships would be in a quite impossible position. If there are two totally separate partnerships, which is a concept possible in law, it would not work. They would undoubtedly be sharing premises, confidences and staff. This arrangement is not on. As I see the matter —I shall argue it again if necessary hereafter, and that is the purpose of the present intervention —if it is permitted for barristers and solicitors to be in partnership, or solicitors and surveyors or solicitors and accountants, for any purpose, it has to be permitted for all purposes, including litigation. If it is permitted for litigation purposes, it has to go through the Schedule 4 method. I very much doubt whether there is a problem here but I range myself sturdily behind the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If there is any doubt, let us for goodness sake remove it by passing the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may turn a conversation between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and myself to one between myself and the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls. I say this with deep deference but he has overlooked the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 which permit incorporated practices. One could therefore have a limited company with the
618
objects of carrying out non-litigious work with a director who was a solicitor. He might have a separate practice or might not conduct litigation. He could be a director of that company and other people belonging to other professions could be fellow directors. Therefore it is possible to have such an organisation.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for returning to the fray just to mention this point. Under the existing rules of the Law Society —I am not sure whether they are the existing rules or proposed rules; at any rate they have been passed by the Council of the Law Society and I have approved them —to the best of my recollection it is not possible to have a director of an incorporated body of solicitors who is other than a solicitor. That rule will be maintained after the Bill is passed, if it is passed, and then the question will arise whether that rule is permissible. That will have to go through the Schedule 4 procedure and the considerations that I have already mentioned will apply.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not wish unduly to enter into this conversation except to say that I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls exactly stated my position. A number of problems are associated with it which I do not think it appropriate to go into at this juncture. In my view it is right that we should give this power to the Law Society and that we should not attempt to deal with what may or may not arise under legislation which has not come forward and which ought to be dealt with as it arises. It appears to me to be right to leave the matter as one which is no longer a matter of statutory prohibition but one for the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar.
The Earl of Shannon: I realised when I put down the amendment that I might be treading on some toes, but my, I did not realise quite how tender those toes were. The object of my amendment was to draw attention to the fact that we had two incongruous clauses alongside each other, one saying that you may have this extra freedom and the other saying that you will not be allowed to use it. That, fortunately, was when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, brought us back to the subject of my amendment. Previous to that we heard some pretty good speeches but I would suggest that they were not on my amendment. They were made to an amendment that was not down on the Marshalled List. They were speeches to an amendment to leave out subsections (1) and (5).
I was trying to draw attention to the incongruity of the clauses. To use the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, he was removing one blanket but putting another blanket in its place. I was not terribly happy with it but I realised that the more the debate went on, the more eminent and the more learned were the guns against me. I shall leave it to the amendment which has been spoken to so eloquently with this one and see what happens there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 201A:
Page 37, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert —
("(2) Any rule, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, whereby a solicitor is prohibited from forming a legal relationship with another solicitor or any other person for the purpose of their jointly offering professional services to the public shall have no effect unless it has been approved by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State, and before approving any such rule the Secretary of State shall consult the Director General of Fair Trading.").
The noble Earl said: I shall speak briefly to the amendment, because there is one point that I should like to raise in connection with it. Perhaps I may clarify my position. Although I have referred in loose and imprecise terms to "surveyors" —I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors —I intended that the reference should have been to those who are members of professions and not just anyone who calls himself a surveyor or, for that matter, anything else. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for my lack of precision when giving evidence to the Committee.
While multi-disciplinary practices are not commonplace in the field of law, they are commonplace among practising chartered surveyors with chartered town planners and other bodies. That does not mean that everyone has to do everything. It does not mean that the chartered surveyor has to give evidence before a planning inquiry or that the chartered town planner gives evidence on valuation. Those practices operate successfully because there is a symbiosis between the professions concerned. That is my understanding of multi-disciplinary practices.
When I worked for a small firm in the West End it did not call itself a chartered surveyor, but that did not prevent me from being an associate of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors at the time. It did not impugn my professional status. Subsequently, when I worked for a large insurance company that did not mean that I had to sell financial services. Now I work for myself and I can do more or less what I like when I like within the byelaws of my profession. I do not accept the criticisms of the risk of a multi-disciplinary practice, with the sole exception of the field of litigation where there may be problems in relation to advocacy which is only one part of the panoply.
The point that I should like to raise in connection with the amendment is that I fail to see that there is a special reason for the Law Society, or any other professional body for that matter, to be exempt from the overriding scrutiny of the Office of Fair Trading. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that he does not exclude that possibility. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, clearly wishes to exclude it absolutely because he sees that his profession is at risk. It is not for me to suggest which of those opposing views are correct, but there is a point of public interest: the profession should be seen to be subject to the overriding scrutiny of those watchdogs that police our public affairs.
I should like to prompt the noble and learned Lord to consider making a specific inclusion —not
620
necessarily the wording of Amendment No. 201A, but something along those lines —to make it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that that overriding scrutiny will be in place. If he gives me the assurance that it is not his, or for that matter the Government's, wish to exclude the provision I would not wish to press the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I would not wish to accept this amendment. The machinery that has been set up in the earlier part of the Bill for dealing with rights of audience and right to conduct litigation is one under which the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor will have to approve the rules before they become effective. If that is done, then the rules, according to the Department of Trade and Industry's White Paper, would not be challenged under the legislation that is being adumbrated in that paper.
But it appears to me that jurisdiction in relation to rights of audience and right to conduct litigation is the proper field for that kind of approval. The question is how far that goes, and that is a question which would obviously depend upon the circumstances. But I do not believe that it is right to seek to draw the Lord Chancellor into any area which is outwith that particular scope. Accordingly, I think that, so far as it is proper for the Lord Chancellor to have a place in this, that is provided for under that machinery.
In so far as it is not, it is best that he be left out of it. Therefore I think that Amendment No. 201A is inappropriate. In so far as it goes beyond the proper field for the Lord Chancellor, it is an inappropriate amendment. I hope that the noble Earl, in the light of that explanation, may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: Obviously, I hoped that the noble and learned Lord would go further than he has done. He has picked his way extremely adroitly through what is a not inconsiderable minefield of differing views here. But in the light of what he has said, there is obviously a procedural and structural deficiency to my amendment and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 201B not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 201C:
Page 37, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert —
("(2) Rules made by the council of the Law Society shall prohibit—

(a) solicitors entering into any unincorporated association with any persons other than

(i) solicitors, or

(ii) lawyers qualified other than in England and Wales; and

(b) persons who are not

(i) solicitors, or

(ii) lawyers qualified other than in England and Wales

becoming directors or shareholders of bodies recognised by the council of the Law Society under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (solicitors' incorporated practices)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is most definitely moved and I shall not weary the Committee with another speech. I have already spoken on about four occasions in favour of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Templeman: Perhaps I may ask for information on this amendment. The Committee has now agreed that under Clause 48(2) the Law Society may make rules which prohibit solicitors from entering into any unincorporated association with persons who are not solicitors. So when five multi-disciplinary chaps get together, assuming that the Law Society makes a rule as permitted by Clause 48(2), they are bound to say, "But we cannot do it as an unincorporated association. That is easy enough. We can buy a company off the shelf and we become directors and shareholders. Although in law it will be a separate entity, in fact we shall just be the same five jolly chaps all doing the five different disciplines which the Law Society has made rules against, and therefore we shall not be bound by those rules".
I appreciate the difficulty which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has with building societies and banks, because of legislation which unfortunately was passed last year; but ignoring those for the moment, I want to know this. If the Law Society makes a rule which prohibits or curtails the rights of solicitors to join in as directors and shareholders of the kind of multi-disciplinary company which I have envisaged, is that a law which the Law Society can make, or is it one that falls under the general prohibition in Clause 48 or some other general prohibition? I should just like to know what is the situation.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, already knows the answer, but if so he has the advantage of me. I do not know what the answer is. I see that they can make rules about unincorporated associations, and my practice leads me to believe that it is very easy to form an incorporated association which has exactly the same effect. That would be undesirable.
The Lord Chancellor: I have not got all the legislation in front of me but my understanding of the situation is that the general rule with which we are dealing here prevents unincorporated associations. If we take that away we must replace it by giving the Law Society a power to prohibit.
On incorporated matters, an incorporated body can carry on the business of a solicitor only provided that it conforms with the rules made by the Law Society. These are subject to the approval of the Master of the Rolls. I also have a part to play in these rules and rules have been made. I shall check this since my noble and learned friend has raised it, but my understanding of the position is that there is nothing to inhibit the Law Society from making whatever rules it wishes preventing people other than solicitors being directors of a company, an incorporated practice, carrying on the business of a solicitor.
622
The reason for the clause being restricted to the unincorporated association is that the general blanket rule which we seek to abrogate is so restricted. Therefore I believe that what my noble and learned friend seeks to cover is adequately covered.
Lord Mishcon: In view of the importance of this matter to my profession, I have no hesitation in saying that it is the duty of this Committee —and I put it most respectfully —not to behave recklessly in regard to what may or may not be the future activity of the Director of the Office of Fair Trading or future legislation. In protection of the traditions of my profession I not only move the amendment but in the circumstances I wish to divide the Committee.
10.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 201C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 38.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

[Teller.]

Byron, L.

Meston, L.

Carnock, L.

Mishcon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renton, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Grantchester, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hacking, L.

Templeman, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lytton, E.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Levan, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Torrington, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.20 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I believe Amendment No. 202 is not moved.
The Earl of Shannon: As I have already spoken on this matter at length, I shall not seek to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hacking: Before we agree that Clause 48 stand part of the Bill I wish to draw attention to a difficulty which faces equally barristers and solicitors who aspire to participate in multi-national practices. The same difficulty would face barristers and solicitors who aspire to multi-disciplinary practices. However, it seems that there are not aspirations from either side of the profession to participate in multi-disciplinary practices.
I refer to Section 716 of the Companies Act 1985. If there are Members of the Committee who wonder what that section covers, let me state that it limits to 20 persons partnerships except in certain specific circumstances. One of those circumstances is a practice which is carried on by solicitors if the other members of that practice are also fully qualified solicitors. There is not an exception for members of the Bar who under their present rules do not practise in partnerships. However, as I indicated, it affects members of the Bar if they also aspire —as I understand that they do —to participating in multi-national practices. The difficulty is that a foreign lawyer, say one from another member state, does not fit into the category of persons defined under Section 716.
I understand that a letter has been written to the noble and learned Lord on the subject. I believe that there are three ways to deal with the matter: to treat Section 716 as redundant and repeal it; to amend Section 716; or to use a statutory instrument under Section 716(3). I do not know how the noble and learned Lord intends to act on the matter, but I draw it to his attention. It is a difficulty, one which faces both barristers and solicitors regarding multi-national practices.
The Lord Chancellor: The matter is one on which I seek to achieve a good way forward. I have the matter in hand. The Companies Act is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I believe that we shall be able to find a way of dealing with the mater. Perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to leave it at that. I hope that the Committee will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 202ZA:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
(". —(1) Regulations made by the Law Society under section 2 of the Solicitors Act 1974, rules made by the Council of the Law Society under section 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974, and rules made by the Council of the Law Society under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 shall not have effect unless they have been approved under Part II of Schedule 4.
(2) The concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls under sections 2 and 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 shall no longer be required for the making of regulations and rules under those sections.
624
(3) Section 26 shall not apply to the rules of conduct of the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar.
(4) In this Act "rules of conduct" means rules (however they may be described) as to the conduct required of members of an authorised body in exercising any right of audience or (as the case may be) any right to conduct litigation granted by it").
The noble Lord said: As the Committee is aware at this stage of the Bill, our sixth day in Committee, a new regulatory regime is being set up under Part II and Schedules 1 to 4 to the Bill. The current regulatory regimes covering solicitors are set out in Sections 2 and 31 of the Solicitors Act. Section 2 states that the Law Society,
"with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, may make regulations in this Act referred to as 'training regulations' about education and training for persons seeking to be admitted or practise as solicitors".
Section 31 gives slightly wider powers to the Law Society's Council who,
"may, if they think fit with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, for regulating in respect of any matter the professional practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors".
There is a third regulatory regime, which is to be found in Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, recently referred us, covering incorporated practices.
The amendment proposes that the regulatory regime for my side of the profession should come under the terms of the Bill. In proposing the measure —the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls is present at the moment —I should make it plain that there is no dissatisfaction, despite one threatened application for judicial review, with the services with which he and his predecessors have kindly provided my side of the profession in reviewing and approving the Law Society rules. It is directed solely to bringing the regulatory regime under the one authority of the Bill.
The Government's White Paper, Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices, made it clear that competition law will be applied to professional rules, but that rules approved by Ministers will not be liable for subsequent challenge by the competition authorities. Thus, the Law Society's rules on training and conduct for higher court advocacy will, because they will require the approval of the Lord Chancellor under Section 4, be exempt from challenge, but other rules will not be. That will lead to considerable anomalies.
The Law Society believes that a single competition law regime for the legal profession would be appropriate and that, under that regime, the last word should rest with the Lord Chancellor who will naturally take into consideration advice on competition aspects before giving his approval to the rules. That is required under Schedule 4(9) with regard to seeking the views of the Director General of Fair Trading. The amendment will therefore provide that all the Law Society's training and conduct rules should go through the same procedure for approval; namely, via the Lord Chancellor and the four senior judges, after advice from the advisory committee and the Director General of Fair Trading.
The legal profession would not be the only sector to have a separate competition law regime. For

625
example, the Financial Services Act 1986 provides that the rules of the SIB shall be submitted to the Director General of Fair Trading for this advice, but that the rules shall be approved by the Secretary of State. Under the Companies Act 1989, the regime for the authorisation of auditors likewise requires the Secretary of State to approve the rules with the Director General of Fair Trading offering advice in advance as to the competition aspects. For all those reasons, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The new machinery provided in the Bill is intended to deal with the right to conduct litigation and rights of audience. It is appropriate that it should deal with those aspects of solicitors' practice, but there is no cause to alter the arrangements that have stood the test of time in the balance of the situation. That is the way in which the matter has been approached from the time of the White Paper onwards.
If the Lord Chancellor has a place along with the Lord Chief Justice and other Heads of Division in relation to rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation, that is the appropriate place for his consent to be given. I do not believe it right that we should extend that over other areas which are presently the jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls alone. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. If the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls is kind enough to continue his statutory duties, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Qualification for judicial and certain other appointments]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 39, line 12, at end insert —

("(ii) he is a solicitor or barrister of 10 years' standing; or").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202B and 204AA which deal with the same point of principle.
The matter can be dealt with very briefly. Noble Lords will remember that, under Clause 28, barristers are deemed to have been granted full rights of audience in all courts. That means that all barristers of ten years' standing will be eligible for appointment as a Lord Justice of Appeal or as a High Court judge. Solicitors other than circuit judges will not be eligible for such appointment until at least ten years have passed from the time that the first solicitors are granted rights of audience in the High Court by the Law Society under the regulations; namely, those approved by the Lord Chancellor and the four heads of divisions of the High Court.
It seems that if the exercise of a right of audience in the High Court, possibly on a regular basis, is to be the prerequisite of an appointment as a High Court judge, it will exclude from those available a very large number of talented solicitors, many of whom would be a credit to the High Court Bench.
The amendment is intended to make all solicitors and barristers with substantial legal experience eligible for appointment to the High Court Bench and, if I may say so, leave it to the good sense and judgment of those making the appointments to ensure that suitable appointments are made. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The general route that we have proposed is that a right of audience in a court held for a sufficient time confers the necessary qualification to be a judge of that court. So far as concerns solicitors and others who have been judges in a court below, service in the court below will also be a qualification. That could result in solicitors reaching the High Court Bench much more quickly than in the kind of period mentioned by the noble Lord, again obviously subject to a suitable candidate. None of these is more than a qualification. It does not at all mean that anyone with the qualification would necessarily be a suitable person.
The method of reaching the High Court via the circuit Bench is open from the time that this Bill becomes law and I think it natural that the right of audience position, because it involves a change, should require to be in existence for a reasonable time before that qualification applies. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Obviously I did not say it very clearly, but I said that those who were appointed to the circuit Bench did not come within the ten-year rule. I made that abundantly clear. But there are many talented solicitors who would not find it a natural course to go through the circuit Bench. If I may respectfully say so, the noble and learned Lord is depriving the High Court Bench of that talent.
Surely one could rely on the good sense of those making the appointments to say, "We are relieved at the fact that there does not have to be a period of ten years' standing since the advocate's certificate" —if I may use that expression —"was granted. Thank heavens that we have eligible solicitors. We want to appoint them. How sensible of Parliament not to have legislated so that we cannot possibly appoint those people". That is what I had in mind.
Will the noble and learned Lord be kind enough to consider that aspect of the matter? I believe that my side of the profession can contribute —I hope in good time very substantially —to the undoubtedly very high quality of the High Court Bench. If its members do not attain that quality, there will not be the appointments; but surely it is wrong to shut the door.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may intervene purely in the hope of being helpful. When I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it strikes me that the problem he raises is essentially a transitional one. There are now highly experienced solicitors, a few of whom do a lot of work in the county court, and who if they had been able to do so —if this legislation had been in effect —would have started off in the High Court many years ago. That is a rather different situation from that which will obtain in a few years' time when, should people in the capacity of fairly junior solicitors want to go in for High Court litigation, they will be building up the necessary qualification.
If the Government, for reasons on which I shall express no view at all, think that it is right to have a ten-year qualification in the future —that is to say, after four or five years —there might be a case for considering whether there should be a transitional qualification by which long standing in the solicitors' profession, perhaps of those engaged in county court litigation, might knock off a few years of the ten years shown here.
Lord Hacking: I do not think that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls meets the whole problem. There are extremely experienced solicitors who may have no wish to undertake the experience in litigation which would be required under the terms of Clause 50 of this Act but who nonetheless have high expertise as lawyers, high intelligence and high ability, and who would be wholly fit for High Court appointments. As the noble and learned Lord is aware, while in many ways it may be a better route on to the Bench for all persons to serve on the Circuit Bench before going on to the High Court Bench, it has not been possible by setting up such a regime to attract the great talent that the High Court Bench requires.
Exactly the same applies, for reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, concerning my side of the profession. I am disappointed with the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The effect will be to deprive the High Court Bench now and in the future of persons who may be highly eligible to be among the finest judges in the land.
Lord Ackner: With great respect, the basis of entitlement is being widened. As I have understood the Bill, the appointment will be based essentially on advocacy experience. If it is advocacy experience the solicitor may have been highly successful and highly busy for 10 years in a specialised commercial field but he is not entering that field of qualification. If it is intended in future that the mere qualification as a lawyer is sufficient to become a judge, then that is taking the matter even further.
I thought when the rights of audience were being extended that we were keeping to audience. But apparently the appetite is growing in the feeding.
Lord Mishcon: It is not a question of appetite but of supplying need. That is what I am addressing my mind to. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was a very fine advocate in his time as I had occasion
628
to witness on more than one occasion; and —thank heavens! —it was on my behalf that his great advocacy on the occasion that I remember was so successful. He will be the first to remember that in the history of the judges great advocates have been poor judges, and poor advocates have been great judges.
The Lord Chancellor: On transitional provisions, I certainly have in mind that we may need to consider exactly how that would be achieved. But I have endeavoured to set out the criteria on rights of audience. Not every person who has a right of audience is necessarily a great advocate. But many who have acquired rights of audience in the past have turned out to be extremely good judges. I believe it to be a reasonable criterion to apply along with the criterion of service in a lower court. At the moment, as the noble Lord knows, a circuit judge of great distinction is not eligible for appointment to the High Court Bench if by chance he came from the solicitor's branch of the profession. That we are seeking to remove. It is an avenue of importance. I believe it is right to go forward in this way.
On the transitional provision, I shall consider further whether we ought to make some special provision.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls for introducing the transitional point. and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for agreeing to consider the matter on that aspect. I hope that he may even widen his consideration and take in some of the comments that I ventured to make.
On the basis of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 202B not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 202C:
Page 39, line 31, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble and learned Lord said: In the interests of expedition I should like to speak to six amendments. They are Nos. 202C, 204CA, 204D, 204E, 204F and 204G. The first amendment relates to the clause and the others to the schedule. It will have the great virtue —probably none other —of subjecting the Committee to only one speech rather than to a series of disjointed speeches.
In my speech in the debate on Second Reading I invited Members' attention to the clause and to what I referred to as:
"the grotesque Schedule 7 running for some 20 pages in order to consider who will in future be our judges".
I ventured the proposition:
"Perhaps we are to have People's Courts! The hostages which this Bill gives to an ill-disposed minister of justice are incalculable". —[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 206.]
Perhaps I may first lighten the atmosphere quickly by recounting to the Committee the forensic fable of an eminent Queen's Counsel who did not reach the High Court Bench. He was addressing the Court of Appeal and, being eminent, he had carefully thought out his submissions. He put them before the

629
court and, as sometimes occurs, the presiding judge said, "Oh, but Mr. Brown, is not a much better way of putting it …", and he mentioned his method. Mr. Brown spoke the usual forensic cliché, "I am so grateful to your Lordship. Your Lordship puts it so much better than I do". In answer the presiding judge said, "Really, Mr. Brown, you should not say that". Then came the fatal answer, "No, my Lord, indeed I should not but then we always do".
I have recounted that fable because the tributes that I pay and have paid to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor are most sincere. I pay tribute to his courtesy, charm, great intellectual abilities and outstanding powers of advocacy. But I have long been of the view, so succinctly expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, that the Lord Chancellor has one paramount duty: the protection of the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the profession. The judges have no written constitution to which they can appeal. As my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has emphasised throughout the debate, the Lord Chancellor is the guardian of the interests, powers and independence of the judiciary and that in relation to this function the officer was designed for a Minister to whom the Prime Minister and every other Minister ought to defer.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for once again quoting from the lecture given last year by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham on the office of the Lord Chancellor. I referred to it a week ago. He explained that the least support for judicial independence is to be found from:
"individual members of the Cabinet, whose departmental interests from time to time basically conflict not only with the views of the judiciary where they are entitled to differ, but in the provision of the means necessary to enable the courts to discharge their functions". — [Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1237.]
If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, supported by the law offices, had been prepared to say to the Cabinet, using the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham last Monday at col. 54, "I believe that the end product of Part II of the Bill will be to undermine the integrity of the system of justice that we have developed over the years", that would have been an end of the matter. Then we should have had a glad confident morning again. However, that was not to be so; we are left with a glimmer of twilight.
I turn to Clause 50. In doing so, I ask Members of the Committee to be particularly concerned with what is the astonishing goal which the Government are setting out to achieve. Part II, which we debated at length, dealt with the rights of audience in Her Majesty's courts. By now it will be fully appreciated, if it was not before, that one of the major proposals of the Government is that laymen, provided that they meet certain requirements, shall have the right of audience —the right to appear in all courts from the lowest to the highest. We all know that the Government have produced no evidence that there is any shortage of lawyers properly qualified to serve the public in all courts in the land. Indeed proposals to extend the rights of audience of solicitors are clearly designed to provide a yet further supply of advocates.
Clause 50 carries those radical proposals one stage further. It proposes to enable laymen who have achieved the appropriate rights of audience —that is, the right to act as advocates in the appropriate courts—to become judges, again in all from the lowest to the highest courts. I venture to suggest once more that we shall hear no evidence that there is a shortage of properly qualified lawyers to act as judges. Indeed once again, in extending to solicitors appointments to the judiciary and the higher courts, a new supply of judges will be made available. Once more I anticipate that we shall receive no evidence that there is the slightest demand for lay judges beyond, of course, magistrates' courts.
My first amendment is to focus upon the fourth classification of the qualifications required. I emphasise again that I am focusing wholly upon laymen. If solicitors are to have the rights of audience in the higher courts, clearly they should be entitled to qualify for appointment to the judiciary in those courts, given that they have the appropriate experience and have achieved the appropriate competence.
Clause 53 provides that a person has a general qualification if he has a right of audience in relation to any class of proceedings in any part of the Supreme Court or all proceedings —and I stress the word "all" —in the county court or magistrates' courts. If one turns to Schedule 7 one will find a very high proportion of the appointments there identified as open to laymen who have that general qualification. The constant reference to that general category tends to hide the fact that in each case a right of audience is achieved by a layman in relation to proceedings in the magistrates' courts. That qualifies him for judicial appointment to the relevant office.
At page 8, Members of the Committee will find that a layman can hold the post of president of the Lands Tribunal —who, incidentally spends more of his time (or did, in my recollection) sitting in the High Court trying High Court actions —provided that for seven years he has had a magistrates' court qualification. The Committee will remember that that experience does not have to be continuous because Clause 50 (4) (b) provides that the period need not be continuous.
At paragraph 10 of the schedule, Members of the Committee will see reference to the very important offices of Judge Advocate of the Fleet and Judge Advocate General. That is now to be open to a layman who has a 10 year general qualification. That means that he has for 10 years, though not continuously, appeared in the magistrates' court.
I have suggested the deletion of this all-embracing general qualification to oblige the Government to come out in the open and record quite clearly that if that is the sort of qualification which is considered by them to be appropriate in relation to—again, I stress—laymen, then let it be clearly stated in the Bill so that all can read it.
It will no doubt be said, "Why this anxiety about laymen? Why should it be anticipated that they will to any real extent be appointed?" To those questions I answer quite simply, "Why make provision for them at all?" At the same time I invite the

631
Committee's attention to page 91 of the Bill, lines 35 to 40. The permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor, who is the permanent head of this immensely powerful department, need no longer be a barrister of not less than 10 years standing, as provided by the Supreme Court Act 1981, Section 88 and Schedule 2, Part I. He can be a layman who has been an advocate for the appropriate period solely in a magistrates' court. But far worse, under paragraph 1(2) he need never have been near a court in his life since a civil servant who has served at least five years in that department qualifies. I imagine that includes from the tea boy upwards.
The penchant towards civil servants without legal qualification acting as judges is again emphasised at page 92, item 9, headed:
"District judge of the principal registry of the Family Division".
A civil servant in that registry who has had a certain length of service now qualifies. At page 93 of the Bill, under item 12, the position of "District probate registrar" is to be open to civil servants without any qualification. Of course, once having arrived, promotion can take them ever upwards and onwards.
We have until now eschewed the continental system of a career judiciary. According to the White Paper, that is no longer to be the case. Paragraph 15.2 says:
"For these reasons the Green Paper proposes that all those who had held the appropriate advocacy qualifications for suitable lengths of time should be eligible for judicial appointments; and that the judges in a lower court should be eligible for promotion to a higher one on the basis of their judicial experience in the lower court".
I turn finally to circuit judges. These include county court judges and judges who try crime in the circuit courts. They are to be the recipients of a large injection of new civil work from the High Court. That gave rise to paragraph 183 in the Lord Chancellor's review body report, which states:
"The general weight of the judicial work to be done by Circuit judges on the civil side will move significantly up the scale. At the same time it will be necessary to attract to the Circuit bench candidates of the right standing, with sufficient experience to enable them to take this enhanced civil work. This consideration has led the Review Body to suggest that there should be a substantial upper tier of Circuit judges who would be remunerated at a higher rate".
Hot from the press comes the observations of the Top Salaries Review Body in its 13th report, published last week. At paragraph 59, on page 15, there is this reference to the Lord Chancellor:
"He regards the circuit bench as a mainstay of the judiciary to which it is vital to attract enough lawyers of the right calibre. Sitting in the crown and county courts and on occasions as judges of the High Court, circuit judges are responsible for hearing nearly all serious criminal cases and a considerable proportion of civil cases. They have a wide-ranging civil and criminal jurisdiction and a great deal of publicity can attach to some of their judgments".
There is no sign in this Bill. On the contrary, the circuit judges are to be downgraded. To carry out this added and more demanding work, an upper tier of circuit judges to take responsibility for heavier civil work should be appointed, but that has not yet been suggested. By turning to page 87 of the Bill, the Committee will see that the Government have gone precisely in the reverse direction. Laymen, with the
632
appropriate advocacy qualifications, will be permitted to be circuit judges. A whole new range of office-holders is set out in the schedule. They will be appointed or they will qualify to be the holders of the office of circuit judges.
Under the old provisions which are to be added to, as regards the Courts Act 1971 Part 1 Schedule 2 there were only seven additional office holders who should, by virtue of the legislation, become a circuit judge: the Official Referee; Recorder of Liverpool; Recorder of Manchester; additional judge of the Central Criminal Court; assistant judge of the Mayor's and City of London Court; county court judge and whole-time chairman or deputy chairman of courts of quarter sessions for Greater London, Cheshire, Durham, Kent and Lancashire.
If Members of the Committee now turn to page 87 they will see a wide addition to those who shall also be considered as circuit judges. Not quite half-way there is reference to,
"Member (excluding the President) of the Lands Tribunal appointed under section 2 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949".
However, as a member of the Lands Tribunal need not be a lawyer at all, but a surveyor—provided he is approved by the Royal Institute —in future there will be a non-lawyer in this important judicial capacity.
Last Tuesday I had the privilege of listening to the Scottish counterpart of this Bill. I heard the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey and read it in Hansard. It makes attempts on my part to make contributions to this debate look decidedly timorous. In the Scottish Bill, though there is a provision for laymen to appear as advocates, there is no provision for them to become judges. I wonder why. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will enlighten us when he replies. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: In moving Amendment No. 202C standing in his name, my noble and learned friend has spoken to six other amendments, as he said he would. Some of them are covered by amendments which are in my name and which follow fairly shortly. As he opened the subject so generally, it might be for the convenience of the Committee at this hour if I add my comments as regards the amendment I intend to move, namely, Amendment No. 204A. It deals with the appointment of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. I make exactly the same comments as my noble and learned friend made about the persons who will in future qualify for appointment. I say quite frankly to the Committee that this country would be a laughing stock if the highest court in this country, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, could have appointed to it someone who was not a barrister or a solicitor. It would be absolutely absurd.
It will be said that for the layman to get to that position he will have to go through the advisory committee; he will have to be expert as an advocate; he will have to have some knowledge of the law; and he will have to be bound by the rules of his profession. But let us consider for a moment that

633
here we sit at eleven o'clock at night, a vibrant revising Chamber, dealing with a great constitutional matter and deciding who in the future will be the highest judges in the land. Are we prepared to say, sitting here as a Committee, that they can be laymen? It is quite obvious that they must be persons who are either barristers, or, now, solicitors. I am content that solicitors should be added to the list. They must be persons who have spent their lives in the practice of the law. I say that in respect of Amendment No. 204A. My reasons for saying it are the same as those given by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. I vigorously support him in his amendments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Committee has heard a quite remarkable speech from my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. It is an absolute tragedy —indeed, a constitutional outrage —that it should have started at twenty minutes before eleven and finished at just before eleven o'clock in a Chamber that is virtually empty, with the television cameras shrouded and with the press gallery, I imagine, conveniently empty. An exceptional burden in the peculiar circumstances of this Bill has fallen on my noble and learned friend. He has no research assistant, but noble Lords have heard from him just now a most remarkable deployment of facts and evidence.
The Committee stage was fixed for three working days after Second Reading. That complied with the letter of the Companion to the Standing Orders but flouted its spirit. Of those three days, one was the day the House rose before Christmas, sitting at 11 a.m. The second day was the day the House reassembled after Christmas. Otherwise there was the recess for anyone working on amendments to the Bill. Looking at that, and bearing in mind the speech we have just heard, I think that noble Lords will all want to pay tribute to what my noble and learned friend has done both in his deployment of the principle that he has sought so strenuously to vouchsafe and in his deployment of the evidence in support of it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: We are on Schedule 7, which contains what has been referred to as a grotesque situation. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord about the qualifications for appointment as a puisne judge of the High Court in Clause 50(1)(b). He has to have a 10-year qualification. That presumably means in the Chancery, Queen's Bench or Family Division. It does not include the Criminal Division. The situation under the Bill therefore is that if one's practice has been in the criminal courts one cannot qualify for the High Court Bench unless one becomes a circuit judge. That would seem to bar a number of highly distinguished High Court judges at the moment.
Returning to the grotesque situation —the circuit judge qualifications on page 87 —one reads that one qualification is that those persons who have held office under Part IA, as set out on that page, for at least three years qualify to be a circuit judge. Can what one reads be possible? A special commissioner of income tax, an Admiralty registrar, a registrar in
634
bankruptcy, a district probate registrar, after three years will be experts, I suppose, in sentencing offenders, in the understanding of the rules of evidence, the law of contempt, the more esoteric provisions of the Theft Act, the burden of proof, and so forth. Is it really suggested that those persons will be qualified to be circuit judges and to sentence people to imprisonment?
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I find that the only word that is suitable is "grotesque". When one conies to paragraph 59 and the various persons who hold offices, there is the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, once again it is a 10-year general qualification. A person who has a 10-year general qualification will be qualified to be the Director of Public Prosecutions with all the powers which at five minutes past 11 I shall not detail. It is about the most responsible job on the criminal side and that of the liberty of the subject that there is. Again, the situation is almost grotesque.
One could continue through the list. One notices that the president of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal requires a general qualification of seven years, whereas opposite —I shall not bother to give the page —the assessor to the Farriers' Disciplinary Committee, which I am sure is a crucial appointment, must have a qualification of 10 years. Again, one wonders why the one is so much more important than the other. So it goes on. A justice's clerk needs a qualification of only five years' practice in the magistrates' court and need not be a lawyer. He is the man who advises every bench of magistrates, who try over 90 per cent. of crime in this country, and he does not have to be a qualified lawyer. Grotesque is the only word that one can apply.
The Lord Chancellor: The general qualification that applies at present to many judicial offices is of being, for example, a solicitor with a certain number of years' standing. There is no qualification in quite a number of these instances in respect of any particular experience, though for solicitors there is presently a requirement to serve as recorder for a certain time. But the basic qualification is the first matter.
So far as qualification is concerned, the general principle that we have adopted in preparing this schedule is that, first, a right of audience in the court in question will qualify so long as it is held for a particular time, and that, secondly, there is experience in a court below which would give a qualification for the court above.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, in a speech to which I am very happy to pay tribute along with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because he set the matter out very plainly and clearly, has repeatedly referred to a lay person qualifying. I am not absolutely certain that I know precisely what he means by "lay" in that situation. But a person who has a general qualification will be somebody who has satisfied the training qualifications which are approved by the senior judiciary and the Lord Chancellor as qualifications appropriate for pleading in the courts referred to in the general qualifications.

635
I have no reason to suppose that the qualifications will not be appropriate to that work. The precise nature of the qualifications is a matter for judgment in the light of developments. But that is surely the highest possible assurance that people who are qualified to have rights of audience there described are people who are properly qualified in terms of regulations, the standards of which have been set.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, mentioned first the question of the High Court qualification. It is right to point out that a High Court qualification exists if a person has a right of audience in relation to all proceedings in the High Court. A barrister under the arrangements in this Bill will have a right of audience in all parts of the Supreme Court because on satisfying the qualifications he will have that.
The point about a High Court qualification is that in future there might be a person who was qualified in the High Court only, a person who wished to confine himself to civil proceedings and not to handle work in the remainder of the Supreme Court.
The idea that the right of audience in the High Court would not of itself be an appropriate qualification is, in my judgment, grotesque. Surely those who will be entitled to practise in the High Court can be regarded as people judged properly qualified by the senior judiciary and the Lord Chancellor. The principle which applies to all the cases to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred, and which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is the general principle that I have described; namely, that qualification of judicial office in a court below will, generally speaking, qualify for the immediately higher court.
It does not follow by any means that a person who has these qualifications is suitable. All barristers are theoretically qualified for appointment to the High Court at present on a certain number of years' standing. It does not at all follow that everyone would be suitable. But these seem to be defensible qualifications in principle. I hope in the light of that explanation your Lordships will see that the principles on which these qualifications are constructed are sound principles which should be affirmed.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he would be kind enough to assist me on two matters. When I used the word "lay" I do not mean a lawyer. The two questions on whicn I should be grateful for his assistance are these. Is there any evidence to indicate that there is any demand in this country now, or anticipated in the immediate future, for non-lawyers to be judges? Secondly, perhaps he could answer the question which I specifically raised in my speech: why is this not also being provided for in Scotland if it is a good idea? We have just had a modified Scottish contingency fee imposed upon us.
The Lord Chancellor: I have sought to explain that we have put forward a system which depends on
636
rights of audience. That is the way in which the matter has developed. We have simply provided a framework under which those other than members of the Law Society and the Bar might qualify for rights of audience or the right to conduct litigation.
There is no evidence whatever that if a person is properly qualified to conduct litigation or to have a right of audience in the High Court, that person would not be reasonably qualified to be a judge in that court. He might not be suitable for other reasons. Therefore in my judgment it is right that when one is making provision for a possibility which may arise for people with qualifications to have rights of audience other than those people who are members of the Law Society and the Bar, their qualifications to act as judges should also be recognised.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: The noble and learned Lord has not replied to the point about Scottish law. Why is the Scottish system to be different? That question was specifically asked by my noble and learned friend and we should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could enlighten us as to why we are selected in this particular way in England and Wales when Scotland is still allowed to have lawyers as judges.
The Lord Chancellor: The circumstances differ in some respects. The most important difference is that the arrangements here for the enlargement of rights of audience are a good deal more elaborate than the arrangements which are provided in Scotland, although the safeguards are very much the same. The principles which we have adopted are the same as those which underlie the Scottish legislation.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps I may put the question again. The qualification for a High Court judge, a puisne judge, is a 10-year High Court qualification within the meaning of Section 50 of the Courts and Legal Services Act. "High Court qualification" means having a right of audience in relation to all proceedings in the High Court. That is in the Chancery Division, the Queen's Bench or the Family Division. Suppose that one's practice was not in the High Court but in the Criminal Division. That would mean that in the future such an advocate could not become a High Court judge. Was I correct in my reading of these provisions?
The Lord Chancellor: A Supreme Court qualification means that a person has a right of audience in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court; that would be a sufficient qualification. If a person were a barrister under the present arrangement, he would have the right of audience in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court and be eligible. The noble Lord was suggesting that many people who are presently High Court judges would not be qualified. However, that is not correct on the basis that I have just explained to him. The idea is that if a person had purely a High Court qualification in the future he would not be eligible by reason of that alone to sit as a Supreme Court judge in the Crown Court.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: With the greatest possible respect, I should draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 50(1)(b), which states:
"(qualification for appointment as puisne judge of the High Court) for the words 'unless he is a barrister of at least ten years' standing' there shall be substituted —
'unless —

(i) he has a 10-year High Court qualification' ".

That is not, with the greatest respect, a Supreme Court qualification but a High Court qualification. That is the point that I am making. The words used mention a,
"10 year High Court qualification".
A High Court qualification involves,
"a right of audience in relation to all proceedings in the High Court".
That does not include anything other than the Chancery Division, the Queen's Bench Division and the Family Division. What is the position of an advocate whose practice is in the Criminal Division? Does that mean that he cannot become a High Court judge? That is the question I am asking.
The Lord Chancellor: The answer on this point depends whether he has,
"a right of audience in relation to all proceedings in the High Court".
Under the arrangements which presently subsist and which are likely to subsist for some time to come, the person who has a criminal practice in the Supreme Court will also have,
"a right of audience in relation to all proceedings in the High Court".
However, the question concerns whether it is right that a person who is to be a Lord Justice of Appeal should be so unless he has a,
"10 year High Court qualification",
within the meaning of this clause. I suggest to the Committee that a person who will have a jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal should be qualified in all proceedings in the High Court.
Lord Renton: But that would mean (would it not?) that somebody who had never appeared before the Court of Appeal could be made a Lord Justice.
The Lord Chancellor: That is technically the position at the present moment.
Lord Ackner: At this late hour the Committee would not look upon it as respectful for me to divide it. I am therefore left with no alternative but to withdraw my amendment. However, I reserve all proper rights to return to my amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203 and 204 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Judicial and Other Appointments]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): If Amendment No. 204A is agreed to
638
I cannot call Amendment No. 204AA. I now call Amendment No. 204A.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell moved Amendment No. 204A:
Page 80, leave out lines 12 to 21.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already touched on this amendment. We come now to the qualifications for a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary must have been for not less than 15 years a practising (that word is important),
"barrister in England or Ireland, or a practising advocate in Scotland".
As the Committee has accepted that the solicitors' branch should be eligible for judicial appointments—I fully support that —that would mean that the same principle should have been left as it was. As we all know, that should be a proper qualification for the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. It should be a proper qualification for the judges, some of whom have participated in our debate.
I can only repeat that it will make us a laughing-stock if we do not confine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to persons who are qualified lawyers, by training and practice, barristers or solicitors. I beg the noble and learned Lord at least to have regard to the reputation of this country. There should not be the possibility that the highest judges of the land could be persons who are not either barristers or solicitors. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The persons who are qualified under the schedule to be Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are those who have a right of audience in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court. I submit that, having regard to the safeguards which are required in that respect, a person with Supreme Court qualifications is indeed appropriate to be regarded as being eligible for appointment to the highest tribunal in the land as someone who has been regarded, in terms of the qualifications which have been approved by the senior judiciary and the Lord Chancellor, as having a right of audience in the Supreme Court.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: It is because we have built up this elaborate, and to some of us absurd, procedure that we find ourselves in this position. My noble and learned friend cannot deny that under the provisions that he proposes, it will be said that the highest judges of this land could be people who are neither barristers nor solicitors, or lawyers at all. I say that that makes this country a laughing-stock.
The Lord Chancellor: With great respect, I do not accept that they would not have sufficient qualification in law to be properly regarded as advocates in all branches of the Supreme Court. Whether one calls them a barrister or a solicitor is not the issue. The question is whether they have the qualifications that are required under the regulations approved by the senior judiciary and the Lord Chancellor to appear in the Supreme Court in all its aspects.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: People will ask, "What are the qualifications for your Supreme Court? What are the qualifications of your Lords of Appeal in Ordinary?" One will say, "They are people who have some qualification. They may be surveyors who have been trained in this particular way. They are very good people and they have had some practice in the High Court". "Do you mean to say", we shall be asked, "that they are not persons who have been admitted by the Law Society or called to the Bar and recognised as lawyers?" We shall have to say that that is not the case because of the procedure that has been built up in the Bill. It is not good enough. We should say that our highest judges must have professional qualifications.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I believe that the matter should be pursued further. Hereafter is the situation to be that there will be lawyers who qualify as barristers, lawyers who qualify as solicitors and a category which covers people who are not lawyers but have some other qualification which entitles them to practise in a court of law? Therefore, when one says "Who is so and so, who is Lord X or Lord Y?" one will be told, "He is a Law Lord". If one asks whether he was a barrister or solicitor the answer will be, no, he was someone who qualified to be an advocate in various courts. Is that really to be the situation in the future regarding the qualifications for the greatest judicial office in the land? I find it almost unbelievable.
11.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The short answer is that when one mentions a barrister to some people abroad, they do not know exactly what he is. I have no doubt that many do, but not everyone does. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what Lord X was, to which the reply might be that he was a distinguished and qualified Supreme Court advocate for 20 years. I should have thought that that was a perfectly reasonable answer which would satisfy the intelligent and inquiring observer.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I find it particularly sad that in discussing the Bill we have reached the stage at which it is suggested by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that a normal person would have no idea what a barrister is.
The Lord Chancellor: I did not say that. I am sorry that the noble Lord has to turn what I said to something else. I said that some people abroad do not know what a barrister is. I have met some people who did not know what an advocate was; that was my professional qualification. I certainly did not indicate that the ordinary person did not know what a barrister was. I should have thought that a Supreme Court advocate was a perfectly reasonable and intelligible description.
Lord Ackner: In the debate on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill on 30th January, my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey was able to give some assistance. He said:
640
"Any professional or other body can apply for rights of audience in any court for its members".
He was dealing merely with advocates because the provision does not apply to judges. He went on to say:
"That applies to the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Scottish Citizens' Advice Bureau, the Orange Lodge, the Showman's Guild and the Licensed Victuallers Association, all of which are from time to time concerned in litigation in our higher courts."—[Official Report, 30/1/90; col. 189.]
There is no doubt that, with a little research, we can provide further and even better particulars, but that is some idea of what looms large in the future. Hence my phrase of a glimmer at twilight.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: It is half past eleven. All I can say is that I wonder whether it is worth noble Lords continuing the debate on the Bill. I should have divided the Committee if it had been reasonable so that we could have obtained a decision. I found it not only grotesque, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, but shaming that we have got ourselves into this position when our aim is quite simple. We want to provide access to more people who are qualified to provide the services. We should set that aim out straight. Judges should be drawn from barristers and solicitors. We have been playing with words. He does not need sympathy from me, but I feel sorry for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that we have got into this position. It is with a desperate feeling of shame that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 204AA to 204G not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Presiding Judges]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 204H:
Page 40, line 7, leave out ("two") and insert ("one or more").
The noble and learned Lord said: I do not propose to move the amendment, although I intend to come back to it on Report. As it stands, the clause imposes a requirement to appoint two presiding judges to each circuit. What is needed is flexibility to appoint more if necessary. On reflection I prefer to express the power in that way. I shall not therefore move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 204H not moved.]
[Amendments No. 205 and 206 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 206ZA:
Page 40, line 20, after ("Chancellor") insert ("with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is such a small amendment that I can only assume that through some oversight the words that I suggest —namely,
"with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice" —
at line 20 have just been left out. The clause deals with presiding judges. Presiding judges were an invention of the Beeching Commission. They have hitherto been appointed by the Chief Justice because

641
he is responsible for the judicial administration as distinct from the courts administration. Accordingly one finds in Clause 51(3):
"Any appointment [of a presiding judge] … shall be made by the Lord Chief Justice with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor".
The areas or circuits are then set out, and after identifying the six circuits subsection (3) continues:
"or such other areas of England and Wales as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time direct".
I ask myself the question: why not again with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice? In the absence of an answer, I can only assume that that phrase has dropped out through a typing error. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The situation is that obviously if there were to be any change in the circuits the Lord Chief Justice would be consulted and so of course would the other heads of division, because they too would have an interest in this matter since the circuits also deal —and I hope will deal even more—with specialist work not only in the south-eastern circuit in the Royal Courts of Justice. The situation is that, if there were to be any changes in the circuits, a great deal of consultation would require to be held with others: the local law societies, the Bar, the circuit leaders, and so on.
However, this is a matter which I am perfectly prepared to consider further in the light of the fact that I shall reconsider the precise way in which this provision is framed. I had understood the matter to be right, as it was originally put forward, until it was found that it was desired to have perhaps a third presiding judge in one of the circuits. That is the reason for the change, but I am happy to consider this suggestion.
Lord Ackner: In view of the noble and learned Lord's helpful observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [District judges]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved amendment No. 206A:
Page 40, line 41, at end insert ("and in subsections (3) to (6) of this section, the expression "district judge" shall include district judges of the Principal Registry of the Family Division").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 210, and I shall do so as swiftly as I can. Clause 52 merges the offices of county court registrar and district registrar of the High Court into the new office of district judge (or DJ, to which no doubt they look forward to being abbreviated). The clause also makes the registrars of the principal registry of the Family Division into district judges of the principal registry.
As the Committee may well appreciate, the principal registry has both a High Court and a county court jurisdiction. For some reason the powers which are extended by Clause 52 to district judges outside the principal registry are not conferred by this clause
642
on district judges within the principal registry. The Committee will be aware that the principal registry deals with cases involving children and family finance which can become highly charged with emotion and can need a measure of firm control. I therefore venture to suggest that district judges of the principal registry should have the same powers as their colleagues elsewhere. I also suggest that it is proper to indicate the status of the district judges in the principal registry by extending to them the judicial oath. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the intention that I have are the same. Clause 52(2) states:
"The office of registrar of the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court shall become the office of district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division".
That is a particular district judge; and he is intended to be included. But in view of the fact that the noble Lord has suggested that clarification is required, I shall certainly consider whether we can achieve it.
Lord Meston: I am very grateful for that indication. It seems to be designated as a distinct office under the Bill in Clause 52 and in the schedule. On the basis that it will be considered, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 52 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend a question about subsection (2) which deals with the principal registry of the Family Division. As I understand it, first, the Bill effects a change of nomenclature from registrar to district judge. Secondly, it gives the right to commit for contempt. I cannot see —I shall be corrected —that anything else is given.
I wish to draw attention to what seems an anomaly. As I read it, the masters of the Queen's Bench Division are not district judges and do not have power to commit for contempt. Why is that distinction made? I do not think the masters of the Chancery Division are made district judges, nor are they given any power to commit for contempt. I do not know what the position is about the registrars of the Chancery Division, if I still have the nomenclature right.
Has there been any request by the registrars of the Family Division that they shall be given power to commit for contempt? If the masters of the Queen's Bench Division do not need such power, why should the registrars of the Family Division need it? I practised before them for a number of years and was responsible for them for a number of years. I never came across any instance where there was any cause for them to have the right to commit for contempt such as seems to be given to them in this clause.
I desire to say this because it relates to something that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said recently. Of the registrars of the Family Division in my time —then the principal probate registry —half were lawyers, mainly barristers. There was one

643
distinguished litigating solicitor appointed. The other half were probate clerks from the registry. When I was president, I was asked to hand over the patronage of appointment because even then the Lord Chancellor's Department had started trying to collect patronage although on nothing like the scale vouchsafed by this Bill. I was willing to do so, but I received an undertaking from Lord Gardiner, the Lord Chancellor of the time, that he would continue to have half the registrars appointed from the Bar or solicitors, and the other half continuing to be appointed from the registry clerks. I believe that that is a proper avenue of promotion to be retained. He gave that undertaking, but is it still observed? I imagine that it is.
If so, it means that probate clerks, expert in the administration of probate work, can become district judges with all the other avenues thereafter open. My noble and learned friend referred to them, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I should be grateful if the Lord Chancellor could clear my mind on this point.
11.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The history of the matter is that the Civil Justice Review suggested that the title "registrar" was open to misconstruction and that people were treating the registrars, who are holders of judicial office, as though they were the same as the people who dealt with births, marriages and deaths. That shows that sometimes even the present nomenclature is not beyond some ambiguity. The Civil Justice Review recommended that the title "registrar" should be changed to a title incorporating the word "judge".
I canvassed as many different variations as I could think of. The ultimate title which appeared to be best, and which most commended itself to the registrars, was that of "district judge". The question is whether one should differentiate between the various registrars. After consideration, the answer appeared to be that one should not. The registrars in the district registries, the county court and the principal registry of the Family Division should have that office. I believe it to be right that if they have the office of a district judge they should have this power.
The masters were consulted and their attitude to the question varied. It may be the case that we shall wish to include them. The title "master" has been regarded as distinctive and there is no risk of confusion between it and other possible types of master, as there appeared to be in the case of the registrars. That is the reason for the present situation.
At present four out of the 13 Family Division registrars are not members of the Bar; the remaining nine are members of the Bar. Therefore, the undertaking given by my noble and learned predecessor to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale is at present fully implemented. The principle behind my earlier comments also applies in this case; that is, if well performed the service in this office, which is in the nature of performing judicial functions, might well indicate
644
the quality which would entitle the person to be considered for promotion.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Registrar of Criminal Appeals]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 206B:
Page 42, line 10, leave out ("with the approval of the Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment raises the same question as was discussed very late at night when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, moved a similar amendment on my behalf. It concerns very much the question of how far the Government are at all serious about trying to clear legislation of unnecessary phrases. However, it is now well over one and three-quarter hours beyond the latest time at which your Lordships normally sit. Therefore, I believe that it is better to raise again this matter on Report and I do not move this amendment or the following one.
[Amendment No. 206B not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Transfer of accrued rights to and from judicial pension schemes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 57 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: I gave notice that I wanted to make a small intervention, stimulated by nostalgic recollections of two old friends. Their position was that they had been county court judges. There were no circuit judges in those days. They were appointed to the county court Bench aged about 52 and were promoted to the High Court Bench after about 12 years which brings them to about the age of 64 or 65.
Their pension position then was, as it is now, lamentable. They could not continue, having reached 54, to be a High Court judge for 15 years because that would take them beyond the age of 75 and thus qualify for a High Court pension of half salary. All they could do was to serve 11 years as a High Court judge and receive eleven fifteenths, or receive a full county court judge pension because they would have served their full period.
That caused me to make inquiries as to why that was. There is rather a venomous Statutory Instrument No. 376 entitled the Superannuation Judicial Offices Aggregation Services Rule 1987 and I am happy to discover, again hot from the press, that that point was picked up in the 13th report of the Top Salaries Review Body published last week at paragraph 73 which states:
"Consideration might also be given to the position of those who are offered promotion within the judiciary from the circuit judge to the High Court judge. In their case they are restricted to taking a pension based either on years of service and final salary in the higher office or on the aggregated years of service at both

645
levels and the salary on retirement for the lower office. We feel strongly that as for High Court judges who are promoted to the Court of Appeal",
and I may add, Court of Appeal judges who are appointed to the House of Lords,
"all years of service in the judiciary should count for a pension based upon final salary in payment to the individual at the time of retirement".
That seems a matter which should be looked into, and I raise that now so that thought may be given to it before Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising this matter. I regret that it is most unlikely that I will be able to deal with it before Report stage in any comprehensive way. I propose to say something about the matter in answer to the amendments that my noble friend Lord Coleraine has tabled. They raise the same sort of issue. If my noble and learned friend can wait until then I shall avoid repeating myself.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Voluntary contributions]:
[Amendment No. 206C not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Period of service to qualify for certain superannuation benefits]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 206D:
Page 45, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert —
(" (2) For subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 7 of the Act of 1981 (rate of pension payable to a stipendiary magistrate) there shall be substituted —
"(1) A stipendiary magistrate in England or Wales may on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor be granted a pension —

(a) if he retires after 15 years service and at the time of his retirement he has attained the age of 65 years, or

(b) if at the time of his retirement he has attained the age of 70 years, or

(c) the Lord Chancellor is satisfied by means of a medical certificate that by reason of infirmity of mind or body he is incapable of discharging the duties of his office, and that the incapacity is likely to be permanent.

(2) The annual rate of pension payable under this section to a person retiring after not less than 15 years service shall not exceed one half of his last annual salary.
(3) The annual rate of pension payable under this section to a person retiring after less than 15 years service shall not exceed—

(a) if the period of service does not amount to 5 years, 6/40ths of his last annual salary,

(b) if the period of service amounts to 5 or more, one quarter of that salary plus 1/40th for each completed year of service exceeding 5." ")

The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendment No. 206E. The amendments would change the structure of pension provisions applicable to the lower judiciary in order to bring it more into line with the structure applicable to the higher judiciary and the circuit judges. In particular I see the need to shorten the present length of service required before a full pension is payable. This is on the broad principle that there may be good reason why the
646
lower judiciary should receive smaller pensions than their seniors but there seems to be no reason in fairness or fair dealing why they should be required to serve longer for their smaller pensions.
There are, as it will be my principal purpose to show, some compelling reasons not unconnected with the administration of justice why these amendments should be accepted. The amendments are intended to ensure that the right calibre of persons with appropriate professional experience continue to be recruited to the lower judiciary and that there should be no financial reason compelling that person to remain in post when he, his colleagues and those who appear before him, may all be agreed that he should be out at pasture.
The body of persons to whom I refer as the "lower judiciary" is to be found in three courts and can thus be divided into three categories. In the High Court there are the masters. In the county court there are the registrars and assistant registrars, soon to be retitled "district judges" and so referred to in my second amendment. Thirdly, there are the stipendiary magistrates in the magistrates' court, who are the subject of my first amendment.
Common to all these members of the lower judiciary —I do not know how many they number but there must be 300 of them —is the fact that they have traditionally been recruited from the ranks of the practising legal profession at around the age of 50 years. That applies also to circuit and High Court Benches. Another factor they have in common with circuit and High Court Benches is that their full pension entitlement is half their final salary and that in the normal way they must have served 15 years, with the exception of stipendiary magistrates, and reached at least the age of 65 before achieving any pension at all. There is no reduced pension payable on voluntary retirement at an age of under 65.
For retirement with less than 15 years' service—at 72 or earlier on the grounds of ill health —circuit judges are entitled to a reduced pension. Masters and district judges are also entitled to a reduced pension, but only if they have served five years. On the other hand, stipendiary magistrates with at least five years' service may now take early retirement at 65 instead of 72.
My amendments are intended to remove the requirement that at least five years should be served by the lower judiciary before there is entitlement to a reduced pension in order to put them on the same footing as the circuit judges in this respect and also to increase, with the same intention, the fractions of full pensions which will have been earned for each year of service.
The amendments have the effect of removing from stipendiary magistrates the slight anomalous advantage that they can take voluntary retirement on a reduced pension after five years' service. The whole arrangement is made consistent with the circuit Bench. This is a matter to which we can return if my noble and learned friend accepts the amendment or if the Committee sees fit to do so.
The main thrust of my arguments concerning these amendments is intended to be directed at the provisions related to the length of service necessary

647
to qualify for full pension. The position of the lower judiciary is undesirably anomalous in that a full pension is payable only after 20 years' service in their case, but it is earned after 15 years' service in the case of High Court and circuit court judges.
That has the effect that, on appointment at the age of 50, a High Court or a circuit court judge may look to retire at the age of 65 on full pension, but a member of the lower judiciary will have to wait until he is 70 before being able to retire on full pension. This period of 20 years was reduced from 25 years as long ago as 1960 in the case of the High Court masters. Even then Sir Frank Soskice, in another place, pointed out how unsatisfactory it was that there should be a 20-year rule when a 15-year rule applied to county court judges. He called for the 15-year rule to apply to High Court masters. The Attorney-General said that he would look at the point, but the matter proceeded no further.
Much more recently the Top Salaries Review Body in its reports in 1982 and 1985 drew attention to this situation. It recognised that it was unsatisfactory. It recommended that the situation be dealt with by legislation and not by adjusting pay differentials. It urged, as I do, that pension arrangements be rationalised.
I feel sure that it is only because the lower judiciary are long-standing offices that we still have the 20-year rule. I feel sure that if they were a new creation the 15-year rule would apply to them. That is borne out by the fact that the more recently conceived chairmen of industrial tribunals are covered by the 15-year rule. I see harm being done to the administration of justice by the continuance of this rule. The supply of good, practising barristers and solicitors in middle life who are prepared to take on the relatively unglamorous but vital work of the lower judiciary is, I am told, drying up both in the face of comparably greater earnings outside in the professions and in the face of this altogether unreasonable retention of the 20-year rule.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I wish to read from the report of the Top Salaries Review Body which was published last week. The report states:
"In past reports we have also referred to the discrepancies in pension arrangements for different judicial posts within the same country. For example, Stipendiary Magistrates in England are required to serve for 20 years for a full pension. It has been put to us strongly that this is a particular disincentive to recruitment to these posts and not in the public interest. Our judicial sub-committee has taken the view in the past that the proper way to deal with pensions anomalies which were seen as clearly inequitable was by amending the legislation concerned, not by adjusting salary relativities. We have urged in the past, as in our reports in 1982 and 1985, that the present pension anomalies should be removed as soon as possible, but no such changes have been made".
That is what I am asking for this evening. I beg to move.
12 midnight.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I would like to bring the support of these Benches to both these amendments. I focus on Amendment No. 206E which is designed, among other things, as the noble Lord said, to remove an inequality which the High Court masters
648
suffer in their pension rights. They have to toil on for 20 years before they qualify for a full pension, but not so circuit judges or chairmen of tribunals. They have to complete only 15 years. So the noble Lord asks why should not the masters qualify for full pension after 15 years? It is too hard to require them to work on after 15 years, regardless of health, for a further five years in order to qualify for full pension.
I should have thought that High Court masters bring to their office skills and experience probably as great as are required of circuit judges or tribunal chairmen. They require knowledge of the civil law over the widest field to handle the huge variety of work that comes before them. Their job is arduous and their jurisdiction is important. They can, for example, give summary judgment —that is, without a trial —in claims involving large sums of money. That is to mention one of their other many important functions.
I cannot think of any ground on which they could be regarded as judges whose judicial role is inferior to that of circuit judges or chairmen of tribunals in the sense of the nature and the difficulty of the work they do, the skills and experience they provide or the market value they have considered as legal practitioners at the time of recruitment. I dare say that we may be told, in accordance with the law of unright time or occasion, that this Bill is not the appropriate place or this is not the appropriate time to do something to remedy the anomaly to which the amendments call attention. But I wonder whether in replying to the amendments the noble and learned Lord can say that he agrees in principle that the inferior pension rights of masters and others is an anomaly and that he is in favour of taking steps on some other and suitable (and it is to be hoped not too far distant) legislative occasion, if this occasion is inappropriate, to remedy the inequity and the anomaly.
Lord Benson: I am anxious to support the amendment. However, I do not want to go through all the reasons as that would take a little time. I understood from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said a few moments ago in relation to another amendment that he would look into this matter. If that is the case it would save time if he could help us on that point.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have sought to bring forward in Clauses 57, 58 and 59 and Schedule 9 the necessary amendments to the judicial pensions schemes, which are generally speaking in primary legislation, to bring them into line with the requirements of the Social Security Acts of 1985 and 1986. The judicial pensions schemes are extremely complicated, as anyone who has tried to understand them knows. They carry a good number of difficulties for those who have to try to make out their rights under them.
The situation calls for radical examination of pension arrangements. This is particularly clear in the light of the latest Top Salaries Review Body report in relation to pension law and practice generally. This is not by any means a matter that

649
one can deal with briefly. I have already had some preliminary contact with the difficulties involved. But I can inform the Committee that along with my officials I hope to undertake such an exercise within the next few months in the hope that we shall be able to come forward with a revised scheme as soon as legislative time permits. It is hard for me to say how soon that may be, but we certainly intend to go into the detailed planning of the structure as soon as possible—within the next few months is what I have in mind. It is bound to take some time to do that, but I assure the Committee that there will be no unnecessary delay although some delay is inevitable because of the nature of the work that has to be done. I hope that that is the type of indication for which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was asking and I give it in answer to the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Coleraine, supported as they have been.
Lord Renton: I am sure that we are all most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. There is only one point that should be added to what has already been said and which he may wish to bear in mind when giving further thought to the matter. It is that broadly speaking people are not appointed as stipendiary magistrates or masters of the High Court until they have reached the age of 50 or more. That is the usual practice.
Viscount Dilhorne: Perhaps I may assist the Committee. I believe that the last two members to be appointed as masters were aged 54 and 55. It was nearly 29½ years ago on 11th November 1960, when my father, as Her Majesty's Attorney-General, moved the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice (Judges and Pensions) Bill. As my noble and learned friend said, during the course of the Bill the eminent lawyer Sir Frank Soskice vigorously, but in vain, tried to convince my father that stipendiary magistrates, High Court masters and the lesser judiciary should qualify at 15 years. He was partly successful because I understand that my father gave way from 25 to 20 years. That was 29½ years ago. I hope that within the next three months my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to see whether all the judges, lesser and higher, can be on the same pension basis. If he cannot, I shall look forward to hearing why there should be what seems to me, in a rather simple way, to be a distinction of some unfairness.
Lord Coleraine: I have listened to what my noble and learned friend has said. I wonder whether he feels that at the end of his review he will be in a position to introduce the primary legislation that the provision would require, and when it might happen, because these occasions do not happen all that often. This seems to be one of the times when such a rationalisation could take place.
The Lord Chancellor: As I have said, the first thing to do is to think out what the scheme should be, which is an onerous task, as I am sure my noble friend appreciates. Anything to do with pension schemes is complicated, and this one is particularly
650
so because there is a wide variety of anomalies, some of which have been touched upon.
I do not envisage a timescale of 29½ years, but the timescale for the review will at the very least be a matter of some months, as I have said. I hope to be able to bring forward legislation when legislative time permits thereafter. I hope that it will not be too long deferred. My noble friend will appreciate, as I am sure the Committee does, that it is not appropriate for me to try to forecast when it might come forward. The Committee can take it that I shall do my best to bring it forward as quickly as I can.
Lord Coleraine: Some months is quick, but it is what comes after that will be of interest to us all ultimately. It is clear that my noble and learned friend is fully appraised of the injustice and of the unsatisfactory effect that the provision of judicial pensions has on recruitment, to mention just one point. In the circumstances, at this time of night the best thing that I can do is ask the Committee for leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 206E not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Schedules 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Commencement; expiry and replacement of practising certificates]:
[Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 67 agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Byron Lord Byron moved Amendment No. 207ZA:
Before Clause 68, insert the following new clause:
("Power of parties in certain cases to supply vacancy.
. —(1) For section 7 of the Arbitration Act 1950 (power of parties in certain cases to supply vacancy) there shall be substituted—
"Power of parties in certain cases to supply vacancy.
7. Where an arbitration agreement provides that the reference shall be to two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party, or that the reference shall be to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and the third to be appointed by the two appointed by the parties or in some other manner specified in the agreement then, unless a contrary intention is expressed therein —

(a) if either of the appointed arbitrators refuses to act, or in incapable of acting, or dies, the party who appointed him may appoint a new arbitrator in his place;

(b) if, on such a reference, one party fails to appoint an arbitrator, either originally, or by way of substitution as aforesaid, for seven clear days after the other party having appointed his arbitrator, has served the party making default with notice to make the appointment, the party who has appointed an arbitrator may appoint that arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator in the reference and his award shall be binding on both parties as if he had been appointed by consent:

Provided that the High Court or a judge thereof may set aside any appointment made in pursuance of this section.
(2) Section 58 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 shall cease to have effect." ").
The noble Lord said: We now come to that part of the Bill which deals with the law of arbitration. I hesitate to introduce a rather technical amendment at 15 minutes past midnight, and I shall do so as quickly as I can.
The purpose of the amendment which stands in my name is to substitute for the existing Section 7 of the Arbitration Act 1950 a new Section 7, which will apply not only where the reference is to two arbitrators but also where the reference is to three arbitrators. Section 7 deals with the situation when one party fails to appoint an arbitrator and it allows the other party, in certain circumstances, to appoint his own arbitrator as sole arbitrator. It is a valuable procedure which entails the minimum of delay and expense in obtaining a properly constituted tribunal in the circumstances where one party, after due notice, fails to appoint his own arbitrator. I have written to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this point and I can avoid therefore going into too much detail now, or into the history of how the law comes to be in the state it is in now.
To put it very simply, there are two separate procedures laid down in the 1950 Act. If the arbitration reference is to two arbitrators and an umpire then, if the opposing party fails or refuses to appoint his arbitrator, you use the Section 7 procedure to appoint your arbitrator as sole arbitrator. However, if the arbitration reference is to three arbitrators, then the Section 7 procedure is not available and you have to use what is now Section 10(3) of the Arbitration Act 1950, as inserted by Section 58 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985.
The purpose of my amendment is to make the Section 7 procedure available in both cases. There is no logical reason why different procedures should apply, depending on whether the arbitration reference refers to two arbitrators or to three arbitrators. Both forms are in widespread use. I believe that the Section 7 procedure has proved to be speedy and efficient over many years and there is no good reason for laying down a different procedure which makes necessary an application to the court.
Moreover, there does not seem to be any good reason why, if one party refuses to appoint an arbitrator, the other party should be encumbered with a tribunal of three arbitrators which he will be responsible for paying for. If a party is refusing to appoint an arbitrator, the likelihood is that he will also seek to avoid enforcement of any award, leaving the original party to pick up the bill for all three arbitrators.
I am aware that the procedure under Section 7 is against the international trend with regard to appointing an arbitrator in default and it is not, for instance, the procedure which was adopted by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitrations. However, the departmental advisory committee expressly rejected the implementation of the Model Law, and in considering Article 11 of the Model Law which deals with appointment of arbitrators, the committee, under the chairmanship of the right honourable Lord Justice Mustill, commented at page 24 of the report:
652
"This article is inconsistent with the present law, under which default in the appointment of a second arbitrator may result in the first being appointed sole arbitrator: this is a valuable provision in cases where the respondent has no real wish to see progress made with the arbitration."
It would appear therefore that the departmental advisory committee sees considerable value in the existing provisions of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, and I would pray this in aid in support of my amendment to extend Section 7 to deal with the position where the reference is to three arbitrators.
Finally, perhaps I may make a point which I did not raise in my letter to the noble and learned Lord. If it is thought for some reason that the provisions of Section 10(3) should remain —that is the procedure whereby an application to court is required —consideration could still be given to amending Section 7 in the way that I have suggested.
There is a precedent for a dual right. The power of the court under Section 7 applies not only to the failure by one party to appoint any arbitrator at all, but also to a failure to replace an arbitrator who has refused to act, is incapable of acting, or dies. This means that where there is an argument for two arbitrators, and there is a refusal, incapacity, or death of one arbitrator, the party who appointed the other arbitrator has a choice of two procedures. He can apply to the court under Section 10 for the vacancy to be filled, the result being a renewed tribunal consisting of two arbitrators. Alternatively, without the assistance of the court, he can appoint his own arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator.
Perhaps I may quote from a leading authority on arbitration, Mustill and Boyd say:
"The second alternative is plainly cheaper and more advantageous for the appointing party, and it is the one which in practice is almost always employed".
If this route were to be taken, the claimant could either appoint his arbitrator as sole arbitrator, or if he had reservations about problems of enforceability then he could adopt the Section 10 procedure. I appreciate that the amendment, which is my own, may be capable of improvement. I realise that this is a matter of which the noble and learned Lord has not had much notice. He will wish to take proper advice on it. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter shortly with my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley. As Members of the Committee know, he is perhaps the Law Lord most acquainted with the complications of arbitration. He would have been here tonight but for the lateness of the hour. Members of the Committee may find his view helpful. It is that the departmental committee on arbitration law reform to which the noble Lord, Lord Byron, referred, formerly known as the Mustill Committee and now the Steyn Committee, after Mr. Justice Steyn, is considering the consolidation of the whole of statutory arbitration law at the moment.
This is a technical matter, as has been very fairly conceded by the noble Lord, Lord Byron. Its technicalities may be such that it would be more appropriate, assuming that it has much merit (as is no doubt the case), for it to be referred to that

653
committee rather than dealt with in legislation in the Bill in this way. I merely offer that as a view for the Committee's consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving us the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley, and to the noble Lord, Lord Byron, for raising the matter. I can see the attraction of what the noble Lord has suggested. The course I propose to take is that I should have an opportunity of consulting the departmental advisory committee on arbitration. Depending on its attitude to the matter, we might be able to deal with the point during the course of the Bill. If there is great difficulty about it we should have to leave it over. If the noble Lord would care to leave it with me on that basis, I undertake to bring it to the committee's attention and see what its attitude to the matter is.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I support the alternative of dealing with it in this Bill after taking advice. All experience shows that a missed legislative opportunity tends not to recur until much later than people expect when they postpone a matter.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall do that if I possibly can.
Lord Byron: I am very grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Specific powers of arbitrator exercisable by High Court]:
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No. 207ZAA:
Page 53, line 29, leave out ("section 11 of the Act of 1950") and insert ("section 35 of the Supreme Court Act 1981").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is not a point upon which I think anybody will need to take advice. It is a simple point. When one looks at Clause 69 in Part V which relates to arbitration one finds that the clause does not relate to arbitration at all. It relates to litigation and the powers of the High Court exercisable in litigation and not in arbitration. It is true that by reference it will derive those powers from an arbitration agreement but as regards logic it could equally have provided that the High Court should have any powers which the parties chose to agree upon. That would equally have worked and have had nothing to do with arbitration.
If I may say so with respect, the right Act for this amendment —an amendment with which I am in complete sympathy and one required by the official referees for a number of reasons—is the Supreme Court Act 1981. That is the Act which regulates the jurisdiction of the High Court in general and the official referees in particular. I have looked at the Supreme Court Act to find an appropriate spot in which to lodge the amendment. I believe that that
654
would be immediately following Section 35. However, I agree that there may be other views on the matter. I have listened, as the Committee has wound its weary way through this stage of the Bill, to variations on the theme of the words, "I shall give consideration", "I shall give favourable consideration", "I shall give very favourable consideration". I shall accept any such formula of words as I realise that on Report I can alter the place where the provision should be inserted or even the Act into which it should be inserted. However, quite plainly, it has no business to be in the Arbitration Act 1950.
A further point, apart from that of logic, is that in terms of the marketability of arbitration, which is of some importance to this country in the context of foreign commercial arbitration, the fewer references which appear in the Arbitration Act to the High Court the more acceptable, I am advised, it is to foreigners. As a judge of the High Court, or at any rate of the Supreme Court, I must accept, although I am ashamed to do so, that we may like to think of ourselves as an ornament but we are certainly not that in terms of those who wish to indulge in arbitration from abroad. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: This is not a de minimis interjection. I hope it is a minuscule one but there is already a Section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 so perhaps, mutatis mutandis, some change might be made.
The Lord Chancellor: That demonstrates the wisdom of the formula I was going to use. I accept this amendment in principle. I shall check with the draftsman on its detail and hope to include it in an acceptable form to all of us on Report.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: In the light of that helpful reply, albeit not quite as helpful as I had hoped for, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I call Amendment No. 207ZAB.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: That matter does not arise now. I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 207ZAB not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 207ZB:
Page 53, line 33, leave out ("clause") and insert ("agreement").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment substitutes a reference to an arbitration agreement for the present wording of "an arbitration clause" in order to be consistent with the statutory language presently used. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 207ZC:
Page 53, line 35, leave out ("proceedings") and insert ("agreement").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has the effect of requiring the agreement of the parties to the arbitration agreement, rather than that of the parties to the court proceedings, before the court can exercise the powers conferred in the new Section 11 A of the Arbitration Act 1950. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
12.30 a.m.
Clause 70 [Want of prosecution]:
[Amendment No. 207ZCA not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 207A:
Page 53, line 40, after ("claim") insert ("defence or counterclaim").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving Amendment No. 207A I speak to Amendments Nos. 207B, 207C, 207D and 207E, which are all interrelated.
The series of amendments attempts to ensure that where there is a failure to prosecute a case before an arbitrator the failure to prosecute will attract the attention of the Bill not only at the point of the initial claim but also where it falls into the realms of counterclaim. I feel very strongly that if we are not careful the case will go merely from the initial claim to the counterclaim and will stick there. The purpose of the amendments is to try to overcome that.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may tell me that for procedural reasons the amendments are unnecessary. I should be grateful for his assurance on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: I believe that the amendments should be supported in principle. A horrendous delay may equally be caused by a defendant in proceedings as by a claimant.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Subject to anything that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may say, I should have thought that for this purpose claim would include counterclaim because it is the claim of the defendant. It may be clearer to refer to counterclaim. However, I am quite sure that one cannot include defence because one cannot dismiss a defence for want of prosecution, much as we should like to on many occasions.
Lord Mishcon: I believe that it is also right to say that an arbitrator has complete power, if a defence has not been filed, to hear the claim or the counterclaim.
The Lord Chancellor: In principle I accept the view that the provision ought to apply to a counterclaim. I should like to check to be sure whether or not the amendment is necessary in that respect.
So far as concerns the defence, I do not believe that it would be right to apply that system. There are other obstacles to a late defence, such as those that have been mentioned. In principle,
656
counterclaim could be included if necessary, but not defence. I hope that that is a sufficient answer to the noble Earl. I am grateful to him for raising the matter.
The Earl of Lytton: I apologise to the Committee for trying to include something that should not properly be there. That must be put down to my lack of knowledge of the correct wording that applies in such cases. In the circumstances I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given me as good an answer as I could possibly expect at this time of night. Perhaps I may leave the matter in his hands for the time being. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 207B and 207C not moved].
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No. 207CA:
Page 53, line 47, leave out ("delay") and insert ("length of time which has elapsed since the cause of action arose").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an important point which has to be seen in the context not only of the amendment but also of Amendment No. 207EB, which I shall mention shortly.
The House of Lords in its judicial capacity held that an arbitrator had no power to dismiss a claim in circumstances analogous to the power possessed by the High Court to dismiss a claim in which there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay and the delay has given rise to a substantial risk that it is not possible to have a fair resolution of the issues in that claim or has caused, or is likely to cause or to have caused, serious prejudice to the opposite party. In putting forward the Bill, the Government have obviously taken the view, with which I entirely agree, that it is right that arbitrators should have that power.
However, two problems have arisen. First, the High Court power is a judge-made power and it will always be possible for the judges to alter it. It might require the House in its judicial capacity to exercise the power of flexibility under the practice direction whose year I forget, but it could be done. However, once the analogous power for an arbitrator is enshrined in primary legislation, we are stuck with the present rule in relation to litigation unless the two powers are to diverge, which is highly undesirable.
I am therefore forced at this stage to look carefully at the judicial rule which applies in the High Court. I must tell the Committee that for those who —I again use the phrase that I used earlier —labour at the judicial coalface, that rule is highly unsatisfactory. I have not met a Lord Justice who is prepared to begin to defend it.
Let me explain why it is unsatisfactory. It is well settled and no one would quarrel with the fact that, Parliament having said that one has three years in the case of a personal injuries claim and six years in most other claims in which to issue one's writ, one's delay in issuing the writ over that period cannot be described as inordinate, still less as inexcusable, because Parliament has given one the right so to delay. So none of that problem arises within

657
whatever time the claimant or plaintiff chooses to take issuing his writ, provided it is within the statutory period. However, it has been said over and over again by this House in its judicial capacity that, when one issues one's writ, one should get a move on with the action or the arbitration. The later one issues the writ, the more of a move on one should get. I know that that is not good English, but I hope that it at least expresses my view.
Perhaps I may now describe the problem that has arisen. A typical scenario is six years to issue a writ and an additional year to serve it, but let us leave that aside as a complication. The action then starts with an enormous amount of gusto. A statement of claim is served; a defence is served and sometimes one even gets around to discovery or the beginnings of discovery. At that stage the action goes to sleep. Three years later, by which time we have reached year nine or ten, the defendant says, "Enough is enough" and applies to strike out the action for failure to prosecute him.
The plaintiff usually wraps it up a bit, but stripped down to its essentials he says at that point, "I did not delay inexcusably or at all inordinately up to the end of the six years". That is right. He then goes on to say, "I got quite a move on for the next 12 months" and the judge says, "That's right". The plaintiff goes on to say, "For the next three years I delayed inordinately and inexcusably, but you cannot strike my claim out". The judge says, "Why can't I?" Although it is no doubt true that there is by now a substantial risk that it will not be possible to have a fair resolution of the issues in the claim and that there has been serious prejudice to the defendant, all that prejudice and that lost opportunity to have a fair trial arose before he started delaying. It is not therefore that delay which created the impossible situation.
The plaintiff wraps it up a little, but when one has heard that excuse three times a week for all the sitting weeks of the year, one gets a little fed up with the wrapping and wants to undo the parcel and do something about the contents. Hence this amendment that I put forward. If there is inordinate and inexcusable delay after the expiration of the limitation period —and before then I accept that delay must be excusable —the claimant should be at mercy and the courts be able to look at the whole period of delay and ask itself what I should have thought would be the central question at that time: "Sitting here now, 10 years, eight years or whatever after the cause of action arose, can we fairly try this action?" If the answer is no, the court ought to be entitled to throw it out. That should apply similarly but with less emphasis to the case of prejudice.
It is a very simple amendment that I propose; namely, to remove the word "delay" from the last line on page 53 and substitute:
"length of time which has elapsed since the cause of action arose".
I have no doubt that this amendment will achieve the object that I have outlined. The Committee will find that in a subsequent amendment similar, almost identical words are used in order to bring the High Court into a similar position to that which an
658
arbitrator would have when this Bill becomes an Act. There have to be one or two very minor alterations merely to fit the different language of the High Court. I have talked about a respondent to that claim to make it clearer. But subject to that, the principle that I have sought to follow is exactly the same for both the High Court and for arbitration.
If I might beseech the Committee, my form of beseeching would be that you do not enshrine in primary legislation a judicial rule which, with all respect to this Chamber and its judicial capacity, is wholly wrong in practice and largely unworkable. In fact, if the truth had to be told —and this is not a matter upon which I care to tell the truth —a good deal of judicial cheating goes on to make the thing work at all. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I rise at once in support of this very sensible amendment. With great respect I also bring to the attention of the Committee that it is not just the practitioners who sometimes produce a case in which there is prejudice to both parties by virtue of the length of time taken in the action coming on to trial. It ought to be known to the Committee —and I am sure that the noble and learned Lords the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chancellor know it —that if an action is set down for trial now in the Queen's Bench Division, or indeed in the Chancery Division, one will be told that there is no chance of that case being heard until 1992.
That is the position that I can state factually to be true with regard to a Chancery case in which a plaintiff has been defrauded by one of the partners of a firm of solicitors. The gentleman concerned has been extremely naughty and is now in prison —but I shall say no more about the firm or the person in question. It is dreadful to have to tell a client —as had to be done —that an action set down and dealt with with promptitude all the way along, so far as the practitioners were concerned, stands no chance of being heard in the Chancery Division until some time in 1992. It may be half way through 1992 or even late in that year. So it is not just a matter that concerns the practitioners; it is delay in the hearing of cases.
I know that the noble and learned Lords the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor are all doing their best. But I assure the Committee that this is as difficult for public consumption as indeed is the case of the delay.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord sits down. Of course that is right. It is very often the litigants and not the practitioners who are responsible for the delay. But the other reason that I wished to intervene is because I can speak for the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. I can tell the noble Lord that if he had an urgent appeal I would put it on tomorrow morning —no, this morning—or at whatever notice was required by the justice of the case. However, I think that he has done an injustice to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. On the Queen's Bench Division, the time intervals between trials and setting down are, or can be, shorter in appropriate cases than the example referred to of

659
1992. But I am not informed about it. It is merely an impression that I have that times of delay have been very substantially reduced within the past few months.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Ackner: I should like to add to that. I had details and I gave the Committee some of those details during the course of the debates. My recollection is that in a Queen's Bench action the lead time is now 10 weeks. I instanced a case where it was less than that. I had the periods for the Chancery Division and the other divisions. They are nothing like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon indicated. I can give them to him at a later stage. I have the deails in my room upstairs.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He will have noticed, I hope, that I quoted an actual example, and stated what the case was. I can tell him with all reliability and very great carefulness about what I say, that the anticipation is that the case in question set down a couple of weeks ago cannot come into the list until half way through 1992. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will accept that from me.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment that my noble and learned friend has proposed is a very interesting solution to the problem of delay. I know that the rules set out by this Chamber in its judicial capacity have proved to be somewhat difficult in application in the day-to-day work of dealing with these matters.
I am in a certain difficulty. I believe that it would be right to have fairly wide consultation on the question of what the rules should be in the High Court. That is not what I have addressed in this clause. On the other hand, this clause is put into the Bill as a result of advice given by the departmental advisory committee. It takes the view that it would be right to set out in the legislation the High Court's jurisdiction in this matter in order that it may be applied to arbitration, and that it will not be good enough simply to say that arbitrators have the same powers as the High Court. The arbitrators and the parties may not be familiar with the High Court practice in this regard. The advice of the advisory committee was that if we did not put this provision on the face of the Bill, the result was likely to be long and costly hearings between the parties which would not in the nature of things be an advantage, and that we ought to put it on the face of the Bill.
Putting such a provision on the face of the Bill requires one to know what it is. It is therefore difficult to achieve both these aims within the timescale that we have. If my noble and learned friend is prepared to leave it with me, I would wish to obtain as quick an impression as I can from the Supreme Court Procedure Committee and possibly also from the departmental committee about whether this proposal is generally regarded as acceptable. I have no doubt that it merits consideration. I have had some comments of a preliminary kind made about it by some of my colleagues which suggest possible refinements. I am
660
sure that my noble and learned friend would like us to have the best rule we can. I believe he would also agree that it is right, if at all possible, that we should express on the face of the statute what the rule for arbitration is to be.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I accept entirely what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. It is correct that the departmental committee wanted the law to be set out on the face of the Bill and I should not dream of disagreeing with its expert view. However, the chairman of the committee said that in that capacity he did not feel free to consider what the High Court rule should be, and that must be right. All he was considering was how to convey that to the arbitration fraternity whatever the rule. It may well be that if he was free to consider the matter and apply his mind to it, he would take the view that I have been putting forward.
There is no doubt that the Supreme Court Procedure Committee can meet quickly and supply my noble and learned friend with whatever advice it thinks appropriate. There is also no doubt that every member of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal can meet quickly and supply their opinion. I cannot influence or convene a meeting of the judicial Members of your Lordships' House, but the Lord Chancellor can do so easily and receive their answer. The Bar Council could probably produce a quick answer but, unfortunately, the Law Society would take longer because it is such a large organisation. However, I am sure that the president's action could cover that in an appropriate case.
In all the circumstances, it is appropriate that I should withdraw the amendment. I hope to see something in its likeness appearing early in the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 207D and 207E not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Lord Byron Lord Byron moved Amendment No. 207EA:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause:
("Service of proceedings on an oversea party.
. After section 25 of the Act of 1950 there shall be inserted—
"Provision for service on oversea parties.
25A. —(1) Unless a contrary intention is expressed in the Arbitration Agreement, any process or notice required to be served, on a relevant party in connection with any application concerning the conduct or regulation of a reference or any award made therein, to the High Court, under this Act or any other enactment making provision with respect to Arbitration (whenever passed), may be served, notwithstanding any rule of Court to the contrary, by leaving it at or sending it by post to the business address of the solicitor or other person or body —

(a) who is acting for the party in the reference in connection with which service of the process or notice in question is to be effected; or

(b) in the case where any award has been made, acted for that party in the reference in connection with which service of the process or notice in question is to be effected.

(2) In this section a "relevant party" means either —

(a) an individual who is a national or habitually resident in any State other than the United Kingdom; or

661

(b) is a body corporate incorporated in, or whose central management and control is exercised in any State other than the United Kingdom.

at the time service is effected.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any application for the appointment of any Arbitrator or Umpire or to extend the time for making any such appointment, other than by way of substitution or the enforcement of any award." ").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is another to the Arbitration Act. It is of a technical nature although it has even greater value than the previous amendment. Its purpose is to facilitate on parties resident abroad service of the originating process by which applications to the court are made in connection with arbitration proceedings and subsequent appeals.
Under the Arbitration Acts of 1950 and 1979 the High Court is entrusted with wide powers to supplement the powers of arbitrators in the conduct of a reference; for example, Section 12 of the 1950 Act. Equally important are the powers entrusted to the High Court to monitor and regulate the conduct of the reference, including the power to entertain an appeal on points of law.
In order to invoke any of the supervisory powers of the High Court it is currently necessary to arrange for the issue of originating process which, in turn, requires compliance with the strict rules as to the service of such process. That can be particularly time consuming and expensive in the case of parties resident abroad.
Often in practice there are two solicitors almost next door to each other, perhaps in the City of London, conducting arbitrations vigorously against each other for a long period of time. One of them wishes to invoke the powers of the High Court and is unable to serve the necessary originating summons, or whatever is required, on the solicitor next door. He must then ask whether that solicitor has leave to accept the service. If he does not receive a favourable response, he must then go to the High Court either to seek an order for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction or for substituted service.
The opportunities for tactical delay and prevarication, which the requirement for strict compliance with the rules for service provide, were recognised in the working paper dated 1st February, 1985, produced by the sub-committee on arbitration which is a sub-committee of the Commercial Court Committee. Paragraph 64 states:
"the efficacy of many procedures offered by the 1950 and 1979 Acts would be improved if provision were made facilitating service of the originating process by which application to the court is made, this is particularly so in relation to those applications which are typically made at a relatively late stage in an arbitration (e.g. for security for costs or for an 'extension order' under Section 5 of the 1979 Act), where it is commonplace to encounter a tactical refusal to authorise solicitors to accept service, despite the fact that they may have had the conduct of the arbitration on their Clients' behalf for a considerable time".
I believe that all those engaged in arbitration would find this a useful amendment. It has not been possible to bring in something along these lines. I believe that the difficulties which have been encountered are perhaps two-fold. First, as the authors of the 1st February working paper recognise, the solicitor or other representatives of a party in a
662
reference are not technically on the record. I do not consider that there is any need for the special provision on this aspect. In practice, there is rarely any doubt as to who has conduct of an arbitration on behalf of a party. In the rare case where a doubt arises, the type of inquiry with which a court will be faced will not differ in essence from that which arises in relation to any contested service issue.
The second right which the amendment seeks to give could be nullified if a party withdraws instructions from the solicitor or other representative. In practice, that is likely to be rare in the context of applications and ongoing reference.
I recognise that it may be said that this matter is more appropriate for the rules committee, and that seems to have been the view of the sub-committee on arbitration. In my view, this issue is appropriate for statutory provision and the present Bill is an appropriate vehicle for such an amendment. Matters of service are not exclusively dealt with by the rules and, indeed, arguably most service is regulated by statute by virtue of the provisions of the Companies Act which now overrides the rules as to service on corporations. It also appears that the rules committee has not been able to find a solution to the problem since the recommendation to which I referred was made in 1985.
Finally, I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for what he said. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, has also written to me in relation to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I can well understand the difficulty which the noble Lord brings before the Committee and it is right that he should do so. However, since I do not disagree with the principle, I ask only that the practical aspects of this matter are considered by the Committee, and especially by the noble and learned Lord, before this becomes part of an enactment.
I say that because of the very difficulty which the noble Lord correctly pointed out; namely, that in court litigation, a solicitor is on the record and until he is removed from it he is deemed to be there as the solicitor, agent and representative of the party in respect of whom he is acting, as is shown on the record. Therefore, service is a perfectly simple matter to effect. You effect it upon the solicitor concerned.
That is not the position in arbitration proceedings. Especially when the person to be served is abroad, it may very well be a disputed matter of fact as to whether or not, at the time of service, the solicitor is actually the solicitor for the party.
After the arbitration has been completed by an award, it is an even more difficult question of fact to know that the solicitor is still acting for the party concerned. Therefore, I merely rise to point out the difficulties while at once accepting from the noble Lord, Lord Byron, that there is a difficulty here which perhaps should be looked at. In principle it sounds all right but there are practical problems.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that there are quite important practical problems although I see the force of the noble Lord's amendment. I am happy to consider it. I think it may be difficult to have adequate consultation on this very quickly but I shall see what can be done, if the noble Lord is prepared to leave it on that basis.
Lord Byron: I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord said. I hope this matter can be considered reasonably quickly. It is a matter which was considered in 1985 by the sub-committee to which I referred. There will be very little dispute about the desirability of finding a solution to the problem. It may be that my amendment is not perfectly drafted in that respect; but to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, there certainly could be difficulties as to whether a solicitor, for example, was still acting for a party. Similar problems arise under the Companies Act as to whether a company is still carrying on business within a jurisdiction and similar problems arise under other legislation.
In relation to withdrawal of instructions, I doubt whether it is desirable that a party who has participated in a reference through a solicitor within the jurisdiction should be able to avoid service of appeal procedure simply by withdrawing those instructions. Ultimately the only hardship that could accrue to the solicitor concerned would be simply the obligation to pass on documents to his former client. However, in view of what the noble and learned Lord said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 207EB:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause:
("Want of Prosecution.
.After section 35 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, there shall be inserted—
35B. —(1) The High Court shall have power, whether of its own motion or on application by a party to the proceedings, to dismiss any claim in those proceedings where it appears to it that the two conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are satisfied.
(2) The conditions are —

(a) that there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of the claimant in pursuing the claim; and

(b) that the length of time which has elapsed since the cause of action arose —

(i) will give rise to a substantial risk that it is not possible to have a fair resolution of the issues in that claim; or

(ii) has caused, or is likely to cause or to have caused, serious prejudice to the respondent to that claim." ")

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment related to an earlier amendment and accordingly I do not move it.
[Amendment No. 207 EB not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Tying-in arrangements]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 207F:
Page 54, line 14, after first ("land") insert ("and buildings").
The noble Earl said: I shall be extremely brief on this point. The purpose of this amendment and the two which follow is merely to seek clarification that the term "land" in the context of this Bill includes the buildings which may be on that land. I know that this is regarded as automatic in terms of judicial understanding, but I felt it wise to have the point specifically clarified. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: These amendments are not necessary because of the existing general law. Under the Law of Property Act 1925, as applied in the Interpretation Act 1978, the definition of "land" already includes buildings and other structures. In this context, and in this clause, it is therefore unnecessary to require the addition of the words "and buildings". I believe that to be the position. If the noble Earl will be kind enough to check this for himself, perhaps in the meantime he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: I am greatly heartened by what the noble and learned Lord said. In the circumstances, while thanking him for that, with the permission of the Committee I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withddrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 207G and 207H not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 207J:
Page 54, line 20, after ("condition") insert ("express or implied").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 207K, 207KA, 207KB, 207KC and 207L, as they are all interrelated.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may intervene to say that the noble Earl said he was speaking to one of my amendments. It is kind of him, but perhaps he did not intend to say so.
The Earl of Lytton: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I am not sure to which amendment he refers.
Lord Mishcon: I refer to Amendment No. 207KA.
The Earl of Lytton: Thank you. I am not speaking to that amendment. I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 207J, 207K, 207KB, 207KC and 207L, I ask the Committee's pardon.
The reason behind the amendments is that there is a perceived abuse that has crept in, particularly to some of the larger organisations on our high streets which offer combined services such as estate agency services, mortgages, pensions, insurance and many other services. It is an abuse that is creeping in because certain types of service are being made implicitly, or sometimes explicitly, dependent on a person taking out other services offered by the same concern. In its simplest terms, somebody may make an offer on a house which he has seen for sale in an

665
estate agents and be left in no doubt —I put it no more strongly than that —that his offer will not be forwarded to the vendor unless he agrees to organise his financial affairs through the company which is selling the property.
Another abuse which is certainly not in the public interest concerns instances which have come to my notice where people have been talked out of their existing endowment policies in favour of taking out different types of insurance. A member of the public may be relying on the information that he has been given by the person offering the services and it may cause the policyholder to change his policy to his very considerable financial detriment.
All these amendments are intended to reinforce subsection (3). I shall be delighted if the noble and learned Lord could tell me that that subsection caters for all the points about which I am concerned. I apologise to the Committee for lumping together these various amendments, but I believe that it will save time at this late hour. I feel that they are sufficiently related for me to deal with them together.
I shall divide them into the three categories into which they most conveniently fall. Amendments Nos. 207J, 207K and 207KB are intended to cover any sort of pressure or influence that may be brought to bear, whether it is explicit or implied. I think the current wording of the Bill is a little relaxed about that. Sometimes an explicit inference cannot be drawn, but often it is something which is not said or put into writing.
Amendment No. 207L is intended to define the categories of persons who could be brought into the net by the provisions of the Bill. I believe that the term "associate" is not clear or strong enough. As regards Amendment No. 207KB, it specifically prevents an abuse of the failure to pass on an offer of purchase to a vendor. I beg to move.
Lord Morris: In so far as these amendments clarify Clause 72(3) I strongly support them. I particularly support the inclusion of the words "express or implied", the argument for which was eloquently put by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I shall be grateful to hear what my noble and learned friend has to say about the efficacy of the inclusion of those words.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I oppose these amendments. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will not accept them. I intend to speak later on clause stand part and I shall go into greater detail then.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that the word "condition" includes any condition whether express or implied, written or oral. I refer to Amendments Nos. 207J and 207K.
Amendment No. 207KB is in a somewhat different category. It seeks to insert the words:
"No person shall make the passing on to a vendor of a borrower's offer subject to a condition, express or implied, that any services required by the borrower are to be provided by that person or by an associate of his".
We all understand what the amendment is aiming at and that the wider it is cast the better. The practice
666
of an estate agent refusing to pass on a prospective purchaser's offer to a vendor unless the prospective purchaser agrees to take services from the agent is obviously utterly wrong. I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendment and would point out that where a mortgage is involved, the estate agent's behaviour is likely to be caught by Clause 72. This is because we have deliberately left "services" undefined to make the ambit of the clause as wide as possible. The term could therefore be taken to include the service of passing on an offer.
Where a residential property loan is not involved, however, the abuse addressed by the amendment is properly a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, not the Bill. Indeed, in the consultation paper on estate agency published last September, the director general suggested that this particular abuse should constitute an undesirable practice. This could lead to the issue of a warning and ultimately a prohibition order under the Estate Agents Act. Although we do not know the ultimate result of the consultation exercise, the director clearly has the matter in hand and I think that we should leave it to him to pursue.
The matter is a fundamental question of agency. I believe it right that the director general should be the authority responsible for ensuring that proper practice prevails. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: I am heartened by what the noble and learned Lord has said. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 207JA:
Page 54, line 21, leave out ("an associate of his") and insert ("any other person nominated by him.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 207KA. At this stage of the Bill we are dealing with the most sensitive issue of residential loans and tying-in provisions. The Committee will recollect that the noble and learned Lord was extremely careful in his Second Reading speech to make it clear that he wished to see that the borrower in these circumstances was properly protected against undue tying-in arrangements.
The purpose of the amendment is to substitute for "associate" the words "any other person nominated by him". It may be difficult to prove that someone is an associate. The reference should be to a person who is nominated by the lender. In those circumstances it would be clear that he should not nominate in regard to a tying-in arrangement. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion in the amendment. If he will allow me I should like to consider it carefully. This is a difficult area in which to operate. The Building Societies Act has a provision like this but I am

667
anxious to get the provision right. The noble Lord's suggestion is extremely valuable and may enable us to simplify the clause. I am happy to consider it further. I believe that it may indicate a good way forward.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord has been very gracious. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 207K to 207KC not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 207KD:
Page 54, line 32, at end insert—
("(5A) No lender, or any associate of a lender, shall require a greater consideration to be payable by the borrower for any service which either of them provide or offer to provide to the borrower than the consideration which the lender, or (as the case may be) associate of the lender, would have required if the borrower had been provided with combined services.
(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A)—

"services" includes making or offering to make a residential property loan; and

"combined services" means any combination of services whether provided or offered by the lender or any associate of his or partly by the lender and partly by the associate.")

The noble Lord said: Again, I can be brief. The purpose of the amendment is obvious. It prevents a lender or any—I should not use the word "associate"—person nominated by him charging more for a particular service to a borrower who does not require other services—for example, financial services—than would be charged to a borrower who also obtained other services from the lender or an associate. I beg to move.
1.15 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The idea of the clause is to provide customer protection against tying in so that the customer can insist that each service involved in a transaction should be priced separately and be available separately. Separate pricing enables the customer to choose which services, if any, he wants, and discourages the person offering the services from offering them at a loss. Separate pricing is achieved by Clause 72(5). The amendment seeks to discourage lenders from offering a package of services to a customer at a discount. At first sight, that does not appear to be in the interests of the customer or client.
It is also essential that the various services offered should be available separately. That is the whole point of the tying-in provision. Clause 72 does not, and so far as I have been able to consider the matter, should not, prevent packages provided—this is an important proviso—that there is no element of coercion or conditionality involved in the customer's decision to take all the services offered rather than some or none.
Packages of services can benefit both the pocket of the lender and the pocket of the borrower. It is not unknown for solicitors to offer a reduced rate if, for example, they are acting for a number of purchasers all of whom are buying leases in the same block of flats. I do not believe that the amendment is in the interests of the customer. I believe that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is thinking of
668
making a point related to this matter on clause stand apart. While I am happy to consider what was proposed in the previous group of amendments, this seems to be counter to the idea of the interests of the customer when one understands the purpose of the clause.
Lord Mishcon: At this hour I should sensibly say that I shall consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord has said, and consider my position at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 207L not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 207LA:
Page 54, line 41, at end insert ("and

(f) any body corporate which is a holding company or subsidiary of the lender within the meaning of section 144 of the Companies Act 1989;

(g) any person who has an arrangement with the lender relating to the making of loans or the provision of other services to borrowers; and

(h) any person nominated by him to provide any service.").

The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 207LB, 207LC, and 207LD, and to do so briefly.
The first amendment would also extend the descriptions of persons connected with the lender who would be treated as associates—again I think the better term is "nominated by the lender" —in connection with tying-in arrangements.
The second amendment would make it clear that the provision of insurance is covered by the clause. The third amendment would place a duty on the Director General of Fair Trading and local trading standards officers to enforce the provisions of the clause, and give them the necessary search and seizure powers. The fourth amendment would ensure that the clause applied to insurance companies. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The line that the noble Lord has suggested on the earlier amendments might make it unnecessary to pursue Amendment No. 207LA. The amendment which defines services to include
"the provision of or arranging of insurance of any class whatsoever".
is not necessary because we have tried to make the word "services" as general as possible. To focus on a particular type of service might limit the scope of the word "services". It is wise in the clause to have the scope of "services" as wide as possible. One cannot be certain of how people will seek to deal with the clause if it becomes law. It is right therefore not to confine the word "services" in any way.
I do not believe that the Director General of Fair Trading, so far as I understand his attitude, would welcome responsibility for enforcement, but local trading standards officers might be appropriate, if the noble Lord will allow me to consider that matter further.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 207LD, under Section 16 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982

669
insurance companies have to be specially treated. That section, implementing two EC directives, prohibits insurance companies from offering services unconnected with their insurance business. One such unconnected service which insurance companies may in the future wish to offer conveyancing. However, because of Section 16 an insurance company could do so only if, at the same time, the customer took on an insurance service, such as a residential property loan from the company. It is because of that difficulty, which is entirely due to a statutory provision passed by Parliament to enable us to honour our Community obligations, that special provision has been made for insurance companies in Clause 72 of the Bill.
It is fair to say, however, that although it is clearly necessary to make specific provision for insurance companies, it may be possible to limit, in the light of what the noble Lord has proposed, exactly how that should be done. I shall undertake to look into this matter further in the light of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Mishcon: I appear to have scored two "half-goals" out of four attempts, and in those circumstances I feel I ought to say how grateful I am that at least those scores are achieved. If the noble and learned Lord will kindly consider these matters, I think the object of moving the amendments will have largely been achieved.
I am sure he will appreciate by tabling these amendments we are trying to eradicate the abuses which arise from the imposition of tying-in arrangements on borrowers. That is the whole purpose of the amendments. Having regard to what the noble and learned Lord said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 207LB, 207LC and 207LD not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: These are problems with this clause as drafted. I consider that it is based on an incorrect supposition, which is that the mortgage-lending institutions have it within their power to force borrowers to use related services, such as estate agency, conveyancing, surveying, insurance broking, house removals, etc.
That might have been the case five or 10 years ago when there was a permanent shortage of mortgage funds when lenders were able to dictate terms. But over recent years the mortgage market has become highly competitive, and any lender wishing to impose an unreasonable term is not likely to get the business. Power has shifted very dramatically from the lenders to the intermediaries like the insurance and mortgage brokers.
I have been asked to make these points on behalf of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and I should also declare that I am one of the vice-presidents of the Building Societies Association.
670
However, perhaps the major policy objection is that as drafted the clause would, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has suggested, seem to prevent a lender from offering a package deal. Here I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that it would be wrong to force people not to have choice. However if this ends up the other way, and people will lose out on the benefit of some cheap deal because there is a package, that would be very wrong. I think that this clause needs to be looked at again in its entirety. In fact subsection (2) looks as if it prohibits the packages.
I appreciate that it is not a simple matter to draft primary legislation and to ensure that such very common practices are permitted. But if the Government wish to proceed with the proposal, it is very important that appropriate consultation should take place to ensure that what emerges is right for the consumer and fair to the mortgage lenders.
An alternative would be for the Lord Chancellor to retain power to make appropriate regulations to encapsulate a code of practice. A code of practice has, as I am sure he knows already, been very effective in Section 35 of the Building Societies Act 1986. This change would replace that clause, as I understand it, and that is a good thing.
It is important to realise the other side of the coin to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred. That is that by insisting that someone should not obtain a better deal we do not want someone to have a worse deal through the provision. Provided there is no compulsion whatever on the parties, I believe that it is right that there should be a free market. If people wish to avail themselves of all services from one source, they should be able to do so.
The Lord Chancellor: The clause only requires that it cannot be made a condition of accepting one service that somebody must accept some other service from the nominated person, if I understood the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Certainly that will do for a summary. One does not have to do that unless one wishes. A person is free to take one service by itself or two or more, depending on what he wants.
My noble friend asked whether the clause prevented people from offering favourable package deals to the customer. The answer is no, it does not do that. But the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposed—Amendment No. 207KD —was intended to effect that. That is the reason I do not feel able to go along with the amendment. My noble friend may be assured that the clause does not have the unfavourable effect that she had in mind: preventing the customer from obtaining a favourable package if more than one service is taken.
My noble friend also suggested that this is perhaps best dealt with by regulations. She will be aware that this problem arises continually as to whether we should do one or the other. I have chosen here to follow the lead given in the Building Societies Act and make this primary legislation. The relevant section was not brought into the Building Societies Act. Instead, a voluntary code was provided for.

671
That is always possible but I should like to be sure that this was right so that if I had to bring it in it would be the right provision to regulate the position.
I have taken the view that in this case we should go for primary legislation. I hope that by doing so I have at least found favour in some quarters. Although my noble friend would prefer it to be done differently, I have to try to preserve the balance. I hope that Members of the Committee will allow Clause 72 to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Liability of magistrates for damages and costs]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 207LDA:
Page 55, line 39, at end insert—
("(3A) For the purposes of sections 44 and 45 the term "justice of the peace" includes Stipendiary Magistrate, Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, acting Stipendiary Magistrate and acting Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 73 amends Sections 44 and 45 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. It has been brought to my attention that in doing so it has created a certain amount of doubt as to whether the term "justice of the peace" includes all the people mentioned in the amendment: stipendiary magistrate, metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, acting stipendiary magistrate and acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate. I can give the reasons for these doubts quite fully if necessary. However, if my noble and learned friend will accept the amendment, I should not wish to waste the time of the Committee in doing so. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: There is no difference between us on intention. I intend to include all these people and we believe that we may have done so. But if there is doubt about it, perhaps my noble friend will be kind enough in due course—not at the moment—to tell me the detail of the doubts and, I shall take them up with the draftsman. The intention is quite plain that the various persons he has mentioned, all of whom are justices of the peace in some shape or form, should be included in the protection.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Renton: I can assure my noble and learned friend that there are real doubts. I shall bring them to the attention of his department. In the meanwhile I am grateful for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Time when action brought for purposes of limitation enactments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 75 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: It is a tragedy that at this hour, when one is dealing with an attempted and very fundamental alteration in the law, I should have to argue that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. Clause 75 seeks to alter the rule which has stood for a very long time that the limitation period involves the issue of a writ —that is a matter of certainty of date. The clause attempts to alter that by stating that it shall be the service of the writ. This occasions extreme difficulty. I shall try hard not to weary the Committee with too many examples of why this is a bad provision.
I start with the three-year rule which, as regards the statute of limitations, concerns personal accidents. Often a plaintiff will neglect to go to a solicitor in regard to a personal injury, whether it occurred at work or resulted from an accident, until, all of a sudden, some time afterwards a doctor tells the person, having examined him, that he has discovered a rather serious complaint which arises out of the accident. Before the solicitor has time to look into the question of whether there has been negligence and whether therefore there is a course of action which is likely to succeed, he has to look at the limitation period. Often what he does is to issue a writ in order to be sure that it comes within the statutory period and therefore he will not be statute barred, and he puts it, as the saying goes, in the drawer. Then he looks into the facts and the evidence that might be available. It is not an easy job if some period of time had elapsed since the accident occurred. The solicitor, having considered the evidence, then advises that he believes the client has a good course of action and that he will go ahead with it. Alternatively, he may say that sufficient evidence to take an action is not available and he may discourage the client from continuing with any action.
Once a writ is served an action has already started; it is in being. A statement of claim must follow pretty soon. If the statement of claim is not served pretty soon an agile defendant, if I can use that adjective, will immediately apply to have the action struck out by virtue of the fact that the statement of claim has not been served. Therefore there was good reason for the writ issue date, quite apart from the question of certainty which I have already mentioned, being the operative date, and that the service of the writ was not. That is the alteration in the law which Clause 75 suggests. What it really does is to cut down the limitation period; that is the effective purpose of it. That is not the only reason why this is a bad clause.
The Committee will have noticed that the clause is a wide one. It begins with the words:
"For the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980, and of any other enactment relating to the limitation of actions (whenever passed)".
That can only mean that it will bring in the very short limits that exist at the moment; namely, the one-year time limit on the international carriage of goods by road and sea, and the two-year time limits on collisions at sea and in air carriage cases. That must be highly unsatisfactory.
As I said, it is a pity that an alteration as vital as this should be discussed in Committee with such a

673
small attendance. I express my admiration for fellow Members of your Lordships' Committee who have stayed here until five and twenty to two in the morning, and I hope that I may take a little scrap of admiration myself for having done so as well.
I hope that at least the noble and learned Lord will say that, bearing in mind the importance of the matter and the views that have been strongly expressed by the Law Society and, I believe, by the Bar Council, and many other organisations which are vitally interested, he will give more consideration to the views that are now being put forward before saying that he intends to abide by Clause 75 of the Bill. It is in such temperate language that I oppose the Motion, That Clause 75 shall stand part of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 75 implements the recommendation of the Civil Justice Review that for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 an action should be brought at the time when process is served. That is one of a number of proposals designed to reduce pre-trial delay—particularly in personal injury cases—with which the review was principally concerned. A related procedural change, which will come into effect by rules of court on 1st June this year, will reduce from 12 to four months the maximum permitted interval between issue and service of process.
As the noble Lord has said, the present position under the Limitation Act 1980 is that originating process must be issued within a specified period. That is not a matter that needs to come to the attention of the defendant. For personal injury cases the limitation period, as specified in Section 11(4) of the Act, is three years from the date of the incident or knowledge of the cause of action. Detailed rules apply. A further 12 months is allowed to elapse, with the result that the maximum period between the date of the incident and the process being served on the defendant is four years. The rule change would reduce that to three years four months. The effect of Clause 75 would be to reduce the period to a maximum of three years, as proposed by the Civil Justice Review.
One of the purposes of the law of limitation is to give potential defendants complete assurance that after a stated period has elapsed, the action will not proceed unless there are exceptions to the application of the stated period. Our present system does not achieve that. If originating process in a personal injury case is served at the end of the three-year limitation period, the defendant may have a further year of uncertainty as to whether or not the action is to proceed. The matters that require to be established in relation to service are matters that are capable of proof. I am not sure that real difficulty arises because the present rule of court requires that service has to take place within the year of issue. The date of service is still important.
One of the problems to which the noble Lord referred relates to short limitation periods under a variety of statutes, most of which have a foreign element having been set up under international
674
conventions to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. The provision may well be simplified in consequence of that point because the Limitation Act 1980 is principally in issue. That is what the recommendation of the Civil Justice Review has in mind and what I am considering at the moment and shall consider even further in the light of the matters that the noble Lord has brought to my attention; namely, to restrict the clause to the Limitation Act 1980 and leave the other enactments out of account altogether.
I am considering that matter and shall consider further what the noble Lord has said, but the recommendation of the Civil Justice Review was made after considering practical difficulties, so a good deal of the matter has already been given thought. In the light of that explanation perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he be kind enough to consider the international implications? Practices in London often have to serve proceedings overseas. In some countries overseas service can be effected only through the diplomatic service. I recently had a case which has serious complications concerning the law of limitation and required a consideration of service in a number of countries in South America. We were advised that in some of those countries it would take as long as 10 months to serve the process.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall certainly consider the matter.
Lord Mishcon: It is obvious that the noble and learned Lord is prepared to consider the matter especially in regard to international implications and the examples that I gave of periods that are included by virtue of international conventions.
Perhaps I may briefly add another practice difficulty which I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider when looking at Clause 75. Some defendants ingeniously manage to evade service. There is a procedure, well known to the noble and learned Lord, by which one applies to the court for substituted service. It will be an extraordinary situation when one goes before a master of the High Court and says to him, "Please, for heaven's sake will you make your order for substituted service tomorrow because otherwise I shall not be able to comply with your order for substituted service, as you allowed the application that, in view of the obvious evasive tactics of the defendant, an order for substituted service should be made?". All those practical difficulties must be considered. The noble and learned Lord has been gracious enough to say that he will consider those matters.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Costs against legal representatives in magistrates' courts]:
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 207LE is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 207M.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 207LE:
Page 57, leave out lines 7 to 26 and insert—
(" .—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the power to make rules under section 144 above, any such rules may make provision empowering a magistrates' court, where —

(a) there has been a serious dereliction of duty to the court on the part of any legal representative or employee of such representative; and

(b) as a result a party of the proceedings has incurred costs, to disallow, or (as the case may be) to order the legal representative concerned to meet, the whole of those costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with the rules.").

The noble Lord said: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take it from me that I have no more time than any other Member of the Committee for advocates who behave in an unseemly manner, whether in magistrates' courts or anywhere else. However, I believe that some considerations should be taken into account.
As noble Lords will see, the amendment makes it clear that, for magistrates' courts, the test to order legal representatives to pay costs will be a test of serious dereliction of duty to the court on the part of the legal representative. If it were not for the amendment, it would be a most peculiar fact that magistrates would have a greater power to penalise a solicitor in costs than has the High Court. The test in the High Court and in the Crown Court is that the solicitor has been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty. Those are exactly the words that my amendment proposes to put in this Bill.
I am sure that it will be in the recollection of the noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls, and it would perhaps assist the noble and learned Lord to recall that as recently as 10th November last year the Court of Appeal gave judgment in five appeals which came before it concerning costs orders made against solicitors in Crown Court cases. The Court of Appeal considered the nature and degree of fault on the part of a solicitor sufficient to justify the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to award costs. The court clearly stated as follows:
"The locus classicus is Myers v. Elman"—
that was a 1940 case in Appeal Court Cases 282 —
"We would define the conduct which gives rise to this jurisdiction as any conduct of a solicitor which involves a serious dereliction on the part of the solicitor of his duty to the court".
The court also stated that it took into account the dictum of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning (who was then, I believe, Master of the Rolls) in the case of Thew v. Reeves Ltd., (1982, 1QB) that jurisdiction is not available in cases of mistake, error of judgment or mere negligence, but is only available when the conduct of a solicitor is inexcusable and such as to merit reproof.
With this amendment I simply try to put the magistrates' court on a level with the High Court with regard to the language that is used. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider this a proper amendment. I beg to move.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: In dealing with this matter, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will also take into account the fact that many of these
676
cases are rather better dealt with by the professional disciplinary bodies concerned. Certainly in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, unless there is a glaring case, if there is any investigation to be done we prefer to refer it to the Bar Council or the solicitors' complaints bureau, as the case may be, which are much better able to investigate what really went on.
The Lord Chancellor: I agree with my noble and learned friend in so far as the matter is intended to deal with disciplinary powers, as it were, over legal representatives. That is the power which preserves the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over solicitors, as provided in Section 50 of the Solicitors Act 1974. But the idea behind this clause is to provide in the magistrates' court a power parallel to that in the High Court under Rule 11 of Order 62 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, deriving from Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act and, by extension, the county courts, which itself is to be re-enacted in the form of Clause 4 of this Bill. So there is a distinction between those two types of power, and I believe that that is a proper distinction.
Where the primary purpose is compensatory—that is, that the court should have power to shift the loss from where it has fallen to the person whose fault has occasioned it —the appropriate test is of the kind contained in the clause as drafted and in Order 62, Rule 11, rather than the other, more restricted kind appropriate where the primary purpose is to enforce the duties of officers of the court.
I believe that that is very often a disciplinary matter and that my noble and learned friend advises wisely that the court generally should leave it to the disciplinary authorities which can investigate it in a way that may not be easy for the court to do —not very quickly anyway. The other matter concerns the nature of compensation in respect of loss which the court appreciates has occurred. The idea is to shift the loss from where it has fallen to the person whose fault has occasioned it.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the clause as drafted is appropriate.
Lord Mishcon: If I may say so, that still does not deal with the point about language; namely, that of severe dereliction of duty as against the words used in regard to the High Court. The noble and learned Lord did not appear to me to deal with that specific matter. If I misheard him due to the lateness of the hour or did not take in what he said when I should have done, I apologise to him.
The Lord Chancellor: I endeavoured to suggest that this wording came from Order 62, Rule 11, and that that wording is reflected in this clause. The wording to which the noble Lord referred relates to the exercise of the court's powers as preserved by Secton 50 of the Solicitors Act.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is

677
correct. Serious dereliction of duty does not occur in Order 62.
Lord Mishcon: Having received that reproof from two such learned sources, I must ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 207M not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 207MA:
After Clause 76, insert the following new Clause:
("Costs against solicitors.
The following subsection shall be inserted in the Solicitors Act 1974 after subsection (3) of section 50 —
"(4) Where an appeal by a solicitor under subsection (3) is successful in whole or in part the Court of Appeal may make an order in favour of the solicitor for payment to be made out of central funds in respect of his costs of the original hearing and the appeal, such costs to be taxed in the Supreme Court." ").
The noble Lord said: I hope to be able to take the amendment briefly. Section 50(3) of the Solicitors Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any order made against a solicitor by the High Court or the Crown Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in respect of solicitors. The proposed amendment would provide that where a solicitor is successful on such an appeal, the Court of Appeal may make an order of payment to be made out of central funds in respect of a solicitor's costs.
It seems to be to be just and proper that that should be so provided for. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The effect of this clause would be to have the payment made out of central funds, if I have understood the objective correctly.
Lord Mishcon: Yes.
The Lord Chancellor: That is a considerable novelty. I find it hard to see why central funds should be involved in matters that arise between parties. There is a different question in relation to such disciplinary provisions as Section 50 of the Solicitors Act 1974. As a result of a request from one of my judicial colleagues, I am presently considering what can be done about that because it is in the nature of a disciplinary provision.
However, this is different. I do not believe that it would be right to make such a provision in relation to decisions which are an allocation of costs between parties before the court.
Lord Mishcon: Will the noble and learned Lord permit me to elaborate very quickly on what he has just said, and on my original submission? We are dealing with a case where an officer of the court, a solicitor, has been penalised. He goes to the Court of Appeal, having obviously incurred the costs of a hearing in the court below. The Court of Appeal sets aside the order that was made against him as being unjustified either in whole or in part.
It may be that I am wrong in suggesting that the costs should come out of the common purse. But is
678
the noble and learned Lord saying it is just that a solicitor in those circumstances, who has proved that the penalising order should not have been made and has the endorsement of the Court of Appeal that that is so, should have no remedy in regard to recovery of his costs? It is quite obvious that in such a serious case no man is his own best representative. He obviously would be represented by another professional man. It appears quite wrong, if I may say so, that the noble and learned Lord is suggesting that he shall have no remedy in regard to costs even though he has been successful in the Court of Appeal.
Will the noble and learned Lord at least be prepared to say that he will consider the justice of this matter, and whether the costs should come out of another fund, if he feels that I have taken them out of the wrong fund?
The Lord Chancellor: There may be a question of costs against the other party but at present I see no justification for the public purse incurring the cost of what has occurred.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I have a slight difficulty in that the copy of Adamson's Solicitors Act 1974 does not include subsection (3). However, the point of principle which I understand is being raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is that where one is exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to a solicitor, the court may well be acting on its own motion. It may not be penalising the solicitor at the request of the other party.
The question arises in two stages. The first stage, with which perhaps all will agree, is that if on appeal it is held that the solicitor should never have been penalised in the first place and that he has incurred costs in establishing that position, he ought to be reimbursed those costs in plain fairness. However, if the other side had no part in putting the solicitor in the position of peril in which he stood at the end of the proceedings of first instance, it is a little hard that that party should be expected to foot the bill.
I can well imagine some situations in which, if I had been a trial judge and taken a particular view of a solicitor's conduct but had been wrong, wild horses would not have stopped me from penalising him. I believe that the situation needs investigating.
The Lord Chancellor: Fairly fundamental questions are involved. At one level, it is the consequence of a judicial act that has produced the costs. Normally, public funds do not bear such costs; otherwise there would be a large demand on public funds. Therefore, substantial difficulties stand in the way of making awards in this area out of public funds. For that reason I wanted to be sure that that was precisely what the noble Lord had in mind. I understand from him that it was. In those circumstances, I have great difficulty in giving effect to the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: It will not surprise the noble and learned Lord or any Member of the Committee if I state boldly that I have no intention of dividing the Committee on this amendment and at this hour.

679
However, being serious, the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls put the matter so much better than I did. If it is not a question of public funds it may be that there is another way of compensating the solicitor who has been found to have been wronged. If he dislikes the idea of public funds being mulcted in this way, I ask only whether the noble and learned Lord will consider whether there is another source from which the costs could come.
The noble and learned Lord has said that where somebody has suffered as a result of court procedures going wrong and where somebody has suffered an injustice by way of loss, in certain circumstances there could be a claim, be it to the ombudsman or to someone of a similar nature. One cannot have a damnum sine injuria in these circumstances; that is a loss without a remedy.
Will the noble and learned Lord at least consider the situation, which is unjust, and see whether there is an alternative source from which the costs can be made to somebody who has been wronged in that way?
2 a.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor responds, perhaps I may make what I hope is a helpful suggestion both to the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; namely, that we cannot possibly go down the road suggested, that we are compensating for a judicial error. If we once go down that road, the consequences need no spelling out.
However, the point could be put in this way, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor could consider it on that footing. Where a disciplinary power is being exercised in this way, on occasion at the instigation of the court, the true analogy is a criminal proceeding. It is the state taking action against one of its officers. Of course, in the criminal field, costs out of public funds are common where the accused is acquitted. That analogy might fit the bill. In my submission, the other line of argument should be rejected very swiftly.
The Lord Chancellor: When I first spoke on this I indicated that, at the invitation of one of my judicial colleagues, I was considering the question of Section 50 costs. I have not yet completed that. Therefore, if it can be called a benefit, the noble Lord will have the benefit of the same consideration.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 [Bail applications]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 207MB:
Page 58, line 9, leave out ("a Crown Prosecutor") and insert ("the Director").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is designed to clarify who will give instructions in
680
relation to bail applications. It is intended that it should be the director personally and this amendment makes that plain. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I presume that the noble and learned Lord brought forward this amendment as a result of our debate on Amendment No. 139A on this very question. The noble and learned Lord will remember that the matter was discussed at some length on the basis of whether it was right that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be permitted to employ unqualified staff to conduct bail application proceedings before Supreme Court judges.
The view was expressed in all parts of the Chamber that, having regard to the crucial importance of the matter both in relation to the liberty of the subject and to the safety of the public, that was quite unacceptable. Having heard what was said, the noble and learned Lord agreed to reconsider the situation in relation to Clause 77 which is now under discussion.
I hope that I am right in my presumption that this amendment was brought forward as a result of that debate. If that is so, then I cannot for myself see how this makes any improvement at all on the situation. The position is that the person dealing with the bail application is an unqualified person designated by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am at a loss to understand the difference between being designated by the Crown prosecutor, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Presumably, it does not mean that in every single bail application all over the country when an unqualified person is sent to deal with it he receives his instructions from the director personally. It cannot mean that. Presumably, it means that he will receive his instructions from a Crown prosecutor acting on behalf of the director.
I ask the noble and learned Lord: what is the difference between those two situations? Does it mean that ultimately it is exactly as was realised when we had our previous debate: that the person who deals with the application is an unqualified person dealing with a matter of supreme importance in regard to the liberty of the subject and the safety of the public?
The Lord Chancellor: That point of principle remains and presumably that is what we will discuss on Clause 77 stand part. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the director himself can give instructions to the people who will handle the bail applications if this clause is allowed to stand part of the Bill. Therefore, he can give instructions to which they must conform. The result of that is not to make it any less objectionable from the point of view of the noble Lord. We shall argue about that on clause stand part.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 77, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Having taken part in these proceedings for over 10 hours, I do not now

681
intend to press my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill. The result of going on so late is that it merely piles up matters for a later stage.
However, I am bound to remind the Committee that this subject was debated at some length and, as I have already said, the general feeling of those who took part in the debate under Amendment No. 139A was that it was quite unacceptable for unqualified persons to deal with bail applications which are held in private and which are of the greatest possible importance to the liberty of the subject and to the safety of the public. The noble and learned Lord said that as a result of that debate he would reconsider the matter. I should be most grateful to hear whether he has in fact done so.
Lord Renton: On the question of whether Clause 77 should stand part of the Bill, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I simply ask: is it not a matter of having high enough standards of professional advocacy to enable justice to be done and to appear to be done? It is essential for the prosecution to be represented by a qualified lawyer, barrister or solicitor; somebody who understands the law and the implication of the Bail Act and who is prepared and brought up to serve the court in accordance with the rule of law. There is a danger, if we have someone not so qualified, of his thinking that his only duty is to oppose bail by all possible means. We do not want that to happen because that is not justice.
Lord Hacking: Perhaps I may also support the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, on this point. Indeed, I have some side notes on my copy of the Bill which read, "Law Society and Bar Council united; House to be divided".
The Lord Chancellor: I should not like it to be thought that simply because the Bar Council and the Law Society had taken a particular view that that necessarily was a view that ought to prevail.
I should like to say a few words about this, though the noble Lord has indicated how he views the position. In the case of Re Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte The Association of First Division Civil Servants (1988), the Divisional Court held that only the DPP himself and Crown prosecutors (that is, qualified lawyers) have power under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to conduct proceedings. The point at issue in the case was whether the DPP could delegate to staff who are not legally qualified the function of screening cases to decide whether prosecutions can proceed. The court held that such delegation was ultra vires as screening constituted "conduct of proceedings" which can only be carried out by the DPP or by the Crown prosecutor.
It is not intended to reverse this decision by allowing unqualified staff to screen cases. The decision did, however, cast doubt on the legality of another practice involving CPS officials who did not possess legal qualifications; namely, the making of representations for the prosecution in respect of bail applications before a judge in Chambers in the High
682
Court and in the Crown Court. In Section 15(3) of the 1985 Act, "conduct of proceedings" is defined as including the making of representations in respect of applications for bail.
The purpose of this clause is to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to designate any member of the Crown Prosecution Service, though not a barrister or a solicitor, to appear before a judge in Chambers in the High Court or a Crown Court for the purpose of making representations on behalf of the CPS in respect of any application for bail or to vary the conditions of bail or impose conditions in respect of bail which has been granted unconditionally.
As I said, the person appointed to have this function would be somebody selected for the purpose by the Director of Public Prosecutions. My understanding is that the situation which prevailed, until the decision in the case to which I have referred, was that experienced non-lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with bail applications and that they had done so to the satisfaction of the court.
The view was taken, and that is why this clause is proposed, that the practice should continue. My understanding is that this decision was welcomed by the members of the judiciary at the time. Since then the CPS has received representations from a number of judges about how well that work was handled by law clerks. In the areas in which they did appear I understand that the judiciary never called into question their independence or competence.
Since the CPS stopped this practice in the light of doubt about legality flowing from the decision, a number of judges have made it known that they regret the change. I believe it right that the cases should be dealt with at the appropriate level. Provided that the person handling this kind of application is competent and adequately trained, and provided that the appropriate controls are there, it is clear that an unqualified person can provide the service that the courts require. That is what we are trying to achieve here.
That does not mean that that procedure will be followed in every case. It means that in a case where the Crown Prosecution Service judge it appropriate, this possibility should arise. It seems a reasonable situation which prevailed in the past without any damage or difficulty as far as I can judge.
I have just been referred to what I said as regards the earlier amendment. I do not think that I gave any particular undertaking about this matter. It is an issue of considerable importance. The noble Lord has indicated the course of action that he proposes to take. I shall have an opportunity to consider further what he has said tonight in preparation for what he may say if he raises the matter again. I have looked into the matter more fully since he raised the question and the information which I have is one of the results of that.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Law reports]:
[Amendments Nos. 207N to 207Q not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 not moved.]
2.15 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.209A:
Page 60, leave out lines 33 and 34.
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 137B and 141A. It is designed to split the definition of "recognised body", to which I referred before. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.209B:
Page 61, line 7, at end insert —
("(3) In this Act any reference (including those in sections 24(7) and 25(4)) to rules of conduct includes a reference to rules of practice.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is one of the amendments that I proposed in relation to the earlier amendments. It makes it clear that rules of conduct includes a reference to rules of practice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 81, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hacking: The noble and learned Lord said after interventions by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls and I that he would have another look at the definition of "court" which is to be found at the bottom of page 59.
The Lord Chancellor: I did indeed.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 209BA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 209BB:
Page 61, line 12, after ("1(1)") insert ("1(4), 9(5)").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 209CA and 209CB. These amendments are a matter of considerable parliamentary and constitutional moment; and as noble Lords will see, they have support from all parts of the Committee.
I rise to move Amendment No. 209BB at 2.15 a.m. That was always predictable and was predicted. We are now in the sixth day of Committee stage. On
684
only one of those days has the Committee adjourned before 10.30 p.m. On another day besides this we went on past midnight. It was always predictable that, if noble Lords sat at reasonable hours to do the job that had to be done on this Bill, seven or eight days would be needed for the Committee stage.
The amendments all relate to the changing of procedure in the clauses and subsections to which they refer from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. All but two of the subsections relate to Henry VIII clauses. When I moved a similar amendment at the Report stage of the Children Bill my noble and learned friend accepted it with alacrity. If he is prepared to indicate that he accepts this group of amendments, I shall sit down at once.
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should say that I am willing to consider for affirmative resolution procedure the subject matters that he has raised. Clause 1(4) is the one which we discussed in relation to Clause 1. I indicated then that I would endeavour to make it clear what I was seeking to say. I know that my noble and learned friend does not agree with me. He said that although I said it thrice, I had not persuaded him. I am sorry that I said it thrice if I did not have that effect. I intend to deal with that point. I am minded to delete Clause 9(5) in the light of the considerations brought forward by my noble and learned friend. Clause 23(1) and (2) are in much the same position as Clause 1(1) and (4). So far as the rule-making powers for conditional fees and the rights of Scottish and Northern Ireland lawyers are concerned, I am content that the basic rule should be under the affirmative resolution procedure. The only matter about which I am a little concerned —perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me to consider it —is whether all the regulations under Clause 45 require to be dealt in that way.
I am prepared to deal with Clause 44 by affirmative resolution. I am more doubtful about Clause 45 because it is an EC method. I do not have a strong view about it, but that is my present feeling. I hope that that is sufficient indication to enable my noble and learned friend to decide what he is going to do. I am inclined to do my best to accommodate the views put forward earlier by my noble and learned friend on that aspect of the matter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend. I am not sure that I have taken in everything that he said. So far as Clause 1(1) and (4) are concerned, it is not only that I do not agree with my noble and learned friend —that would be neither here nor there —but no other Member of the Committee agrees with him. However, I understand that he is going to amend that provision and it may be better to wait to see how that turns out.
Clause 45(4) is a Henry VIII clause. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me to discuss the details with him. In the meantime, if the noble Lords, Lord Rippon and Lord Mishcon agree, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor might consider agreeing (so that we do not have to have this discussion too often) that in any case where the Henry VIII clause is employed —that is to say, where there is a power to amend or repeal the primary legislation —there will always be the affirmative resolution procedure. If we received that undertaking it would save a great deal of time because that point has come up time and again in recent legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: I am appreciative of the length of time for which my noble friends and my noble and learned friends have waited to put their point. I am disposed to do everything that I possibly can to meet what they have said. In the circumstances, agreeing with my noble friend Lord Rippon is perhaps the least that I can do. I understand the concerns and, while I am not sure that I entirely accept his description of the amendments, where the power to amend primary legislation is conferred, even in a limited sense, I shall see that the affirmative resolution procedure is followed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 209C to 209E not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209F:
Page 61, line 18, after ("Act") insert ("other than one under section 86(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is designed to make it clear that we do not need the negative resolution procedure in relation to commencement orders. As currently drafted all statutory instruments under the Bill are subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, which should not be necessary for simple commencement orders and is not the general practice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment 209G:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
("Saving for legal aid.
.—(1) Nothing in this Act concerning rights of audience for lay persons or for solicitors shall prejudice any application for or grant of representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988.
(2) When the Legal Aid Board is performing its functions under section 15(3) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 and it appears to the Board that all or some solicitors have rights of audience before the court in which the proceedings are taking place or are likely to take place, that circumstance shall not be taken into account by the Board when deciding whether to grant representation and whether to permit the instruction of counsel.
(3) When a competent court under sections 20, 27 or 29 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 is performing its functions under sections 21, 22, 28 or 29, and it appears to the court that all or some solicitors have rights of audience before the court in which the proceedings are taking place or are likely to take place, that circumstance shall not be taken into account by the court when deciding whether to grant representation and whether to assign counsel.").
The noble Lord said: I ought to point out to the Committee that we have achieved a defeat for the Leader of the House, who I believe has heard what I have said, and the Chief Whip, who I believe has
686
heard what I have said. The defeat is on the following basis. They were insistent that we were only allowed six days for this Committee stage. I have to inform them that we have now gone almost through the seventh day. In those circumstances, I regard that as a victory.
Amendment No. 209G does just this. It seeks to ensure that the extension of rights of audience to lay persons under Clause 8 of the Bill, and to solicitors under Part II, is not used as a reason to restrict eligibility for legal aid or to deny representation by counsel in appropriate cases. I do not have to make a long speech on this amendment, because the noble and learned Lord conceded the point very generously and very frankly when I moved an amendment for incorporation in the Bill of a clause which saw to it that these extensions of right generally were not meant to be an invasion of rights under legal aid.
The client must have the right to say to the legal aid authorities, "I should like to have counsel in this case", and the legal aid authorities should not be in a position to say, "We are very sorry, but there was a solicitor who conducted the general preparation of the case, and we think that as that solicitor has a right of audience he should be the person who conducts the case and not counsel". The Law Society is very keen to see that this position is maintained as under this amendment, and so is the Bar Council.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord will want to carry out what he has always said, which is that the whole purpose of many provisions of this Bill is to preserve the client's choice. This is what this amendment does and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to agree to it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may very briefly say that I support this amendment. It is only right that somebody on the government side should make that clear.
The Lord Chancellor: I entirely go along with the point of view that the mere fact that we are seeking to increase choice, which is what this Bill is about, is not to be taken as a cost-cutting exercise so far as concerns legal aid. I am also anxious to preserve the point that the level of representation appropriate to a particular case is something that the Legal Aid Board has statutory responsibility for already; and of course the judges also have in criminal matters a power in this situation to say at what level representation should be.
For example, the legal aid authorities can say whether counsel should be instructed in a particular case where legal aid is available, and a solicitor or counsel might be appropriate depending on the nature of the case. The legal aid authorities have discretion of that kind and, again, the legal aid authorities —legal aid authorities includes for this purpose the courts in appropriate cases —have power to say whether the case justifies the employment of leading counsel rather than just a junior counsel. I should want to continue to provide that kind of flexibility. I do not think there is much between us; it is a question of how it should be phrased. I am sure that the noble Lord would not suggest that in a

687
trivial case the client on legal aid should have the right to employ a very expensive counsel.
The general idea that increasing choice will be frustrated by not giving the client an appropriate level of choice is not a provision that I wish to see under the Bill. I believe that this is also the aim of the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: Indeed it is. I hope that that is clear from the wording of the amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree that I have been rather careful in the wording that I have employed. Of course any discretion which the Legal Aid Board had before the passing of the Bill must remain. I have specifically provided in subsection (1) that,
"Nothing in this Act concerning rights of audience for lay persons or for solicitors shall prejudice any application for or grant of representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988".
Therefore the amendment merely states that none of the changes in the Act can be used as a reason for depriving a client or applicant for legal aid of what would have been his rights had the Act not been passed. That is what the amendment says and I should have thought the noble and learned Lord agrees with it. If he tells me that the wording can be tightened up and it is a matter of drafting but the principle is right, of course I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Alternatively, in his generosity, since this is almost the final amendment, he could say to the Committee that he accepts the amendment but reserves the right to "clean it up", if I may use that expression, in drafting when we come to a later stage. That would be a very generous gesture.
The Lord Chancellor: I should like to read carefully what the noble Lord has said. I believe there is not very much between us and that we should be able to reach a form of words which accurately reflects what we wish. In any case, I should like to try to deal with the question of the other authorised litigators and advocates under the new framework in relation to legal aid. Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to allow me time to consider that matter and I shall see whether we can achieve a form of words to which we can both agree.
Lord Mishcon: I shall use the expression which has been used before. This appears, as the noble and learned Lord has said, to merit his favourable consideration with a view to a clause which carries out the principle. On that clear understanding I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 to 87 agreed to.
schedule 11[consequential Amendments]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209GA:
Page 10, line 11, leave out from ("section") to ("money"), in line 12, and insert ("and section 33 references to clients' money and money of a kind mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section or (1)(a) of section 33 include references to").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. The Government proposed in the White Paper to make provision to allow solicitors, who held money as stakeholders, to pass to their clients any interest earned on that money. In addition, they proposed that all money held as a stakeholder must be put on deposit, and interest paid to the client, unless the amount is de minimis. This proposal required amendments to Sections 32 and 33 of the Solicitors Act; these deal with the council's power to make accounts and trust account rules, and rules as to the payment of interest on clients' money. As there was some doubt that the amendment as drafted in paragraph 5 extended to Section 33 of the Act, I move this amendment to the Bill to make that intention clear. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209H:
Page 109, line 40, after ("inserted") insert (" "or").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 209JA and 209L. Paragraphs 9 to 17 of Schedule 11 set out consequential amendments to the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 arising mainly from Clause 55 of the Bill, which extends the dependant's benefits scheme to female judges and their widowers. They insert references to female judges and their dependants where appropriate in the Act. Amendment No. 209H picks up one reference which was missed when the Bill was drafted. The others are purely drafting amendments which make no changes of substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209J had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209JA:
Page 110, line 3, leave out from ("words") to the end of line 4 and insert (" "widow or child of his" there shall be substituted "widow, widower or child of that person"; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209K had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209L:
Page 110, line 6, leave out ("person" ") and insert ("person's" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Transitionals and savings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209M:
Page 112, line 4, leave out ("or other instrument") and insert ("instrument or other document").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 209M broadens slightly the scope of paragraph 1 of Schedule 12. This paragraph construes references

689
to registrars as references to district judges, and presently applies only to references found in enactments or other instruments. This amendment applies the construing provision to references in "documents" as well.
The purpose of this amendment is to include references in practice forms. These are documents prepared by the court service for the encouragement of uniformity and consistency in communications with the public. They do not, however, have any legislative force and are thus not covered by the term "instrument" or "enactment". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 113, line 12, at end insert —
("(3) The definition of "replacement date", inserted in section 87(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 by paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 shall have effect subject to the provision made by this paragraph.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the workings of the transitional provisions for the new system of solicitors' practising certificates set out in Clause 61 of the Bill. At present all practising certificates expire on 31st October each year. Under the new system the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls is to be empowered, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, to make regulations prescribing a replacement date by which a solicitor must apply for a new practising certificate.
On the coming into force of Clause 61, the transitional provisions provide that all practising certificates then in force shall automatically have replacement dates of the following 31st October. This ensures that there is a smooth transition into the new system, and that the transitional arrangements will take precedence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Repeals]:
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 114, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 83.").

The noble Lord said: I have the doubtful honour of going in last in very poor light. I hope the noble and learned Lord will obey the convention that fast bowlers do not bowl at tail enders. In moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 212. This is a repealing schedule and it would seem that two important repeals have not been included in the schedule.
Clause 24(1) states:
"The question whether a person has a right of audience before a court, or in relation to any proceedings, shall be determined solely in accordance with the provisions of this Part".
Under Section 83(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may direct that,
"solicitors may appear in, conduct, defend and address the court in any proceedings in the Crown Court".
In Section 83(2) a direction,
"may have effect as respects all places where the Crown Court sits",
or as specified earlier.
In Section 83(3) the Lord Chancellor,
"shall have regard to any shortage of counsel in the area in question … and to any other circumstances affecting the public interest".
When I raised this matter earlier in the proceedings the noble and learned Lord said that in his view that power referred only to curious places such as Bodmin where there was a shortage of barristers and where solicitors might be appointed under this clause. However, the noble and learned Lord's predecessor made directions under that section regarding solicitors having rights of audience in appeals and committals for sentence in all Crown Courts. Therefore it would not seem to have been operated only in regard to curious places such as Bodmin.
In those circumstances it appears that the Lord Chancellor may bestow rights of audience in all Crown Courts by direction in any circumstances which he considers affect the public interest. I wonder how that can sit with the terms of Clause 24.
Equally, under Section 4(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, for the purpose of giving Crown prosecutors additional rights of audience in the Crown Court, the Lord Chancellor may give any such direction as he could give under Section 83 in respect of solicitors. Therefore, under that statute, the Lord Chancellor appears to have power to grant similar rights of audience in Crown Courts to solicitors in the employ of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Those two powers seem to ride through the provisions of Part II of this Bill. Therefore, I suggest that both should appear in the repeal schedule to the Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The fundamental section is Section 83 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The provision in the Prosecution of Offences Act uses that section.
The view that I have taken of the provision, since I have had to operate it, is that it is intended for special situations. So far as I can recall, the only use that I have made of it is the one that I mentioned. I am not sure that I used the phrase "curious places like Bodmin". If I did, I had best be careful. I referred to Bodmin as somewhere from where I had to move an existing practice direction and transfer it to Truro when the Crown Court moved from Bodmin to Truro.
I have taken the view that the section deals with special situations rather than general situations. I agree that it refers to,
"all places where the Crown Court sits".

691
However, when one looks at the considerations to which the Lord Chancellor is supposed to have regard I believe that the intention is that it be special.
There is also the point that practice directions have been made under that section. If there is saving for them they would fall on any repeal. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that any suggestion that we should take away existing rights of audience in Caernarvon would not be wise. The principle embodied in the Bill is that existing rights of audience are not to be taken away. There is a practice direction which refers to Caernarvon, Barnstaple, Bodmin, Doncaster and Lincoln as well as one referring to Truro.
The second, more general, direction was made some time ago in respect of criminal proceedings in the Crown Court. It provided that in some cases the same firm which appeared for the defendant in the magistrates' court could appear in civil proceedings on appeal from the magistrates' court on the basis of the special circumstances that it had appeared in the proceedings in the magistrates' courts. I understand that the provisions of the second practice direction are widely used. I wish to maintain those provisions.
I have taken the view of Section 83 is not a general provision that would enable me to override the general law in that area. I should not wish to lose the existing practice directions. For that reason, I should not like to repeal Section 83 in the repeals schedule. The noble Lord is perfectly right to say that from the enactment of the new system rights of audience will be determined solely in respect of that method. Accordingly, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment and the section relating to prosecution offences which stands in it.
2.45 a.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the power has been used not only in the way that he undertakes to use it, but broadly to give those rights in all Crown Courts? That is what makes one nervous of leaving those powers unrepealed.
The Lord Chancellor: I see that. I agree that the provisions of the second practice direction about appeals to the Crown Court from magistrates' courts in civil proceedings and in criminal proceedings in the Crown Court in some cases where the same firm appeared in the magistrates' courts are fairly general. They are based on the circumstances that the solicitor appeared in the magistrates' court. In that way they are somewhat special.
However, my view of the section has been the more narrow one. It may be wise for me to consider in what form the section might continue in view of what the noble Lord has said, but I think that the general words that we have used in Clause 24, to the
692
effect that rights of audience should be determined only in respect of that, would make it clear that from now on Section 83 applies only to special circumstances. If the noble Lord is prepared to leave the matter with me, I shall certainly consider it. I do not want to lose the existing rights created under Section 83 because those are important rights which it would not be correct to try to remove.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Having regard to the medium pace at which the noble and learned Lord has bowled, I am perfectly happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 211ZA:
Page 114, column 3, leave out lines 53 and 54.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to delete from Schedule 13 the provision for the repeal of paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 6 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. That provision has in fact already been repealed by the Statute Law (Repeal) Act 1989. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 211ZB:
Page 115, column 3, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a consequential drafting amendment to an earlier amendment removing the subsection in Clause 3 which would have repealed Sections 50 and 51 of the County Courts Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 211A:
Page 115, line 15, column 3, at end insert —

("Section 89(3).").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment repeals Section 89(3) of the County Courts Act 1984 and is entirely consequential upon Clause 12 which updates the list of articles which are exempt from seizure under warrants of execution in the county courts. It substitutes for the concept of a prescribed value below which articles are protected the test of whether or not those articles are necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 212 and 212A not moved.]
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes before three o'clock.

  ARMS EXPORTS
  ARMS EXPORTS
  CROSSRAIL LINK DECISION
  CROSSRAIL LINK DECISION