Sitting of 6 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL
  Lords amendments, as amended, agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Conventional Forces in Europe
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications of an elimination of the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe for the procurement of theatre nuclear weapons.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): While we warmly welcome the current changes in eastern Europe, we strongly support NATO's strategy that an effective mix of conventional and nuclear forces will continue to offer the best guarantee of our future peace and security.
    Mr. Cohen: As President Bush's proposed troop cuts in Europe were warmly greeted in the Soviet Union, there must be a real chance of eliminating conventional forces imbalances and making attack impractical. In those circumstances, is not the Government's strategy of having and using early theatre nuclear weapons obsolete? Are not the Government guilty of taking no account of what is happening in Europe? As proof of that, are not the Government contemplating taking the follow-on to Lance in the United Kingdom in the hope of foisting it on Germany in future? Is not that plain barmy?
    Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that our strategy is NATO strategy, which his party—certainly its Front-Bench spokesmen—is supposed to support. We continue to support an effective mix of conventional and nuclear forces. That is NATO strategy.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has just said, the vast majority of people in this country fully support the nuclear shield in the present uncertain times and believe that on no account must it be dropped? My right hon. Friend has the backing of the vast majority of people in this country.
    Mr. King: The truth is that balance or imbalance in conventional forces has never been a pure deterrent. There was a clear message from the last war, which Hitler started with an imbalance against him. He showed how he could
    744
    still succeed with conventional arms. It is clear that nuclear weapons have been a deterrent. That is widely recognised and is the policy which we support and shall continue to support.
    Mr. O'Neill: What evidence does the Secretary of State have to support the view that there will be any financial capability in either the Senate or the House of Representatives to back a follow-on to Lance?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows that Mr. Cheney has put forward his proposals to Congress, which include financial provision for the modernisation of theatre nuclear weapons. That is the position of the United States Administration. The hon. Gentleman also knows that that was covered in the summit communiqué of the NATO leaders, which I imagine that he supports, in which the need for modernisation was recognised.

    Arms Reductions
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the imbalance between Warsaw pact and NATO forces in (a) tanks and artillery and (b) combat aircraft following the completion in the reductions announced by the Soviet Union in December 1988.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement about the relative level of conventional forces in eastern and western Europe.
    Mr. Tom King: At present, the Soviet Union and its allies retain a substantial advantage in conventional forces and, even after the completion of the unilateral withdrawals and reductions programmes announced by them, and before a CFE agreement is implemented, we estimate that they will continue to have an advantage of some 2.4:1 in tanks and artillery, and 1·8:1 in combat aircraft.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that with the changes going on in eastern Europe and with Russia falling apart, the nuclear deterrent and nuclear forces should be maintained? With Libya, Iraq and Iran likely to have nuclear forces in future, does he agree that we should maintain our nuclear presence and, in future, have more conventional forces and more nuclear weapons? What price freedom?
    Mr. King: We all welcome the tremendous changes that are taking place in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at present. Obviously, that holds out the prospect of a greater chance of peace and greater stability, and a lessening of tension, armaments and weapons. At the same time, it is clear that there are real dangers and tremendous uncertainties now, and it is necessary to be prudent. Many people think that the present time is particularly dangerous and, while we welcome the end of the sterile and frozen position of the cold war, none the less those changes bring dangers of their own.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when empires are collapsing, there is a real risk of war? Does he not agree that that fact, and the huge imbalance between East and West, emphasises that any talk of a peace dividend at present is excessively premature?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) referred to the nuclear deterrent. While we can see what look like substantial and probably irreversible changes in the structure of the Warsaw pact, and of its conventional forces, there is no question but that, under Mr. Gorbachev, there has been a significant strengthening of Soviet strategic nuclear forces and of their capability. We certainly hope that we are moving towards a more sensible and rational relationship between East and West, but we must recognise the very real forces that could be used against us.
    Mr. Duffy: However satisfactory the outcome of CFE1—and there is no want of goodwill on either side—given current Soviet tank technology and the urgency that the Secretary of State quite properly attaches to a successful third generation of Trigat, there remains a residual need for main battle tanks, although they may well become lighter and more portable. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider acknowledging that publicly, thus reassuring those responsible for preserving the industrial capacity without which we shall not be able to provide tanks in future? I am thinking of those who work at Leeds tank factory.
    Mr. King: I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's point, which he put so eloquently on behalf of his constituents. Certainly, arms reductions and the proposals in CFE involve some reductions in tanks on either side, but there is no doubt that, even within that framework, we have certain problems with the age of present tank components, and we need to ensure that we have a modern tank capability. I think that there is a prospect of significant purchases of tanks, and it is worth putting that on record, but I will not be drawn further on exact details.
    Mr. Rogers: In view of the Secretary of State's expressed concern about the imbalance that will occur after the talks, and in view of the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), will he tell the House when he will make a decision on the Challenger replacement and on the European fighter aircraft? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are extremely concerned that we shall go outside of Britain to purchase a battle tank and that it will mean the collapse of the tank industry in this country.
    Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the programme that is set up for that. The final milestone is in September and, subject to satisfactory achievement of that, which we obviously hope will happen, we shall sit down and examine all the options and reach a decision as early as we can.
    Mr. Jack: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts in connection with the European fighter aircraft radar? He will be aware that there is still uncertainty surrounding that project. Will he confirm to the House today that the Government are still 100 per cent. committed to the project, and will he outline the future course of action that he sees being pursued, particularly with the West German Government, to resolve outstanding problems?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He will have noticed that, at the last meeting that I had with Dr. Stoltenberg, the West German Defence Minister, we both reaffirmed the commitment of our two
    746
    Governments to the EFA project. In respect of the ECR90 radar, developments associated with it, the acquisition of Ferranti Defence Systems by GEC, and any remaining contractual matters, I hope that it will be possible for them to be resolved shortly. I also hope that it will be possible for there to be public confirmation of that by both Governments.

    Recruitment
    Mr. David Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of (a) entrants and (b) leavers for each of the services in the latest year available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): In the 12 months ending 30 November 1989 there were 6,396 entrants and 7,609 leavers in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines; 22,063 entrants and 25,129 leavers in the Army; and 6,957 entrants and 9,570 leavers in the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Young: Do not those figures—coupled with the Statement on the Defence Estimates—show a clear dissatisfaction with life in the forces? Given the current reduction in tension between East and West, would not a more realistic policy be the reduction of arms and personnel rather than an attempt to redeploy the Wrens or to stockpile the successor to Lance?
    Mr. Neubert: I have to listen attentively to the hon. Gentleman when he mentions dissatisfaction in the armed forces, because he was PPS to the last Labour defence Minister, Lord Mulley. At that time—the late 1970s—there were many premature departures as a result of the demoralisation caused by poor pay and conditions and the low priority given to defence expenditure. Under the present Government, with their buoyant economy, the problem of retention is caused by employment opportunities outside the forces, despite the greatly improved pay and conditions.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In my hon. Friend's review—although he would probably not call it that—of the long-term consequences of any continued outflow of experienced and highly skilled personnel, will he examine the possibility of the reserves—particularly air and naval reserves—playing a much larger part in our defence, especially if the reduction in European tensions persists?
    Mr. Neubert: I assure the House that recruitment is doing rather well. In 1988–89 it was up on the previous year, and the current recruitment year looks set to be better than the last. We are obviously able to recruit large numbers of young men and women to the armed forces. As for the future, we have achieved under this Government a cash settlement for the next three years, an increase of £1 billion in each year, an increase in real terms, and this does enable us to boost measures both to recruit and retain. The reserves are an important factor in our equation, and we shall continue to recruit extra members.
    Mr. O'Neill: Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the contribution to be made by women in all three services. Will the Minister tell us, however, what preparations he has in mind to accommodate Mr. Colin Wallace in the armed forces if the Calcutt inquiry finds in his favour? Would it not be simpler to arrange a wider

    747
    inquiry that would cover all aspects of the matter, rather than dealing merely with the employment rights of one individual involved in the smear tactics of the 1970s?
    Mr. Neubert: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Colin Wallace was neither an entrant to nor a leaver of the armed forces in the year ending 30 November 1989. I can suggest only that the hon. Gentleman stays up late tonight and listens to the Adjournment debate on the subject.
    Mr. David Martin: As my hon. Friend faces the problems of retention, will he always keep under review policy on retirement ages? The royal naval detention quarters at the Portsmouth naval base provide a good example of good service by people who would normally have retired, and I am sure that the services provide opportunities for a much more flexible policy on retirement age generally.
    Mr. Neubert: I welcome my hon. Friend's commendation of flexibility in that regard, as in others. We shall be considering a wide range of imaginative measures to improve our retention rates. We are seeking to improve the quality of life through a major programme of refurbishment of married quarters, and trying to provide better professional job satisfaction by contracting out cleaning and the painting of ships. We are also seeking reduced turbulence in the Army by increasing the length of tours.

    Nuclear Weapons (Anglo-French Co-operation)
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current Anglo-French co-operation on nuclear weapon development.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Discussions are taking place.
    Ms. Primarolo: As the threat from the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc has diminished virtually to non-existence why is the Minister having discussions with the French about building a nuclear weapon? Will he tell us at whom the weapon is targeted, whether it breaches the intermediate nuclear forces agreement and how many billions of pounds will be wasted on that cold war attitude, when we could be spending money on diversification programmes to employ people in the defence industry?
    Mr. Clark: I have some sympathy with the first part of the hon. Lady's question, but lead times in weapons procurement are such that we are discussing a weapons system that is unlikely to be in service until the first decades of the next century. I cannot predict, and nor can anyone else in the House of Commons, who the enemies of the United Kingdom will be or where they will be located.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: When looking at the extent and development of Anglo-French nuclear co-operation, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the recent modernisation by the Soviet Union of its own nuclear capability, including air-launched cruise missiles?
    Mr. Clark: I certainly attach importance to Anglo-French nuclear collaboration. I hope that it will increase and produce good results in the near future.
    Mr Hardy: Do not recent comments by French Ministers suggest that the French Government intend to
    748
    have the last nuclear weapon on the planet; they will allow everyone else to disarm but will insist that the last nuclear weapon bears the tricolor alongside its registration number? In view of that ambition, will the Minister make sure that we are not tied down to follow the same policy, which may be unwise and utterly unimaginative?
    Mr. Clark: I am glad to say that I have absolutely no responsibility for what French Ministers have to say.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence policy in the light of the latest developments in east Europe.
    Mr. Tom King: We shall continue to provide for the strong and assured defence of the United Kingdom, and to meet our NATO and out-of-area obligations. We shall maintain the conventional forces that we need for those tasks, together with an independent nuclear deterrent. The future structure of our forces will need to take account of international developments and progress in arms control negotiations; and naturally we shall continue to examine options for change, subject always to assuring the United Kingdom's fundamental security.
    Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend is right to be cautious. The events in eastern Europe are as momentous as their outcome is obscure. Is my right hon. Friend aware of a growing body of opinion among those whose commitment to defence is not in doubt, that if we are to avoid dangerous delays in future, contingency plans may have to be made now for what may be forced on us: a traditional alliance based on strong maritime defence and a well-equipped, home-based Army? It would be a tragedy if the Government, having so decisively won the cold war, were to fail to inherit the uneasy peace.
    Mr. King: I entirely understand why my hon. Friend speaks as he does. If he studies my answer, he may feel that it meets the points that he raised.
    Mr. James Lamond: When the Soviet Union was alleged to be strong and in full command of the Warsaw pact, we were told that it was impossible to contemplate disarmament. Now that the talks at Vienna are going very well and President Bush is negotiating troop reductions with President Gorbachev over the heads of NATO, why does the Secretary of State for Defence still say that we need the strongest possible defence and to build more nuclear weapons? Will he tell us when and in what circumstances we can begin to dismantle our nuclear weapons?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman referred to the United States Government negotiating over the heads of their allies. I should like to pay tribute to the consultation from President Bush, Mr. Eagleburger, Mr. Gates and General Butler, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on Monday before I went to Washington, well in advance of the communication with the Soviet Union that confirmed the President's proposals.
    Mr. Duffy: Two days' notice.
    Mr. King: It was earlier than that. That consultation was extremely helpful to us, enabling us to support President Bush's proposals and the changes that are taking

    749
    place in eastern Europe, which we hope will endure and which offer the prospect of economies and changes in our defence arrangements.
    Sir Jim Spicer: In looking to the future, will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that he will not react to what I call the immediate "action man" calls from Opposition Members, but that any statement that he makes and any review that is undertaken will be measured, will take account of all the circumstances and will, in particular, bear in mind the absolute certainty that we need to change the weight of defence policy from armour to airborne?
    Mr. King: We certainly need to ensure that we maintain effective security for our country and that we make an effective contribution to the Alliance. Those are our clearly stated objectives. The point was well put by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that it is easy to stop things, but it is very much harder and takes very much longer to start them again. Some of the procurement processes in which we might be involved to ensure the long-term security of our country can be very long indeed.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: Which specific conditions need to be satisfied for the Government to argue the case for NATO to revise its strategy on flexible response?
    Mr. King: This is part of the general consideration that we take—
    Mr. Hughes: I referred to specific conditions.
    Mr. King: No, it is not a question of specific conditions. We must keep under review the changes that are taking place. There is not some quick trick or some smart answer to this problem. We must make an overall assessment of the threat that we face—whatever it may be or from wherever it may come, not just in western Europe—to determine what effective response to make.
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in NATO on the defence implications of recent developments within eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Tom King: The last NATO meeting was on 28 and 29 November. Since then, I have had meetings with my German and French colleagues, as well as my visit to Washington last week for discussions with Mr. Cheney. In addition, I met informally a number of other NATO colleagues last weekend at the Wehrkunde conference.
    Mr. Viggers: Having sat through yesterday's debate on the Royal Navy, I should like to ask whether my right hon. Friend shares my concern about the siren voices of Labour Members urging us to contemplate how to spend the so-called peace dividend. Does he agree that this is the modern equivalent of what used to be called careless talk? The right attitude, surely, is to work carefully with our NATO colleagues, bearing in mind the comments of its Secretary General that there are many destabilising, and prospective destabilising, elements in Europe, not least of which is the uncertain status of a prospective united Germany?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend highlights the dishonest approach of the Labour party. It claims to support
    750
    NATO's policy of maintaining an effective and credible defence, yet it claims that the peace dividend should be made available immediately for spending. The British people recognise that dishonesty.
    Mr. Cartwright: As there is clearly a need to reshape NATO's forces to take account of the changing threat, is not it essential that that process is undertaken on an Alliancewide basis rather than by unilateral cuts? Is the Secretary of State happy that some NATO members seem to be determined to cash in the benefits of arms control before the cheque has arrived in the bank?
    Mr. King: I certainly agree that any changes must be made after consultation among allies and must follow clear advice from the military advisers, under the leadership of Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, General Galvin, to ensure that whatever changes and reductions are made, they maintain the military credibility and effectiveness of Alliance defence.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday I attempted to cross the Berlin wall at the Brandenburg gate and that despite my possessing a British passport the East German border guards, courteously and correctly, directed me to Checkpoint Charlie, because British citizens are able to cross from West to East Berlin only under a treaty signed in 1948? Is not that completely out of date, and will my right hon. Friend discuss with our NATO partners, as a matter of urgency, the revising of the arrangements for Berlin so that they more accurately reflect current and contemporary practice?
    Mr. King: We welcome my hon. Friend back from his interesting visit and I take note of his point. I suppose that it is technically correct to say that it does not merely involve our NATO allies if he is seeking to regularise the point that he mentioned.
    Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State should not stay in the ranks of the Tory troglodytes when even someone as obdurate in relation to the Soviets as Richard Perle recognises that there are changes in the eastern bloc. Can the Secretary of State not bring himself to contemplate the distinct change in the threat from the Soviets and from the so-called Warsaw pact and move towards a reassessment of our defence strategy, which would enable us to look more carefully and fruitfully at Mr. Gorbachev's overtures and to give him some assistance in his present difficulties in the Soviet Union?
    Mr. King: Everyone is aware of what appear to be the fundamental and irreversible changes that are taking place, but I counsel the hon. Gentleman to realise how fragile the present situation is. At the very moment when I was talking to some Congressmen in Washington last week, a message was brought in to say that President Gorbachev had resigned. It transpired subsequently that it was an incorrect rumour, but it brought home clearly how fragile the situation was. The nervousness in that room brought home to me just how insecure the present position is.

    United Nations Forces
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part British service personnel play in United Nations international peacekeeping and monitoring activities.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): We currently provide contingents to the United Nations force in Cyprus and the United Nations transition assistance group in Namibia. British Forces Cyprus also provide logistic support to the United Nations interim force in Lebanon and the disengagement observer force on the Golan Heights.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the years the record of British forces in supporting the United Nations peacekeeping forces has been admirable? Does he further agree that British forces might contribute quite a lot to a peacekeeping force in Cambodia? The great tragedy is that Cambodia has been invaded over many years by countries in its vicinity which have professed to instil a Socialist structure that has caused agony, dread and hatred in the Cambodian community? Does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of a British peacekeeping force with the United Nations in Cambodia would be a tremendous advantage for that country?
    Mr. Hamilton: I share my hon. Friend's view that we should do everything that we can to help that unhappy country. I am aware that there is renewed interest in the possibility of United Nations supervision of a settlement in Cambodia, but it is too early to speculate on that, although I am sure that any request for British troops would be looked at sympathetically.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the complement of British service personnel included Mr. Colin Wallace, who was also involved in monitoring activities as set out in the question on the Order Paper, and as I have sent the Secretary of State all the documents that were in my possession the other day, along with a 20-page written—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the question on the Order Paper. I am finding it difficult to understand it.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as I sent the Minister a copy of a 20-page document which was hand-written by Colin Wallace in 1973 or 1974. and in so far as it relates to Clockwork Orange and attempts to undermine individual Labour, Conservative and Liberal politicians—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the question on the Order Paper. It is unfair to the whole House to seek to introduce other matters.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that Her Majesty's Government would make available British forces to the United Nations should it become more involved in the war against drug trafficking?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is a novel idea that the United Nations might become involved in the war against drug trafficking. We are already playing a role by giving assistance to Colombia and because of the presence of the West Indian guard ship in the Caribbean. However, it is a proposition that we would consider with sympathy.

    Service Personnel (Benefits)
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice is given to armed services personnel and their families about their eligibility for social security and housing benefits and poll tax rebate.
    Mr. Neubert: In general terms, the eligibility of service personnel for social security benefits, housing benefits and community charge rebates is the same as for other members of the public. Therefore, the various leaflets issued by the Department of Social Security and local authorities are equally applicable to them. These are supplemented, where appropriate, by information from service sources. As for the community charge benefit, personnel have been advised of the existence of the scheme and are encouraged to check their eligibility for it.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is it not obscene that a top general can be receiving £95,000 a year, and an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer £200,000 a year, yet our service men have to depend on handouts from social security? Is it not about time that the hon. Gentleman and the Government started to give real people real money instead of protecting the powerful and the rich?
    Mr. Neubert: It is extremely disappointing that the politics of envy are still alive and well on the Opposition Benches. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the circumstances that he outlined would be very untypical. It would have to be a squaddie with a number of children and a wife not working to qualify for community charge benefit. This is because today's modern professional armed forces, under a Conservative Government, receive very good rates of pay.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that far from the picture painted by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the members of Her Majesty's armed forces understand very well that their terms and conditions and pay under a Conservative Government are far better than they have ever been, and that they dread the thought of a Labour Government coming to power?
    Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pay and conditions of today's armed forces are a crucial factor in our sustaining their support, loyalty and dedication, and there is no question but that if a Labour Government dedicated to substantial cuts in defence expenditure were to be returned to office, the prospects for serving men and women would be very bleak indeed.
    Mr. Wigley: In the context of state assistance for those who have served in the armed forces, can the Minister give any idea of the Government's latest thinking on the undoubted suffering of those who were exposed to radioactivity in tests in the south Pacific? Will he come forward with compensation payments for those people?
    Mr. Neubert: That scarcely arises from the question on the Order Paper, but I can say that the Government's position remains the same: if there was evidence that such illness were directly attributable to taking part in those tests, compensation would be considered as a matter of course.
    Mr. Sayeed: As there is no doubt in service men's minds that it is a Conservative Government who look after them best, can we make it easier for service men to vote?
    Mr. Neubert: It is hoped that the introduction of the community charge scheme for serving men and women as well as for the civilian population will encourage them to play more of a part in their local community. To do this they are encouraged and advised to register electorally so that, by their votes, they can influence decisions at the town hall. We are anxious not to encourage a laager mentality among our serving men and women.

    Arms Exports
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on offering advice to the Export Credits Guarantee Department on the insurance of arms deals with foreign countries.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The insurance of arms exports, as for any other form of exports, is primarily a matter between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the exporter concerned. My right hon. Friend may give advice where the Defence Export Services Organisation has been involved in the sale negotiations or where specific matters of defence interest are concerned.
    Mr. Cousins: Since £2·5 billion worth of arms exports are covered by export credits guarantees, what steps does the Minister take to ensure that the end users of those weapons are not terrorists, official or unofficial? In particular, did the Minister okay the sale of radar equipment for Chinese fighter aircraft last summer when the blood of Tiananmen square was hardly dry on the ground?
    Mr. Clark: There are strict controls which are applied jointly by a consultative process among my Department, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. They sometimes relate to the countries involved in particular conflict areas, such as the Gulf, and they are invariably broadly drawn to take into account human rights and other considerations. I was at the Department of Trade and Industry at the time of the sale of the radar to China. My recollection differs from that of the hon. Gentleman because I believe that the export licences were granted before Tiananmen square, not afterwards as he maintains.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that events in eastern Europe could seriously affect the British arms export industry? Will he commission an appreciation of the effect on jobs and prosperity, particularly in the south-east, if there is a substantial cancellation of or downturn in arms sales from Britain?
    Mr. Clark: No procurement decisions have been made which may relate to whatever interpretation my hon. Friend or others put on events in eastern Europe. But they will not necessarily have as severe an impact upon employment as my hon. Friend suggests.

    Trident
    ;Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Defence Secretary on future progress on the Trident programme.
    Mr. Tom King: That was one of the matters that I discussed with Mr. Dick Cheney during my visit to
    754
    Washington last week, when he confirmed to me that the Trident D5 system is expected to enter service with the United States navy at the end of next month.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State agree that many defence analysts in the United States think that there is at least a 50 per cent. chance that the Americans will cancel the D5 programme, that there is grave concern about its technical problems, that there is great pressure in Congress for financial savings and that there is also a possibility that the United States will negotiate it away? Does not that leave the British Government with a major strategy problem and is not that the explanation for the talks with the French to try to develop a new nuclear weapon?
    Mr. King: The answer to the latter part of the question is no. That is an entirely different sort of weapon. The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my answer. He says that he thinks the Americans might be about to cancel the Trident D5 system, but did he not hear me say that it is coming into service at the end of next month? He may also have noticed the proposal that the United States Administration put to Congress last week requesting funds for the 18th Trident submarine and 52 Trident 2 missiles.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the potential instability in central and eastern Europe, and who knows what might be the longer-term commitment of the United States to Europe, it becomes even more crucial that we retain a credible independent nuclear deterrent so that potential territorial ethnic disputes in central Europe are not dragged into a wider context of the major powers?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend is aware that even if the Start negotiations are completed successfully, the Soviet Union will still be left with a substantial and modernised strategic capability. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) implied about the attitude of Congress, I found that, not only in the Administration but among the responsible leaders in Congress, whatever other changes might be envisaged, the importance of preserving a strategic nuclear deterrent was clearly recognised throughout Congress.

    Safety
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his policy that safety practices to be observed by members of Her Majesty's services and contractors undertaking work for them are subject to adequate monitoring and that the results of such monitoring is open to normal public access where no considerations of national security dictate otherwise.
    Mr. Neubert: Service units and other Ministry of Defence establishments already carry out checks on all work activities as a normal routine to ensure the safety of the operation. They are also subject to periodic checks by the Health and Safety Executive. We do not intend to publish the results of such monitoring which are produced for internal management purposes. It is our normal practice to ensure that the public are properly informed in any case of wider concern.
    Mr. Michael: Why does the Minister seek to limit public access to information when no national security is

    755
    involved? Is he aware that it looked ludicrous a few weeks ago when he tried to limit answers about broken hawsers on a submarine? Is he aware that it became absolutely ludicrous when a Member of this House was unable to get answers about an accident in his constituency, yet a member of the American legislature was able to get answers in Washington about that precise accident, which took place in Gwent? Does he agree that there is something wrong about that?
    Mr. Neubert: The Government are required to observe the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974, except in a very few circumstances which relate to national security and the defence of the nation. There is, therefore, no call for the wider access for which the hon. Gentleman asks because routine matters are dealt with under that Act and meet the requirements of the legislation. Other matters would, in any event, he classified.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Sean Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    This evening I shall attend a reception to commemorate the 150th anniversary of New Zealand's founding treaty.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister explain which is the more effective way to enhance the security of this country? Is it by investment in a new short-range nuclear missile or by development aid to the economies of those very countries against which the missiles are targeted?
    The Prime Minister: It is to keep a sure defence, both for the NATO area and for our out-of-area obligations. That means keeping good conventional forces, which also means keeping a nuclear deterrent, and reducing those conventional forces only in accordance with the CFE negotiations that are being conducted and in agreement with NATO.
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the high value of the green pound is adversely affecting farm incomes in a serious way? Does she agree that the green pound is an anachronism which should be abolished so that British farmers, like other British business men, can trade in the pound sterling?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the green pound system at present causes British farmers to receive lower prices than their competitors and that those lower prices must be eliminated by 1992 at the latest. We agree in the European Community that they should be eliminated and we also agree that progress should be made towards that objective in the forthcoming negotiations on farm prices.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister accept the conclusions of Her Majesty's inspectors who say that one third of Britain's schoolchildren are getting a raw deal? Does she consider that to be a damning indictment of her Government?
    The Prime Minister: I have read the inspectors' report very carefully—[Interruption.] Paragraphs 3 and 4 give the overall picture and perhaps a better summing-up than that given by the right hon. Gentleman. They say:
    "The overall picture is of a service in which most of what is done is of reasonable quality or better. That is a sound basis for improvement and change and should be recognised as such."
    Of course, they went on to say that a number of things were wrong and needed to be remedied—[Interruption.]—and they went on:
    "Across schools and colleges around 70 to 80 per cent. of the work seen was judged to be satisfactory or better: roughly one-third of it at all levels was adjudged good or very good. That is not a profile of a service in great difficulty about its general standards of work."
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister realise what she is really saying—that because on two thirds of cases things are not bad, it somehow justifies the fact that in one third of cases they are lousy? Does she recognise that the inspectors themselves—since the right hon. Lady wishes to quote from their report—say that the
    "overarching picture must not hide the fact that there are serious problems"
    and that in 30 per cent. of cases pupils are "getting a raw deal"? If she intends to try to get at the truth, why will she not go for the whole truth?
    The Prime Minister: I have read out the general view and the words that I used were the inspectors', not mine.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is in the report.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I have the report, too. I pointed out that some things still need to be done, although much is being done and improvements are being made under this Government. More is being spent on education per pupil than ever before; there are more teachers in proportion to pupils than ever before; the new national curriculum is warmly praised by the inspectorate; and there has just been a recommendation for teachers' pay which gives special help to those teachers whom we need, especially in the shortage subjects. It is a good report. It highlights things that need to be done. Those things are under way, including an extra £400 million capital support for further developments in schools.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister speaks of a good report. That shows how easily she is satisfied with the mistreatment of other people's children in education. She speaks of reforms. Which of her reforms will provide the maths teachers, the science teachers, the technology teachers and the language teachers where there are none or when, as the report says, they are inadequately trained? Which of her reforms—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not even send their children to state schools. Which of her reforms will provide books in libraries where there are no books; equipment in laboratories where there is no equipment; raise the morale of the teaching force; and stop the buildings from crumbling? [Interruption.] Eighty-five per cent. of parents are concerned. Which of those reforms will stop the children of this generation being failed and their future being betrayed?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the inspectors faced their task more calmly that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down.
    The Prime Minister: More money is being spent per pupil in real terms than ever before. There are more teachers in proportion to children that ever before. There is a good new teachers' pay settlement that will help to recruit those teachers that are in short supply in particular subjects. There is a new national curriculum, and the inspectors' report says:
    "Across schools of all types, the implementation of the national curriculum is beginning to bring about specific and general improvement",
    "The majority of the primary schools visited had suitable and reasonably well-maintained accommodation".
    Yes, of course there are still things to be done. There always will be, but it takes time—[Interruption.] Opposition Members ask questions in a very temperamental way and refuse to listen to the answers. The education service is in far better shape than it has ever been.

    East Germany
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Prime Minister whether she will pay an official visit to East Germany.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made a successful visit to East Berlin and to the German Democratic Republic on 22 to 24 January.
    Mr. Latham: Since a free and reunified Germany seems not only inevitable but imminent, will my right hon. Friend confirm that that will have immense implications for western defence policy? Will it not require detailed, radical and possibly uncomfortable consideration by the NATO leaders?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the German people are likely to vote for unification. I agree with him, too, that it is a matter not only for the German people but for other countries which will be seriously affected by it. Germany has also entered into obligations under the NATO Alliance—we must consider its effect on that—the Helsinki accord which 35 nations signed, and the four-power agreement on Berlin. We must agree these things. It seems that a lengthy transition period is needed so that they can all be properly worked out and so that the unification of Germany gives rise not to more worries but to greater security.
    We must keep up the level of our defence, both conventional and nuclear, and not make changes until they are agreed with NATO or through the CFE talks.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Prime Minister give an absolute guarantee that if the two Germanys want to unite she will not use the veto available to her under the 1954 convention signed by the United Kingdom, France and America, but will allow the will of the German people to prevail over her prejudice?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had been able to listen to what I said, he would have found his question answered. It is also answered by the agreement in the Strasbourg communiqué from the European Twelve, after we had agreed that unification must come about in
    758
    accordance with the other obligations that Germany has entered into—the NATO agreement and the Helsinki agreement, under which 35 nations agreed not to change boundaries except by peaceful accord—and in consideration of the four-power arrangement in Berlin. I do not think that there will be any difficulty with Chancellor Kohl in trying to meet these obligations. That is why he has formally proposed a considerable transition period, so that they can all be met.
    Sir Alan Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever happens in East Germany, the future of Europe is so uncertain and the Soviet Union is still building up such an enormous defence that, until matters have settled down, it is essential to retain the nuclear deterrent?
    The Prime Minister: It is essential to keep—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down and listen to the questions and the answers that are given.
    The Prime Minister: It is essential to keep a strong and assured defence of the United Kingdom, both within NATO and outside it. That means effective conventional forces and reductions only in accordance with the negotiations taking place in Vienna and in agreed numbers between us. It also means maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Prime Minister meet the people of East Germany and explain to them why she wants a whole new assortment of short-range nuclear weapons to blow them to smithereens at a time when they are struggling for democracy?
    The Prime Minister: The changes and negotiations that are taking place will require some differences in the weapons that we need, but those can be brought about only by agreement with our NATO partners. That is absolutely vital to the future of Europe, and I was glad to see President Bush's assurance that American forces and American nuclear weapons will remain in Europe; it is a recipe which has ensured the security and peace of Europe for many a long year, and we should not discard it lightly.

    Engagements
    Mr. John Browne: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the United Kingdom cot deaths claim roughly 2,000 babies' lives each year and that the presence of certain fire resistant and preservative chemicals in cot mattresses appear to be the common cause? Will she agree to speed up the Government chemist's inquiry and, in the mean time, issue a Government warning to parents as a matter of urgency?
    The Prime Minister: I share the great concern of parents and Health Service staff about the incidence of unexplained cot deaths, the suddenness of which is especially tragic for the families. The Department of Health has promptly commissioned the laboratory of the Government chemist to undertake a scientific assessment, which is under way. I understand that, so far, those tests

    759
    have not reproduced the result obtained by the independent researcher who proposed a link with fire-resistant chemicals. We shall, of course, consider whether it would be right to issue warnings in the light of the scientific assessment currently being undertaken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] One was concerned to get an accurate assessment of the report; Opposition Members perhaps are not.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite his welcome speech on Friday, President de Klerk's Government today kicked out two British journalists—Mr. Paul Weaver of Today and Mr. Gareth Forby of Independent Radio News—apparently for unwelcome reporting of the Gatting cricket tour? Will the Prime Minister now realise that this is not the time to relinquish sanctions but the time to continue international action until a true democracy is established and Mr. Nelson Mandela and his people are free?
    The Prime Minister: President de Klerk's speech was very widely welcomed—I believe the world over. As we
    760
    agreed both at the last meeting of the European Community and in the Commonwealth, it is necessary to have encouragement for such steps as well as chastisement for what has not yet been done. We believe that when Mr. Mandela is released it would be advisable to relax some of the very minor sanctions that we have—in particular, the voluntary ban on new investment.
    The right hon. Member referred to the two journalists. As he knows, President de Klerk announced on 2 February that the state of emergency would be fully lifted as soon as circumstances on the ground permitted. We support the freedom of the press and we have told the South African authorities that we regret the expulsions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at the reasons that have been given for the expulsions. I am advised that one of the journalists entered South Africa as a tourist, failing to obtain the necessary brand of visa and permit. The other gave a first-person account of a demonstration at Johannesburg airport that greeted the cricket tourists' arrival but it later transpired that he had not been present. I emphasise that that is the explanation that the South Africans have given of the incident.

Criminal Justice
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission Mr. Speaker I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for criminal justice—[Interruption.]
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We cannot hear the Home Secretary.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members who are not remaining for this important statement to leave the Chamber quietly?
Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for criminal justice legislation, which we are publishing today in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public".
In preparing these proposals for a coherent legislative framework for sentencing, our aim has been to ensure that offenders are punished according to the seriousness of their crimes and receive their just deserts, and to see that the public are properly protected. Really serious crime, especially serious violent crime, has to be followed by really severe punishment, and I am sure the House would agree that the right punishment for serious violent crime is a long prison sentence. But we know that prison can all too often reinforce criminal habits, and many more people convicted of less serious offences could be punished in the community, where they could repay their victims and do tough and demanding work for the community.
It is therefore important that the judges, before passing a custodial sentence, should satisfy themselves that no other course is right, and it is important that realistic options for punishment in the community should be available, with those options presented clearly to the courts. We therefore propose, first, that the Crown court should have a new power to impose a longer sentence on a persistent violent offender than would be justified solely by the seriousness of the immediate offence, in order to protect the public from serious harm from him. But the distinction between violent crime and property crime should be more clearly marked by changes: in the maximum penalty for theft, from 10 to seven years; and in the maximum for non-domestic burglary, from 14 years to 10 years. The maximum for burglary from a person's home, quite rightly, would remain at 14 years.
We propose, secondly, that new legislation should require a court to consider whether the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified. For all but serious offences the court would be required to give reasons for passing a custodial sentence and, before doing so, would have to consider a probation report setting out options for punishment in the community.
We further propose to increase the courts' powers to impose community penalties. There would be a new power to combine community service and probation. Community service ensures that the offender makes reparation to the community through unpaid work. Probation gives offenders an opportunity to sort out their problems and to lead a law-abiding life in future. We do not think that one should exclude the other. The courts would also, and additionally if appropriate, be enabled to
762
make curfew orders, with monitoring, to keep offenders at home and away from their criminal associates at particular times of the day.
We plan new national standards for the most important aspects of the probation service's work, including preparing reports for the courts and running probation centres. We shall shortly publish consultation documents about some of these standards and about the future organisation of the probation service. We believe that the probation service should make more use of voluntary organisations and of the private sector to carry out its increased responsibilities effectively. The probation service will, however, keep its central role in supervising offenders and ensuring that court orders are carried out.
Many offences can be dealt with adequately by financial penalties. The priority should be offenders paying compensation to their victims, but fines could be used effectivly for more offences if they were assessed in units according to the seriousness of the offence and then converted into money according to an offender's means.
We believe that custody should be reserved for the most serious offenders. We can justify spending well over £1,000 per month in housing, feeding and clothing a criminal, and we can justify depriving an offender of the opportunity to maintain his family, compensate his victim, or make reparation to society, only when the offence is so grave that there is no realistic alternative to imprisonment. But when imprisonment is the right and proper sentence, it is essential that the sentence served should be more closely related to the sentence passed, and we are going to introduce new parole arrangements based largely on the recommendations of the committee set up to review parole arrangements in England and Wales, and chaired by my noble Friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. The Government are most grateful to my noble Friend and his committee for their really valuable work.
These would be the effects of the changes. First, remission, which at present reduces most sentences by a third and which is in addition to any parole granted, would be abolished. All prisoners would serve at least half their sentence in custody whereas at present most can be released after one third.
Secondly, those serving up to but not including four years' imprisonment would have to serve half their sentence, followed, except in the case of sentences under a year, by a period on licence under supervision.
Thirdly, those serving from four up to, but not including, seven years would serve at least half their sentence and would then be eligible for release on a selective basis until they have served two thirds of their sentence. The decision on this would be delegated to the Parole Board. When released they would be under supervision until three quarters of their sentence has expired.
Fourthly, those serving seven years or more would be subject to release on a selective basis after half their sentence, but the final decision will rest not with the Parole Board but with the Secretary of State.
The decision whether or not to release a person on parole would be clearly based upon the risk to the public of that person committing a further serious offence. We intend to take new powers to give policy directions to the Parole Board so that we can lay down these criteria. This would make for far greater consistency in the decisions to release, the conditions of the parole licence and the arrangements for supervising prisoners after release.

763
If a released prisoner is convicted of a further imprisonable offence before the end of his sentence, the court would be able to return him to custody to serve out the remainder of that first sentence, in addition to any sentence it gives for the new offence.
There are important proposals in the White Paper about young offenders. The juvenile court would become a youth court and would deal with offenders aged 17 as well as those aged 16 and under. We intend to increase the powers of the courts to make parents take greater responsibility for the offences committed by their children under 16. In particular, we intend to require parents to attend in all cases when their children are brought before the court on a criminal charge, and we are going to make it possible for the magistrates to take into consideration the means of a parent in deciding on the appropriate fine.
The Government firmly believe that in all we do we should have at the forefront of our minds the victims of crime. It is time to spell out what victims are entitled to expect and the help available to them, and to consider what more needs to be done. We shall therefore on 22 February, European Victims day, publish our victims charter. But the proposals I have outlined today should make sure that criminals are properly punished.
These proposals point to the most fundamental and far-reaching changes for at least half a century in the way we punish offenders in this country. They are part of our wider policies on crime, with the greater emphasis we have given to crime prevention and more help and support for victims. They offer just deserts to the offender and reassurance to the law-abiding citizen.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I begin by offering our strong support for the principles on which the White Paper is based? The only critical question that we have to ask about those principles is, why has it taken the Government so long to accept them?
May I assure the Home Secretary that we agree that it is right to draw a sharp distinction in sentencing policy between violent and sexually related crimes on the one hand and less serious crimes against property on the other? It is clearly right that those who commit violent and sexually related crimes should serve substantial prison sentences. It is equally right that less serious offenders should, whenever possible, be punished within the community.
Paragraphs 2.7 and 3.2 of the White Paper give a devastating account of the real effect of prison on first and trivial offenders. No one who reads them can doubt the wisdom of placing a greater emphasis on alternatives to custodial sentences, not least because prison is often more likely to promote a life of crime than to prevent it.
I offer the Home Secretary our support for a number of his specific proposals: reduction in some maximum sentences, relation of fines to ability to pay, requiring courts to consider the probation service's report before awarding a custodial sentence and then give reasons for insisting upon prison. We also support the abolition of partly suspended sentences and bringing 17-year-olds into juvenile courts.
Our specific questions and our areas of disagreement concern not the Home Secretary's objectives but the way in which he hopes to achieve them; not the principles, but the best way of putting the principles into practice.
The White Paper rightly talks about the need for more consistent sentencing, and implies that it could be achieved
764
under existing arrangements. Why is the Home Secretary so sanguine about that prospect? There are still intolerable discrepancies between sentencing in different courts, sentencing of men and women, and sentencing of black and Asian British and other citizens.
For some time, the Government have been urging the judiciary to make more use of non-custodial sentencing, but very often the judiciary has not responded. Without taking further steps to ensure greater consistency, how can the Home Secretary be sure that his hopes will be realised? Why has he set his face against a sentencing council, which virtually all those who share his aim regard as necessary if his aim is to be fulfilled? Will he think again about the necessity and desirability of introducing such a council?
Is the Home Secretary confident that his proposals for combined sentencing will not produce a result exactly opposite to that which he intends? Is there not a risk that some courts will immediately apply simultaneously probation and community orders and, if the orders are broken or the offence is repeated, immediately impose a prison sentence?
We welcome the Carlisle report proposal to make probation automatic for prison sentences of less than four years, but what assessment have the Government made of the effect on the number of men and women serving custodial sentences if the Carlisle report is immediately implemented? If parole is awarded only when half the sentence has been served, will not the prison population rise by about 4,000? It would be absurd if the first effect of this White Paper was an actual increase in the prison population.
Can the Home Secretary explain the decision to alter the procedure for young offenders? We welcome the decision to allow 17-year-olds to appear before juvenile courts, but why is the Home Secretary proposing to alter the punishment available for 16-year-olds when there has been so much success in dealing with this age group in recent years?
The Home Secretary referred to the future statement he is to make about support for victims. Can he assure us that, when that statement is made, it will, as an absolute minimum, replace the rights to compensation which were removed or reduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1988? Will he also reconsider the change that he recently made in the threshold for those entitled to claim compensation for violent crime? Those changes removed the right to compensation from something like 10,000 people a year. Since he is to make the announcement on European Victims day, can we take it for granted that the Government will recognise the European convention on compensation for victims of violent crimes?
The White Paper makes very many references to the probation service and its importance to the Home Secretary's plans. Can we be promised that nothing that the Government do—of course, I refer to privatisation and loss of status—will undermine the service's morale?
Finally, I reiterate our support for the White Paper principles. The Government's task is now to achieve their stated aims of reducing both crime and the prison population from their present record levels. The real test of the White Paper is the determination and courage with which the Government put its principles into practice.
Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous support for the proposals. It is a little churlish to complain about the proposals only

765
just having been brought forward because, during the past few years, a number of Criminal Justice Bills have passed through the House and paved the way for this measure. I mention in particular the 1983 Act and the 1988 Act. The community service orders are already in place and are being most successfully operated by the probation service.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for emphasising the need for us to make a bigger distinction between violent crime and property crimes. I took the trouble to read the Opposition's so-called "White Paper" on this issue. There is a great distinction between the approach suggested by the Opposition and the Government's approach.
We are determined to make the sentence served far closer to the sentence passed by making everyone serve 50 per cent. of his or her sentence in custody. The Opposition have shrunk from that most important conclusion which would give added protection to the public, and are determined to stick to a policy which would release into the community even violent criminals after they had served only a third of their sentence.
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: we must aim for more consistency in sentencing. However, he was less than just to the judiciary when he said that they had not responded to the calls which had come from this place for changes in sentencing practices. Far from it being the case, as was misstated by the right hon. Gentleman, that the prison population is at record levels, it has fallen by 2,500 in the past 12 months, not least because judges have responded to calls to send fewer young people to prison.
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about a sentencing council. There is no need for a new elaborate and formal structure which would interfere with judicial discretion. We certainly do not want to take action which might result in mandatory sentences which would mean far longer sentences and more people in prison than now. There is a danger of being forced towards a more rigid system.
The object we wish to achieve—a more coherent sentencing practice—can be achieved in four ways: first, by the new requirements which we shall place on courts so that they must give reasons for choosing a custodial sentence rather than punishment in the community, show that they are satisfied that only a custodial sentence is justified and consider options for punishment in the community before sending anyone to prison. Secondly, new maximum penalties laid down by the House send out signals to the judiciary that we believe that a greater distinction should be made between property crimes and crimes of violence.
Thirdly, at present the Court of Appeal gives guidance on sentencing, and there is every reason to suppose that it will use that power more frequently to achieve the result which this House undoubtedly wants. Fourthly, not long ago, the House gave the Attorney-General a new power to refer over-levient sentences to the Court of Appeal; that power was opposed by Opposition Members. However, it is clearly a most useful power, which is now being used effectively and playing a big part in achieving coherent sentencing practice. On top of all that, the Judicial Studies Board plays an even more active role with its training arrangements and the operations it carries out to disseminate good sentencing practice.
766
I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the danger of magistrates and judges combining too often different forms of non-custodial sentences. We need to spell out the relevant and appropriate importance of one form of non-custodial sentence as compared to another.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for an estimate of the effect of the proposals. I must refer him to chapter 9 of the White Paper. We point there to what would happen if one made a series of assumptions. Nobody can make a firm estimate of the precise consequences of each part of the package, but we can look to the future with confidence, and there is every reason to believe that this measure will have a downward effect on the prison population.
I should say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about young offenders, that, by setting up youth courts, which will deal with 17-year-olds as well as 16-year-olds, we have to face the fact that such courts will be dealing with young people at different levels of maturity. Therefore, it is essential that the youth courts should have flexibility in sentencing powers. They should be able to impose, for example, community service orders on a 17-year-old or on a 16-year-old, a supervision order on a 16-year-old, or a probation order on a 16-year-old, if he is as mature as a 17-year-old co-defendant. We want more flexibility to be available to magistrates in the youth courts because they have to deal with 17 and 16-year-olds.
I heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We still have the most generous system of criminal injuries compensation in the whole of the western world, and I assure him that we shall proceed to ratification of the European convention on compensation for victims of violent crimes.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was right to mention the morale of the probation service. I have been immensely impressed with the way in which the service has responded to the new challenges which it has had to face in recent years. The way in which it has operated community service orders should command the admiration of all of us. It knows that we are talking not of a slimmed-down, but of an expanded, probation service because of the new challenges that we have to face. Not only are there more community service orders for it to administer, but the new licensing provisions will mean more supervision of offenders released from periods in custody.
Sir John Wheeler: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his White Paper proposals today are among the most radical and most practical to emerge for nearly 50 years, not least because he defines a proper use for the sentence of imprisonment? Secondly, he makes parents properly accountable for the wrongdoing of their offspring and thirdly, he proposes that hooligans will at last be dealt with in an accountable way, which the public would want.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Can we have a long answer?
Mr. Waddington: I shall be very brief.
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about hooligans, and I do not think that we can over-estimate the importance of the new provision for curfew orders, which will be very relevant to the problem. I think that the proposals are both radical and practical. As for parental responsibility, the new powers for the courts to fine

767
children according to the means of their parents and to bind over parents, including those who refuse to be bound over, will also be extremely important.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Much in the White Paper will command a widespread welcome. It makes a clear attempt to distinguish between serious crimes and less serious crimes which are unsuitable for custodial treatment, and that marks a major step forward in penal policy.
Is the Home Secretary aware, however, that many people will have doubts about the efficacy of the measures that he is proposing? For that reason, and because the Court of Appeal guidelines have in the past proved such an ineffective way of bringing about consistency in sentencing—and reducing sentences that are extraordinarily long in comparison with those in other countries—we ask the Home Secretary not to set his mind firmly against the idea of a sentencing council and sentencing guidelines if his current proposals do not prove adequate.
Mr. Waddington: I doubt whether a new body would be able to achieve more than the present system. My understanding is that a sentencing council would merely lay down, as it were, guidelines on the appropriate sentences for particular categories of offence. There would always be cases in which an individual judge would have to deal with an individual offender in his individual circumstances. I think that the way I have set out the position—pointing out the various weapons already at our disposal to achieve consistency in sentencing—is very potent. Undoubtedly the Judicial Studies Board will make more and more use of its power to disseminate good sentencing practice.
I am grateful for the general welcome that the hon. Gentleman has given the proposals. Let me point out that we are not fighting against the tide but going with it, in the sense that we are pushing matters along a little faster than they might have moved otherwise. Credit must be given to the judges: the figures for sentencing practice, particularly involving young offenders, show that it has been changing, and that is one of the reasons for the fall in the prison population.
Mr. Steve Norris: My right hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial team deserve the congratulations of the whole House for the welcome initiatives contained in the White Paper, coming, as they do, hard on the heels of the Government's success—a success that is unique in recent decades—in bringing down the recorded crime totals in Britain.
Bearing in mind that, until recently, the peak age of offenders in Britain was still 15 for both sexes, may I give a particular welcome to the proposals concerning parental responsibility? Surely there can be no more powerful weapon to reduce criminality in society than linking rights with responsibilities once and for all.
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Parents, after all, are a child's first teachers, and have the first opportunity to inculcate an understanding of the difference between right and wrong, respect for the property of others and all the other values that are so important.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. Let me make a full confession, however. I did not wake up one morning with a brilliant idea in my head; I went into
768
the Home Office to find that a great deal of work had already been done, and nothing has been more pleasant than being able to get down to the job of finalising proposals on which so much work had been done before I arrived on the scene.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's intention to give proper treatment to those found guilty of violent crime, and hope that those found guilty of violent rape will receive the toughest treatment of all. Will he, however, give more consideration to the victims of violence, especially when he comes to make his announcement about the victims charter? Will he in particular make improvements to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which has proved pathetically inadequate to its task?
Mr. Waddington: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the threshold of payments under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board recently went up, but the increase was more or less in line with inflation. As I said earlier, it is the most generous system of criminal injuries compensation in the western world. Recently, its power has been extended. The right hon. Gentleman may have read that in certain cases it can now make awards of compensation to people who have suffered shock and to women who decide to have children after a rape attack, so we are constantly extending the remedies it can afford to the victims of crime. I am very grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about violent offenders, and I hope that he wholeheartedly supports our plans to bring the sentence served closer to the sentence passed.
Dame Janet Fookes: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a remarkably good package of measures? Will he expand on how the system of fining according to means will work—a reform that was advocated by the Select Committee on Expenditure in the late 1970s but turned down flat by the then Labour Government?
Mr. Waddington: The starting point should always be the seriousness of the offence. Then an appropriate number of units are allocated for a certain offence, and double that number of units for a more serious offence. The units are then translated into money terms according to the weekly income of the person before the court.
Mr. John Battle: Could I refer the Home Secretary to paragraph 8 of the White Paper which deals with young offenders? I particularly welcome paragraph 8.23 which gives positive support for pioneering schemes. I have in mind the West Yorkshire probation service scheme, which has a bail information service. The Home Secretary will know that Armley prison in my constituency is most overcrowded and that, in the past two years, there have been five suicides among youngsters on remand there. Will the Minister assure me, the people of Leeds and the prison governor who has expressed such an intention, that the introduction of the White Paper will bring closer the day when the remand wing at Armley is phased out and practical support given to positive alternatives for young people in remand?
Mr. Waddington: What we want to achieve is fewer people being kept in criminal institutions when on remand. The best way to do that is to have more bail hostels and bail information schemes, so that the officer of the Crown

769
prosecution service knows what arrangements are available for the accused person and can therefore persuade the magistrate that it is not necessary to keep somebody in custody. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about the scheme in his part of the world, which incidentally is funded, at least in part, by the Home Office.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I did not hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that the Government would pay the whole cost of the new measures. Bearing in mind that the Government pay the whole cost of people in prison, how much of the cost of the scheme does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to fall on the community charge payer in terms of the supervision of the new system of punishment and the production of the necessary reports to the courts?
Mr. Waddington: The criminal justice system is to a very large extent funded by central Government, and there will be no difference there. I do not think that I can help my hon. Friend as to the precise percentage, but the lion's share is and will continue to be paid by central Government. I am informed that 80 per cent. is paid by central Government.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Does not the Home Secretary agree that, for his reforms to be properly implemented, there has to be harmony between the various elements of the criminal justice service? Has he had a chance to see the evidence of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Select Committee on Home Affairs last week, in which he said that police officers of all ranks were failing to co-operate with the Crown prosecution service? Does he not agree that that is a disgraceful state of affairs, and what proposals does he have to solve that difficult problem?
Mr. Waddington: That is not a matter for me, and it certainly is not covered by the statement. The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter, and I shall study the evidence that was given to the Select Committee.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Gilbertian notion that the punishment should fit the crime is widely held by the general public, and that his statement on getting tough with violent sexual offenders will be popular? Does he further agree that the public want a charter on hooliganism and yobbish petty criminal behaviour by teenagers? Does the White Paper include any of the measures recommended by Lord Justice Taylor to deal with football hooligans?
Mr. Waddington: I mentioned curfew orders, which could be monitored by electronic tagging. One must remember that tagging is merely a means of enforcing an order. All hon. Members would agree that a curfew order has merit in itself. If it can be more effectively monitored and enforced by electronic tagging, so much the better. It certainly is relevant to the problem of hooliganism.
Mr. John Fraser: If the Home Secretary is anxious to avoid the use of custody for non-violent offences, will he immediately stop the widespread and growing practice of his Department of using administrative detention powers for immigrants?
Mr. Waddington: I do not agree with a word that the hon. Gentleman has said. His comments have nothing to do with the subject that we are discussing. We are talking about punishment for criminal offences; we are not dealing with the difficult problem of what to do if somebody arrives on these shores without entitlement to be here. Nor are we dealing with the difficult problem of what happens if somebody is picked up in a community who is not supposed to be here but must be kept in custody until his removal.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In joining almost every other hon. Member in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his proposals, may I commend him especially for rejecting the idea of putting fetters on judicial discretion in sentencing? The trial judge is in the best position to determine the appropriate sentence, according to the circumstances of the case and the character and past experience of the individual. It would be undesirable if we were gradually to fetter that discretion and so produce a system of mandatory sentences.
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is entirely right. No two offences are alike, so there must be judicial discretion. That does not mean that one should not aim for more consistency in sentencing practice.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Government policy on law and order has relied heavily on political stunts and gestures, of which the short, sharp shock shambles was an obvious example. I hope that the Government have learnt the lessons of that political gesture.
When will the Government recognise the effectiveness and success of the traditional role of the probation service—I stress "the traditional role"—and properly resource it to allow it to expand? It is important that the Government should recognise that there is a clear correlation between their policies, which directly encourage greed and selfishness, and the record levels of crime that they have created.
Mr. Waddington: There is certainly nothing gimmicky about these proposals. All informed commentators will echo the statement made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that these are important reforms.
I do not understand what the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) means by "the traditional role of the probation service." Its traditional role is to act as officers of the court. There is no doubt that it has responded most magnificently in recent years to the challenges that it has faced as a result of the expansion of community service orders. I give it all credit for that.
It is cheeky for a Labour Member to talk about a rise in the crime rate. Labour Members have never been over-generous in their support for the forces of law and order. Two Labour authorities have fought tooth and nail against crime prevention and neighbourhood watch. That shows the irresponsibility of Labour local authorities.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the police will greatly welcome his decision to crack down on serious crime and that they regard this sensible and balanced White Paper as most appropriate to the times in which we live? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it will no longer be possible for a member of the public to say of a convicted, violent criminal that he will be out of prison in a couple of years or so, as a result of the decision that he has

771
announced today to abolish remission? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the police and my constituents will be pleased by his announcement that any criminal serving seven years or more will complete half his sentence at the very least and will be set free only as a result of his decision, rather than that of the Parole Board?
Mr. Waddington: I agree with my hon. Friend. The abolition of remission and the adoption of the Carlisle proposals are immensely important. We have added to the Carlisle proposals in one respect. In the case of sentences of seven years or more, even when there is a recommendation from the Parole Board, if the Secretary of State thinks that there would be danger to the community if the person were released, he will have the power not to release him.
Mr. Corbyn: The Home Secretary must be aware that, in recent years, there has been deep concern about the safety of the evidence that led to the conviction of the Guildford Four. New evidence was submitted to him concerning the Birmingham Six and many have deep concern about the evidence against and prosecution of those who were imprisoned following the death of PC Blakelock in Broadwater Farm. In those circumstances, what consideration has he given, or is he prepared to give, towards establishing a new form of appeal procedure so that new evidence could be examined by judicial procedure rather than by a private committee of civil servants within the Home Office?
Mr. Waddington: The matters that the hon. Gentleman raises are of great importance, but they have nothing to do with the White Paper, which is concerned with sentencing policy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matters that he has raised are within the remit of Lord Justice May.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that my constituents will be very pleased that he is putting the accent on the victims, rather than the perpetrators of crime? Will he also accept our thanks for differentiating between crime outside, in the community, and crime inside somebody's home? Will he pay tribute to the neighbourhood watch schemes—there are 100 in my constituency alone—which are flourishing and preventing such crime?
Mr. Waddington: The Home Office has done a great deal of work in recent years to push along crime prevention. It has done marvellous work in bringing on stream the "safer cities" initiative and in encouraging neighbourhood watch, and I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said about that. In our proposals, we are careful to differentiate between domestic and non-domestic burglaries, as people would expect.
Mr. Tony Worthington: The Secretary of State will be well aware that the Achilles heel of his proposals is the judiciary, which has a considerable capacity to undermine any good intentions. He may have set his mind against a sentencing council, but has he thought about requiring each group of judges on a geographical basis to say why they refuse to use non-custodial sentences, what gaps there are and why they continue to use custodial sentences when they use non-custodial sentences elsewhere?
Mr. Waddington: A sentencing council would not get over the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman identifies. A
772
sentencing council could establish good sentencing practice, but certain judges would still decide to sentence in a way that did not appear to correspond with that practice. One must have some mechanism to correct such errors and that mechanism already exists because a defendant can appeal to the Court of Appeal if he considers that the sentence is too tough and the Attorney-General can take to the Court of Appeal a case in which he considers that the sentence has been too lenient.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Has my right hon. and learned Friend included, in the excellent White Paper, any reference to the sentencing of those involved in drink-driving cases? Is he aware of the very tragic case of my constituent, Martin Allsop, who was run down by a drunken driver on a zebra crossing and killed? When the case came to the Crown court, the driver was found guilty of careless driving, fined £250 and banned from driving for two years. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that was not worthwhile or honourable British justice? Is there anything in the White Paper which will give hope to my constituents that proper justice will be applied in such cases?
Mr. Waddington: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing in the White Paper to dissuade, let alone prevent, sentences for dealing severely with cases of drunk driving.
Mr. William O'Brien: I welcome the statement by the Home Secretary that the punishment will now fit the crime and that compensation will be paid to victims of offences, but I stress that this is much too late because, like the case cited by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), a constituent of mine has suffered a severe disability because of an accident and she will not receive the assistance that is now being put before the House by the Home Secretary.
Will bail hostels be purpose-built rather than converted chapels or churches, which could be misinterpreted? Will the Home Secretary take note of the seriousness of these issues?
Mr. Waddington: I understand that in fact it is for the local probation committees to decide on the design of the bail hostels. I do not think that it is really for the Home Office, but I will bear in mind the points that are made by the hon. Gentleman. Of course it is always the case when worthwhile reforms are introduced that those who have suffered misfortunes beforehand are not going to be able to benefit from them, but I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituent will feel that we are now correcting what he apparently conceives is an injustice.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great pressure of time on the subsequent debate on agriculture, and I shall have to ask for a 10-minute limit on speeches. I will call hon. Members until half-past four, which will give Back-Bench Members exactly the same length of time that the Front Bench spokesmen took, but I would ask for brief questions, please.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that community penalties will be tough on the lager lout and on the hooligan? Can we be assured that they will he put to work

773
to do something useful for the community, perhaps for the first time in their lives, such as picking up litter and clearing up the results of vandalism and the eyesores that we have it in our communities. Can we be reassured that they will actually be put to work?
Mr. Waddington: We shall lay down national guidelines for community service so that there is consistency. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have in mind that community service should be tough and demanding.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that among the many important matters touched upon in his excellent statement today, the one that has given the most concern to many members of the public in the past is that, when people are let out of prison early, for whatever apparently good reason, they then proceed to reoffend in the very near future? Is he aware that the proposals that he announced today to deal with that matter will be warmly welcomed, and will he tell the House a little bit more about how that would work?
Mr. Waddington: The general theme of the White Paper is just deserts and that a person is sentenced for the instant offence before the court. A persistent violent offender is one of the exceptions, and in such cases the court should be able to consider not only what is appropriate for the instant offence but what is necessary to add on to that appropriate penalty for the instant offence in order to protect the community within the overall maximum laid down by Parliament.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I warmly welcome and congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the statement that he has made to the House today, in particular the part which affects the responsibilities of parents for their under-age children. In view of this reinforced responsibility, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be logical for parents to be given the right to at least be informed if their under-age children are prescribed contraceptive drugs or devices or have abortions performed upon them?
Mr. Waddington: That question raises wide issues, which I should be glad to answer on another occasion, but it does not have a great deal to do with sentencing policy.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that most people in Britain will be relieved that prisoners will stay in prison for the sentence that was thought appropriate when they were sent down by the courts, and that is a welcome move, but will he also take note of the wide welcome for the new youth courts, for which credit should be given, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) for his work over many months, which will ensure that parental responsibility comes back into our judicial system? Will he consider whether parents should carry out community service?
Mr. Waddington: I would not advocate that, but I do advocate that, as at present, parents can be made to pay the fines which it is thought appropriate to impose on their children. It is high time that courts had the power to impose much more realistic fines so as to bring home to
774
parents the true gravity of the offence, and I am all for exercising persuasion on parents to see whether we can obtain their attendance at some of the sessions when their children are taking part in community service orders.
Mr. Roger Gale: In reassuring the House that it is his intention that community service should be a rigorous rather than a soft alternative to imprisonment, will my right hon. and learned Friend also consider making community service available to youth courts for application to those under 16 as well as those above? May we hope to see a Bill incorporating all that in the next Session of Parliament?
Mr. Waddington: I think that I am right in saying that, for those under 16, the attendance centre is available, and there is no reason why attendance there should not involve a tough regime. I am not entirely convinced by my hon. Friend's argument, but I am prepared to study it.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that nothing in his proposals today will alter the present severe restrictions on parole for drug traffickers?
Mr. Waddington: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. A serious drug trafficking offence merits a sentence well over seven years, in which case parole could not be granted except by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Tony Favell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about his proposal to use volunteers in the wider probation service? He will know from his professional experience, as do I, that, unfortunately, many criminal children come from feckless or criminal parents, or both, and they will never accept responsibility for their children's actions. In those circumstances, would it not be a good idea if the child were assigned to a sensible volunteer, on a one-to-one basis, to guide that child into adulthood, failing which the child would have to be put into care?
Mr. Waddington: We shall be publishing a Green Paper on the probation service in the near future, and that may answer some of my hon. Friend's questions. I have already made it plain that probation officers are highly skilled people who give advice to and prepare reports for the court and there is a strong case for their advising on the appropriate type of punishment. However, voluntary organisations such as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders should be used to carry out individual programmes. After all, it is unnecessary for the probation service to run hostels. It is far better that voluntary organisations should do so.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be trepidation among Conservative voters when they learn that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) supports his proposals, but that, when they read paragraphs 3.12 and 3.13 of the White Paper and realise that it is the Government's intention that those who are convicted of sexual offences, violent offences and offences involving the burglary of dwelling houses will receive longer prison sentences than before, they will be reassured, and I am sure that they will support my right hon. and learned Friend's twin-track policy?
Mr. Waddington: In this mood of bonhomie, I do not want to say anything nasty about the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, so I shall content myself with saying that I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. and learned Friend will he aware of the substantial support for his proposals to make parents responsible for young offenders. Will he challenge those who think otherwise to say who is responsible for young offenders if not the parents who brought them into the world?
Mr. Waddington: I shall certainly issue that challenge. It is somewhat surprising that, in its so-called "White Paper", the Labour party said nothing about parental responsibility.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not make the bonhomie total on this occasion. We in the Labour party welcome all converts, and much of the White Paper shows a conversion on the part of the Conservatives to many of the policies that we have been advocating, after they have been getting their policies wrong for 10 years.
The result of their policies has been an increasing crime rate—60 per cent. up in 10 years—overfull prisons and a criminal justice system that is seen not to be working. That is why they are introducing policies that we have been advocating for a long time.
There are objectives in the Government's proposals with which we agree, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. But we must point out that the results of research into the sentencing policies applied throughout the country in different courts, from magistrates courts to Crown courts, show that something must be clone to achieve uniformity in sentencing policy if justice is to be seen to be equal throughout the country. That leads us to believe that yet again there will have to he a Government backtrack or U-turn in this matter.
Any Home Secretary, when introducing a document such as this, must be aware that rehabilitating offenders in the community is a tough job. The right hon. and learned
776
Gentleman paid tribute to the probation service and the social services. He was right to do that, because those services carry much of the load that goes with the responsibility of caring for and rehabilitating the offender.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must also be aware that the work of those in the probation service and the social services must be undertaken against the background of other policies that the Conservatives have introduced in the last 10 years. Providing the right type of help to the offender and released prisoner is extremely difficult in the atmosphere and environment of the social security and benefit changes that have occurred during that time.
Great changes have been made in the policies of the Department of Health from the point of view of care in the community. Many people who are today in prison and who are coming into the criminal justice system should not be there. It is happening because of a misconceived care in the community policy adopted by the Conservatives over the years.
Mr. Waddington: I could not agree with the final remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and, in any event, that matter has little to do with sentencing policy.
He began by congratulating the Government on introducing policies which, he said, Labour had been advocating. He has it slightly wrong. Labour is not advocating what we are proposing. Labour is still soft on the issue of parole and is still saying that violent offenders should be released on parole after serving only one third of their sentences. Therefore, I shall not be put in the same bracket as the Labour party, with which I am in fundamental disagreement on that important point.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield went on to talk about sentencing uniformity. Nobody is after that, because sentencing uniformity is unattainable. We are concerned with more consistency of sentencing practice, and I spelled out how that could be achieved by the weapons already at our disposal.
I pay tribute to the probation service. I have done so already, and I do so again.

Dorlux (Redundancies)
4.34 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement this morning of 150 redundancies at A. Sykes and Company—better known as Dorlux—bed manufacturers, in Halifax."
According to the management, those redundancies are being made as a direct result of the Government's economic policies. High interest rates and a decline in consumer spending are the reasons given for the proposed job losses. In fact, after the irresponsible consumer boom sponsored by the Government, and within the context of a 7·7 per cent. inflation rate, the Government are now trying to put the brakes on the economy through their high interest rate strategy.
That is undermining economic growth and investment and is slowing down the rate of productivity. Not only will high interest rates and the decline in investment make our long-term inflation and balance of trade position even worse, but they will mean a rise in unemployment, as we see with the latest redundancies in my constituency.
In spite of some welcome jobs from the Halifax building society, Halifax remains—as do many towns in the north—a manufacturing town. For generations, people have used their skills to manufacture goods to sell in the marketplaces of the world. Dorlux is a well known name with a reputation for producing quality goods. The Government should understand that the 400 people who work there have real jobs. The 150 people who will be made redundant want real jobs and work, not some Mickey Mouse scheme that helps the Government to fiddle the unemployment statistics.
Those redundancies need never have happened. We are entitled to ask Tory Ministers what twisted logic allows them to claim as a success the slowdown in the economy that leads to those sort of job losses. How many more jobs have to be lost before this madness stops? Interest rates have increased 11 times in the past 18 months, and our interest rates are the highest among the leading industrial nations.
After 10 years of this Government, Britain stands on the brink of another damaging recession. The manufacturing base in my town suffered severely at the beginning of the 1980s, causing great misery. Between 1979 and 1989, the north lost 30 per cent. of its manufacturing and employment—almost 1 million jobs—[interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister finds it funny. We certainly do not. We cannot afford to lose another million jobs. The House should debate this issue immediately and make it clear to the Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her three minutes.
The Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: She was interrupted.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The hon. Member seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration—[Interruption.] Order. These are serious matters—namely
"the announcement today of redundancies at A. Sykes and Company, bed manufacturers."
I listened with care to what the hon. Lady said. As she knows, I have to decide whether her application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether the debate should take priority over the business set down for today or for tomorrow. In this case, I regret that the matter she has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit her application to the House.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Well, we have a very heavy day ahead of us. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
Mr. Corbyn: Like you, Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Standing Order No. 20 application by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) There was one interruption. It is convention that the Minister should come and listen to the application lest you, Mr. Speaker, should grant it. He did not listen—he was smirking and laughing throughout and talking to his hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs. My hon. Friend was only drawing attention to the misery created by the market forces—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can raise the level of interventions. Interventions such as that of the hon. Gentleman do not help in any way.

Dorlux (Redundancies)
  BILL PRESENTED
    TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT I984 (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Jimmy Hood presented a Bill to amend the Telecommunications Act 1984 so as to make it a criminal offence to send, or allow to be sent, certain types of message by means of a public telecommunications system: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second Time upon 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c
    Ordered,
    That the draft Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill
4.40 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the supply of unroadworthy motor vehicles and trailers and the alteration of vehicles so as to render them unroadworthy; to regulate the manner and circumstances in which vehicles may be supplied, repaired and serviced; to regulate the way in which mileage information relating to motor vehicles is recorded; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to protect the consumer from those motor traders who practise dishonesty, deception and fraud. This is by no means all motor traders, and I wish to say at the outset that national organisations such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association have contributed to consultations about the Bill and support the proposed measures. Dishonesty, deception and fraud are, however, rife in the motor trade and the time is long overdue when these problems should be tackled by legislation.
Each year, 7·5 million second-hand cars are sold, half of them through the motor trade. The Institute of Trading Standards Administration reports that three out of every four of these cars will be sold in an unroadworthy condition. The law requires and consumers expect that vehicles offered for sale are safe to be on the road. The Bill does not create a new offence or impose onerous restrictions on the trade, but, as was recommended in the North report, through the amendment of section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the law, and the rights and exceptions of consumers, will he strengthened and made more effective.
Trading standards officers are responsible for consumer safety in almost everything from disposable napkins to funerals, yet, because cars are exempt from the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the customer buying a car—probably one of the most expensive undertakings after home buying—enjoys much less protection. The Bill therefore proposes to give trading standards officers powers to inspect used cars for sale on garage forecourts to check that they are roadworthy. If a vehicle offered for sale is not roadworthy, the dealer must indicate this on the vehicle's windscreen and documentation.
These steps would mean that the motor trade and the sale of used cars would be covered by laws similar to those already operating for other goods under the Consumer Protection Act. Too often, consumers are sold cars that are potential death traps to both owners and other road users.
The provisions of the Bill will also apply to hire vehicles. In a survey of 12 hire companies in Mid Glamorgan trading standards officers found that 13 of the 16 vans and tipper trucks examined, including vans used for furniture removal and waste disposal trucks, were unroadworthy. They were so unsafe that they were banned from the county's roads. Only one vehicle had no faults at all. Companies that use hire facilities may well be unwittingly putting their employees at risk.
The Bill also tackles another problem, the sale of so-called insurance write-offs. An old horse racing practice consisted of switching two identical horses immediately before the start of the race to beat the bookies and punters.
780
It was called "ringing". The ringing of cars is now big business, and its success depends upon the present unsatisfactory arrangements for dealing with write-offs.
When a severely damaged car is sold, the vehicle registration documents go with it. If the wreck is purchased by a criminal he will then steal a car of the same year, model and colour, switch the wreck's registration, chassis and engine numbers to the stolen car and openly sell his stolen vehicle for the full market price with a "clean" registration document. That is today's ringing.
The car thief makes thousands of pounds for a few hours' work. The insurers pay out on the wreck and on the stolen car. The consumers' car insurance premiums must reflect the scale of this type of crime. The Bill proposes that when a car is assessed by insurers as a write-off the registration document is surrendered to the driver and vehicle licensing centre. This simple and basic measure, as advocated by the ACPO report of the working party on police examination of relicensed, total loss motor vehicles and the 16 consumer organisations, under the chairmanship of Sir Gordon Borrie at the Office of Fair Trading, will virtually eliminate ringing.
The Bill will also require insurers to inform the DVLC of a write-off and the reason for the write-off. At present this is a voluntary arrangement and not all insurers comply. The DVLC receives notification of well over 280,000 written-off cars a year. The Automobile Association and the Institute of Trading Standards Administration estimate that around half of these go back on the road. They will be more or less seriously damaged cars, repaired or rebuilt more or less properly. They will have had no safety check, and the purchasers will buy at full market price without knowing that, a short time ago, the cars were more or less wrecks. An AA survey in 1985 found that one in eight accident-damaged and repaired vehicles was immediately unsafe and 50 per cent. still had defects. In a Royal Automobile Club survey 3 per cent. of all the cars examined had had post-accident repairs, and 20 per cent. of the repairs had been done badly.
The DVLC computer already marks the records of cars notified as write-offs. At present this information is used by the police to check relicensed cars, although checks are minimal because of the scale of reregistrations and the lack of police manpower. The Bill proposes that a write-off will be relicensed by the DVLC only after the rebuilt vehicle has satisfactorily passed a safety test, and that the new registration document will be marked to indicate that the car has been a write-off. These proposed measures would meet both the interests of consumer safety and the right of consumers to know that the cars had been written off.
The Bill will therefore meet a fourfold consumer interest in write-offs: it will reduce theft and resale of stolen cars, protect insurance premium levels, improve car safety and allow consumers to know what they are buying.
The Bill will also give the Secretary of State powers to make laws to prevent the "clocking" of cars, where the number of miles is put back. This practice is one of the major sources of fraud, amounting to £100 million a year. One in five of the second-hand cars sold each year is likely to have had its recorded mileage doctored,. Every 1,000 miles reduced on the car clock adds £30 to the value. Unscrupulous dealers have been known to make up to £1,000 on a car sale from this business. Every year since 1980, between one in two and one in four of all convictions under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 have been related to clocking.

781
The simplest means of preventing such fraud is for a record of the mileage to be made when the car tax is due every six or 12 months and by buyer and seller when the car changes ownership. The Office of Fair Trading has suggested that this scheme could be made to be self-financing. However, the Bill leaves the Secretary of State free to choose to adopt whichever scheme he thinks appropriate and most able to protect the public from this massive fraud.
The proposals in the Bill are supported by many organisations, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Barry Sheerman and Mr. Gary Waller.

Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill
  MOTOR TRADE (CONSUMER PROTECTION)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the supply of unroadworthy motor vehicles and trailers and the alteration of vehicles so as to rend them unroadworthy; to regulate the manner and circumstances in which vehicles may be supplied, repaired and serviced; to regulate the way in which mileage information relating to motor vehicles is recorded; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 February and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

  Agriculture
  [Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. SEC (89) 2097 on the agricultural situation in the Community in 1989, 8076/89 on set-aside, 10912/89 on definition of lambs fattened as heavy carcases, 7548/89 on monitoring of export refunds, 7549/89 and 10850/89 on scrutiny of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guarantee Section) expenditure, 7566/89 on physical inventory checks for intervention stocks, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22nd September 1989 on the sheepmeat regime; Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on European Legislation on Thursday 1st February 1990 (HC 188—i.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I should announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). In view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, Mr. Speaker intends to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches from 7 o'clock.
  4.50 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr.John Gummer): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. COM. (89) 660 relating to prices for agricultural products and related measures for 1990–91, 7010/89 relating to adjustment of agricultural structures, 8309/89 and 8877/89 relating to the quota system in a milk sector, the Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 1/89 on the agrimonetary system, the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to 16th January on use of agricultural commodities in the non-food sector and of the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome on the price proposals which takes account of the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers and of the need to maintain the progress made in reforming the European Community's Common Agricultural Policy.
  This is a good time for us to be discussing these matters, not least because we are now beginning the price-fixing negotiations in the European Community. I am most interested to hear hon. Members' views and, as I suspect that many hon. Members will support the Government's policy, I hope to be able to use their comments in our debates in the European Council. This is also a most convenient date for the debate, because we published today the 1989 edition of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom", which is an improved version, copies of which are available—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they, then?"] Copies are available; if there are none in the Vote Office I apologise.
  Dr. David Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said that the document is available, but it is not. It is not available in the Vote Office, and we have been informed that we cannot get it unless we submit a green form and wait for it to be sent by post. In view of that fact, I suggest that we should not debate the document today.
  Mr. Gummer: I should be quite happy not to debate the
  ask, and I would have put matters right. I will supply him with a copy—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about us?"] And any other hon. Member who needs the document. I note

  783
  that we are having a ritual beginning to this debate, because there is not much that divides us in the issues themselves.
  Hon. Members: Yes, there is.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is admitting contempt of the House. That is what he is doing, and I want you to rule on this. More often than not, when we are told that reports are in the Vote Office, we can go and get them, albeit late, but in this case, the Minister stood there at the Dispatch Box and said that copies were available when they were not available. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has one, but I do not know where he got it.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: No.
  Mr. Haynes: The Minister has not sent Opposition Members a copy of the report. He wants to come off it; he is a fly-by-night.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this matter has now been dealt with, and that we can get on with the debate.
  Mr. Gummer: The document is not a command document: it is available in the way in which it has always been available. Opposition Members are merely trying to score points. Previous editions have always been available in this form and the Opposition have never complained before. If hon. Gentlemen wish to make a complaint, I am quite happy to answer it, and to ensure that they have what they need.
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: What about hon. Ladies?
  Mr. Gummer: Yes, and hon. Ladies. I would not dream of excluding the hon. Lady.
  There is no problem between the two sides of the House. I am quite happy to consider whether the system that we have always operated for the circulation of such documents should be revised, but I do not see how I could possibly be accused of contempt of the House.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: The Minister usually is.
  Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Member wishes to continue making sedentary remarks, I have no doubt that we shall all listen with our usual interest.
  In 1989, there was an increase in farm incomes of about £200 million, or 16 per cent., on the low figure for 1988, but I would not put too much emphasis on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For a reason that hon. Members know is perfectly right: farming is not one business but a whole range of businesses. Although that aggregate figure may show an increase it does not help the farmer who has had a poor year to be told that other farmers in other parts of the business have had a rather better year.
  The figure that I have cited is useful only in making a comparison with previous years and it is fair to say that, in general, this year has been better than the previous year. I lay no more emphasis on it than that. The figure is largely based on improvements in the intensive livestock, potato and dairy sectors and in my other sectors, such as the arable sector, things have been more difficult.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend has referred to the dairying sector. Farmers
  784
  are fair-minded people and they cannot see anything fair about receiving 19·5 per cent. less than other people because of the green pound rate. I know that my right hon. Friend is fighting hard, but will he tell the Community that the farmers of this country will simply not tolerate a mere one-third devaluation? They want the whole thing—not in 1992 but now.
  Mr. Gummer: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has raised that matter, as I was about to move on to what seems to be the most important point in the negotiations that we are having at the moment—the green pound. I know that my hon. Friend will accept the point that I have to make to her.
  The concept of dealing with farmers at a time of surplus is itself a difficult one. When supply exceeds demand, farmers lack confidence in the future because they do not have the security of market that they do when there is a shortage. Moreover, they are concerned that competition should be fair competition. There is no doubt that times of surplus are difficult times, and the one thing that makes a difficult time impossible to bear is the fact that someone else is not bearing the same burden. That is why the devaluation of the green pound is essential, and why it ought to be a substantial devaluation.
  My hon. Friend asked me for a specific commitment. I remind her that I am engaged in negotiations in which the United Kingdom is on one side and all the other member states are on the other, because no other country has an interest in the change in the green pound. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that while those negotiations are in progress, which are bound to go on at least until the end of March and at perhaps even into the first fortnight of April, it would be better if I was not too forthcoming about my negotiating tactics. It is nevertheless important to try to achieve an end, and I shall try to describe what I believe that end should be.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend pointed out that we are one against 11. Does he agree that the other 11 countries have a big vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which is to their great advantage and to our great disadvantage?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. Anyone who thinks that the negotiations will be easy or that the Commission's proposals will be automatically accepted by the Council does not understand the negotiating process.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), when I have finished this point.
  Hon. Members: What about Opposition Members?
  Mr. Gummer: I thought that, when I gave way last time, I was giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) thought that I was giving way to him. It is perhaps only fair to give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle; then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
  The House should recognise that, in itself, a change in the green pound will not increase the incomes of farmers: it will merely remove the decrease in the incomes of farmers that would otherwise be there. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I shall explain, although if hon. Members do not understand, they cannot have been listening to the farming lobby. The farmers understand what the green pound means, which is that British farmers get less for their products than farmers in other parts of the Community.
  By putting that right, one would only be putting the returns of British farmers on a level with those of other farmers; one would not be giving British farmers a price increase or an advantage. The trouble with the negotiations is that our colleagues in the European Community tend to suggest that, somehow, a change in the level of the green pound is a gift to the British farmer. I want to make it clear that that is not how the Government see the situation. The Government see this quite clearly as removing a disadvantage rather than as giving the British farmer an advantage.
  I have agreed to give way to hon. Members in order, and I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, after which I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow.
  Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend has outlined the problem very well. Does he agree that, as the president of the Country Landowners Association said to him in a recent letter, the association accepts that market forces will have to play a larger part in farming in the future? My right hon. Friend ought to accept that. Will he please make it absolutely clear that he is talking about giving our farmers—as a Member for a Lincolnshire constituency I represent some of the most efficient farmers in the world—a fair competitive position, a level playing field? Our farmers simply want a chance to compete. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will fight his corner? That is what our farmers want to know.
  Mr. Gummer: That is precisely why I have been trying to say that we must get out of the habit of suggesting that, somehow or other, this is a gift to farmers—something to advance them—rather than the righting of a wrong. That is the distinction that many of our friends in the European Community find it difficult to follow. They—very often pushed by their own farming organisations—feel that farmers in Britain are being given an advantage, rather than having a disadvantage removed.
  Mr. Michael Lord rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I promised the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that I would give way to him next, and it would be unfair of me not to do so.
  Dr. Godman: Clearly the Minister must press for fair treatment for farmers in the United Kingdom. Surely, however, he must acknowledge that in these negotiations he has responsibilities that extend beyond the shores of the United Kingdom. Among the people concerned are the
  786
  cane sugar producers in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. No doubt they would welcome an assurance concerning their interests. My constituents working in one of the refineries here would welcome an assurance that the interests of the cane sugar producers of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries too will be looked after.
  Mr. Gummer: I would have come to a specific reference to that matter, as I did in my evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind taking a little longer on the central point of the green pound. His efforts in Brussels on behalf of the entire farming industry of this country are greatly appreciated. Will he, however, say loudly and clearly, in this House today and in the Agriculture Council in Brussels, that there is no possible reason—in economics, in equity, or in logic—for farmers being unable to sell their products within the Community at prices expressed in terms of real currencies rather than in terms of the artificially administered currency of the green pound? Every other business deals in real currency.
  Mr. Gummer: I have said again and again that I do not believe that a system that results in the farmers of one country getting an inferior price merely because of the arrangements between currencies is acceptable. I am absolutely committed to the total dismantling of such a system. I am appalled that there are in the Community some people who do no accept the statements of the Court of Auditors that it would be impossible to have such a system after 1992.
  I am committed to ensuring that we get a proper deal for the British farmer. However, I adopt that attitude in a situation in which we have a large number of friends but few immediate allies. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will allow me to leave the terms of negotiations to one side. It must be a matter of getting the best that I can in the context of those negotiations, which will go on for some time.
  Mr. Lord rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I really must move on. I will give my hon. Friend a chance later.
  Mr. Lord rose—
  Mr. Gummer: Very well: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Lord: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
  I make no apology for speaking about the same point, because it is the most important one that we have to consider. There has been talk about the incomes of farmers generally. My right hon. Friend must be well aware of the position of cereal farmers, whose profitability is now in real danger. There is great concern about this matter. Even if the people in Europe with whom we negotiate are not as concerned about our farmers as we are, surely they must be concerned about our opinion of their fairness. It is absolutely crucial, as hon. Members on this side of the House have said, that my right hon. Friend go to Europe with the firmest possible resolve to get the fairest possible deal for our farmers, so that they may see that Europe is fair.
  Mr. Gummer: I say again that I am totally committed to the concept that the European common agricultural policy cannot be run on the basis of a principle that results

  787
  in some farmers getting a substantially lower price than others do because of the way that the agrimonetary system works. However strongly one is opposed to the CAP system, that cannot be right.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I really am going to get on now. I hope that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will be interested in what I am about to say. He may wish later to interrupt on this point.
  Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that the Minister is doing his best to explain, and that he is giving way. However. he must realise that he is responsible to the whole House. It is his right to decide whether to give way, and it is our privilege when he does, but he must give way to Members on both sides. Otherwise he will leave himself open to being known as the most unfair Minister of Agriculture we have ever had.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The whole House knows that it is a matter for the Minister whether or not to give way. In fairness, I should point out that he has given way already to hon. Members on both sides.
  Mr. Gummer: I have tried to give way to hon. Members interested in a very wide range of different problems. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
  Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment.
  In particular areas of agriculture, there are very special problems that are even more sharp this year than they were last year. I mentioned the overall figure—and increase in farming incomes—and I hope that hon. Members will feel that, in not laying too much emphasis on that, I was being fair. In one area in particular there was a decrease in farming incomes. In that regard, I was particularly concerned, even outwith our negotiations on the green pound, to give some special help. That is why, last week, I announced an increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowances for the ewes of hardy breeds. That represents £5.2 million extra money going into that very difficult area of agriculture.
  Perhaps the House will agree that when, in our discussions in the European Community, we come to the question of the best way of helping our farmers to look after the land and to produce the food that we need, we must first of all ensure that there is fairness as between farmers. Secondly, we must look in particular at those areas where farming is very difficult and where farming practices are of particular importance in the context of the environment. The fact is that, in our highlands, the kind of countryside that we have grown to expect and accept can survive only if it is properly farmed. Therefore, the retention of sheep on those hills is a crucial part of any sensible environmental policy.
  However, I still believe that we have not quite got the balance entirely right. That is why we were willing to press the Commission to allow us to introduce into the HLCA concept a rather greater element of conservation. We shall be looking, over the coming months, at the best way of doing that. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will probably agree that it is right that we should do so.
  Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister for giving way eventually; in the absence of a Scottish Office Minister, it is important that he gives way to Scottish Members.
  On marginal farming, does not the Minister accept the cumulative disadvantage because of the green pound differential? Will he remind the House what the cumulative disadvantage has been over the last 10 years? As the Government came to power, if I remember correctly, on a pledge to eliminate the green pound differential, is there not a strong case for proceeding faster on eliminating the green pound differential than either the Commission or the Government propose?
  Mr Gummer: It is difficult to accept that it could be faster than the Government propose. The Government propose that I should use my best endeavours in the negotiations to get the best deal. I find it an odd concept that the hon. Gentleman assumes that I should propose something when I have said specifically that we will negotiate. If we are negotiating, we have to negotiate, we should not start by saying to the people with whom we are negotiating, "That is the bottom line," or we would not get the best answer. I do not know how much negotiating the hon. Gentleman has done but I am sure, whatever he has done, that he will agree that that is a reasonable basis.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's other comments, we are committed to the eradication of the green pound and its replacement by a system which does not disadvantage farmers as they have been disadvantaged in the past. I remind him that there have been periods in which farmers have had advantage from the green pound, but that does not help much when they are at a disadvantage.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to consider the period in which farmers were hardest hit by the green pound, he should take the period when John Silkin was Minister of Agriculture. At that time, the Labour party insisted upon the green pound gap getting bigger and bigger, so that it might have a counter-inflationary effect. The incoming Conservative Government stripped that away, having given an election pledge which was opposed by the Labour party. When my hon. Friends hear, as no doubt they will, pressure from the Labour party to reduce or eradicate the green pound gap, I hope they will remember what happened when Labour was in power. The Labour Government steadfastly refused to eradicate the difference between Britain and other countries, and steadfastly insisted that farmers bore the burden of their anti-inflationary policy.
  On prices, we ought to support strongly the Commission's proposal for a price freeze. Although the stabiliser regime has had significant advantages, it has been operating at the same time as harvest conditions have helped to reduce the mountains and dry up the lakes. I believe that over-production in British and European farming does considerable harm not only to the taxpayer's pocket but also to the reputation of the farmer. It is not helpful to the farmer to be thought of as the producer of food that nobody wants to eat.
  Therefore, the stabiliser regime is of great importance if the farmer is to regain the reputation in society which he deserves and which he lost to some extent during the early period of surpluses. So I support the price freeze, and I strongly support the maintenance of stabilisers; and I oppose those in the Community who have sought to weaken stabilisers.

  789
  About a fortnight ago, I had the pleasure of addressing an audience of farmers and Ministers of Agriculture in Berlin. I had to listen to a speech on behalf of German farmers, given by the leader of the German farming unions. He sought the abolition of stabilisers and the removal of all those things that put into the common agricultual policy a sensible measure of restraint, in order, he thought, to advance the farmer's cause. I believe that that would disadvantage the farmer. It would do grave damage to the farmer if we changed the hard-fought system which we have got. That means that we ought to go further.
  It is outrageous that we should subsidise the increased growth of tobacco in the Community when most member states are seeking to reduce the consumption of tobacco. So that the House may understand how serious it is, may I point out that the marginal cost to FEOGA of supporting the growth of wheat, a crop which produces the staff of life, is £400 per hectare in rough translation. The marginal cost of supporting the growth of tobacco, much of which is not a health risk only because it is unsmokable, is £3,000 per hectare. That is unacceptable, particularly as it has resulted in an increase in growth of the very kinds of tobacco which appear to be most damaging and dangerous, and which should not be put increasingly into intervention because they cannot be used.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I must get on, because there is a 10-minute limit on speeches later.
  I suggest that the same is true of the production of rice. Rice is about eight times as damaging to global warming as any similar product. Therefore, there is a particular reason for us to say that we do not wish to produce rice of a kind that we are unlikely to use. The japonica rice which we grow in the European Community has a limited market. Indica rice is more widely used.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked earlier about cane sugar producers. It is a curious view of developing countries which suggests that the European Community should increase, through subsidised competition, production of products which they can grow—perhaps their only product. So I shall seek a similar stabiliser regime for rice, and also for cotton, another product whose subsidised production within the Community does countries with much poorer populations out of markets.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that we must continue to help cane sugar producers. I think it is reasonable, as we have cut the sums being offered to beet sugar producers within the Community, that we should offer them a similar deal. The arrangement is that we offer them the same price for the amounts which they are allowed to export into the Community as we offer Community farmers. It is not unreasonable that we should keep to that. They have benefited from increases even though they may not have had increases in their own production costs. It is reasonable to keep to that when we are making a cut.
  I welcome the Commission's approach on prices, and on Mediterranean regimes. There is great pressure to
  790
  increase the amount of money for regimes on Mediterranean products. I shall resist the weakening of those packages.
  I am worried about the Community's proposals on the rural world, because the modulation, as it is called, in favour of small farms is for very uneconomic small farms, with very few of them being in the United Kingdom and very few offering full-time support to a family in the countries in which they are located. It does farming no good to increase the support for such farms when it is wholly contrary to any sensible economic regime.
  We ought to examine much more carefully those regimes in which we have a co-responsibility levy. I do not think it right for us to continue a system whereby we tax a farmer and reduce his price without reducing the price to the purchaser in the market. If we reduced the price to the purchaser, there would be a chance of increasing demand. We must move from co-responsibility levies to action on prices. It is much better for the farmer, must better for the market and must more likely to increase demand.
  I believe that we have to look very carefully at the intervention prices with regard to milk. There is no doubt that substantial surpluses persist and are bound to increase, because the Community, contrary to the United Kingdom's wishes, has increased the quota by 1 per cent. It would be quite wrong of me not to allow our farmers to have that 1 per cent. if the farmers in every other country have it, but it would also be quite wrong of me to say that I consider it a sensible policy, in view of the increased amount of milk producton which is bound to ensue. I hope very much that I shall be able to announce the suggested revision of 1 per cent. very soon, but, of course, it is something that has to be agreed with the Commission under the regulation as passed.
  With regard to beef, there needs to be a much greater cut in the guide price, particularly given our responsibilities in the general agreement on tariffs and trade round. Some of the suggestions for the use of the European Community carcass classification grid are an unnecessary burden on the industry. If it is necessary to improve the terms of trade and if it does not bring unnecessary burdens, that is one thing; but if it is merely a matter of harmonisation and neatness, I believe the United Kingdom should oppose it. So we are looking very carefully at the detailed proposals in that connection.
  It now seems to be generally accepted that the sheep regime, which is a general one covering the whole of Europe, is good news for us, because it means that we have got rid of the differences which have been the cause of so much difficulty in our export markets. The basic price freeze is sensible, and there has been a notable improvement in the maximum guaranteed quantity arrangements.
  Turning to the structures problems, I have no doubt that it was quite wrong of the Community not to accept the United Kingdom's case for no headage limits on the reimbursement for the compensatory amounts. There is no sense in suggesting that because it has been necessary for economic reasons to have a large flock in Scotland, for example, for some reason to do with the mathematical minds of those from other countries, there should be a headage limit—not because the farmer is rich but because he happens to live in a particularly poor area where a large number of sheep are needed to make any kind of sense and any kind of living.

  791
  We fought that battle very hard, and we got a response and a change which most people in this country said was much better than they had expected. Indeed, it was much better than the House had thought it would be from our discussions beforehand. But it was not as good as I wanted, because I did not and do not believe that this kind of headage limit is a proper way of dealing with these problems. It is discriminatory, albeit accidentally so, against the United Kingdom.
  I have been able to announce that, when we come to review the figures next time, we shall not automatically carry through the HLCA levels fixed by the FEOGA proposals. We shall do as we have done in the past and look at the state of the industry and decide the levels of HLCAs on that basis, not on the basis of the artificial proposals which have now been agreed in the Council.
  With regard to milk quotas, I have said that I hope that it will soon be possible to announce the allocation. That will depend upon how quickly the Commission is prepared to discuss the proposals which we have put to it, which are complex and seek to meet a wide range of problems that we feel can now be met.
  With regard to the non-food use of agricultural products, I am always concerned when it is suggested that there is an automatic and easy answer to the problems of over-production. There are those on both sides of the House who have their own magic answer to the problem of surplus agricultural products. I look with a fairly leary eye on those who suggest that, if only we grew this or that for one or other purpose, we would meet the real problems.
  We have to look very carefully at these propositions. I am keen on some of the proposals for the use of straw, for willow cultivation, and the like, but these have to be seen as marginal and must stand up. We cannot accept the proposition that has been put to us that, if we subsidise them totally and give them to industry free, they ought then to be turned into a competitive fuel. That does not seem to be sensible, and I do not think that any hon. Member would want it. I am therefore very careful about some of the proposals for non-food use of agricultural products, and we shall be looking with great care at the Commission's report and proposal, which will be linked to set-aside. The principle of new uses is acceptable, but I have doubts about it being tied to set-aside.
  The discussions in the House are the prelude to some very tough bargaining. I am wholly committed to the principle of ensuring that British farmers shall compete with other farmers in the Community on a fair basis. I also believe that we have taken very large strides indeed in improving the common agricultural policy through the stabiliser regimes and the policies of Her Majesty's Government.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends want us to go further, and have some very tough words to say about some of the things that still happen or are still budgeted for in the Community. I agree with much of what they say. I want to go much further down the road of ensuring that food is not destroyed; although that is a minor part of the budget, it is still too great. I want to go much further down the road of making sure that we do not grow food for which there is no market, and of dealing with some of the Mediterranean products, in particular where there is an indefensible amount of wastage.
  To that can be added the question of fraud, which is widespread. That is why we have taken the toughest
  792
  measures in support of the Commission and have refused to support the watering-down proposals that have been presented by other people. I believe that fraud must be prosecuted wherever it occurs, whether abroad or at home. I shall be as tough on the fraud that takes place in this country—we have reported some items of that—as on the fraud that takes place elsewhere. I am suspicious that Greece has announced that there is no fraud in that country at all.
  I believe that we can at least claim that the Government have presided over the largest reform there has been in the common agricultural policy, and very much greater reform than anybody thought was possible. There is no doubt that most other countries in the Community have now come to accept what was a United Kingdom initiative—that is, a common agricultural policy increasingly designed to meet supply with demand rather than supply with surplus. We must keep on with this. We are pleased that the Commission is proposing measures which in large part support those changes.
  I ask my hon. Friends, and indeed many hon. Members in all parts of the House, to give me the opportunity of saying that we have complete support in the battle to make sure that our farmers have a fair deal.
  5.28 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I found the Minister's speech disappointing. I suspect that hon. Members, when they go back to their constituencies, will find that their constituents found it somewhat disappointing.
  Today, we are debating agriculture in Europe against a rapidly changing political background. The Communist parties of eastern Europe are calling for multi-party states. Apartheid is perhaps beginning to crumble in South Africa. The Minister has just come back from Berlin and I am sure that he viewed with great pleasure the crumbling of the Berlin wall. I am sure that many hon. Members share my view that, against all these momentous changes, the iniquitous structure of the common agricultural policy probably remains the last great untouched folly in the world. It is certainly of that seriousness.
  Before we discuss the various aspects of agriculture, I shall briefly remind the House, yet again—it is important to do so—of the effect of the CAP on the British people. In spite of the progress that I concede has been made, the CAP is a costly folly. I checked the figures for the end of the year. The price of butter in the EC is almost double the world price. We pay 50 per cent. more than we should for beef and sugar, and 40 per cent. more for skimmed milk—at a time when even the most widely respected opinions believe that world prices will fall again and, therefore, the differential will increase.
  In 1988, the Treasury estimated that the average household of four in the United Kingdom spent over £10·50 a week more than they should have done on purchasing food. The semi-official National Consumer Council estimated that the figure had gone up to £,13·50 and the most recent survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that I have seen puts the subsidy that the British consumer has to pay for food at no less than £.17·50 a week. That is far too much. Therefore, we go along with the Minister and support him in his endeavours to ensure that the Commission's proposals for price freezing are upheld.

  793
  That is absolutely vital. Equally, the maintenance of stabilisers is essential. On those issues the Minister has our support.
  The key factor in the common agricultural policy and the reason why I describe it as crazy is that it is not only the consumer who loses but the farmer. For every £1 that goes to the farmer, about £2 goes for intervention and dumping on the world market. How can that possibly be justified? Export refunds have reached astronomical levels. In spite of the efforts of the Commission, export refunds for dairy products alone last year were only marginally below the figure for 1988, the worst year ever.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Gentleman talks about his concern for farmers and he knows of my close association with the land. Will he say what his party intends to do if it ever comes to power? Will it nationalise land? How will it pay for it? Will it pay for it through junk bonds or when resources allow?
  Dr. Clark: As a farmer, the hon. Gentleman knows that he has thrown out a canard. The Labour party has no intention of nationalising farmland and that has not been in a Labour party manifesto since the war. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop trying to spread that rumour and cause alarm. We know why he does it: we have noted the dramatic fall in support for the Conservative party among the farming industry and the growth in its support for the Labour party.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: It is appropriate to make the point that a few days ago the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) seemed to be queueing up to have his land taken over for opencast mining. My hon. Friend talks about the cost of intervention and the fact that much of the vast sum spent does not go to the farmer. My hon. Friend will be aware that throughout Europe there has been grave anxiety about the amount of fraud and corruption in the intervention processes, and that anxiety is relevant to the United Kingdom. As the Minister knows, in Britain fraud and criminal action have been the subject of confession on television and no one has been prosecuted in such cases.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend raises the point I was coming to later. It is a serious one, and I shall certainly press the Minister on it, but I shall come to that in my own time.
  I note in the documents that we are discussing—there is a huge pile—little about specific action to reduce export refunds. In the Treasury's public expenditure paper last week, there was provision for a 40 per cent. increase in intervention buying in the United Kingdom, from £1,102 million in 1988–89 to £1,540 million in 1992–93. That is a staggering figure. Will the Minister explain why he is planning for such a vast increase in intervention buying which will be paid for by the British consumer and taxpayer?
  We have a right to know why that increase is being budgeted for when we are told that the surpluses are going. The surpluses may well be going, but they are going to other countries—often wrecking Third-world markets—with huge subsidies paid for by the British and European taxpayers. Is that why the budget has been increased?
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the main reason for these increases is simply that we have transferred spending from the Common Market to national Governments such as Britain's as a means of cutting Common Market spending?
  Dr. Clark: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree, this is wasteful expenditure which does not help anyone, and the sooner we can eradicate it, the better. We seem to have a consensus on that.
  Mr. Gummer: Surely, one advantage of transferring a wasteful expenditure such as this to national Governments is that some national Governments, who do not contribute to the European Community common agricultural fund because they are net gainers from it, will begin to be more aware of exactly what the hon. Gentleman says, with which I agree. Therefore, it is not a disadvantage but an advantage, because we are aware of the expenditure, as we contribute significantly to the funds. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is part of our battle against what we both agree is an unacceptable fact.
  Dr. Clark: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's valid point. I am sure that he agrees that we must tackle the problem. I am disappointed that we are expecting a 40 per cent. increase in expenditure in this country when we were already spending quite a lot on intervention buying.
  Apart from the general CAP, this country's farmers suffer enormously from the Government's economic policies. We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House the overriding public concern of farmers; getting the devaluation of the green pound. However, that is only part of the problem; the other part involves inflation and high interest rates which are affecting our economy. The farming industry, often at the exhortations of Conservative farming Ministers, invested heavily in the early years of the last decade. They are now having to bear the price of that policy and the Government's one-club approach to the economy: high interest rates.
  Last year, British agriculture had to pay about £1,000 million in debt repayments alone—an increase of almost one third over the previous year. I stress that the high interest economy which the Government pursue is shoving farming up to its neck in debts. The sooner we get away from such an approach, the better.
  Mr. Paul Marland: While the hon. Gentleman expresses concern for the increase in farmers' costs—I accept the answer that he gave to my hon. friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—will he reflect a little on the extra costs that some Socialist-controlled local authorities are considering: rating agricultural land? Is that to be part of a future Labour Government's policy? Would a future Labour Government rate agricultural land and add further to the costs borne by farmers?
  Dr. Clark: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I thought that the Government's policy was to abolish the rating system and go over to the poll tax. We conducted a little exercise and found out that the poll tax will be particularly hard on farming. We checked a farm in Copeland where rates are currently about £200 a year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, farmers pay rates on their domestic houses. Under the new situation, instead of paying £200, the three adults living on that farm, judging

  795
  by the probable level of poll tax, will pay £1,000 a year. That is my riposte to the hon. Gentleman. The poll tax will not help farmers.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) asked a direct question. Does the hon. Gentleman now publicly state that the Labour party, if ever returned to office, would not rate agricultural land?
  Dr. Clark: Let us be blunt—I can say categorically to the Minister that that was not in the Labour party's manifesto at the last election, and will not be in the Labour party manifesto at the next election. Let us get that quite clear. I do not think that I have fudged that issue.
  It is interesting that many farmers share the views of Mr. Bill Chrystal, the chairman of the Durham and North Yorkshire branch of the National Farmers Union, who wrote an open letter to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to complain about the continuing failure of the Government to tackle the problems of British agriculture, their failure to devalue the green pound and about high interest rates. In that open letter, he went on to say that the Government
  "contributes to the ruin of many farmers … if British farmers were able to enjoy French interest rates"
  the situation would be greatly improved.
  Unfortunately for Mr. Chrystal and for British farmers we do not have the benefit of a Socialist Government, as the French have, but I say, "Take heart, Mr. Chrystal—it won't he long before we have a Labour Government"—and then British farmers will have a fair deal, as they have always had from a Labour Government.
  When we press the Minister on all the points and difficulties with Europe, he always says that he cannot get agreement with the Council of Agriculture Ministers. Of course we understand that, but does not the Minister appreciate that this repeated failure to protect the interests of consumers and farmers in negotiations does not help anyone?
  The Minister's offensive attitude towards food from other countries causes a great deal of difficulty with his overseas counterparts. British food is of a high quality, but so is that of our competitors. I usually choose British food, but there are occasions when I do not. For example, if I am faced with a choice in a shop of a British apple, or a New Zealand apple, I normally choose the New Zealand apple, for the simple reason that I know that the latter will not have been treated with alar—the carcinogenic pesticide. Other countries often produce food of the same standard that we produce.
  Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I shall spend a great deal of time pointing out to British farmers that he has now made a statement contrary to scientific advice. He has undermined the position of farmers in this country and shown that farmers would get from a Labour Government a Minister who would bash Britain to push the views of food faddists, on no scientific grounds at all. That would lead to a disruption of British industry and the British industrial base—farming in this country—and the hon. Gentleman must understand that he has now said that he would back the food faddists against the British farmer.
  Dr. Clark: I thought that the Minister might respond in his usual hysterical fashion. I chose my words very carefully, and Hansard will record what 1 have actually
  796
  said, and not what the Minister said that I said. I can assure British consumers that from the Labour party and a Labour Government they will get alar-free apples.
  Does not the Minister understand that when he makes his histrionic and jingoistic speeches at formal functions, denigrating the quality of food from our European neighbours, he causes great offence? The House might not understand what I mean by that. I remind hon. Members that the Minister has a habit of going to functions, and berating his hosts in his after-dinner, or after-lunch comments, for daring to provide, for example. New Zealand butter with the soup rolls. Then he reaches down and produces a white polythene bag. Out of the bag he produces European food products, bought at a nearby supermarket by his hapless political assistant. I point out that the Minister cannot buy them, because he is attending the synod.
  There is a moral in this. As each item of foreign food is drawn out of the bag, it is accompanied by extravagant and unusually derogatory comments by the Minister, with the unending message that the food is inferior to that produced in Britain. Of course, that is the Minister's opinion, and he has every right to say that, but does he not understand that those gratuitous insults cause offence and are heard by foreign agricultural attachés, who speedily relay the Minister's attitude back to their governments?
  In all seriousness, I sincerely counsel the Minister that that is not the most effective way to make friends and influence people, and that is important for the interests of British consumers and farmers when he goes to negotiations. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is better to have a Minister who stands up for British products and who says that he does not believe in buying British unless it is best, but when it is best we must stand up for it and fight for it.
  One of our problems is that too many people think that something that comes from abroad is better than goods we produce at home. Britain produces the best apples. They are entirely safe, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman will not eat them shows that he does not have any taste, and that he would not make a Minister of Agriculture.
  Dr. Clark: I agree with the Minister. When British food is best, we should buy it and eat it.
  Mr. Gill: Before the hon. Gentleman throws any more gratuitous insults at the Minister, would he care to consider the damage that he has already done in this debate to the British apple industry? Does he imagine that he will have any friends left in that industry?
  Dr. Clark: I humbly suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is the Minister who has done the damage, by not banning alar.
  Perhaps we can now move on to another aspect of the subject, and develop the reasons why the Minister has failed yet again. In the past two weeks we have seen other instances when the Minister failed to carry his ministerial colleagues in Europe with him—the banning of the imports of British cattle for six months, due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and the Minister's failure to persuade the West German Government to lift the ban on imported beef. Those are two recent examples of the Minister's failure.

  797
  The impact of the EC ban on imports is important, because once we have lost the business it will be virtually impossible to regain it. We believe that more action is likely to follow, as the Danes will want to ban all cattle imports, and Spain is reported to be considering banning all imports of British beef. The problem is going to get worse.
  That brings me to the Government's handling of BSE—mad cow disease. If the green pound is the spoken agenda of British farmers, I think that if hon. Members on both sides of the House were honest, they would admit that when one talks to farmers, the matter that concerns them more than anything else—the hidden agenda of farming today—is BSE.
  I fully realise the implications of what might be said in the Chamber, and I thought deep and hard before deciding to raise the matter. It seems to me to be important that the problem of BSE, which I believe is potentially the greatest single threat to British agriculture since the war, is debated in the House, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House impress on the Minister our desire for further action.
  Let me remind the House of the crucial fact that the disease is unique to Britain: it exists nowhere else, except in a few cases in which cows have been exported from this country. Naturally, other countries do not want to take any risks, for—understandably—they do not want their herds to be infected.
  In view of all the facts, it is not surprising that BSE has occurred in the United Kingdom. I charge the Government with direct responsibility, and I shall try to support that charge. The most probable cause of the disease in cattle is the scrapie-contaminated sheepmeat with which they are fed. As the practice is almost universal, why has BSE arisen only in the United Kingdom? The key must lie in the only element of difference—the rendering industries that process the cattle feed.
  In its final years, 1978 and 1979, the last Labour Government realised that the rendering industry needed tightening up, and presented detailed proposals for consideration and comment. It is strange to think of a political philosophy relating to such a mundane process as the rendering of animal waste, but there is a relationship. One school of thought, favoured by Opposition Members and by most EC Governments, supports the production of detailed regulations on such matters as temperature control and the length of the rendering process. The approach favoured by the Conservative Government, however, has been to ensure that the final product is fit for its required purpose.
  Small wonder that the rendering industry was not happy with the proposals of the Labour Government. The chairman of the United Kingdom renderers said:
  "The original proposals were very expensive, but there was a distinct change of heart when the Conservatives came into office. They were happy to drop the idea of a code and settle for random testing."
  The weakened regulations were accompanied, in the early 1980s, by a technological change from wet to dry steaming. Mr. Field, of the United Kingdom Renderers Association, has said:
  "This was partly as a result of changes in animal feed techniques but the basic motive was profit."
  798
  Luckily for the European Community, the changes in British practice were not adopted so widely by renderers in other EC countries.
  In my view, the Government's obsession with what might be called, in White Paper terms, "lifting the burdens" on industry has led to impure cattle feed emerging from the renderers. That is why Britain is the only country where BSE exists, and the Government have a direct responsibility. I believe that they knew that they had a responsibility, and that when the problem first appeared they did what they could to hide it.
  In 1985—we have this on tape—a vet reported a scrapie-like illness in cattle; the following year Francis Anthony, the eminent chairman of the farm animals committee of the British Veterinary Association, submitted a scientific paper on the matter, and the Ministry of Agriculture sought to suppress the information.
  All along, the Government have been less than frank—or, to use the words of one of their senior officials, "economical with the truth"—and that obsession with secrecy continues to this day. They have consistently done too little, too late, It took them 18 months to make BSE a notifiable disease, 20 months to introduce compulsory slaughter and two and half years to announce a ban on cattle offal; having announced the ban, they took five months to bring it into effect.
  Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman clearly appreciates that this is a serious matter. If his thesis is to be proved, however, he must show that rendering in countries without BSE is carried out more carefully and hygienically than it is here; otherwise the whole idea will fall flat. Is that the case, and can the hon. Gentleman prove it?
  Dr. Clark: I take the hon. Gentleman's point: the sombre mood in which the House has heard what I have to say reflects the worry that we all feel. Work is in progress along the lines that he has suggested.
  Mr. Lord rose—
  Dr. Clark: May I develop the point?
  In tentative studies—at this stage we can only study this country—we have found that when renderers have used the traditional wet-steaming technique there has been less incidence of BSE than when they have used dry-steaming. The researchers have managed roughly to marry the techniques and the incidence of the disease.
  Mr. Gummer: I agree that we are dealing with a serious matter. I feel that the hon. Gentleman may be barking up the wrong tree—although, as he will appreciate, I am looking at all the possibilities.
  The rules applied to rendering, requiring the end product to be fit for use, obtain in most European countries; the other system, which he recommended, is rarely employed. Socialist France is one of the countries that takes our view, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can take a party-political line.
  Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that it must be true that most other European countries have a much lower proportion of sheep offal than we do, simply because of the nature and number of the sheep involved? The work that we are doing in that direction may be more likely to find the answer that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
  Dr. Clark: I know that the Minister takes the point seriously, because I know that his officials are examining the thesis that I have advocated. I made that point to the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord).
  As the Minister and others will know, the Germans, for example, have now adopted specific conditions to apply to any material exported from this country.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The French and the Israelis have done that.
  Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend. The conditions relate to temperatures, and to the length for which they are maintained.
  May I be more positive, and make some suggestions to the Minister that I think will be supported by Conservative Members? Will he concede a point, and pay 100 per cent. compensation to farmers with suspect cows? I know that that would be making an exception, but I think that such an approach would meet with a consensus on both sides of the House. Given the current doubt, some farmers may well send cattle that they are not sure about into the auction or the slaughterhouse, and I should like the Minister to deal with that possible loophole. According to an NFU official,
  "It is common knowledge in the industry that infected animals have gone into the food chain."
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has revealed a sequence of events that may not have been so public before. As many of us are relatively ignorant about the subject, can he tell us whether the compensation paid for BSE-infected cows differs from that paid for foot-and-mouth infection? Would not everyone now support the payment of 100 per cent. compensation, and agree that logically it should have been paid from the beginning? Without it, there is a financial incentive to circumvent the regulations, leading to the spread of this and other diseases.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I understand that 100 per cent. compensation is paid for foot-and-mouth infection, and I cannot see why the same does not apply to BSE, which is a terrifying disease.
  The Minister knows that animals are slipping through the net. Some are being caught at the slaughterhouses and livestock markets, but, with the best will in the world, trading standards officers, environmental health officers and vets see only a minority, and many animals with BSE enter the food chain. So can we have some action?
  As there is a possibility that BSE can be transmitted from mother to calf, will the Minister not order the culling of all calves of BSE-infected cattle? Let us give the consumer the benefit of the doubt. In the name of completeness, when the Minister bans the sale of designated cattle offal, will he include cattle under six months old? I know that the disease is not apparent at that age, but there are people who think otherwise. The eminent neuropathologist, Helen Grant, questions that point, so just for once why do not the Government take a cautionary approach and put a potential public health risk before money?
  Mr. Gummer: One of the problems that arise on this issue is that we have taken a cautionary approach. We have gone further than the scientists have suggested. The difficulty is that we can become increasingly cautionary and do more than the scientists tell us is necessary. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman would suggest we
  800
  should stop? If I can say absolutely surely that there is no danger to public health, we have taken the most cautionary approach possible.
  Dr. Clark: Advisers advise, but Ministers take decisions. It is not purely a scientific decision; it involves political and social judgments. The Minister and I know how much is at stake. There is a potential risk to our herds and there is a remote possibility of transmission to humans. It is so serious that we should be ultra-cautious.
  The Minister rightly said that various bonemeal arid meatmeal from offal cannot be fed to ruminants in Britain, but the export of those products is permitted. Therefore, we are exporting material that we consider dangerous to feed to our own cattle.
  Yesterday, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), it was announced that, according to the latest figures available, we exported just over 13,000 tonnes in 1988. In a number of countries to which we export, such as France, Belgium and Germany, there are restrictions and conditions attached to those exports. I find it strange that when we export to Liberia, Nigeria, Kenya, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, or other non-European countries, no conditions are attached.
  I suggest to the Minister that we should ban the export of those materials or at least warn the receiving countries through a prior informed consent scheme that those products carry a potential risk, no matter how small. That suggestion would certainly receive support from all Opposition Members, and probably from many Conservative Members.
  Why do not the Government seek to reassure public opinion and give us more information? Why do they not seek to gauge the extent of that terrible disease in our national herd by following the advice of the Tyrrell committee and introducing random sampling at slaughterhouses? Why does the Minister not have a certain percentage of cattle herds at slaughterhouses examined at random so that we can gain a clearer idea of the extent of the disease in our national herds?
  Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I have given way a great deal, and I wish to conclude as quickly as I can. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once and I feel that I cannot do so again.
  Before I leave the subject of public health, may I raise a further failure by the Ministry in the European context?
  Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I prefer not to. I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. I have given way very generously and I am not prepared to do so again.
  The Minister has taken steps against salmonella in British poultry flocks, yet he allows eggs from Holland, for example, some of which are contaminated with salmonella, to enter the country. The Ministry tests those imported eggs at ports and finds evidence of salmonella enteritidis and typhimurium. Yet by the time the tests of those eggs are available four days later, the remainder of the eggs have been released and are on sale to the British consumer.
  That is bad enough, but last week a survey by the Dutch national health inspectorate showed that 90 per cent. of Dutch poultry farms had salmonella and thus pose a potential threat to British public health. Therefore, the

  801
  Minister is allowing one rule for the British egg producer and much more lax regulations for foreign producers. That cannot be right.
  Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No.
  The Minister says that he cannot do anything about that. Of course he can. Why does he refuse to invoke article 36 of the EC treaty which allows him in the name of public health to stop contaminated foodstuff entering the country? Why does not he invoke that and hold up the eggs until they are found to be clean? In doing that, he would have the support of the British people.
  My final point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and the Minister also touched on it. In the corresponding debate last year, I raised the issue of fraud which exists in the CAP at an alarming level. Estimates vary between 10 and 20 per cent. of the total EC budget being lost through fraud. I remind the House that the EC budget is roughly £20 billion. We are talking about a great deal of money.
  In particular, I raised the statement by the head of the British Serious Fraud Office, who asserted that major fraud was being investigated in the United Kingdom, implying that prosecutions were imminent. After the debate, the then Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me informing me that I was correct and that action was likely to be taken soon. Can the Minister inform the House whether any action has been taken on the two serious cases that were raised in last year's debate? They are not just run-of-the-mill fraud. As the Minister knows, they involve large amounts of money.
  I understand that the latest figures of fraud by member states reported to the EC had increased to 352 cases in the first nine months of 1989. How many of those cases were British? I noticed the glee of some Conservative Members when the Minister referred to the Greek situation. Speaking from memory, I think that Britain had the third worst record of EC countries last year.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We have better records.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady says that we have better records. That is a perverse logic.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We record these things much more consistently than other countries. The Greeks and the Italians scarcely record them at all.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady has a certain amount of perverse logic. She said that we have a better method of recording and reporting fraud. If that is the case, why do two other countries have worse records than we do? The House has a right to know. We often hear the Minister saying that he is campaigning against fraud. We should like to know what results he has obtained and how much fraud there is in the United Kingdom.
  We welcome some of the points that the Minister made today. We hope that he will stand firm on the price freeze and we wish him success on the stabilisers. We freely concede that the Minister has difficulties in Europe because the system is not ideally suited to the structure of British agriculture or to the interests of the British consumer. Before the Minister makes jingoistic speeches in this country, he should ponder the fact that it is not wise
  802
  to insult one's potential allies. By so doing, one loses the battle, which is one explanation why he has been so unsuccessful in Brussels in fighting for the British consumer and farmer.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Paul Marland: I appreciate being called early in the debate, because it gives me the opportunity to be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his excellent speech, in which he gave us a wide-ranging view of the position in Europe. Many Conservative Members agree with him about the appalling subsidies of the European tobacco growers and the tremendous cost of storing surplus wheat.
  British farmers recognise that they now work in a changed and changing marketplace. The farmgate mentality has gone, which used to represent the fact that they had to grow produce and get it to the farm gate, after which it was someone else's responsibility. They recognise that they no longer have a divine right to produce food that cannot be eaten at home or sold abroad.
  Farmers and their families have been turning their entrepreneurial skills to earning income on or off the farm. Some have gone into deer farming: many have found ways of exporting their produce; and others now offer farm holidays. Most farmers have tried to add value to what they are producing. Those who visited the food and farming exhibition in Hyde park last summer saw fine examples of how farmers are trying to add value to their produce. Many farmers and their wives are beginning to take part-time work away from the farm.
  The menu of grants that are now available, and the general discussion with advisers on how to generate extra income on farms has helped farmers to firm up their ideas. That positive lead was given by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Like other hon. Members, I was pleased to welcome the increases in hill livestock compensatory allowances that were announced last week. It is important that we protect our breed stock, from which the commercial flocks are bred. The commercial flocks stand us and our farmers in good stead.
  It has always been this Government's policy to seek to help rural communities to earn their living in the countryside. Notwithstanding the current problems, the Government should be congratulated on the way in which they have sought to present the alternatives.
  There has been a substantial change of attitude among farmers since 1983. I remember as parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), visiting the three counties show in Malvern. As we approached in the car, a light aircraft flew overhead trailing a banner saying
  "Jopling turns the milk sour."
  It was alarming to have a police escort—I had always thought that farmers were friendly—but the fact that we had to have one to visit a show was quite a revelation.
  We then went to Ross-on-Wye, where we were barricaded in the town hall by furious farmers. As if that were not enough, when we visited Dyfed, milk was poured in front of the Minister's car. We got the message—that farmers did not want milk quotas. God help the Minister who tried to remove a milk quota from a farmer today. Some farmers now say that the only profitable activities are those to which quotas apply. Many of them would like

  803
  quotas to apply to all agricultural produce. We know that that is not possible, and unfortunately Ministers will not agree even to talk about it.
  Farmers crave a level playing field and fair competition. The green pound differences are creating gigantic differences in producer returns. For example, the difference on cereals is 18·2 per cent., on sheep 19·4 per cent., on beef 13·6 per cent., on butter 17·3 per cent. and on pigs 10 per cent. Those gaps place United Kingdom farmers at a huge disadvantage and undermine their confidence. As other hon. Members have said, they put them at a competitive disadvantage within the EC.
  Farmers must have the confidence to invest in the future if we are to take advantage of the opportunities that will be offered by 1992 for exports to the European Community. How can agriculture in this country compete fairly with one hand tied so securely behind its back, and without being able to invest in the future? All industries want a level playing field, and agriculture is no exception.
  We must respond now to the challenges and opportunities of 1992, and a message needs to be sent from this debate that that is precisely what we shall do.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Having been present today in Perth at the opening of the most advanced market in Britain, where I spoke to the European Commissioner for Agriculture, and as farm incomes are now about 60 per cent. lower than 10 years ago, would it not be a good idea if the Government proposed that agriculture, if nothing else, should creep towards the European monetary system and that the maximum band of the green pound should be only 6 per cent.?
  Mr. Marland: My hon. and learned Friend makes his own point in a very fair way.
  Before 1983, British farmers were urged to do what they could to reduce the serious balance of payments deficit left by the last Labour Government by producing more of the food that was consumed in this country.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Food from our own resources.
  Mr. Marland: Exactly. Our farmers responded manfully to that, in a way that would shame most other industries. Today, although the game has changed, the principles remain the same—that imported food costs money and that we must all do what we can to keep it to a minimum.
  I accept that last year there was a small increase in agricultural incomes, but overall the trend is downwards. In 1992, the Government will be committed to the complete elimination of the green pound gaps. Today, the Commission proposes a one-third devaluation, but the Government propose a 50 per cent. devaluation. For the reasons that I have set out, I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider without delay a 100 per cent. devaluation, to give us a level playing field and to offer British farmers an equal chance in Europe.
  1 accept that this may lead to a fractional increase in the cost of shopping, but British housewives are turning increasingly to British produce because they know what they are getting—
  Mr. Andy Stewart: Quality.
  Mr. Marland: Quality, and a renowned standard. Housewives may accept fractional increases without so much as a murmur.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister may be interested to learn that, to substantiate that, some farmers from Gloucestershire and I will, with permission, carry out a little market research of our own. We shall visit the Asda supermarket just outside High Wycombe—which we thought a suitable place, because it is not a rural area and because many of the shoppers come from urban areas and have no connection with farming. We shall ask them whether they think that it is fair to ask them to pay a little more to ensure a continuing and steady supply of British foodstuffs. I shall take great delight in giving my right hon. Friend the Minister the results of our survey.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend ask those people what they feel about our spending £173 a week per person on dumping and destroying food?
  Mr. Marland: I am sure that they will not like that any more than my hon. Friend, but it is fair to say that surpluses have been reduced substantially, and my right hon. Friend the Minister deserves much of the credit for that.
  As we are discussing EC matters, I want to turn, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) did, to food safety and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the scourge of British agriculture. The hon. Member for South Shields was right to mention that matter.
  It is important not to overreact. Overreaction is causing a great deal of soul-searching and heartache in agriculture. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government—for not only the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was involved—have allocated an extra £12 million to research on BSE to find out its cause. Although the hon. Member for South Shields may believe that he has outlined its cause, nobody knows for sure. However, I join him in saying that we should consider seriously increasing the compensation paid from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent.
  The lower rate of compensation puts beef producers and those who own dairy cows in a difficult position. They realise that they could sell a beast in the market for £400, whereas they will receive only £200 in compensation. I know of farmers who, with the very best intentions, have sent cows that look dodgy to the market. When the cows reach the market, the stress is too much for them and they are then discovered to have been infected with BSE.
  Mr. Spearing: I agree that the matter should not be subject to great exaggeration. However, can the hon. Gentleman explain to his satisfaction why, until now the Government did not give 100 per cent. compensation for this virulent and conceivably dangerous disease? Surely all taxpayers, whatever their views on politics or taxation, would have been only too pleased for compensation to be 100 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman does not know the answer, does he agree that the Minister should tell us later?
  Mr. Marland: That is precisely why I made that point. I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on it when winding up the debate. I did not say that I was satisfied with 50 per cent. I was joining the hon. Member for South Shields on your Front Bench in suggesting—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is not my Front Bench.
  Mr. Marland: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have made the point.
  How many hon. Members realise that BSE affects only old cows, in so far as current research has established? The youngest cow that has ever been diagnosed as infected with BSE was two years and nine months old—I checked that fact this morning. There is also no proven connection between BSE and human beings. The only part of the old cow that is susceptible to BSE is part of the offal, and my right hon. Friend has banned the sale of such offal. I commend him for that. Steaks and beef joints are taken from young cattle which have, so far, never been found to carry BSE.
  To add insult to injury, the Germans have now banned all United Kingdom beef exports, which is not very communautaire, especially as those exports are worth £50 million to beef producers in this country. It is sad that we have to take the Germans to court for the matter to be sorted out.
  I am sorry to shadow the hon. Member for South Shields to such an extent, but I want to turn to salmonella in eggs. The steps being taken to eradicate salmonella from laying flocks are all very laudable but, as my experience in my own constituency shows, the restrictions seem to be bearing down unfairly heavily on small producers. So far, more than 1 million chickens have been slaughtered. I cannot help but wonder whether the large producers are being quite as rigorous as they should be in the tests, for, despite the measures that are being taken by all egg producers, according to the latest issue of UKEPRA News, which is the journal of the egg producing industry, the number of salmonella-related food poisoning incidents is increasing rapidly. If there is a hint of salmonella in a small man's flock, the flock is wiped out. Are the small producers being made scapegoats?
  As the hon. Member for South Sheilds reminded the House, 20 per cent. of eggs consumed in this country are now imported. Many are subsequently repacked and relabelled "packed in England" to try to reassure British housewives. I know that we carry out random tests, but as has already been said, the results take some time to come to fruition and by the time the test has been developed, the eggs have probably been relabelled and repackaged, and have found their way into somebody's refrigerator. We should not hold up imports, but in the name of fairness, we should try to hold up odd loads while the tests come to fruition.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the European Community bans the marking of individual eggs, and that only certain containers of eggs can be marked as coming from this country? Does my hon. Friend favour, as I do, the return of the old lion mark on each egg to reassure the British housewife that, if she buys British eggs, she is buying the best product available and one that has been tested?
  Mr. Marland: I am sure that such markings would reassure British housewives, whether we had the old lion or thought of a new symbol. My hon. Friend makes her point in her own way.
  I have tried to make three points in my speech. First, we should have a meaningful devaluation of the green pound to keep British farming solvent and competitive. We should give British farming the fairness of a level playing
  806
  field. Secondly, we should have 100 per cent. compensation for animals infected with BSE and that should be introduced without delay. Thirdly, we should ensure justice over salmonella. We should ensure that the same rules apply throughout the Community as to our egg producers. Agriculture asks for a level playing field and fair competition. I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on that in his summing up.
  Several Hon. Membersrose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has said that he intends to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. It is an obligation on hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called before 7 pm to try to make brief speeches.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North): British agriculture is facing a major financial crisis, which is one of the worst since the war. As a part-time farmer, I am pleased that you have called me so early in this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The situation is so serious that we have gone beyond attempting to make a political point today; instead, we are trying to persuade the Minister to do his utmost on our behalf. Many of the leaders of our great agricultural sector are keeping a watchful eye on us this afternoon and listening to our contributions. They have come here to urge Members to Parliament to bring pressure to bear on the Minister, so that he in turn can go to his counterparts in Europe and persuade them that they must listen to and heed what our Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is saying on behalf of British agriculture.
  The Minister can be in no doubt today about the message that he must carry to Brussels on behalf of British farmers and of those hon. Members who believe that agriculture should be rescued from its present state of low morale. Real farm incomes have been falling steadily over the past few years. Farmers are suffering badly, as are many other business people, from the Government's policy of maintaining cripplingly high interest rates. It has been calculated that in 1989, the interest bill paid by farmers rose by about £250 million, a staggering rise of 37 per cent. Not surprisingly, investment in farming is falling. Over the five years to 1988, annual investment in fixed capital was down by 40 per cent. which shows clearly that resources are just not available.
  I had the privilege this morning of having breakfast with one of Britain's major cereal growers. He said that he had not made a penny profit for the last two years and, worst of all, had not been able to invest in new machinery. He said that, unless something came his way within the next two years, he would have a major problem on his hands in regard to investing in machinery.
  I know that the Minister is not in a position to bring down high interest rates at present, but I am sure that, on behalf of everyone in the industry, he will urge the
  But what makes life even more difficult and heightens the sense of injustice in the industry is the spectre of the green pound that hovers over us, completely distorting the market, making support prices in Britain lower than those of all other member states of the EC apart from Spain and

  807
  Greece. Can anyone honestly agree that it is fair to maintain a system that taxes our exports and at the same time gives a subsidy, through MCAs, to imports into this country?
  A Scottish farmer who is a correspondent of mine writes:
  "It is absolutely crazy to be subsidising Irish beef into this country and charging the same equivalent on our exports through the MCAs".
  He points out that, in his area in the north of Scotland, local producers are getting £120 per head on average, less than in November 1989, and he reports that one of the bigger fatteners in that area is looking at a loss of £70,000 on his buying bill since autumn 1989. That will obviously have a knock-on effect on hill-weaned calf sales this autumn.
  Areas such as Scotland and Wales, where the industry is mainly concentrated on livestock, are particularly at a disadvantage, and it is that sector that the Minister must move to protect. It is essential for the future of our rural areas that a satisfactory level of farm income is maintained.
  I have received many letters, like all my colleagues from Scotland, England and Wales, about the plight of the industry at the present time; we can only pass that view on to the Minister in the hope that he will take heed of the requests of all farmers in Britain.
  Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): Does my hon. Friend agree with me that there must now be grave concern about the future of farming because it is so unattractive and difficult for able young people to enter? With that in mind, does he fear for the future of agriculture unless the Government take dramatic steps to at least provide survival incomes for hill farmers?
  Mr. Howells: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising that important matter. As the Minister is sitting and listening to his comments, I am sure that he will take heed of what my hon. and learned Friend has just said. Something must be done to help young farmers before it is too late.
  The point has been made again and again that, while other industries gain export advantages at a time when sterling is low, agriculture suffers as a result of a fixed green rate. Farming at the moment is losing about £600 million in extra costs. If the gap were closed now, it would mean an increase in support payments for sheep of about £2·60 a ewe, in suckler cow premium by about £6·40 and in beef special premium by about £3·82.
  The present EC proposal to close the green pound gap by one third is simply not enough at this stage. The industry needs action to close the gap completely and immediately. That is the only way to restore confidence and to ensure that our farmers are allowed to compete on an equal footing with their counterparts in Europe.
  I take heed of what Mr. Deputy Speaker said earlier. One could speak on many issues such as the environment and other topics that are relevant to agriculture, but I shall go down the same avenue as some other Members and refer to BSE.
  Another cause of great worry to farmers, particularly in view of the uncertain livestock market, is the inadequate compensation for BSE cases. The export ban imposed by West Germany is bad enough, and it is likely to cost the industry at least £10 million. I am pleased that the Minister is dealing with the issue in his usual forthright manner, but
  808
  there is a strong case for fully compensating the farmer for his losses. Not only will that encourage more vigilance and promote more confidence in the industry, but it would reassure the consumer that no suspect meat is being allowed into the food chain.
  The term "mad cows" has been used for a short period in this country, but people who understand cattle and have seen this disease are aware that the cows do not go mad. The disease affects the nervous system and the cow just collapses. It is a great pity that many people, including politicians, are frightening many of our consumers so that they will not eat beef. I admire the Minister's stand. He has to be firm during the crisis. He has expressed the views of the top veterinary officers in this country. There is no more that he can do except stand up for the industry and make sure that this disease will be eradicated.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that BSE has come about during the past five or 10 years, but I have been about for many more years than the hon. Gentleman, and I would say that it has been prevalent in Britain for the past 50 or 60 years, and I have seen plenty of cases in various markets throughout Wales. It is nothing new. The only reason why we have more cows with this disease today is that dairy farmers are feeding more concentrates to the dairy cattle than they did 20 or 30 years ago.
  Dr. David Clark: I find that quite revealing. Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he was aware of BSE many, many years ago?
  Mr. Howells: Of course. It is well-known in the agricultural industry that the disease has been in Britain for 40 or 50 years, and the previous Labour Government knew about it, just like the present Government. Anyone who disputes that does not know much about cattle.
  It is worth making the point that research into the control and eradication of such diseases should be a top priority and that the Government should reconsider their policy of ruthlessly cutting down research establishments. It would also reassure farmers to know that the Government would consider full compensation for those 1,500 small farmers whose businesses have been practically wiped out by the lead contamination scare and the consequent restrictions.
  Finally, there are two important issues if we are to safeguard the structure of British agriculture in the 1990s and into the next century. Many people, some perhaps within the House, and leaders of industry, believe that we should do away with the Milk Marketing Board. But it would be a great mistake to change the statutory powers of the Milk Marketing Board. Producers have been well served by the board over the years. It is unnecessary to change an institution that has been a strong support to the small family farm for more than 50 years and has ensured their survival in difficult and changing times.
  The Minister and the Government made a mistake last year when they did away with the financial agreement for the British Wool Marketing Board, of which I had the privilege of being vice-chairman for 11 years. The British Wool Marketing Board is facing a crisis. Everything was going well when the board could sell wool at a high price a year or two ago, but trade has now collapsed. I criticised the Government for doing away with the financial agreement which has been the backbone of the sheep

  809
  producers over the past 50 years. They decided to do so, but perhaps they will think more seriously before they upset the statutory powers of the Milk Marketing Board.
  Let me give politicians in the House one piece of advice, whatever it is worth, about the sheep industry. A quota system operates in the dairy industry. Dairy farmers were not very pleased when it was introduced in 1983, but the majority of those farmers today are probably in favour of a quota system because it is worth more than the farm itself.
  Just imagine the effect of the introduction of sheep quotas in the 1990s in the mountainous areas of Scotland, Wales and England. If those quotas were worth the same as the milk quotas, farmers of my age living in the hills and in the less favoured areas could be offered a large sum of money for their quota by farmers from the lowland areas, and then they would sell. There is no alternative to sheep farming on the mountains of Britain, other than to grow trees.
  My advice to whoever is in charge of Britain's sheep sector for the next 10 years is to be careful not to introduce quotas, or we shall for the first time see vast depopulation in those areas. We have seen it happen before, and we do not want to see a repeat performance in the late 1990s.
  I hope that other hon. Members who take part in the debate will discuss seriously the short-term issues facing the industry at present. There is no point today in debating whether we should be a member of the Community. The important issue is today's survival. I hope that, when the Minister next goes to Brussels, and on each occasion in the next year or two, he will take with him the Secretary of State for Wales, because he has full responsibility for agriculture in Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland should also go.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: And the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Howells: Yes, indeed.
  The matter is so serious that all Ministers with responsibility for agriculture should go to Brussels with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I wish the Minister and his colleagues the best in their deliberations in Brussels to safeguard the interests of agriculture.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The saddest thing to me about the debate is, looking round the House, to realise how few, if any, of our colleagues on either side of the House who do not represent an agriculture constituency apparently realise the importance of a healthy income structure in the agriculture industry to other industries in Britain—the manufacturing industry, the chemical industry and the textile industry. Agriculture does not exist in a vacuum, and when agriculture is depressed the effects are not confined to agriculture; they spread through the country.
  There are many examples of that. Look at the decline of the agricultural machinery industry in Britain over the past 10 years and the declining demand for many of the products of the petrochemical industry. If the leaders of those industries are asked whether they care about the income of our agriculture industry, they leave one in no doubt at all about their perception of the interconnection.
  810
  It is sad to me that those who want to speak in the debate are so clearly almost entirely confined to those who represent agricultural areas.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, I will not, because we have been asked to limit our speeches to 10 minutes.
  It is right that Ministers going into negotiations on the continent should be encouraged to do everything within their power to get rid of the green pound gap. The Commission reads the official reports of agriculture debates in Britain and in other countries, so it is important that it should know that Ministers are speaking for the House of Commons, not to the House of Commons, and that when they speak abroad they come with the anger as well as the interests of those whom they represent.
  For many years now I have been disturbed by how many people in our agriculture industry think that 1992 means 1 January, rather than 31 December. Many people who should have been better informed have said that at least the agony will end on 1 January 1992. It will not. The level playing field, as it is referred to, will come into being on 31 December 1992, if those who oppose it do not find some way of blocking it. Hopeful as I am, my hope is not matched by my confidence because in many other aspects, particularly in the financial services industry which employs more than 3 million people in Britain, it is clear that there will not be equality of trading conditions—to coin a more appropriate phase—even by 31 December 1992.
  I support what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said about the importance of the Milk Marketing Board to producers. It has been subjected to some unfair criticism in that it has been necessary for it to import milk at times of minimum output in Britain so that it can sustain the regular market for its own manufactured products. We cannot turn off and on established patterns of trade. If we want British butter to be sold in British shops, we cannot leave the retail and wholesale outlets bereft of it at certain times of the year.
  In some respects, we have been unenterprising. For example, in many areas people who want unsalted butter must buy foreign because there is no British unsalted butter on the market. The English Milk Marketing Board, unlike its Scottish counterparts, has not given enough attention to seeing that the growing market in unsalted butter—growing because people have anxieties about the interrelationship between salt and heart disease—is met by home production by promoting the sale of unsalted English butter and ensuring that when people visit their supermarkets, they see British unsalted butter at eye level on the shelves.
  I support the plea for 100 per cent. restitution in respect of cattle which are, rightly, destroyed when found to be suffering from BSE. There is strong opinion in the veterinary profession—those who read the Veterinary Record know this to be the case—that the present 50 per cent. compensation rate is not adequate to give the necessary degree of confidence.
  The claim for 100 per cent. restitution can be even more justified on the ground that the Government consented to lowering the boiling point in the rendering industry. The Treasury should accept some responsibility in the matter

  811
  and agree to a compensation level of 100 per cent. The public would perceive that as being in their interest as well as in the interest of farmers. I do not know any farmers who would not rather have their cattle and sheep free of disease than have to claim subsidy of that type.
  In examining the industry, we need to concentrate not on any one feature. For example, although as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, rightly, high interest rates produce problems for farmers, if the rates were brought down now we would probably increase the green pound gap, because that is related to interest rates. In other words, we should never recommend one course of action which undercuts a different course of action that is also being recommended. In any event, when we get rid of the green pound system completely, the problem will no longer exist.
  I am anxious not to overrun the time for speeches that Mr. Speaker has recommended, so I will comment only briefly on the devastating consequences of the gales, and they have been devastating in many ways. For example, consider the plight of farmers who are paying the community charge and who are in some cases paying the charge for their employees, too.
  A hideous cost will fall on county councils in repairing damage to buildings caused by the gales. It has been said in relation to the Bellwin formula that the Government will pay 75 per cent. of the cost above a penny rate. That is not the case in respect of damaged buildings, a distinction which the Minister did not make clear.
  Some counties pay enormous insurance premiums for the buildings that they own, and that cost must be added to the community charge. Over the years, Devon has found it better to have balances. Some ignorant people—including some ignorant Members—criticise balances but, taken over a period of time, they result in lower costs to the ratepayer, now the community charge payer, than paying insurance premiums. After all, insurance companies are in business to make a profit. Sometimes they get their calculations wrong, but their intention when they set their premiums is to make a profit.
  Considering that the Minister speaks not just for his Department but for the Government, I urge him to tell the Secretary of State for the Environment that if the Bellwin formula does not embrace the cost of damage to buildings, an intolerable burden will be placed on those who live in areas of dispersed population, our rural areas, which are also our agricultural areas.
  Had time permitted, I would have covered many other points, but I always try to honour the requests made for short speeches.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Ted Garrett: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) say that there were not many farmers present for tonight's debate. Some older hon. Members will recall that in the past when we debated agriculture, the Conservative Benches were well filled with farmers or landowners.
  It is also interesting to reflect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you, the hon. Member for Tiverton and I are former engineers. That is not to say that we are ignorant of farming problems. I live in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), who is in his
  812
  place and who hopes to take part in the debate. Whatever one's interest, one listens, learns and acquires knowledge of the farming industry.
  Hon. Members may also be interested—or perhaps bored—to learn that I was a member of the first Select Committee on Agriculture, and I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was also a member. That Select Committee was abolished by the incoming Labour Government in 1966 because they sought the truth, and the truth about agriculture was not acceptable to the then Leader of the House, Richard Crossman, and we were fired. Those of us who were members of that Select Committee did not take kindly to the decision.
  In addition to having been for 12 years a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I am on that body's Agriculture Committee. When the Minister opened this debate, he was urbane and smooth, as always. He was quick to react when provoked, but he had nothing to say about how he sees agriculture in the future.
  The Agriculture Committee of the Council of Europe is way ahead in its thinking about the potential for farming in Europe in the years to come. Today, we think of farming in Europe in terms of central, eastern and western Europe. If a fraction of the money that is spent on the CAP was diverted to help the resources of the Council of Europe, it would be money well spent. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who is not in his place, would probably agree with me about that.
  We in that committee in the Council of Europe have already arranged for politicians and other speakers from Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to become members of the committee. They already take part in some of our debates, and I assure the House that we debate not merely forestry and fishery problems affecting the whole of Europe, vast though those problems are—I had hoped that those matters would have been raised in this debate—but the whole question of food surpluses. One of the problems in the countries that have been totalitarian is food—not the shortage—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The distribution.
  Mr. Garrett: Yes, the distribution. There has also been a lack of variety of food in countries such as Czechoslovakia. However the basic tenet remains. The land is there and can be cultivated, but those countries must he helped in the marketing and distribution of food when it reaches the huge cities. We are talking also about cleaning the rivers. Rivers do not stop when they reach the boundaries of the 12 European Community countries; they go on. The worst pollutants are in eastern Europe. We have to skirmish on environmental matters and the question of how water can damage agricultural products.
  I should like more of the time of the House to be devoted to the various aspects of agriculture. A debate such as today's, of this duration, cannot fulfil that objective. The Agriculture Committee of the Council of Europe should be given more publicity. It has completed reports on the changes in the quantity and quality of agricultural products, as well as the problems of processing, marketing and distribution of food products.
  Last Tuesday, there was an animated debate at the Council of Europe on the question of the land set-aside policy. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that that idea was ferociously opposed by continental farmers. I took the opportunity to explain Britain's modest

  813
  proposals for an agricultural set-aside policy, some of the results that have been achieved, and how, in the long term, it would be foolish for the Council of Europe—or the European Economic Community—to throw aside the basic concept of set-aside land.
  I know that there is hostility to that proposal in some areas of the farming community, but it is one of the first steps towards overcoming agricultural surpluses. Modest though it is, the Government deserve some credit for taking that initiative. However, I have a word of warning. The policy is established and is starting to work, but we must recognise that there has to be a system of surveillance to ensure that farmers are honouring the agreement.
  The farmers receive an annual sum of money for setting aside their land for five years and for honouring the obligation to cultivate the land and to keep it and its surroundings in good condition. At the back of my mind is the fear that not all farmers will live up to the responsibility that has been imposed upon them, and for which they are receiving financial reward. When the Minister replies, he should give that matter serious consideration and, if necessary, produce a report on the success of surveillance.
  I am also conscious that we are on a time schedule, so I conclude by saying that I welcome this debate and the wide contributions that have been made to it. I think that the quality of debate in the House on agricultural matters is much better than it was some years ago.
  Several Hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are now into the period of rationed time.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister is not in his place to hear me praise his robust and responsible speech. I am sure that the message that he gave the House this afternoon will be well received by farmers and by those in the countryside generally.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: I concur, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West, (Mr. Marland), with my hon. Friend in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on his excellent speech. I care about agriculture. Soon the Leader of the Opposition will speak at the National Farmers Union annual dinner, but he has not given a speech on agriculture for 15 years. Who does my hon. Friend think should write his speech?
  Mr. Gill: A number of names occur to me but, sadly, they do not include the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He made a poor contribution to this afternoon's debate because he missed no opportunity to undermine the confidence that the British public have in British agricultural products. He took a swipe at British apples, British beef and British eggs. He had a wonderful opportunity to say that, after all the regulations that have been brought in by the Government recently, British eggs are the safest in the world. He missed that opportunity and that is distressing.
  Dr. David Clark: Did not the hon. Gentleman understand what I was saying? I was making the point that
  814
  British eggs are tested to a higher quality than Dutch eggs and therefore we should—in words that are much used in the House—ensure that the British poultry producers have a level playing field. I am sorry that that point did not get through.
  Mr. Gill: I am sorry, but that point did not get through at all. Many outside the House will be critical of what the hon. Gentleman did say. That is in complete contrast to my right hon. Friend the Minister, whose grasp of the subject and understanding of the problems is complete. He left the House in no doubt that he would tackle the problems.
  Today two Ministers have made commitments to eliminate the green currencies. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made her declaration on that subject during Prime Minister's questions, and later in the day my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that green currencies would be eliminated as soon as practicable. My concern is about what will happen in the meantime.
  Farmers' returns are inadequate for the increased costs that they bear. Their products have scarcely risen in value during the past seven or eight years, whereas during the same period a 100-horsepower tractor has increased in cost by about 35 per cent., from £18,500 to £25,000. In addition, farmers have inadequate earnings to service debt. It is interesting to note that this year the interest bill in agriculture has gone up by no less than 38 per cent., to nearly £1 billion. The returns are inadequate for the investment that farmers must make for the future—there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in investment in the five years to 1988. Of course, their inadequate returns have also led to a fall in rural employment—about 23,000 full-time jobs have been lost in agriculture since 1982. That is not to mention the incomes or earnings of the farmers themselves.
  I have two concerns—first, for the future of this great industry and, secondly, for the countryside. My concern for the industry is that it is not reinvesting at the level that it should be; it is not reinvesting at the level that it should be; it is not reducing indebtedness—quite the reverse-and it is not generating the cash resources that it will need to tide it over until 1993. It is currently suffering from a crisis of confidence—not in its own ability, but in the sheer impossibility of competing against unfair monetary compensatory amounts.
  At this point, I allude to the comments of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), who introduced into the debate a note of caution about eastern Europe. There is no doubt that, once eastern European people who work on the land taste the enterprise culture and are given motivation and incentive for increased agricultural production, the competition and scope for agricultural surpluses in Europe will be increased immeasurably. We dare not under-estimate the effects of that. I plead unto the Minister to argue our case, as I know he will, very strongly in Brussels. The total elimination of monetary compensatory amounts would cost about 45 million ecu, or about £35 million, in a full year. The net cost to the United Kingdom would be approximately £120 million, not as a continuing cost but as a one-off cost. The effect on the retail price index would be between 0–25 per cent. and 0.5 per cent.
  British agriculture is by anyone's reckoning a major industry and the envy of many of our European partners. They do not want us to get rid of MCAs, because the

  815
  longer they can keep them the better their competitive advantage and the greater their chance of reducing the United Kingdom's ability to compete in the future. Although agriculture is the second biggest industry in the United Kingdom, second only to oil, it is the biggest industry in rural areas with inputs of about £7 billion a year in capital and other purchases and £2 billion in the annual wage bill, and with the lion's share of all agricultural spending going into the rural economy. That is very important because there is no doubt that, without a thriving, prosperous and vibrant agriculture, the whole rural economy is greatly prejudiced.
  Our Minister must break the logjam. We cannot accept that he must wait for three years before we get a complete amelioration of the problems besetting us today. Three years in any industry is a very long time, especially for cash flows to be so seriously undermined. The elimination of MCAs will not release a torrent of cash, a windfall, that will boost farm profits, but it will give agriculture its just deserts. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be 100 per cent. successful when he goes to Brussels to argue for the complete elimination of MCAs here and now.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: This is a debate on United Kingdom agriculture and the Minister is responsible in Brussels for the whole of the United Kingdom, even though in the Northern Ireland Office we have a Minister and an Under-Secretary responsible for Northern Ireland agriculture. We never have the opportunity of debating Ulster agriculture here, so that Under-Secretary is not answerable either to the people of Northern Ireland or to this Parliament, and I am sorry that once again the Northern Ireland Office is failing to show its interest in agriculture in Northern Ireland and is absent from the debate.
  I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he began his speech, because, although he mentioned the significant increase in farm incomes last year, he went out of his way to say that he was not going to use that to his advantage because it varied depending on which sector one looked at. There are some regions in the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, which are particularly based on one sector—grass: 60 per cent. of Ulster agriculture is in either beef or milk production.
  This morning in Northern Ireland it was announced that the price of milk had been reduced yet again by the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board, to 17p per litre. It was 20p last October, so in the space of four months we have had a 15 per cent. reduction in the price of milk. In January, we had an intervention system for butter which was operated in different ways in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In the Republic, intervention applied below 96 per cent. of the intervention limit, but in the United Kingdom one had to go below 94 per cent. That gave an unfair advantage to milk producers in the Republic.
  I ask the Secretary of State always to watch these things when they apply to the Republic of Ireland as well as the United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom has only one foreign country on its borders, the Republic of Ireland, and a disparity like this works to the disadvantage of United Kingdom producers in Northern Ireland.
  816
  Now that we have managed to reduce the milk surplus in the European Community, the Community should take in hand the complete abolition of the co-responsibility levy in the milk industry.
  Mention has been made of the future of the five milk marketing boards in the United Kingdom. With the decline in milk production, rationalisation is now taking place in the milk industry, and that has brought about the combination of various milk operations in Northern Ireland. Several co-operatives have recently decided to become limited companies, and then one has taken over the other. In particular, I refer to the recent takeover bid by Leckpatrick Co-op for Killyman Co-op, both in the county of Tyrone. The Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board also made a bid for the Killyman Co-op which was higher than that of Leckpatrick, yet Leckpatrick won the takeover battle because the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board, which was created by the Ulster Unionist Government at Stormont, has now reached the point when people are uncertain of its survival. So although it was offering more money to the milk producers, the private company won the battle.
  I ask the Secretary of State to make a statement about the future of our milk marketing board in Northern Ireland. The producers need to know whether they can place their confidence in the board in the years ahead. it was because of lack of confidence in Northern Ireland in recent weeks that the takeover of Killyman was carried out by a firm offering less than the milk marketing board: people were not sure whether, if they sold to the hoard, it would still be there in a few years.
  The Secretary of State and his Department are well aware of beef prices in Northern Ireland which have been influenced by various general factors, such as the new restrictions on intervention and the abolition of the variable premium, and, more recently, by the decline in sterling and the problem created by the green currencies, something mentioned by many speakers in the debate. Here again, the problem is exaggerated by the border; once again we have unfair competition with the Republic. We in Northern Ireland stress the necessity of getting rid of the green currencies as soon as possible. The present proposal is for a reduction of 33·3 per cent. We seek a reduction of 100 per cent.
  I want to make special reference to the pigrneat industry, because it is one of the major intensive sectors in Northern Ireland. It is subject to great market fluctuations and always has been—that has always been one of its characteristics. I appeal to the Minister to seek a mechanism for stabilising the pig meat market in the United Kingdom.
  The debate has also seen an attack on British apples. I want to defend the British apples grown in Northern Ireland, especially the Bramley, of which we have 10,000 acres. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) joined me five years ago in defending the Bramley in Europe to the European Parliament and the Commission. I ask the Department to fight for apples once again and to make sure that there is no reduction in the buying-in price for apples in May this year.
  Cereals are a problem for us in Northern Ireland because we are a deficit-producing country. We produce only 18 per cent. of the cereals that we require. We know that cereals have been doing badly elsewhere. I would ask that the co-responsibility level on cereals be removed as

  817
  soon as possible, because the damage that is being done to the industry in Northern Ireland is dramatic—especially in that small part of our industry which is the specialist part.
  I wish to refer to the campaign to introduce a common time zone throughout the European Community. We in the Ulster Unionist party consulted not only agriculture and the fishing industry but the building and construction industry and business and trade generally. I wish to make it clear that the parliamentary Ulster Unionist party will oppose any suggestion that time should be uniform throughout Europe. The one-hour differential must remain.
  I join the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) in asking about the threat from eastern Europe. Of course we want eastern Europe to advance to freedom and a market economy and we want to assist the countries financially, but we do not want them to cease to be self-supporting in agriculture and start exporting cheap agricultural products into the European Community, the further to undermine our farmers' position.
  The former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), visited Northern Ireland in his capacity as the Minister responsible for agriculture matters for the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that the present Minister will find an opportunity to come to Northern Ireland as soon as possible to see what the problems are—especially in the beef and milk industries—and take on board the specific problems that arise because of competition from a neighbouring EEC country—the Republic of Ireland. I invite him to come to Northern Ireland at the earliest possible opportunity.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Malcom Moss: This is one of the most important agriculture debates that we have had for a long time. It comes at a critical time for some—I emphasise "some"—sectors of agriculture. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a most positive and helpful speech and voice my disappointment at Opposition Members' contributions—particularly the speech from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) which was long on words and short on substance, with veiled promises of more handouts by a future Labour Government. I found the hon. Gentleman's comments on BSE most unhelpful and I know that they will be considered as such by beef producers in east Anglia.
  The sector of agriculture that is most under pressure at present is the cereal growing sector, and that is the principal enterprise of the fens in my constituency. Those with root crops—sugar beet and potatoes—are surviving, but morale among pure cereal growers is at rock bottom. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has been apprised of the situation, but I must nevertheless convey to him in the strongest possible terms the feelings of farmers in my constituency.
  The reasons for low morale are clear. The farmers are suffering falling incomes and falling profitability, a low price and high interest rate squeeze, pressure from environmentalists and food faddists, some of it quite outrageous in its disinformation, the aftermath of the
  818
  salmonella and eggs issue and now, of course BSE, and tighter controls and regulations on the use of pesticides and the training that has to go with them.
  The final straw is the ban on straw burning. Some farmers on heavy land in my constituency who use only a wheat and oilseed rape rotation cannot see how they can continue to cultivate, given the ban on burning. My right hon. Friend's unequivocal statement on the green pound—that he was "absolutely committed" to its "total dismantling"—will not only reassure my constituents of his complete commitment to the farming cause but will help them to understand that he has their best interests at heart in his negotiations on the pricing mechanism.
  Cereal farmers' problems start with interest rates. Nationwide, the industry's bill rose 38 per cent. last year and now stands at a staggering £949 million, compared with £1,400 million of farming incomes. The gearing of borrowings in this industry is larger than farming's gross product, whereas the norm for other industries is about 33 per cent. Bankers are now asking farmers in my constituency whether they think that they really ought to go ahead and drill next year. It has come to that.
  The second problem is investment. Nationally, in the five years to 1988, annual investment in fixed capital dropped by 40 per cent. and last year there was a further cut of 7 per cent. At this rate, 1992 may never come for some of my cereal farmers. Even if it does, many of them will not have the necessary new capital investment in machinery to compete on a level playing field with their European counterparts.
  The most serious problem is falling incomes. Although statistics show that real farm income is set to rise by 8 per cent. in 1989, after a fall of about 27 per cent. the previous year, they hide regional variations and variations between different farming enterprises in the same region. The cereal farmers had two disastrous years in 1987 and 1988, and 1989 looks as though it will prove to have been equally bad.
  The chief culprits are the green pound and the co-responsibility levy. The green pound penalises my fen farmers at a rate of £20 per tonne for their wheat. For a reasonable farmer on a reasonably sized farm, that can total between £20,000 and £30,000 of lost income over the year. As a business man myself, I would not contemplate going into such an unprofitable business. Only recently I was shown two statements from a local grain merchant. In November 1989, a farmer in my constituency obtained £112 a tonne for wheat, less the co-responsibility levy of £3·.66 and netted the handsome total of £108·34. The November 1980 statement showed the figure of £107 per tonne for wheat. That means that in real terms income from cereals has decreased to about 15 per cent. of what it was in 1983.
  My farmers are also puzzled by the new definition of income from farming that the Ministry has employed. They understand what farm income is, but they are somewhat perplexed to learn that the assessment under the new terms concludes that farmers earn only 60 per cent. of their income from farming. That figure is not accurate when applied to farmers in the fens of Cambridgeshire. The fens are the grain basket of the United Kingdom. All the land in my constituency is grade 1 or grade 2 land; we have no inferior land, and historically we have the highest agricultural land values in the country.
  What are the options available to us? First, there is diversification. We have a flat and featureless landscape.

  819
  With all due respect to my beloved constituency, it is not the kind of landscape that one would want to put on the front of a chocolate box. The opportunities for tourism are obviously limited. It is a sparsely populated area. We have no country houses and estates. No yuppies from the City come up to the fens to buy estates and act as absentee landlords.
  The farmers in the fens are worker farmers and they have been since they started to farm the land after drainage. Ours is a unique area. If we did not drain the fens, they would soon disappear under several feet of water. I am quite prepared to lose my constituency at an election; that might be regarded as a misfortune. To lose it under 8 ft of water could look like carelessness. My farmers also have to contribute to the drainage of the land. That is an additional item of expenditure that they have to bear.
  Woodland is not an alternative, because one is not allowed to plant woodland in the fens, where all dikes and drainage courses must be free of obstructions so that they can be cleaned out. We cannot change to grasslands because we do not have enough rain, and set-aside rates are just not high enough to make the position viable. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister why the additional payments for set-aside agreed under FEOGA—the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund—and taken up by the French and German Governments were not allowed in this country. That is certainly a question that my farmers have put to me.
  Fen farmers now have to worry about rhizomania, of which there have been two outbreaks—one in Suffolk and one in Norfolk. If rhizomania takes a hold, the sugar beet crop in the fens will disappear in consequence. As many hon. Members have said, the root cause of this country's problems in agriculture—cereal growing, in particular—arises from the prices of commodities, and the problems are exacerbated by the green pound and the co-responsibility levy. I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to negotiations on the green pound, but the logic is that, if it is to come off in 1992 because it is unfair and unreasonable, it ought to come off this year. Why is that not going to happen? I urge my right hon. Friend to stand firm in his negotiations, and I wish him luck. Certainly he has the support of my constituents.
  Much has been said about level playing fields. I remember the days when I played rugby in Redruth in Cornwall, which is famous for a pitch that slopes about 30 ft from one end to the other. I remember that when I was playing at the bottom end the wind was always in my face, and the rain driving horizontally. But, of course, at half time we changed round. The message from my constituents to my right hon. Friend is: "Bring out the oranges; the half-time whistle has just gone."
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I have been told by the Minister in the past that the devaluation of the green pound that has already been obtained represents a substantial step towards the elimination of monetary compensatory amounts by 1992. But the farm business survey shows that the underlying economic condition has been declining steadily for all farming sectors, although, in the case of milk, there has only recently been a modest increase. For the last 10 years, the trend has been inexorably downward, while outstanding debt has been
  820
  going up. It ought to be of concern to the Government that, as other Members have pointed out, investment in United Kingdom agriculture has fallen by 40 per cent. in the last five years. But it does not seem to bother them in the case of other sectors, so I do not suppose that it will bother them in the case of farming.
  The number of people in full-time employment has also fallen, with the loss of 60,000 jobs in the same five years. In a constituency such as mine, the great majority of jobs in rural parts are connected, directly or indirectly, with farming. Unless the trend is reversed, the fabric of the countryside will be in real danger. The complete and immediate elimination of the monetary compensatory amounts would be a real help to the farmers who come to my surgeries weekly, many of whom are struggling with all the other ills that, lately, have been inflicted on small businesses as a result of this Government's policies.
  High interest rates, VAT on electricity, the poll tax and the uniform business rate, and price increases well above the rate of inflation on a whole string of farming supplies—all these take their toll. Add to these ills the problems of the exporting of beef cattle—or, rather, the ban on the exporting of beef cattle—to western Europe, thanks to BSE and to the unwillingness of the Government to recognise the extent of the problem by paying full-price compensation for infected cattle, and we have a recipe for disaster.
  Incidentally, I have great respect for the farming knowledge of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells)—unfortunately, he is not in his place at the moment—but if he knew of the existence
  of BSE in cattle over 60 years ago, I wish he had told previous Governments. If he had, we might not have the present BSE problems. It is likely that BSE is really caused by the Government's policy of putting profit before safety in the rendering industry. I rather suspect that that is the real reason for the massive increase in BSE.
  We in north Wales have further difficulties-this time, imposed directly by the Government. The Minister's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is apparently considering closure of at least one veterinary investigation centre—Bryn Adda in Bangor. That would leave north
  Wales covered—if "covered" is the word—by Aberystwyth, Shrewsbury and Preston. This would be totally impractical for most farmers who have to take their animals to these centres.
  Just recently, the Secretary of State announced plans to close the Welsh Office agriculture office in Ruthin—or rather, downgrade the office by reducing the number of staff from 55 to 18. Effectively, that would amount to closure in at least one area of service. I might add that that decision was taken without consultation, and in such haste that staff at the office were asked to decide between moving to Caernarvon and taking a redundancy payment—a payment not yet agreed by the Treasury—within a matter of weeks. At least one 25-year-old was offered early retirement.
  Effectively, this change will mean the grants and subsidies on which many of the marginal hill farmers in my constituency depend to eke out a living being dealt with by Caernarvon. The farmers of Clwyd will no longer he able to resolve their problems face to face without a long and expensive journey to Caernarvon or long and expensive phone calls. In short, it may well be the last straw for some farmers who are working long hours for little reward, on very marginal but scenic land. It will certainly be the last

  821
  straw for the employees of the office, who have provided an excellent service for agriculture in very sub-standard conditions. Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider this closure decision, and will he himself make a commitment to immediate and complete devaluation of the green pound?
  7.36 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I begin by thanking all the Agriculture Ministers in this Government for the exceptional work that they have been doing over the past few years, especially the past 12 months, for the farming industry. Much of the Minister's speech was encouraging, especially what he said about the future and about the strength of the argument that he is going to take to Europe. I hope that no Minister will overreact to the scares that arise almost weekly concerning food. Often, the problems have been resolved without too much difficulty.
  I want to say three things with which I think all hon. Members will agree. First, I say, "Well done," to Ian Grant, who, during the last month of his presidency of the Scottish National Farmers Union, made an outstanding contribution to farming. Secondly, like the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), I believe most strongly that we must not tinker with summertime and go on to continental time. We must make as strongly as possible the case for farming, for which a change would cause enormous damage. Thirdly, I hope that we will do all that we can to retain the marketing boards. The milk marketing boards have done exceptionally good work. I hope that it will be possible to find a little more quota to help the manufacturing industry in the not too distant future. We must give credit also to the Wool Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board for all that they have achieved over many years.
  I shall refer to two main issues: first, the current economic problems and the loss of confidence in agriculture; secondly, the future and environmentally friendly farming. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said, the value of this debate is to show the Minister what farmers in our constituencies are feeling and enable him to use the evidence in his argument when he goes to Europe.
  The economic facts are irrefutable. The industry has suffered a major loss of income over recent years. Let us look at the Scottish figures. If the figure was 100 in 1978, it went down to 59 in 1979 because of bad weather. In 1982, it was 74, in 1984, it was 90—that was a better year—in 1985, it went down to 15 because the weather was dreadful, and in 1988 it was 65. The graph trend is steadily downward, and we must try to change that. Whatever the statistics say, the situation is very serious.
  We must highlight how employment in Scotland over the last five years dropped by no less than 23 per cent.—from 19,000 to 14,000. That represents a big loss to rural areas. The resources are no longer available to re-equip with new machinery, to invest in livestock or to think, as many people believe we should, in terms of alternative land use. Almost every alternative land use costs a great deal of capital if it is to be successful. As we all know, the high interest rates that are necessary to contain inflation have a serious impact on farming.
  822
  The fall in farm incomes makes it much harder for farmers to pay the wages which farm workers undoubtedly deserve. I believe that many farmers pay considerably more than the minimum wage set by the wages board, but it would be easier for them to be generous to the workers if their incomes were higher.
  Farmers are entitled to a fair return on their capital in exchange for providing high quality food. At the centre is the common agricultural policy. The price proposals will be before us shortly. I welcome what the Government have done on the hill livestock compensatory allowance. I welcome particularly what my right hon. Friend said today about fighting very hard to retain the HLCA in 1991, I hope at a rate at least as high as this year. If there is any difficulty with Europe, I hope that the Treasury will make up the difference.
  The Minister should consider again the headage payment on finished cattle. The premium is payable on 90 cattle. The Minister should consider whether it could be paid on farm to the producer, particularly for calves. There are technical difficulties, but the Minister should make a real effort to overcome the problem.
  My right hon. Friend accepted the need to deal with the green pound. I support the 1990 campaign of the National Farmers Union of Scotland to devalue the green pound, certainly well before the end of the three-year period which is to be used as a sliding scale. If it could be devalued this year, it would be of enormous benefit to agriculture. Other hon. Members have given the devaluation percentages—arable at 17 per cent., dairy at 17 per cent., beef at 13 per cent. and so on. There is a big difference. The Minister said that he would do what he could to help. He was backed up this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who understands the position on the green pound. I do not think that phasing it out over three years is acceptable.
  Much of the common agricultural policy is not sensitive to the environment or to the rural economy. The HLCA, the suckler cow subsidy and the beef premium are important if farming is to be profitable and if people are to remain in the countryside, particularly in hill areas. We must consider how to bring more jobs into the villages and small towns that we all represent. If we do not have people there, everything begins to disintegrate-schools, churches, halls and the community spirit. All in all, keeping up profitability in the less-favoured areas is very important.
  As a Government we began, through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to find ways to help using management agreements. The Government have helped by promoting environmentally sensitive areas. We must keep income in the hills without increasing grazing pressure by adding to the stock of hill cows and sheep.
  Set-aside schemes almost invariably cost jobs. If a farmer sets aside part of his farm by letting it lie fallow, or worse, he will shed labour—something that we do not want to see in rural areas.
  I have been watching closely what has been happening to woodlands and forestry. We must reconsider the fiscal decisions made two years ago, because maintenance is important in woodlands. If we take away the tax incentive on maintenance that we have had for many years, the forestry ecology will not remain as it is.
  On alternative land use, there must be a more realistic approach to planning by local authorities which turn down many good ideas for no good reason. Much more could be said about the environment. I have a vision of a

  823
  well-farmed countryside, with greater diversity of wildlife and habitat. I believe that many of the Government's policies show clearly that that is the road down which they are going.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I was concerned about being attacked by the Minister as a food fascist. I am sorry that he is not in his place; he must have gone off to savage one or two diplomats. Fascism is much more the creed of the Minister than of myself. When he made his famous speech on food fascism, I wonder if he was referring to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who exterminated 10 per cent. of the laying flock and created the largest food scare that we have ever known.
  I might well be accused of being a food fascist, because I am concerned about Government policy on the EEC and on food poisoning. Over the last decade, food poisoning cases have increased from 10,000 to 30,000. It seems that 1990 may be a record year for food poisoning. That is the background to my speech.
  There is still a problem with eggs and salmonella. There is much confusion in the industry. People do not believe that the slaughter policy is working. I am not convinced that it is working, and I have been a member of the Select Committee. However, the slaughter policy underpins confidence in British eggs. Hon. Members can say that British eggs are better than Dutch eggs: there is no doubt about that. Already, concern has been expressed about the Government's reluctance to ban the importation of eggs from parts of Europe which are contaminated by salmonella. I am thinking especially about the Dutch. There is a belief that the Government would not ban the importation of rats from Holland even if they had bubonic plague, on the grounds that everything that comes from Holland is irradiated anyway.
  The German Government do not take the same attitude. The Germans are saying to us, "We understand that we cannot prove that there is a problem with bovine spongiform encephalopathy but we're not having your beef, and that's the end of it." Our Government cannot do anything about it. The Germans are probably right to take that line. They are losing nothing, but they are protecting their population—something that the British Government fail to do time after time.
  It is said that BSE originated from feeding cattle with sheep offal which was contaminated with scrapie, yet we appear to be doing nothing about scrapie. That worries me. The argument is that scrapie has been known about for 200 years and that there is no link between scrapie and humans. I do not accept that. I think that some of the cases of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease could have been caused by scrapie. If BSE is transmitted to man, I think that it will only be in small numbers.
  It is said that there are only 50 victims a year of the human form of BSE. That is probably an under-estimate. Some cases may not be diagnosed, but I do not think that BSE or scrapie will create a major epidemic. We should not frighten the public, but we should protect them. I asked the Minister if he would stop contaminated sheep going into the food chain. The written reply that I got today was no.
  If a sheep came to the slaughterhouse suspected of having scrapie, the animal would be slaughtered and dressed in the usual way, but it would be processed apart
  824
  from other animals. If inspection of the offal revealed that there was no other sign of the disease, the head would be removed and condemned but the carcase would be passed fit for human consumption. In other words, where a sheep is known to have scrapie, we cut the head off, stain it and throw it into the bin, and send the other part to the butcher.
  I asked the Minister today if he would stop that exercise, and the answer was no. I ask him again to come to the Dispatch Box tonight and change his mind, because it is important that we protect our consumers, even if there is only a very slight risk, and I accept that it is only a very sight risk.
  On another point—the Minister should listen to this, because his whole political career may depend upon it—if that sheep I was talking about was made into hotpot and was to be served to the Prime Minister, would the Minister allow her to eat it? I know that I would, but I am riot sympathetic to the Prime Minister. I think he had better be careful what he replies.
  Coming to BSE, I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is in his place, because at the Dispatch Box recently he told the House that there was no chance of BSE-contaminated beef getting into the food chain. He said that he had belt and braces, but if my investigation of what goes on with his belt and braces is correct, the Minister's trousers will be round his ankles before much longer.
  I went to a local auction mart—the Bordway at Carlisle, which is an excellent one and the largest in the country. Inspection there was carried out by the trading standards officer. It was voluntary; there was no legislation that said it had to be carried out. The county council will soon be in great difficulty because of cuts imposed by the Government, and it may not be able to continue to carry out inspection of that sort.
  I looked around the largest auction mart in Britain to see if there were any notices from MAFF saying "Beware of BSE" and telling people about the problems and the penalties, because it is illegal knowingly to send BSE-contaminated cattle to market. There was not one notice in that auction mart. The managing director of the mart had rung MAFF and had been told that there were no notices to be put up in the auction mart. I therefore do not believe the Government are doing the job very well. Furthermore, the instructions that have been given to the environmental health inspectors at the abattoir contradict what is laid down by the Government as to how animals of this sort should be treated.
  The thing that I find really strange is that all sorts of people say that only 50 per cent. compensation is being paid. That is not strictly true. If a farmer notifies MAFF that the beef on the farm has BSE, he will get 50 per cent.; and if BSE is found at the auction mart, he will get 50 per cent. But if an animal gets right through the system and is killed at the abattoir, 100 per cent. compensation is paid. In most cases, that 100 per cent. compensation does not go to the farmers—we have had many complaints on their behalf today—but goes to the butchers.
  From the puzzled look on the Minister's face, I suspect that he is not aware of this, but it is in MAFF instructions. There is no doubt about that.
  In order to protect the industry, we should give 100 per cent. compensation to everybody. We should have a policy of trying to eradicate this generation of cattle from our fields as soon as possible. The sooner we can get rid of

  825
  cattle that have eaten that contaminated feed, the better. I would go so far as to say that we should have a voluntary slaughter policy. Anybody who wants to get rid of beef of that age should be allowed to do so, and should get 100 per cent. compensation. The sooner we are again able to tell Europe that we have the cleanest herd in the world the better.
  There is a certain irony in our dealings with the European Community. Is it not sad that we are today debating a situation in which other countries of Europe are refusing to take our cattle, alive or dead, although it appears from EC regulations that we are to start re-exporting live horses to Europe? That is the anomaly of the EC at the present time.
  I hope that Ministers will take the warning from the House tonight and get together with those concerned—farmers, MAFF and the veterinarians—and make sure that our flocks, herds, pigs and poultry are pure and clean and ready to put on the table. That is the problem at the moment: people in Europe do not trust the food produced in this country.
  7.55 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to this wide-ranging debate as the representative of a rural constituency with a very important milk sector. Naturally, I reflect the fact that that part of the industry, which has now settled down to quotas, is probably more profitable and settled than other parts.
  I very much welcome the fact that the Minister may be looking at the prospect of loaning some percentage quota to young entrants to the agricultural industry. The great problem, however, is in defining a new entrant. No farmer or producer in my constituency would want to see an incentive given to some yuppie farmer or somebody who has sold a business and is investing as a new entrant to agriculture.
  All hon. Members present who represent rural constituencies will agree with me that the agriculture industry as a whole is the backbone of the rural economy and that farmers are the only true custodians of the countryside—a countryside which is admired, enjoyed and appreciated by vast numbers of British people and tourists and which has virtually been created by the farming community with its good husbandry over the years.
  The industry has always responded to incentives provided by central Government and indeed, the EC. In these difficult days, when there is overproduction of food, it will respond with equal vigour to the emerging priority to get supply and demand into better balance and to focus on the marketplace in meeting change and the requirements of the consumer.
  It should be said that there is no great divide between the farmer and the consumer. Farmers are consumers and so are their families; they shop in the same supermarkets and corner shops as the rest of us.
  There is today an excellent range of home-produced food—helping, incidentally, our balance of payments—at modest prices. Let us not forget that the return to the producer is a small part of the cost in the shops, most of which is made up by processing, packaging and transportation costs. But it is equally true that the industry
  826
  faces a severe crisis of confidence in its future, with average farming incomes dropping by about 9 per cent. each year, extremely low profitability and, as a result, very low investment. These problems are further exacerbated by the high interest rates which are being used as the sole weapon in the fight against inflation.
  The theme that has run through the many and varied contributions to the debate is that the current green pound gap must be eliminated. It is a discriminatory currency mechanism and, in the best interests of Britain and its farming community, must be removed, and as a matter of urgency. Indeed, 1992 is so far ahead that some farming businesses will not last until then, and the Commission proposal of an initial reduction of one third is totally unacceptable. Of course we all realise that the Minister will be batting against 11 European Agriculture Ministers, who have a vested interest in retaining the green pound disadvantage to this country. I hope that the Minister will take away from the debate a message from both sides of the House, distilled into the simple call that this country demands fair play and action now—nothing less than the total removal of the green pound gap will do.
  Agriculture needs to be profitable, to reinvest to face the challenges and opportunities of the 1990s and to be competitive. It has never turned its face away from a challenge but it cannot compete with one hand and one leg tied behind its back. The Minister should be in no doubt that the industry's future depends on the forthcoming negotiations; much is at stake and everyone who is involved with or concerned for this country's rural environment will wish him well in those negotiations.
  8 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: During this welcome debate, tremendous concern has been shown about the future of the rural economy, in which agriculture plays such a major part. I welcome many comments from both sides of the House about the importance of maintaining a good base for the economy in rural areas to sustain the rural way of life. The debate has to be seen in that context because in most rural constituencies, agriculture is the most important industry, not only because of the direct employment it creates—selfemployed farmers and those working on farms—but because of the ancillary industries which depend on it. Those who supply the feed to the farmers, distribute milk to our doorsteps, work in food processing plants and supply farmers with feedingstuffs are as dependent as the farmers on the maintenance of a viable agricultural industry.
  I want to widen the debate and talk about the link between the economic future of rural areas, and social cohesion. The economy in our rural areas must be maintained and supported if we are to retain the social fabric of our rural districts. Every family that leaves the land leaves the rural community more exposed—as we have already heard—to rural depopulation and destruction. I hope that the Minister will listen to my remarks about this, because he has responsibility not only for the economic future of rural areas, but for their social, cultural and—in Wales—linguistic future.
  Ministers have a great responsibility for the future of the Welsh language, because the future of the language in

  827
  our rural areas depends on a viable agricultural base. Many of our farmers maintain the language through their cultural links.
  There is a tremendous lack of confidence in agriculture that manifests itself in a variety of ways. I am sure that all Members, particularly those in rural constituencies with agricultural interests, have been lobbied today by farmers from their constituencies about the problems bedevilling the industry. Is it not right, therefore, that we should place on record their views on issues such as high interest rates so that the Minister can take them to the deliberations with the European Commission? I am told that in the current year farmers will pay £1 billion in interest alone—that is not the total cost of borrowing, but the interest on the loan. Coupled with that is the rate of inflation, now at 7 per cent., and the lack of investment in agriculture, which is a particular problem.
  During the past few weeks, I have been invited to visit a number of farms in my constituency. The point put to me time and again was that farmers are failing to invest in the industry's future because they lack confidence in how the Government are handling agriculture on a range of issues. I visited a farm where the farmer has put in the foundations of a new building to house his cattle and sheep, but was not prepared to complete that building because he was not sure that the Government would support agriculture in future. That is a mark of a lack of confidence shown by one farmer that is repeated time and again all over rural Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Investment in the industry has been 40 per cent. lower in the past years. That figure speaks for itself. Recently, I carried out a survey of the number of students now attending agricultural colleges. From a reply to a parliamentary question that I asked some weeks ago, it is clear that there are fewer students attending colleges of agriculture than there were a few years ago. That is because farming is a family concern and farmers are not sending their sons to agriculture colleges. They are advising them not to go into agriculture because they do not see a future in it. The reduction in the number of farming students is a good indicator of the current lack of confidence in the industry. My colleagues in the Scottish National party agree with my sentiments.
  Farming is a family business and there are few entrants from outside the industry coming in. Therefore, we should look at the signals coming from the agriculture community. We must ask ourselves why there is such a lack of confidence in the industry. It is due to the underlying, long-term decline in the industry's profitability. Some of the figures were given to me by farmers in my constituency. Many people who have voted for this Government now tell me that they will not support them again if the long-term decline in the profitability of agriculture continues.
  It is in this context, and having looked at all the problems, that the industry now demands the complete elimination of the green pound disparity. It was put to me that the elimination of that disparity would not substantially increase farmers' incomes overnight, but would be a benchmark against which to measure the Government's commitment to agriculture. If the Government committed themselves to the complete elimination of that disparity they would send an enormous signal to the industry that they were serious about restoring confidence in it.
  828
  This debate is about sending signals to the European Commission, to tell our European counterparts that we are serious about ensuring a level playing field for farmers in the counties of Britain. It is also about sending a signal to agriculture at home. It is about the Government ensuring a restoration of the confidence which is sadly lacking to ensure that farmers invest in our future, and the social fabric of our rural communities is maintained.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, at
  the end of the Question, to add
  `but regrets the expenditure in 1990 of £9,000,000,000 on the disposal or destruction of surplus production despite the multitude of costly reform plans in recent years; regrets the massive additional cost to the average household budget of the Common Agricultural policy; regrets the damage to third world economies of the disruption of world food markets caused by European Economic Community food dumping; and regrets in particular, the decision of Her Majesty's Government not to vote against the proposal to disregard for monetary compensatory amount purposes, cereal production above the stabiliser limit, despite previous pledges that the stabiliser mechanism would be automatic and legally binding.'.
  It is a great pleasure and privilege to move the amendment and, I hope, to persuade the Government to accept these very simple and basic changes.
  We have heard a great deal of discussion of a happy nature today. It seems that we have general agreement that the green pound differential should be removed. We have not had much discussion on which way it should move—whether European prices should come down to British ones, or British prices rise to the European level—but it seems to be agreed that we want a substantial increase in British prices, which will of course have a substantial effect on food prices at home.
  There has been a demand from the Welsh National party, and from some Conservative Members, for level playing fields. Many other industries in Britain would welcome level playing fields. They ask why agriculture should be the only industry that does not pay rates on buildings, when every other industry in Britain is facing major problems with rating relief. Those other industries might say, "Why can't we have level playing fields?", and they might ask why they cannot have the same protection as agriculture. There are protection levels of 40 per cent.. 50 per cent. and, in one case, 90 per cent. for agricultural products. What other industry in Britain has that?
  Very few businesses, even in Wales—if the Welsh nationalists have any consistency—have the right to access to vast sums of money to dump abroad at crazy prices surplus products which simply cannot be disposed of. To have a demand from the agricultural community for level playing fields is a distortion, and a pure hypocrisy, as every single person taking part in the debate must know.
  I hope that the Government will accept that the common agricultural policy is a foul protectionist device which is totally opposed to everything that the Conservative party stands for, and totally opposed to all justice and reason, if we have any concern for the world as a whole.
  If the Government accepted this amendment, they would at least be accepting that we should stop kidding ourselves with the almost annual hope that things are being resolved, that our problems are being sorted out, and that if we can only keep going on the present course, those problems will somehow fade away.

  829
  If Ministers had the honesty and integrity to look at things as they are—as I am sure they have—they would see how time and time again in debates on this issue we have been presented with new hope that somehow things are going to change.
  I remember that optimism was expressed when the Prime Minister came back to the House saying that we now had budgetary control and that the CAP was under control. We saw for ourselves how that pledge was kept—the Common Market simply had a metric year of 10 months, with 12 months' worth of money coming in, and 10 months' worth going out. That was the success in that year.
  Then we had the quota scheme. Everyone said that that was a grand idea which would revolutionise agriculture and bring stability. We know what happened—we paid a vast sum of money to buy out farmers from producing milk, and they simply switched the land to produce other things that were already in chronic surplus. Sadly, despite all the massive pay-outs, we now have a substantial surplus of milk production.
  Then there was the set-aside proposal. That seemed to be logical. Instead of paying farmers to produce stuff that we had to pay a fortune to dump, we paid them for basically doing nothing—although the Government have insisted that they are not doing nothing but are putting a green cover on their land. In a very short time, no less than 400,000 hectares of land in Europe were covered by those payments for doing nothing except putting a so-called green cover on the land. That hardly affected surplus production, because usually inadequate land was used for that purpose.
  More recently, we had another hopeful sign—the hunt for fraud. It was suggested that fraud was costing too much money, and that sharp people were taking good people's money to waste it on agriculture. I think we all know exactly what has happened—we have set up a department for fraud in the EEC. Everyone must know, if they consider the issue honestly, that it is impossible to avoid fraud in the crazy situation where one pays vast sums of money for dumping food abroad.
  Another device to try to reduce the cost of the CAP —and a very effective one—was simply to transfer the spending costs from the EEC to member states. The Minister will be aware, from the previous point that he made, that that was declared unlawful by the Court of Auditors, but it was nevertheless done, and the Court of Auditors' report was never discussed.
  Now, on the basis of the Government's motion, we have one of the most hopeful signs that we have had for a long time—the elimination of food mountains. The Government have said today, and on previous occasions, that this was the result of Conservative-initiated reforms. I appeal to the Government to consider what really happened. For example, there was a dramatic reduction in the butter mountain, from 1,007,620 tonnes to only 162,928 tonnes, and that was applauded by all the farming representatives as a triumph. The mountains were fading away, because of the Conservative-initiated reforms. However, we all know what happened, and I wish that people would admit it. We simply had a fire clearance sale, and sold 887,105 tonnes of butter at ludicrous prices—as
  830
  low as 1·75p per pound. It was simply a device to sell things off, it was not a reform. If we think that it was a reform, we are kidding ourselves.
  Now we have the latest proposal—stabilisers. We are told that stabilisers will work unlike all the previous reforms, which did not work. Despite all the horrible people in the Commission, it was automatic and legally binding. In this amendment we have expressed disappointment that when it came to the co-responsibility levy the Common Market decided to ignore the stabiliser level, which was the quite substantial sum of £40 million. That meant £40 million down the drain and the automatic, legally binding stabiliser simply disappeared.
  In those circumstances, we would be kidding ourselves if we passed this motion and simply said that more should be done for the agricultural community. The Government must know that previous reforms have not achieved success and that the basic structural problems remain. If anyone doubts that, I ask him to look at the figures which have been published in Hansard recently. Now that the food mountains are almost gone, should we not have very little spending on food dumping and food destruction?
  We all know what the figures are. This year, despite the elimination or near-elimination of all the mountains, the Community will spend £9,000 million simply on dumping and destroying food. That is £173 million every week. In 1980, the figure was £89 million a week, in 1985 it was £134 million a week, and now it is £173 million. The Government may try to say that that is an improvement, and it is down on last year. They know exactly why it is down on last year. It is because we had the fire clearance sale to eliminate the mountains.
  I am sure that the Welsh Nationalists would like us to spend more money, probably on the Welsh language, using Common Market agricultural subsidies. But £173 million a week could do a lot to help the poor, to help those people who need help, to help people who need more housing, or to help the schools that we are always talking about. That is shameful misuse of money.
  What is the impact of those measures on production? We all know that we have now become the highest exporters of sugar in the world—that is unforgiveable. We know that, according to the last fair estimate, the average family in Britain—including poor families—spend £13 a week extra on their food. Should we not give some thought to what we are doing to the world?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member will understand that I have to impose the Standing Order.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Do not worry, Madam Deputy Speaker: what I have in my hands is not the speech that I am about to deliver but the documents with which the debate is expected, technically, to deal. I realise that we are not going to go through them individually, as we are engaged in a discussion of principle rather like a Second Reading debate.
  Some 43 documents are involved, many containing multiple items. They deal with issues that we should be scrutinising so that we can advise the Minister before the Council of Ministers makes its decisions. The rather problematical position in which we find ourselves has often been mentioned before.

  831
  The Minister has not only presented his case in the Chamber today, but has been questioned in the Select Committee on European Legislation. As a member of the Committee, I have had an opportunity to hear his arguments. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) talked about fair play, and the Minister has claimed on several occasions that he stands for "fair dos" for Britain and British agriculture. He has often resorted to tautology, especially when discussing the European monetary system; he says that if we join at the right time and in the right conditions everything will be all right, whereas if we join at the wrong time and in the wrong conditions everything will be all wrong. He has also pointed out that he is outnumbered by 11 to one.
  That is sometimes rather a luxury in negotiations, as it enables the outnumbered person to be high on principle and extremely low on achievement, and to go down in history as the victim of a revolutionary defeat. On the other hand, the Minister may view himself as a Henry Fonda on jury duty, trying to persuade fellow jury members through both the logic of his case and the art of persuasion. In that case, he should take on board some of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said earlier about the need to avoid alienating one's fellow debaters: the art of persuasion often involves taking account of their problems.
  I fear that the Minister will turn out to be neither a defeated man of principle nor a Henry Fonda, pulling such policies as the abolition of the green pound out of the bag through a superior effort of will. He may prove to be more like a demoralised goalkeeper whose team has been trounced 11–1. We do not know yet what the final decision of the Council of Ministers will be, and, despite our expectations, a gradual third-by-third move away from the green pound may not emerge from the negotiations.
  The problems that we face have arisen largely as a result of the vast and antisocial nature of the common agricultural policy. Stabilisers and the phasing out of the green pound cannot remove that reality. They can alter and adjust, as transitional payments can alter and adjust the poll tax, but our continuous budgetary problem, like the poll tax, will remain as long as the arrangement itself remains.
  The Minister spoke of the problems of over-supply and lack of demand in the European Community, but there are still poorly fed people in the United Kingdom, as well as waves of starvation from other countries—from Ethiopia to Poland—which the agricultural policies under which we operate do little to assist. It is not lack of demand from which the country suffers, but lack of a demand backed by enough cash to enable people to look after themselves. The Government's economic and social policies are on the line this evening.
  In tackling the injustices of the CAP, we must consider a number of interests. I do not under-estimate the needs of farmers, but they are not the only people affected by the green pound, the 1990–91 budget and Britain's high interest rates. Other producers are involved, but their interests are fairly well represented. The Dairy Trade Federation, the British Poultry Federation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Association of Meat Producers, the Milk Marketing Board and many others have made representations to the Government.
  We must also consider the wider consumer interests. The Minister prides himself on meeting bodies such as the National Consumer Council, which represents their
  832
  interests, but ultimately they are not well organised. Members of Parliament therefore have a special responsibility to represent them. G. D. H. Cole, in his "guild Socialist" phase, wanted to change the House of Commons into a House of Consumers and the House of Lords into a House of Producers. That might have been quite interesting; certainly the suggestion illustrates the fact that consumer interests were to the fore among our elected representatives.
  We were right to consider the problems of BSE and salmonella in eggs, and the general price problems. Price problems involve not only what farmers receive, but what consumers pay. Although farmers are also consumers, not all consumers are farmers; far from it. However, I want to highlight the problems of agricultural labourers, whom the Minister does not consult with any effectiveness. In his evidence to the Select Committee, he said that his personal preference was to try to talk to individual agricultural labourers as he went about the country, rather than consulting their representatives, who were only a small group. No group, however, is as small as the isolated individual who is not organised; at least a number of agricultural labourers have joined forces.
  Agricultural labourers face many massive problems. The National Farmers Union has suggested that those living in tied cottages should not receive amounts equivalent to the rates that have been paid in the past, and that individual workers should pick up the poll tax bill. Those workers are not consulted about the budget we are discussing, although there are 37,000 of them in the Transport and General Workers Union agricultural group and 5,000 in other unions such as the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. Some 20 per cent. of agricultural workers are organised, but that is an under-estimate of the number who are represented, because up to 50 per cent. of farms are family holdings in which self-employment and contract work is extensive.
  Agricultural workers need the kind of representation and consideration that operates in the National Farmers Union; the Ministry recently regionalised its training boards on the basis of the structure in the NFU. They can, of course, draw on the general prosperity of farming, but a move towards that will, in the short run, involve the abolition of the green pound and the ending of the problem of high interest rates. In the long run, it will require a pan-European movement to democratic Socialism. There is the answer to the CAP question. With a set-up like that, we would no longer operate on the basis of such a stupid policy.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Alan Amos: In the limited time available, I shall restrict my remarks to sheep and cattle farmers in the hill and upland areas which form the backbone of the agricultural community in my constituency and, I believe, the British farming community. In so doing, I shall concentrate on the agricultural structures policy. I intend to make three general points: first, the need to extend objective 5b to Northumberland and apply objective 5a more comprehensively; secondly, the need to shift the emphasis of agricultural support away from intervention price support and towards direct payments to farmers on the headage of the animals; and, thirdly, the need to ensure that the United Kingdom receives its fair and proper share of EEC resources and assistance.

  833
  The section on rural development in the 1989 report states that the
  "European Community approach to rural development entails adjusting all the existing policies in order to keep abreast of the needs and development priorities of the regions."
  The FEOGA guidance section on reform focuses EEC action on, first, common horizontal measures—that is objective 5a—applicable throughout the Community designed to speed up the adjustment of agricultural structures within the context of CAP reform and, secondly, two regional objectives which are jointly agreed by the Commission and the national regional and local authorities. Objective 1 refers to promoting the development ands structural adjustment of the regions whose development is lagging behind. More importantly, objective 5b refers to
  "promoting development of rural areas in difficulty with a view to reform CAP."
  The 1989 report states that the continuing aims of the CAP include a better balance between producers and the markets—that is supply and demand—implementation of the reform of the structural funds and completion of the single agricultural market, but it reaffirms its principal objectives as budgetary discipline to give farmers effective support and, significantly, a greater effort to promote and develop activities in rural areas.
  The European Community accepts the need to narrow the gap between the regions of the Community, and it also accepts that agriculture is undergoing fundamental changes. It is therefore incredible that, although structural measures eligible for EEC funding are targeted on agricultural and rural development, Northumberland gets no assistance under objective 5b although parts of western Scotland, Wales, Devon and Cornwall do. Only 2·6 per cent. of the United Kingdom population is covered by objective 5b compared with 7·4 per cent. in Germany and 10 per cent. in France.
  The percentage of the United Kingdom population covered by objectives 1 and 5b still amounts to only one fifth of the EEC average. Even under objective 1, in rural regions, European regional development fund and European social fund moneys, plus FEOGA intervention funds, extend to all areas of activity and infrastructure development. Surely a more reasonable application of such criteria would include parts of Northumberland, some remote areas of which do not even have mains electricity.
  I firmly believe that Northumberland's right to more targeted assistance under objective 5a deserves new and sympathetic consideration. The United Kingdom has already had an extension in its less-favoured areas so that 53 per cent. of usable agricultural land is now covered. 1 welcome the further application for an extension which was submitted on 21 June last year.
  I am not suggesting blanket subsidies but rather the provision of an adequate income to maintain demographic, economic and ecological balance in vast areas of Northumberland. The balanced development and survival of entire communities depend on the viability of hill farmers. Objective 5a must provide for the encouragement of the existing competitive agriculture in the form of British sheep and cattle farmers, assistance for marginal
  834
  farmers to diversify and the furtherance of nonagricultural factors such as environmental protection and the need to improve the living and working conditions of farmers.
  Objective 5a certainly covers aid for young farmers setting up and facilitating the occupational integration of young people. There is increasing concern that young people cannot get jobs in farming, especially in the dairy sector where the milk quota scheme, although popular, lacks flexibility. They then drift to towns and conurbations, leading to the destruction of the social fabric of rural areas. If farmers go, so does rural life. The farming population is aging. It needs more young people who are able and willing to take up the challenges and opportunities of change. There is a need to keep family farms going and to maintain the demographic balance to preserve vibrant communities. Those needs can also be met by another aspect of objective 5a—inducement for early retirement. Again, that will help the demographic balance and bring a dynamic enterprise into the industry.
  Objective 5a also includes assistance for diversification—although in some parts of my constituency the situation is so lean that that is not possible—into tourism, crafts, leisure and recreation, the manufacture and sale on the farm of farm produce, and environmental protection and enhancement, for example the maintenance of stone walls. The best stone wall in the world—Hadrian's wall—is in my constituency and farmers have used it to build houses for generations.
  The abandonment of farms is very bad for the countryside, but a reasonable system of grants or loans at favourable rates of interest which can be more effective in some areas should discriminate between the less-favoured areas and the non less-favoured areas and between the uplands and the lowlands. Early retirement and help for young farmers to set up are also eligible for support under objective 5b. That reinforces the need for that designation to apply to Northumberland.
  The processing and marketing of agricultural products, adding value to farms, also apply under objective 5b and the report acknowledges that they are often an essential prerequisite for economic diversification and the development of rural areas. I accept that there is a cost involved, but it is frankly insignificant. We are talking about the 1990 draft EC budget of £30·7 billion, of which only £1·3 billion goes on the guidance section of FEOGA and only £294 million on structural policies.
  We should bring about a shift from intervention price support to direct payments and headage payments. This year, MAFF is expected to have spent about £2 billion, but due to the vagaries of the operation of the CAP, most of my farmers will not receive much, if any, of that. Most of it will go on the cost of storage of surplus products, export subsidies and other costs of disposal. Consumers do not benefit, as they have to pay higher prices than necessary. Farmers do not benefit, because they do not receive much of the money. Therefore, the Government are right to move towards greater reliance on market forces which would benefit consumers by lower prices, reduce the costs of the CAP through reduced export subsidies, for example, and then channel the money directly to the farmers, as income or via headage payments on their stock.
  The average net farm income of livestock producers in hill and upland areas is forecast to fall in 1989–90, and a particular worry is the reduction in the incomes of specialist sheep producers in hill areas where the

  835
  opportunities to diversify are limited. For example, hill livestock compensatory allowances are paid on breeding cattle and sheep in LFAs with the aim of ensuring the continuation of livestock farming in hill and upland areas, thereby helping to maintain a viable rural population and to conserve the countryside.
  The recent increase of 75p per hardy breed ewe in the severely disadvantaged areas is warmly welcomed. The extra £5·2 million of HLCA payments goes directly to the farmers. The total amount of HLCAs—about £125 million a year—is direct and effective. For example, the ewe premium goes directly to the farmers, as does the suckler cow premium. I welcome the increase in the Community-funded element of that together with the increase in the amount of national top-up now paid to the EEC maximum, meaning an increase of 42 per cent. Again, £57 million in total goes directly to the producers and is particularly helpful in LFAs where 70 per cent. of specialist beef producers are situated.
  In discussions on the reform of the beef regime, we should support the Government's policy of pressing for reduced intervention support and increased direct payments to producers which can be achieved by concentrating more support on the suckler cow.Finally, we must ensure that the rest of the EEC does not discriminate against the interests of United Kingdom farmers by imposing discriminatory headage limits. We must resist that at all costs.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to bovine spongiform encephalopathy as potentially the greatest single threat to British agriculture since the war. I would add that it may also be—I put it no higher than this —a threat to public health.
  We do not know whether BSE can be transmitted to people who eat the meat of infected cattle; we do not know whether there is any connection between BSE and Creutzfeld-Jakob disease; we do not know whether the incidence of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease has increased in recent years, although some evidence in the medical press suggests a noticeable increase in it; and, above all, we do not, and cannot, know how many people will develop Creutzfeld-Jakob disease in the future.
  We do know that it takes a long time for Creutzfeld-Jakob disease to develop; and we know that there is a great similarity between this disease and BSE in cattle. As the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) said, it is true that there is no proven connection, which is why the Department of Health is undertaking and sponsoring research into it. We will not know whether there is any connection until that research is completed.
  What should be done while we are awaiting results of that research? I find the attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food dangerously complacent—almost as complacent as the attitude of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who told us that he had known about the incidence of BSE in cattle in the markets of Ceredigion and Pembroke, North for 50 years. If that is true, we must assume that farmers and vets in his constituency have known about it for 50 years, yet apparently no one has reported it to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: With respect, I think that the industry, farmers, vets and the Ministry have known of this disease for the past decade or two.
  Mr. Davis: Now it has become the past decade or two, but earlier the hon. Gentleman said that he had known about it for 50 years, and his remarks will be on the record. However, the past decade or two is different from what we have been told by the Ministry. Only last Friday, it told the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that BSE had been described only in 1988, which is why the Ministry had not been able to take action before. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North should get together with the hon. Member for Truro, who seems to be taking a closer interest in the problems of the disease.
  Mr. Howells: To put the record straight, I did say for the past 50 years, but if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) wants me to go further, I can say for the past 60 years.
  Mr. Davis: That is contrary to everything that has been said by the Ministry, and I am inclined to believe that it did not know about the disease until 1986. The first case was diagnosed in 1986, which led to the publication of a report in 1988 and subsequent action by the Government.
  The Government are also complacent because they did not ban the use of beef brains in meat products until November 1989. Even now, answers given recently by the Parliamentary Secretary show that his constant refrain is:
  "There is no evidence of a risk to human health."—[Official Report, 31 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 236.]
  On the same day, the Department of Health told one of my hon. Friends that it will undertake research to determine whether there is a connection between BSE and Creutzfeld-Jakob disease. The Department would not be undertaking such research unless it were necessary.
  Against that background, I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields in urging the Government to pay 100 per cent. compensation for all cattle that are affected, or thought to be affected, by BSE. I urge them to cull all the calves of cows that have been shown to be infected by this infectious disease. I also add a plea to ban the use of calves' brains in meat products, in addition to banning the use of beef brains.
  As I have said, we will not know whether there is any link between BSE and Creutzfeld-Jakob disease until the research is completed, but what should we do while we are waiting for the results of that research? The answer is that the Government should base their food policy on the principle of being better safe than sorry.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be aware that my constituency is one of the most agricultural in Britain. My constituents are proud of their agricultural heritage and expertise, but the House will not be surprised to hear that they are less sure about the future of the industry than at any time in recent decades and are extremely anxious about their prospects for the next few years.
  Ministers are aware of the gravity of the problems faced by those people and show a determined and realistic attitude in trying to tackle them, but I do not believe that the nation has grasped how serious the decline in farm

  837
  incomes has been in recent years, or how serious are the implications, not only for those who live off the land, but for consumers and the country.
  Agriculture is one of our most successful industries. The achievements of British farmers since the war in delivering vast increases in production and productivity at a price that is affordable and of a quality that is sought by the consumer have few equals. It is being only slightly unfair to other industries to say that, if their performance had come close to British agriculture, Britain would be about the richest nation on earth. I only wish that some hon. Members and those sections of the media who are so ready to criticise the farming community would reflect a little more on that.
  The success of agriculture in this and other countries has contributed to its current problems. The ability of the developed world to produce more food than it can consume inevitably means that many agricultural sectors face difficult times. I accept that, and I think that my constituents also do so. The farming community accepts that times are hard and that it must do its bit to respond.
  The farming community is entitled to expect that the market in which it competes, and in which it needs to compete ever harder, is conducted according to rules that are fair to all. No one can claim that the green currency arrangements of the European Community are fair to all. When a continental farmer can claim £20 more a tonne than a British farmer, no one can claim that it is a fair or free market.
  Much effort is being expended by continental politicians to persuade us of the case for closer political and economic integration of the European Community. I hope that they realise that few things do more damage to that aspiration than the utterly inadequate performance of the Community in dealing fairly with the diverse agricultural interests that it contains, despite the best efforts of successive British Ministers. It is sickening to see other members of the Community posing as European idealists but jumping to protect their industries and favour their farmers at the expense of others in the Community.
  It is vital for the future of agriculture in this country that we obtain a substantial devaluation of the green pound and ensure that its complete abolition takes place as soon as possible. I hope that Ministers will press the case for simple justice and fairness, which would mean the elimination of the current gap. I appreciate that they would need a Commission proposal and a majority in the Council of Ministers to achieve that, but I hope that the Government are prepared to say that a failure by the Community to rectify the problem will hold up progress in other aspects of the Community's work.
  No one should under-estimate the importance of getting a fair deal for our farmers or the number of farm businesses that are in a poor financial condition. It is vital that they be treated fairly and properly by the European Community, and I hope that Ministers will go into the next stage of price fixing and negotiations on the green pound with all guns blazing.
  We ask our Community partners to act reasonably and fairly on the green pound, but the same should apply to BSE, which has been the subject of much discussion this evening. British beef is safe, and the opportunistic action of the West German Government in seeking to ban our
  838 exports is a disgrace. I hope that we shall stand firm in our determination to take the matter to the European Court if the action is not reversed.
  I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that there is much dissatisfaction about the level of compensation payments for BSE-infected cattle. There is a powerful case for the compensation payable on infected cattle to be increased substantially. The taxpayer may argue that a business man must bear his own risks and that the nation as a whole is not responsible for the disease. However, it is of overriding importance that the disease be identified and dealt with wherever it appears, for the sake of the producer and of the consumer, both of whom are equally innocent in the matter.
  I understand the difficulties of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in increasing compensation to 100 per cent. The Ministry might look silly if farmers turned in their whole herd to claim 100 per cent. compensation, but there is a strong case for a large increase to 90 per cent., if not to 100 per cent. On the green pound and on BSE, the British farmer is simply asking for a fair deal. He is not expecting to be featherbedded against the cold winds of competition, but to be given the same chance as others to compete at all.
  There is a further aspect of agricultural activity for which the farmer deserves the special support of the nation, and I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister refer to it in his opening speech. I have the privilege of representing much of the area of the Yorkshire dales and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food represents most of the remainder. They are the most naturally attractive part of England and are visited by vast numbers of tourists, from home and from abroad.
  The reason that the dales look as they do is a result of farming and in the absence of farming, they would look very different. On behalf of my constituents, I urge the rest of the nation—a predominantly urban and suburban nation—to learn to respect and support the farmers who preserve that natural environment. That means not only shutting gates and respecting property when visiting the area—although that in itself might be a considerable advance—but providing financial assistance to livestock farming in such areas, which is barely economic and from which there is little or no possibility of diversification.
  In the past year, the combination of interest rates, drought and changes in the sheepmeat regime have reduced the incomes of some of the hill farmers whom I have visited to the lowest for 27 years. That is why I am delighted that the Government were able to announce last week an increase in hill livestock compensatory allowances in the less favoured areas. Equally pleasing was my right hon. Friend's statement that Britain will make its own assessment of the economic position of hill farming in determining HLCA levels in the future.
  I also congratulate the Government on the success of the environmentally sensitive areas, which have done much to show how the interests of agriculture and of conservation work naturally together, rather than in opposition to each other. The Government deserve far more credit than they have hitherto received for grasping that. However, I have one complaint. The new farming and conservation grant scheme had the effect of reducing the grant payable for the maintenance of drystone walls in the Yorkshire Dales from 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. The Yorkshire dales national park tried to supplement such

  839
  grants, and has at least one such scheme for doing so, but its resources are nowhere near adequate to the task. I ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of the Environment to look again at those matters and to monitor carefully the condition of an outstanding and irreplaceable aspect of our national heritage.
  Running through all my comments has been a concern for the future of agriculture, for its profitability, for its investment and for its environment. We must recognise that, without the entry of a new generation into agriculture, we shall one day be very short of food.
  There is a tremendous amount of agricultural expertise and interest among the young generation. Anyone who doubts that should visit the Bedale agricultural centre in my constituency and meet the young people who take courses there. I hope that we can help those people where we can. In any forthcoming revision of milk quotas, for example, I hope that we shall make some provision for new entrants. Many of those young people will abandon agriculture over the next few years without a chance or a hope unless the House succeeds in winning for them a free and fair market for their products.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: I begin by reminding my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that the last famous Scottish reformer, George Wishart, was burnt at the stake, so my hon. Friend should be cautious about going out into the countryside this weekend.
  The prosperity of British agriculture is dependent on external forces beyond farmers' control. The weather and widely fluctuating interest rates make nonsense of all attempts to work within projected budgets. Those factors are further exacerbated by inflation. If those were all our troubles, there would be room for hope, but we have still to contend with the European Commission and the manipulation of the Common Market rules against the interest of British farmers. In my constituency, farmers face another uncertainty as a result of the proposal to introduce nitrate-sensitive advisory areas, which has blighted farms and made them unsaleable. I hope that there will be an early announcement removing that blight from the area. Before we had—
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: That is a shocking thing to say.
  Mr. Stewart: Before we had the Green party, we had the green pound. The public could be forgiven for thinking that it was an environmental tax. It is certainly a tax, not to protect the environment, but on Britain's super-efficient farmers and it now amounts to about £650 million. That green tax, or pound, was created to protect farmers in other EC countries from fair competition. British farmers cannot afford to be indifferent to this injustice. There comes a time when we must say that enough is enough, and that time is now.
  Why should we have an artificially overvalued rate of exchange? When sterling falls against other European currencies, the green pound gap widens. For other British industries, that fall in value protects their trading position. The price of competing imports rises and British exports become more competitive on foreign markets. Why should those benefits be denied to United Kingdom farmers? To prevent the benefits coming through, the green currency
  840
  system is underpinned by monetary compensatory amounts. The MCAs tax our exports of agricultural produce and subsidise competing imports. There has been talk today of a level playing field. I should prefer to see the goal posts remaining in one position.
  The reality of the green pound gaps for farmers is lower prices. That was reflected in farm incomes in 1988 reaching their lowest point in any post-war period and they have fallen to a point that even a certain lager cannot reach. I accept that supply and demand for agricultural commodities will be guided increasingly by the market, and the European Commission's tight policies on the CAP support prices are consistent with that approach. However, our top priority at this year's price fixing in Brussels must be to secure fair competition in Europe for British farmers. The European Commission proposes a 33 per cent. devaluation of the green pound whereas my right hon. Friend the Minister wants a 50 per cent. cut.
  We British farmers not only propose but demand in the name of justice a full devaluation of the green pound. The farming industry cannot wait until 1992 for that distortion of competition to be removed.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the green pound is a complex matter? If we were to tell the British public that farmers today are suffering to the extent of 44p per kilogramme on every lamb, £65 on every carcase and £20 on every tonne of cereal, the message would get through and justice would be secured for our farmers.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the general public seem to realise that the farming industry is important only when there is a food shortage.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr. Stewart: My time is running out.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has already spoken and I want a go.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The 10-minute limit on speeches has now been lifted.
  Mr. Stewart: I know that, if the decision was the sole responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister, action would be taken because he more than anyone else knows that unprofitable farmers are not in the national interests. However, his voice is only one of the 12 who will discuss the price fixing in Brussels next month. Nevertheless we know that our right hon. Friend will go there full of fight and determination, fully supported by the House to accept nothing less than a fair deal for British agriculture.
  9 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have the great good fortune to come from, live in and represent one of the loveliest farming areas in the world. My farmers do not ask for an easy ride; they never have done. What they ask for is a fair deal. They want to be paid as much for what they produce as other European farmers get—not an unreasonable request, one might think. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is laughing, but he will soon be laughing on the other side of his face.
  I remember the day when, under the late John Silkin—I was at the Berlin agricultural fair with him—British

  841
  farmers were paid 45 per cent. less for a pint of milk than the German farmers were getting. That was grossly unfair. My farmers said so in no uncertain terms, and I said so, too. Today, my farmers are getting 19·5 per cent. less than the proper price for their milk and 20·8 per cent. less for sheep. That is not fair, either. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say at Question Time today that she sees that gap as quite unacceptable, and that her Ministers will fight hard to remedy that injustice in Brussels.
  I was equally glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister tell us that he will fight hard to close the green pound gap, but I do not think that his target is high enough. The Commission's proposal to reduce the gap by one third—will the Minister kindly listen and stop talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)?—is inadequate. That would still leave a gap of 13 per cent. for milk and 13·8 per cent. for sheep. The Minister's target of 50 per cent. is just not enough either. We want to be paid exactly the same as other European farmers. It is sheer nonsense to talk about a common agricultural policy with uncommon prices.
  In my part of the world we are prepared to accept the kicks that farming inevitably brings, but we do expect the ha'pence. We expect to get as much for what we produce as our European counterparts get and we look to the Minister to fight our battle for us. I have every confidence that he will do so.
  As to fraud, nothing does the European ideal so much damage as the feeling by our fellow citizens that they are being diddled. Fraud destroys people's confidence in Europe. The hon. Member for South Shields—a very civil man, if I may say so—implied that Britain has a bad record for fraud. That is simply not correct. The truth is that we make very strenuous efforts to catch fraudsters and we hand them over to be punished. We do not cover up for them; we hand them over to be dealt with as they should be. Other countries either connive in their action or cover up for them. We shall never conquer fraud until we have impartial inspectors at every level of inspection who will be operating in someone else's country and will have no compunction in reporting the fraud that they find.
  I am glad that the Minister, like the Prime Minister, takes fraud seriously, as he made clear in his speech. I know that he will take steps to stamp it out so that all of us, farmers and citizens, will know that we are getting a fair deal. That is all that we ask.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I apologise to the House for not being here earlier. I have a good excuse, which I am sure that the Opposition will appreciate. I was detained by criticising the Government's policies on television. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may be less understanding about that.
  Therefore, it gives me even greater pleasure to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the good work that he is doing in the face of problems that I need not reiterate. Believe it or not, that is appreciated by farmers. They know perfectly well that the old CAP days are over. None of my farmers tries to argue back over that time.
  I want to make a specific point of mentioning the appreciation in retrospect of many of my milk farmers for
  842
  the work done by a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in introducing milk quotas, for which no one gave him any thanks. I do not remember anyone at the time having a good word to say for him, but where would we have been without those difficult measures? I pay tribute retrospectively to his efforts.
  However—this is where we get to the "however" part of the speech—I want to begin by associating myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on the green pound. In all honesty, I must recognise that this is a complicated matter, which has repercussions for the retail prices index which there is no point ignoring.
  In my constituency, many small-to-medium farmers face a drop in incomes. That is not farmers' flim-flam. It is the reality. I have looked at one or two yearly accounts and in some cases there has been a catastrophic drop, for reasons that I am sure have been mentioned in the debate such as high interest rates and a combination of other circumstances. Against that background, the green pound should be looked at again carefully.
  One other point that is very much on the minds of farmers in my constituency is the Government's apparent assumption that it is an easy matter to turn to alternative sources of income. That is an extremely complicated matter. Farmers frequently turn to, or in some cases are driven to seeking, alternative sources of income in ways that risk disrupting the rural environment.
  For example, one or two of my farmers have tried to arrange motor cycle scrambling in order, understandably, to boost their incomes. But when my constituents approach me about motor cycle scrambling in the countryside, I find it difficult not to be sympathetic to them. There are other cases, of less environmental irritation, in which for one reason or another, local councils find it difficult to give planning permission.
  The point that I am making is that it is not as easy as my right hon. Friend the Minister sometimes gives the impression of believing for farmers to drum up extra income from the diversification of activities or the diverse use of their land or buildings. They quickly run up against planning restrictions—some entirely justified on environmental grounds, some perhaps less so. That is an important point. Flexibility in agriculture is much less than my right hon. Friend sometimes seems to imply.
  I stress that my farmers, and I am sure those of other hon. Members, are not such a plaintive lot as they are sometimes depicted. When my farmers grumble, as they occasionally do, there tends to be something behind it, so I tend to listen.
  Farmers want the Government to state their vision for farming in the future. Small and medium tenant farmers are particularly anxious to have the answer to that question. They want to know whether the Government see developing in Britain a situation analogous, for example, to that in Germany, where family farms tend to go by the board so that, particularly close to large conubations, one member of the family runs the farm and the rest of the family have jobs in the town. If that is part of the Government's vision for the future, they should say so.
  If, on the other hand, the Government believe in the advantages, which seem obvious to me—social as well as economic—resulting from traditional family farms, they should make that clear and do what they can to support such farms.

  843
  A number of farmers in my constituency have raised with me what they regard as irritating problems caused by the withdrawal or curtailment of the service of the knackerman. I gather from the nods of assent on the Opposition Benches that I have support in raising this remote subject. Because that service has been curtailed, an extra cost is placed on farmers at a time when they can ill afford it.
  Farmers are also concerned with the environmental implications because it is important to dispose of dead stock quickly. It is difficult to do that on a small farm, because it is a time-consuming operation and many rules and regulations surround it. What has happened to that service? It was a small but important service to farmers and I hope the Minister will explain why it has been curtailed or withdrawn.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Like my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), I apologise to hon. Members for arriving late for the debate. I was detained in a Standing Committee. Not only as a farmer but occasionally as a stockman, I have to use the services of the knackerman. The one I use is in my hon. Friend's constituency, so I endorse what he said on that subject.
  We have faced a period of significantly declining farm incomes. As a farmer, I can read that in my trading accounts, and the figures are readily available from the national survey of farm incomes. I have not studied the figures which were published this morning—through what
  in the old days was the annual review procedure—but I understand that they show a small uplift in farm incomes following a long period of dramatic and inexorable decline.
  The figures for farm incomes are low and the Minister must have got the message that, however hard we work at diversification and however many schemes he introduces, they will be of benefit at the margin but cannot by themselves be guaranteed to restore farm incomes. There is no Aladdin's lamp for the environmentally sensitive areas, the HLCAs or whatever. There is no Aladdin's lamp resulting even from the promotion of British food. All such endeavours are important, but will not by themselves solve the farm income problem.
  That problem is not confined to Britain. It applies to other parts of the European Community. Indeed, it is worldwide. It is two years since I visited New Zealand, where agricultural subsidies were removed—as the phrase goes—at a stroke. I appreciate that that is not the
  Minister's intention, and I hope that it will never be the intention of a Conservative Government in this country. After that dramatic, and in my view misguided, decision, many New Zealand farmers, have picked themselves up and reached a measure of survival, not at a high level of income—it has not been an easy or happy process—which proves that it is not always necessary to aim for the highest levels of income.
  Mr. Martlew: Can the hon. Gentleman remember that, when several hon. Members, including myself, went to New Zealand, we visited a dairy farm where the gate had been left open because the farmer had gone to play golf?
  Mr. Boswell: Even the hon. Gentleman must understand that one does not milk dairy cows at every
  844
  hour of the day and night. They are milked in the morning and the evening and if that farmer had time to play golf in the middle he must have worked hard earlier—so good
  luck to him.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the people of New Zealand realise that the Opposition spokesman on agriculture always eats their apples in preference to British apples, in the hope that he might get some votes somewhere?
  Mr. Boswell: I hope that he can get those apples all through the year, but I note the Minister's point.
  It is no good bleating about farm incomes, but it is right to record that there has been a problem with them. The main reason for that problem is the existence of agricultural surpluses in Britain, Europe and worldwide. I expect my right hon. Friend the Minister—as do all hon. Members—to continue telling the truth to British and
  European farmers and to his colleagues in the Council of Ministers, and to remain unremittingly committed to agricultural reform.
  I realise that some of my hon. Friends say that we should do more, and they doubt whether anything has been done. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that from the viewpoint of farm incomes and cuts in prices, there has been much pain in agriculture, and it is not easy now. The issue is where we go from here.
  I do not believe that the British Government's position is credible unless they sustain pressure for agricultural reform in the European Community. Equally, the position is not credible with our own farmers unless the Minister is seen to be anxious to remove discrimination against the British farmer. British farmers, with their skills and resilience, are prepared to take hard knocks and the truth, but they are not prepared to take all the knocks in Europe and to be the only ones respecting the truth in agriculture.
  Two built-in tendencies within the European Community need addressing. The first and most obvious, which was mentioned in parts of the debate that I could not attend, is the question of the green currencies. An interesting exercise, which the Minister could construct at his leisure, would be to return to our accession to the Community in 1973 and work out for how many months of that period the pound was at a premium to the green pound and how many months it was at a discount; also how many months during that time the British farmer was receiving over the odds in sterling and how many months he was short-changed against the so-called common price structure. It is clear that there has been if not a universal, a general period of under-recoupment, as there is at the moment. We are aware of the Commission's proposal to cut one third of that difference.
  Many British farmers still do not understand the mechanism by which those things operate. Some of them believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister is personally in charge of the green pound and that he has only to rub his Aladdin's lamp and a decision will emerge tomorrow. Perhaps he can disabuse the House of that misconception.
  Those farmers who hark back to the good old days of Tom Williams and Jim Turner, 40 years ago, probably believe that the National Farmers Union is personally responsible for the green pound. My experience of the NFU branch meetings is that the leadership gets as much stick as the Minister. Those decisions are taken in Europe

  845
  and they have to be agreed by our colleagues, but they will not reach an acceptable level unless the Minister and his team go forward and fight for a necessary and appropriate realignment.
  The second point, that will be touched on by some colleagues—but of which less is made nationally—is the ever-present danger of differentation or discrimination against the British farmer on the grounds of the size of his or her holding. The average farm in Britain is still four times the size of farms in most of the Community, so it is very easy to produce specious arguments on social grounds for a two-tier price structure or some relief from quota for the smaller farmer or in particular circumstances. They may not be formally presented as anti—British measures, but in almost every case they operate against British interests. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of that, but I should like his assurance that he will fight that off as hard as he has in the past, and as hard as he possibly can.
  The other area where the British farmer needs support from Ministers is that of food policy. If there was any suggestion from Opposition Members today that there was something wrong with British food, I should like the Minister to come down very hard against it. The measures which he has taken, and for which he has been bitterly attacked, on salmonella and other aspects of food safety, are positive measures, unrivalled anywhere in Europe. He is entitled to some credit for them. To say that British food is in some way unsafe or not of the highest quality is not a reflection on British food or the British farmer but it may well reveal some basic, underlying psychological or personality defect in the person who makes such a statement.
  Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Member agree that, during the present Government's period of office, the number of food poisoning victims has increased threefold—10,000 when the Government came to power, and 30,000 now? Will he explain that?
  Mr. Boswell: I will explain it on another occasion. I will explain the measures that the Government have taken—
  Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it has now become easier, thanks to progress in medical science, to identify salmonella, listeria and hysteria, and that this is probably why the finger is being pointed at these various diseases?
  Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend puts it better than I could myself.
  I have perfect confidence in British food. I have confidence in the Ministers who protect our food. I have grave doubts whether such rigorous regimes apply in certain continental countries. I will say no more, but it needs saying occasionally, because we have allowed ourselves to get into a frame of mind in which we have, as usual, assumed that Britain is worst when it is not and that there is something wrong with us when there is not.
  After a period when agriculture has been in difficulty, the time has come for the Minister to stand up and speak for agriculture and to promote its interests. I know of nobody better equipped to do so. I believe that he is committed to reform but also to the protection of British interests. With all the difficulties that we have had, there is
  846
  still a structure of research and development which lays down the skills for the British farmer to use to enable him to prosper into the 1990s. It has not been easy and it will not be easy for the next few years, but I am quite sure that the Minister is the right man to take these thoughts forward to Brussels in these very difficult negotiations.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Until the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) joined us, we were having a fairly lively debate. I am sorry that he wound it down; perhaps we can now wind it up again. Certainly it was a well-informed debate, expressing the concerns of farmers and consumers from every part of the United Kingdom. I say that it was well informed because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) pointed out, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) was so well informed about bovine spongiform encephalopathy that he knew about it 50 years before it existed. This caused some surprise on both sides of the House. If he knew about it, it would have been helpful if he had told us about it.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I stand by what I said. I would never have expected the hon. Gentleman, who is a farmer, to be so dull and ignorant of the facts.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I shall enjoy re-reading what the hon. Gentleman said, but I suspect that he would be hard put to find anyone, in the veterinary profession or anywhere else, who would seriously suggest that the disease had existed for so long.
  The Government have much to answer for after 10 years of the reckless pursuit of free market policies, of cuts in public expenditure and of confused tinkering with the common agricultural policy. Those 10 years of malice and incompetence have taken a heavy toll in the rural and agricultural areas of the United Kingdom, as has been fully confirmed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I read the correspondence columns in the farming press from time to time and I know of the increasingly harsh criticism of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Government and all their works, so I am not surprised that a number of Conservative Members have expressed anxiety about the industry. In particular, the hon. Members for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) seemed to urge a little caution on the Minister.
  I take this opportunity gently to remind the farming industry—if it needs reminding—that it always does better under Labour Governments. We should welcome some support and participation from those involved in agriculture in our attempts to get rid of a Government who have taken their loyal rural supporters for granted and have ridden roughshod over the interests and aspirations of rural communities throughout the United Kingdom.
  I must say that it is difficult to criticise the Government's agricultural policy—[HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."]—because if it exists at all, it is a closely guarded secret, rather like the annual review of agriculture, which the Minister told us in his opening remarks was published today, although unfortunately hon. Members could not get hold of copies of it.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I did.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I do not know how the hon. Lady got hold of a copy. it was certainly not available in the Vote Office, so I can only assume that she has an inside line to the Ministry.
  We have had four Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since the Government were elected in 1979, and during that period we have had no White Paper on agriculture and no guidance for the future of the farming industry. The last White Paper on agriculture, entitled "Farming and the Nation", was published by the late John Silkin in 1979 under the Labour Government.
  The industry has a fine record of responding to the policies of successive Governments to meet the changing needs and priorities of the nation. But since 1979, agriculture has been left completely adrift—to stagger from crisis to crisis. Today's debate amply confirms the fact that the industry is in crisis. The framework that helped the industry to respond has been weakened and disrupted—I think in particular of the destruction of the research and advisory system that supported the industry so well for many years. Now there is doubt about the future of the Milk Marketing Board, and it would help if the Minister would take the opportunity of this debate to say what the Government proposed to do about that.
  Market forces have driven the industry inexorably towards increased dependence on agrochemicals and intensive practices while the common agricultural policy has continued to distort the industry and generate the costly surpluses about which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) rightly keeps telling us.
  The Government have evidently recognised the need for radical changes in the CAP, but no one is prepared to explain where those changes are leading us. Surely no one regards the notion of set-aside as a satisfactory long-term policy for farming and the countryside. We have heard a lot about level playing fields in the debate, but there is a limit to the number of golf courses that can be built round the country to take up surplus agricultural land.
  Perhaps it was the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who let the cat out of the bag when he suggested that farmers who were hard up should rely on the social security system. One sad by-product of the Government's neglect of and indecision about the future of British agriculture has been the collapse of public confidence in the industry and its products.
  There have been some spectacular cock-ups in recent years-starting with the chaotic response to pollution from Chernobyl. We should remember from time to time that, four years on, 758 farms are still subject to restrictions as a result of that incident. Then there was salmonella in eggs, then nitrate in water, and much more recently we have had the crisis of lead contamination in cattle feed. The Minister will be able to confirm that 1,668 farms are still subject to restrictions because of the Government's failure to protect farmers from that imported junk food. Then, as has been well demonstrated during this debate, there is the question of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—a matter to which I intend to return in a few minutes. Now we have the threat to introduce bovine somatoltropin and irradiation. All this is calculated to undermine the position of our farmers and, for the consumers, their produce
  848
  There has also been the underlying failure to steer the industry in accordance with the developing needs and aspirations of the British people, both as consumers of food and as people concerned about their countryside. 1 t is in that context that I make my point about the Government's failure to produce a White Paper on farming—a matter that I regard as genuinely important.
  Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would be difficult for the Government to produce a White Paper? Is it not a fact that most White Papers are statements of Government intent? Many of us regard it as a misfortune that the United Kingdom cannot have an agricultural policy; there is only the common agriculture policy, which is determined in Brussels. Is that not why there is no—and, alas, can be no—statement of Government policy in a White Paper?
  Mr. Home Robertson: That did not prevent Labour Ministers from producing White Papers on agriculture. It is only this lot who have so signally failed to do so. It would be useful if, from time to time, Ministers and their officials were to take the trouble to consult the industry and other interested parties with a view to setting down a reviewed framework of policies and priorities, perhaps every four or five years. If they had done that, perhaps things would have worked out very differently for the industry.
  Such consultation and consideration would certainly have pointed towards a slowing down in intensification many years ago and, perhaps, to gradual changes in direction, and would have prevented the panic responses to crises that the industry has been experiencing. Certainly they would have ruled out the prospect of the introduction of irradiation or BST.
  Mr.Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am sorry that I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. His hon. Friends took up more time than they were meant to, and I want to give the Minister a reasonable time to respond to the debate.
  As for BSE, it is always easy to be wise after the event, but since it was known from scientific work back in 1980 that scrapie could be transmitted orally to monkeys, surely it was rather reckless to water down the regulations covering the processing of sheep offal in that very year. I am not saying that those regulations would have prevented the disastrous development of BSE in British cattle, but they might have helped. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) put it to the Minister that those regulations may have been watered down as part of the Government's policy of lifting the burden from industry. Perhaps as a consequence of that decision, the Government have created a far more serious burden. 1 understand that farmers still have no way of establishing whether compound feeds contain animal residues. Understandably, they are interested in that subject now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made an important point. He has received information to the effect that full compensation is payable where BSE cattle are found in slaughterhouses. It would be helpful if the Minister explained how compensation can be available to butchers if not to farmers. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields—indeed, by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that there is an overwhelming case for the introduction of 100 per cent.

  849
  compensation and for urgent consideration of a slaughter policy to insure the eradication of this very dangerous disease at the earliest possible date.
  Obviously we shall soon have an opportunity to debate the Government's Food Safety Bill. It seems to be a cautious step in the right direction, but I fear that it is too little, too late. For our part, we are determined to establish an independent food standard agency to take a grip on matters in the interests of consumers and producers.
  As to the current plight of farming, I wonder how Conservative Members of Parliament dare show their faces in their rural constituencies in view of the Government's record in recent years. There has been bad news at every turn. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred to the impact of the viciously anti-rural poll tax on farm workers in tied accommodation. There is an immediate rural housing crisis. There is the criminal under-funding of vital services such as transport, education and the Health Service. From one end to the other, as Conservative Members know, rural Britain has taken a hammering.
  What about farming? Nye Bevan is supposed to have complained that the regeneration of agriculture by the 1945 Labour Government had only made it possible for farmers to pay their subscriptions to the Tory party. I wonder how many of them are still making that mistake today. I expect that many of them are saying that they cannot afford it. If they contrast the record of the post-war Labour Government on agriculture with that of the present Government, they should break the habit of generations and opt for a safer future with the Labour party.
  When I was actively participating in farming back in 1978, I was running a mixed farming enterprise and, in common with other people in the industry, I was investing in improvements. That style of management is not possible today because of vicious interest rates and other aspects of Government policy.
  Borrowings by agriculture have trebled from £3.4 billion in 1978, when Labour was in power, to about £10 billion in the current year. Interest payments are up more than five times in the same period, from £184 million to a crippling £948 million. That is a grim burden. It is unlikely to get better so long as the Government pursue their present policies, which have driven farmers' overdraft interest rates up to 18 per cent.
  We also have the continuing effects of high inflation on input costs, while output prices are constrained by the 18 per cent. distortion of the green pound, which has been mentioned by hon. Members on all sides, but particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). That must be rectified; I am glad that the Minister acknowledged that point.
  The industry is in real trouble. That must spell danger for the rural economy, and particularly for the hills and uplands. The disadvantages far outweigh the long-delayed adjustment in hill livestock compensatory allowances for sheep which the Minister announced last week. He conveniently did not comment on his failure to increase HLCAs for cattle, which is particularly important because the cattle industry is going through a difficult time. We must maintain the diversity of grazing enterprises in the hills and uplands.
  850
  The consequences of the Government's policy have been grave for the rural economy. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) referred to statistics published by the National Farmers Union of Scotland about employees on farms in Scotland. In five years, the total has fallen by 23 per cent., from 19,100 to 14,771. The industry is left with a dwindling and aging work force, and inadequate training and career prospects for young people. There has been a dramatic cut in investment in maintenance, buildings and the replacement of collapsing land drainage systems. All that is hitting rural employment. It also means that agriculture will be ill prepared to compete in Europe after 1992. That distortion of our trading position must be another burden on Britain's disastrous trade balance, as we tax food exports and subsidise food imports.
  Mr. Lord rose—
  Mr. Home Robertson: No. I must be fair to the Minister. It is important that he have a proper opportunity to reply to the debate.
  We are literally subsidising imports. I understand that Irish beef imports coming into Britain at present get a built-in advantage of £60 a head. That cannot make sense, but that seems to be the general policy of the Government towards our trading partners. They sell and we buy and, to add insult to injury, we have to buy eggs contaminated with salmonella from the Netherlands whether we like it or not. The Minister really should do something about that.
  We see no sense in prolonging the green pound discrepancy and we welcome the Minister's assurance that he will do everything possible to eliminate it. The green pound is a mechanism that has outlived any possible usefulness and now is the time for it to go.
  For our part, when we come to power in the not so distant future we will introduce economic policies to encourage investment and enterprise, which will be good for farming as well as other industries. We will adopt rural policies to regenerate the rural communities. We will introduce a green premium to encourage extensification on farms and we will establish an independent food standards agency to restore confidence in British food.
  Meanwhile, we have to leave the Minister to his own limited devices, which are well illustrated in this week's edition of Farming News. This is what it says about the Minister:
  "Nothing to do with me, said junior farm Minister David Curry, as he abdicated any MAFF responsibility for the lack of Government popularity with farmers.
  Before beating a speedy retreat from his audience of Essex farmers back to the confines of Westminster, Mr. Curry pleaded for realism in judging the Ministry's efforts on the green £, co-responsibility levies, GATT talks and even strawburning.
  'I don't claim that everything is under control,' he said. 'But in those areas for which we do have responsibility we are making as great an effort as we can —
  Times are difficult for farmers and I am not here to pretend that that is not the case,' the Minister said."
  Well, heaven help the farming industry, because the Minister clearly cannot.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I imagine that Labour Members must have been most anxious to keep their agricultural policy under wraps pending the epoch-making speech that their leader is to

  851
  make to the National Farmers Union annual dinner. It will he the first time he has ever addressed himself to agricultural questions and, if what we just heard is a curtain raiser to that, I hope that the NFU invites him to speak before the soup so that he can leave before it is served, because that will be the only thing he has to offer.
  In the last 15 seconds of the speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), we heard the Labour party agricultural policy. They are going to do something about the economy and to green things generally. For most of the rest of his speech, the hon. Gentleman was complaining that my right hon. Friend does not spend his time swimming up and down the Bristol channel preventing contaminated feed from Holland arriving in the United Kingdom, and was accusing him of being responsible for the explosion of a Soviet nuclear power station in the Ukraine. My right hon. Friend has many talents and his writ runs a long way, but we regard that as something of a Socialist action and not one for which we claim responsibility.
  I should have thought that in all the interventions from the Opposition there might have been a hint—a whisper, just a clue—about what farmers might expect if Labour were returned to power. But all that we were told by the hon. Gentleman was that the time had come to get rid of the green pound. We all know how well qualified he is to press for that and how good that advice is, because when the Labour party was in government and the bottom point of its inflation was almost as low as the peak of ours, it deliberately maintained the biggest green pound gap in the history of the British agricultural industry.
  If that is to be the precedent, I do not think that the sort of remarks that the hon. Gentleman has made here will be considered very credible. Farming News, unfortunately, does not always get it right, especially since I ceased to write for it. And, of course. I did not flee to Westminster—I flew to Dengie to look at green crop industry, because we try to keep abreast of innovation. So they got their geography wrong, apart from anything else. However, I will forgive them in return for the past enjoyment of writing for that very singular newspaper.
  We look forward to what the Leader of the Opposition has to say about Labour's agricultural policy when he addresses the NFU, and will examine it with the closest attention. I have no doubt that the Opposition agricultural spokesman will wish to examine it as well, because his view must differ substantially from that of his right hon. Friend or it will not make sense.
  A series of themes were raised in the debate and I shall address them. No one failed to mention the green pound. The level playing field was mentioned so often that I wondered whether I had been translated to the post with responsibility for sport and recreation.
  The position is simple, and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) set it out straight. My right hon. Friend the Minister does not just pick up the telephone, ring Ray MacSharry and say,"By the way Commissioner, we would like 15 per cent. or 10 per cent. off the green pound." We cannot take unilateral action on the green pound. It would be utterly futile to demand a White Paper, because agricultural policy is determined in the Community and, increasingly, in the wider international community as the GATT talks indicate.
  Dr. David Clark: Labour had one in 1979.
  Mr. Curry: Not before we were a member of the European Community. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who follows these constitutional matters with more expertise than the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), put him straight on that.
  As for the green pound, we have made it clear that we wish to reach the target of zero by 1992 to which the Community is committed. That means that we must take a substantial chunk this time round. We have recognised that the agricultural community believes that this is essential, and we share that view. The Commission has proposed a cut of one third.
  No hon. Member should think that it is a doddle to get that third. We have to persuade the other Ministers in the Council of Ministers. As I am sure hon. Members know, there are only two ways in which a Commission proposal can be changed—either a compromise is put forward by the presidency which the Commission accepts as its own, or there is a unanimous vote by the Council members to compel the Commission to change its proposal. That is the constitutional arrangement and we cannot change it. We have to use persuasion and pressure to try to get the best we can out of the negotiations.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who made an extremely important point. He warned us not to get caught up in contradictory objectives because if interest rates were to come down and, as a consequence, the pound was to decline in the foreign exchanges, the green pound gap would open up again. Therefore, there is some complementarity between our policies, which matters to farmers.
  Many Members raised the issue of the co-responsibility levy. We have made it clear from the beginning that we dislike it and we shall do all we can to get rid of it. I would not be honest if I suggested to the House that we shall find that easy. It was encouraging that when we were round the table in Brussels, a number of Ministers said that they wished to see further progress towards the dismantling of the co-responsibility levy system. We subscribe to that because we think it is a pretty silly system, which penalises farmers without benefiting the consumer. We are completely opposed to it, but here again, we are locked into a majority voting system. We shall do whatever we can every time we try to remove what we regard as a silly system.
  Many hon. Members raised the subject of BSE and I shall try to deal with the principal points raised. The first concerned rendering. The temperatures needed in rendering depend on the type of machine, the size of the particles and the period in the oven. I have looked at the criteria that most EC countries apply to the process. They apply a range of different criteria, but all have the objective of making the product safe—the same rules as we apply in the United Kingdom.
  I have heard hon. Members speak of the need for 100 per cent. compensation for BSE. I have great sympathy with farmers whose herds are afflicted, particularly when they find that there is more than one incident of BSE on their farms. If there is a case for adjusting compensation, it must be based on the grounds of fairness to the agricultural community. I do not accept that there is a case on the grounds of public health. We have taken an ultra-cautious approach and gone way beyond what we were recommended to do. We have had the feed and offal bans. We look at the matters on a virtually daily basis

  853
  because we have an obligation to do so. We can say that those products are safe for the consumer to eat. Every jot of research we have done shows that, and it has been published. There has been no secret about it.
  The hon. Member for South Shields asked about the export of feed products. We have already decided that we must tackle that problem. The chief veterinary officer is writing to his opposite numbers informing them of the bans that are in force in the United Kingdom, so that there can be no suggestion that recipient countries are not aware of any restrictions placed upon the product in the United Kingdom. We are already tackling that problem.
  I have checked on what the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said, and I am confident that 100 per cent. is paid only when an animal is suspected of having bovine spongiform encephalopathy, but is subsequently found to be clean. We do not have a policy of paying 50 per cent. on animals that are found to be free from the disease.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Now that the Minister has acknowledged that there is a problem with contaminated feed, can he explain why, since the Government have banned the use of contaminated feed for ruminants, he has continued, knowingly, to export some 12,000 or 13,000 tonnes of feed per year? Can he explain why, as late as yesterday, he acknowledged in a parliamentary answer to me that he has continued to allow the export of contaminated feedstuffs, particularly to the Third world, without any warnings, negotiation or discussion to indicate to those countries the dangers inherent in the products that they are importing?
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there has been extremely wide publicity for these matters in the United Kingdom, and we have taken steps to inform other countries. It is up to them to decide whether they wish to import the product and whether they judge it to be safe. We have taken all reasonable steps to inform them of the situation in the United Kingdom. I am not prepared to see exports take place on any misrepresented basis, and we have taken steps to ensure that there is no possibility that that can happen.
  Several of my hon. Friends mentioned the egg industry and egg imports. It is true that the industry, with the assistance of the Government, has cleaned up its act considerably. We can now say that British eggs are safe and that we have eliminated a great deal of the risk to the consumer. It was not always thus. In the initial stages, the industry was not forthcoming or willing to apply itself and to take fairly radical measures, but we are through that stage now. However, it is still a fragmented industry, and it would help greatly if it could get its act together, and if it could be represented by fewer organisations. Frankly, that would make it an easier partner to deal with.
  Many hon. Members have asked why we do not ban imported eggs. Under Community regulations, we do not have the legal power to do that. The risk to health from imported eggs is not sufficient to give us the legal means to ban them. We are not prepared to take actions which we reproach other countries for taking with other products. We regard that as wholly inconsistent and wrong. We must have Europewide regulations, and there is no point pretending that that will happen tomorrow, because we know of the delays, and the time scale of the Community.
  854
  My right hon. Friend raised that issue at the last Agriculture Council meeting, and the Commissioner said that he would expedite work on the matter and that working groups would get down to business as soon as possible. We hope to have some proposals on the table around the middle of this year.
  Dr. David Clark: Does not the Minister appreciate that we have taken action against domestic egg producers because salmonella-contaminated eggs are a public health risk? If that is the case, surely salmonella-contaminated eggs from Holland are an equal public health risk. Therefore, why will the Minister not invoke article 36 of the treaty of Rome, which specifically gives him the power he needs?
  Mr. Curry: The answer is very simple: our legal advice is that it cannot be used in these circumstances. If it could be used, we would not hesitate to use it. Let me also remind the hon. Gentleman that, at the height of the salmonella crisis, not a single country declined to accept eggs exported from the United Kingdom.
  A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), asked why we do not stamp the British lion on our eggs. The industry has informed us that stamping the lion on individual eggs is likely to detract from the image of freshness, so it is not an open-and-shut case—-although there is nothing to prevent us from stamping the packs to indicate United Kingdom origin.
  Hon. Members have asked about the future of the Milk Marketing Board, which I agree is an important issue. Let me make it clear that there is no hidden Government agenda. The board has already circulated its producers a number of times on the subject of its future status and the direction of its policies, because it knows that with the advent of the single market and increased competition the present position may not be sustainable. It wishes to derive the maximum benefit from prices for its farmers, and it knows that there have been problems with milk allocation, especially in parts of the manufacturing sector.
  The Milk Marketing Board has embarked on an evaluation of its position. It enjoys a statutory monopoly and a special relationship with the Dairy Trade Federation, which receives the particular protection of European legislation. If the goal posts were shifted, there would have to be a general discussion about the relationship between the two sides of the industry and the future of milk marketing in the United Kingdom. We believe that it is up to the board to take the initiative—to come up with its own ideas, and to tell us whether it needs our assistance. We have no prescription for its future direction. We recognise its importance to producers, especially in rural areas: in my constituency, and those of many other hon. Members, they need the security of a market for their products.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) made an interesting speech, in which he broadened the horizon to include the position in eastern Europe. In a domestic context, he mentioned set-aside. Clearly, we cannot change the rules in the middle of the game, but I am reviewing the set-aside programme to see whether it can be made more environmentally effective, and whether any change is needed.
  As I have told the House before, if I had absolute truth at my disposal I would have decided to go into the Church

  855
  rather than the Ministry—if I may put it that way. As things are, I am willing to admit that change and improvement are possible, and I am prepared to embark on the process; I am sure that the House will understand that that process is not always a reflection of governmental processes.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned pigmeat, and I know that that sector has experienced particular difficulties. We did not accept the Commission's proposals to chop the import levies: the industry had clawed its way back from a difficult position, and we were not prepared to let its feet be kicked from under it. The Commission recently took remedial action to help the industry, and we supported it in that. We advocate a reform of the pigmeat regime based on free-market principles, but I have taken to heart what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need to find stability in a marketplace—although he will no doubt agree that heavy intervention and heavy regimes will not achieve that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) had a catalogue of complaints about the effectiveness of CAP measures. We are now engaged in GATT talks, and Ministers know that there is no escape: we are locked into the process. It means what it says—a progressive and substantial reduction in farm support. We cannot tell the industry that the pressure will be off. We cannot say, "Don't worry—we have got through this patch." We all know that the dairy sector still has problems, and that it has not been stabilised effectively, despite the quotas. We know that the cereals sector needs only a decent harvest in all the major producing countries to be landed with a significant surplus problem. The pressure cannot be relaxed, but it is now being exercised through GATT as well as through the EC's own mechanisms.
  I realise that my hon. Friend has an honourable record of complaint, but we have progressively taken action. He has only to go into the countryside to find out that it is hurting and it is effective. Of course we will do our best to combat fraud and to save the knackers, because we appreciate their role in rural industry.
  Our policy is to defend farming and to support that which gives value for money to the farmer, to the taxpayer and to the consumer. We have to see farming in the wider context of social aspects and of the environment. Farming Must become more market-orientated if it is to deserve the credibility and the justification of that continued support. We intend to defend those interests in Brussels for the Community and for the United Kingdom. We have done it successfully in the past and we intend to continue that success in future.
  Mr. Speaker: I must now put the Question on the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) —
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Speaker: In that case, I am afraid that I must put the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: -
  The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 182.

  Division No. 66]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Beggs, Roy

  McCartney, Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Meale, Alan

  Bradley, Keith

  Pike, Peter L.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Redmond, Martin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dixon, Don

  Spearing, Nigel

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Leighton, Ron

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Lewis, Terry

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Allason, Rupert

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Alton, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Hannam, John

  Amess, David

  Harris, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hayward, Robert

  Beith, A. J.

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hind, Kenneth

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

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Howells, Geraint

  Burns, Simon

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hunter, Andrew

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Irvine, Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Jack, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jessel, Toby

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jones, leuan (Ynys MOn)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kilfedder, James

  Cran, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Curry, David

  Knapman, Roger

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

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Latham, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Favell, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lilley, Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Livsey, Richard

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Franks, Cecil

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Maxwell,Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gregory, Conal

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Grist, Ian

  Mills, lain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  857

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Steen, Anthony

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Summerson, Hugo

  Neale, Gerrard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich M)

  Paice, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trotter, Neville

  Portillo, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walden, George

  Redwood, John

  Wallace, James

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wells, Bowen

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Ryder, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Salmond, Alex

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shelton, Sir William

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Sims, Roger

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Speller, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Tom Sackville and

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. COM. (89) 660 relating to prices for agricultural products and related measures for 1990–91, 7010/89 relating to adjustment of agricultural structures, 8309/89 and 8877/89 relating to the quota system in the milk sector, the Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 1/89 on the agrimonetary system, the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to 16th January on use of agricultural commodities in the non-food sector and of the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome on the price proposals which takes account of the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers and of the need to maintain the progress made in reforming the European Community's Common Agricultural Policy.

  Agriculture
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    CRIMINAL LAW
    That the draft Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved. —[Mr. Durant.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    PUBLIC HEALTH
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Wales) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 43), dated 12th January 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    PUBLIC HEALTH
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (England) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 37) dated 11th January 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) (No. 2) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.-[Mr. Durant.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

    FEES AND CHARGES
    That the draft Electricity Act 1989 (Fees) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 8th January, be approved. —[Mr. Durant.]
    The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 39.

    Division No. 67]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Gregory, Conal

    Allason, Rupert

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Grist, Ian

    Amess, David

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Arbuthnot, James

    Hague, William

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Boswell, Tim

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hannam, John

    Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cif's)

    Harris, David

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Burns, Simon

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Burt, Alistair

    Hayward, Robert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Chope, Christopher

    Hind, Kenneth

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Irvine. Michael

    Cran, James

    Jack, Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Jessel, Toby

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

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Devlin, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Key, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kilfedder, James

    Fallon, Michael

    Knapman, Roger

    Favell, Tony

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knowles, Michael

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Lang, Ian

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Latham, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Forth, Eric

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Franks, Cecil

    Lightbown, David

    French, Douglas

    Lilley, Peter

    Fry, Peter

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Gale, Roger

    Lord, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Maclean, David

    Gorst, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    859

    Marland, Paul

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Sims, Roger

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Speller, Tony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mills, Iain

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mudd, David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Neubert, Michael

    Trotter, Neville

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Walden, George

    Norris, Steve

    Waller, Gary

    Paice, James

    Warren, Kenneth

    Patnick, Irvine

    Wells, Bowen

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Portillo, Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Redwood, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wood, Timothy

    Rowe, Andrew

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Ryder, Richard

    Yeo, Tim

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Mr. Greg Knight and

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Beggs, Roy

    Haynes, Frank

    Beith, A..1.

    Hinchliffe, David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Howells, Geraint

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

    Jones, leuan (Ynys MOn)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Lewis, Terry

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dalyell, Tam

    Livsey, Richard

    Dixon, Don

    McCartney, Ian

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Meale, Alan

    Eadie, Alexander

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    860

    Pike, Peter L.

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Redmond, Martin

    Wallace, James

    Salmond, Alex

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Skinner, Dennis

    Spearing, Nigel

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Mr. Harry Barnes and

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

    Mr. Bob Cryer.

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point with you and to seek your guidance. There would appear to be some problem on the Opposition Benches, particularly in respect of the Bench below the Gangway and the one immediately behind that. I do not know whether the cleaners have not attended to that area recently and there are fleas there—[Interruption.]—but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) seems to have gathered a lot of hon. Members around him—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members may sit where they like in the Chamber.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Very well, but this is only delaying the commencement of the Adjournment.
    Mr. Leigh: The last Division, Mr. Speaker, was on the momentous issue of whether there should be power by regulation to determine that fees be paid for metered approval. I am wondering whether there is any rule by which hon. Members who force a Division should know what they are voting about. Could it be that they forced a Division not because they were interested in regulations to determine that fees be paid for metered approval, but that their action had something to do with the subsequent Adjournment motion, in which case was it not a waste of public money? I am—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to make a judgment on such matters. I imagine that it may have been because
    "The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the special attention of the House to the above Instrument".

Civil Servants (Disinformation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
10.27 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I wish to draw the attention of the House to ministerial responsibility for disinformation about Members issued by civil servants with official authority and to urge the House to look at the constitutional issues of ministerial responsibility and the rights of Parliament which are raised by a number of cases of alleged disinformation against Members.
I shall not deal with the dismissal of Colin Wallace, which is a matter for the Calcutt inquiry, or with some of the other associated issues, such as the Kincora boys home or security policy in Northern Ireland. The issue I am raising is not a party matter. What has happened has been a problem under all Governments, and my concern goes back to 1978, when I tabled a motion for the Labour party on the conduct of the security services while still a Secretary of State. The Members about whom disinformation has been spread come from all parties, and I have notified all those Members to whom I might refer.
We must accept that tonight we are considering a House of Commons matter. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has no departmental responsibility for the issues that I am raising, so he is in some difficulty. I have written a note to him saying that I do not expect a reply from him tonight. I ask only that he ensures that my remarks are considered by his colleagues.
I shall start with what the House already knows. I assure hon. Members that there will be no new revelations from me. Our task is to link what we know and to understand its importance. Disinformation has been authorised and used in the past and, to that extent, what Cohn Wallace and Peter Wright have said has been confirmed. I refer to the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on 1 February:
"There were practices of using disinformation to malign organisations and individuals." —[Official Report, 1 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 455.]
The right hon. Gentleman admitted that, and also said that the Army was entitled to use disinformation. There is no argument about that.
Secondly, it has also been established that the Prime Minister, by writing letters, has made it clear that she could not discover the truth from the security services for which she is uniquely responsible to the House of Commons.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was severally Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and then Home Secretary, in one or two moving and impressive interventions, made it clear that he did not know what was happening when he was responsible, under a previous Government, in either capacity.
We know that the allegations by Wallace have, in the past, been denied and that the reaction to the allegations by Peter Wright was not to have them investigated but, at great public expense, to try to have them banned so that the British public could not read them. The Cabinet Secretary was sent to Australia with the rather unfortunate task of having to explain to the court that he was using the truth economically.
862
It is worth considering the basis of and the reasons for the allegations made by the security services. I am not, for the moment, concerned with whether they did so with or without ministerial authority. The real constitutional importance of what they did is that they made their own decision about which individuals and which organisations were the enemy. They decided who the enemy was and then took action to deal with that enemy, whereas in every other aspect of defence policy—and the security services are a part of our defence organisation—the House decides who is the enemy.
The Chief of Staff does not announce that he is going to war with someone because he has decided who that enemy might be. The policy of the security services should be determined by Parliament, not by Ministers without telling Parliament—if that is what they did—or by people lower down the line. We also know that false and damaging allegations were fabricated and distributed about those whom the security services, or Ministers—if they knew—regarded as the enemy.
I shall now cite some examples, and deal first with Colin Wallace. The Minister and I have received 39 pages of forgeries. Indeed, I sent the Speaker a similar package. They were issued on the admission of Colin Wallace, and a large number of Members of Parliament were named in them. I shall mention some to show the legitimate interest of those Members. Harold Wilson, no longer in this House, was described as vulnerable on financial, moral and political grounds; the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on moral and political grounds; Jim Callaghan, then an hon. Member, on financial grounds; the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) on financial and moral grounds; the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on moral grounds; myself on political grounds; my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) on political grounds.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South was to discover a forgery asserting that he was supporting the IRA. My right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and I were alleged to have written a pamphlet about world revolution—not something that could have been written by anyone who understood some of the interesting ideological discussions that go on in the party of which I am proud to be a member. But one of the characteristics of the intelligence service is its very low level of knowledge.
I remember once being refused permission by one of my civil servants to visit the Socialist International—a very distinguished body, including Willy Brandt, Francois Mitterrand and so on—because he had muddled it up with the International Socialists, an indication of the enormously low intellectual level of the intelligence service. I myself am associated, according to Colin Wallace in his earlier work, with Czech intelligence.
It is only fair to say about Colin Wallace himself—I quote from Paul Foot's book—that in 1975, 1 think, he saw a man from MI5. 1 quote Colin Wallace as quoted in Paul Foot's book:
"I told him I didn't want to go any further with Clockwork Orange"—
the disinformation campaign—
"without political clearance. He seemed surprised and suggested that I already had clearance. But I made it clear I wanted some proof that the whole programme had been seen and approved by a minister. Of course I was pretty certain

863
that [the man] couldn't get ministerial clearance for Clockwork Orange. I was pretty sure that no minister had a clue that Clockwork Orange even existed. But I knew I couldn't go on doing it, and I wanted to get on with other things.
That is at least a comment by a man of some integrity who wishes not to be used by anybody to blacken the reputation of hon. Members.
We come to Peter Wright—and we must never forget that he is still on the agenda, never discussed by the House. I quote from page 369 of his hook Spycatcher where he wrote about the year 1974, at about the same time that this was happening:
"The plan was simple. In the run-up to the election which, given the level of instability in Parliament, must be due within a matter of months, MI5 would arrange for selective details of the intelligence about leading Labour Party figures, but especially Wilson, to be leaked to sympathetic pressmen. Using our contacts in the press and among union officials, word of the material contained in MI5 files, and the fact that Wilson was considered a security risk would be passed around…'We'll have him out' said one of [the MI5 people], 'this time we'll have him out.' Shortly afterwards Wilson resigned. As we always used to say in the office 'Politicians may come and go, but the security service goes on
Then we have the case of Cathy Massiter—and I have notified the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary of State for Defence at the time. She worked in MI5. She alleged that she was told to intercept the telephone calls at the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and she felt that that was wrong. Hon. Members, some of whom. including myself, are members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the former Labour leader, the present Labour leader—would feel that for the security services—or, in this case, as far as I can make out, the Secretary of State—to determine that CND, for example, was an enemy and could be treated like any other foreign enemy or terrorist, was well beyond what the House could accept.
Clive Ponting and Sarah Tisdall, who suffered imprisonment, were principled civil servants who were not prepared to do what they were asked to do.
Ministers' response to all this has been to tighten security. We now have new legislation which speaks of a lifelong obligation of confidentiality to the Crown. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to destabilise Harold Wilson? No. Did Harold Wilson, the Queen's first Minister, tell Peter Wright to destabilise him? No. The Crown is a constitutional fiction, a state within a state, concreted in the heart of Government, surrounded with barbed wire, which has its own policies, its own enemies, and its own methods of dealing with them, and which is to be protected for ever.
I said that this was not a party matter, and it is not. Look at what Harold Wilson said about the security services. I shall quote from the shortest chapter of his book "The Government of Britain"—a chapter that is 210 words long:
"The Prime Minister has the ultimate responsibility for the National Security Authority at home and abroad…The Prime Minister is occasionally questioned on matters arising out of his responsibilities. His answers may be regarded as uniformly uninformative."
That is the view that Harold Wilson took as Prime Minister, and the problem has been faced with all Prime Ministers.
How did the present Prime Minister react to questions of security that arose when Callaghan was Prime Minister and she was Leader of the Opposition? I remembered the occasion very well, and I looked it up. On 28 July 1977, there were rumours going round that Harold Wilson had
864
been telling the press that he thought that he had been bugged at No. 10. So what did the Leader of the Opposition do? At 1.30 pm, after the all-night debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, she rose and said to Mr. Godman Irvine, who was in the Chair:
"May I seek your guidance? Has any request been received from the Government to make a statement on the matters which have previously been raised concerning allegations made against the security services? We think it vital that such a statement should be made before the Summer Recess, for the confidence and morale of the security services".
The very Prime Minister who will not make a statement demanded a statement when she was Leader of the Opposition. She went on to say something which, I must admit, is more consistent:
"It would appear that there may, on the face of it, be some infringements of the Official Secrets Act"—[Official Report, 28 July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 1372–3.] —
and that the Attorney-General should make a statement.She wanted Wilson to be prosecuted for saying what had happened to him when he was Prime Minister.
We should contrast all this with the American system. There are parallels. If the House will bear with me. I shall quote Senator Mondale, who later became Vice-President and who was a member of the Church committee at the time of Watergate. In a lecture at Kansas City law school in 1976, he said:
"Our investigation showed that many of the abuses of the Nixon years could be traced back to the attitudes of the Cold War. Fastened on us was the fearful myth that America could not be defended without more deceit and illegality than democracy permits—and without more cynicism and hypocrisy than our beliefs would allow. For years, the assumption was used to justify actions abroad—from subversion of freely elected governments, to assassination attempts aimed at foreign leaders. And inevitably, in Macbeth's words, the invention returned home 'to plague the inventor'."
Remember: those are not the words of a left-wing critic of the British MI5.
Mondale went on—this is perhaps more relevant still—
"Perhaps the most terrifying abuse of power during this period was what the FBI called Cointelpro. That ugly little acronym would have been at home in any police state in Eastern Europe or Latin America. It meant illegal investigations targeted against American law abiding individuals in groups—and punishment administered not by a court but by a government agency—through harassment and tactics designed to break up marriages, destroy reputations, terminate employment, sabotage political campaigns and even encourage violent retribution by falsely and anonymously labelling intended victims as Government informers."
There are lessons to be learned from the way in which the United States has handled this question. When I think that Colonel Oliver North was brought to the Congress and investigated and that ex-President Reagan has now received a subpoena to appear before a court and to have his papers examined at the trial of Admiral Poindexter, and when I contrast that with the charges made by Wallace, Wright and others, I do not think that we come out well.
The House itself must inquire into this matter, either by the privilege route or in some other way. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are examining the matter and that therefore it is not for me to put a point to you at this stage. However, I want to examine privilege as a route open to the House.
First, when an hon. Member is elected Speaker of this House, he goes to another place and, by humble petition to Her Majesty, asks for all the

865
"ancient and undoubted rights and privileges of the Commons."
Erskine May says:
"any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."
The Bill of Rights, which we celebrated 18 months ago, says, in its first provision:
"the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie without Consent of Parlyament is illegall".
What could have been a greater suspension of rights than suspension of the right and obligation to tell the truth and to tell Parliament about matters that concerned it? One might look also at Sessional Orders and so on, but I will not go into that.
But I will make one comparison with this case. On 29 June 1938, Duncan Sandys complained that the War Office, as it then was, or the Army, had summoned him to give evidence at a court of inquiry. He raised the matter in the House on that date, and immediately the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, moved the motion to refer it to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee met that very afternoon under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. Mr. Attlee was there, as was Mr. Churchill. The Committee met the next day also, and on that following day—the 30th—it reported that a breach of privilege had occurred. The report was published a day after that. Contrast that with what has happened now. We do not have to look across the Atlantic for precedents, for we are being invited to betray our own duty to our electors.
The other way to look into the matter is by Select Committee, but that could be done only by decision of the House, with all-party support. I have argued that this is not a matter that, in the normal sense, lies across party lines, and there is no reason why the House should not for a moment remember that it is a legislative body and not just a gathering of parties clashing about current politics. There are some issues—and this is one of them—in respect of which the legislature has a duty to rise against an Executive that will not allow Members to know what it has done in their name. If we had such a Select Committee or, for that matter, a Privileges Committee, we should want evidence from Wallace and Taylor and Broderick and Wright. We should want to have former Prime Ministers and other Ministers before us so that we might find out what they knew and what they had authorised.
There is another group we should need—the journalists who had been briefed by these men. It should not be forgotten that every bit of disinformation required a journalist to pick it up and distribute it. In the last few days, I have talked to journalists who recall very clearly what Colin Wallace says he did: called them in, told them a bit of truth, and mixed it with malicious gossip, in the hope that they would use it. If their proprietors were so inclined, they had a juicy bit to add to the political prejudice against those they wished to harm. All those against whom the disinformation was circulated should be allowed to come forward.
What we must establish quite clearly is that Ministers are in charge and are answerable; that security policy—that is, who is the enemy—is decided by Parliament, and
866
not by officials; that the security services are there to protect us, and not to control us; that it is the truth, and not lies, that defends democracy—a consideration that we cannot ignore.
The central question facing us today is this: are the Government and their servants answerable to the House of Commons or not—not on the detailed operations, but on the basic principles on which they work? Can the electors, through their Members of Parliament, gain protection from arbitrary acts of state power? Do the elaborate safeguards that Parliament has won for itself from the Crown mean anything at all in Mr. Speaker's plea for privilege? Do the Sessional Orders mean anything, or are they rituals to mislead school children and amuse the tourists?
I say that having been brought up for 40 years to believe in this place. But when we try to test it, it does not actually work. That is what we have got to decide. When the people in eastern Europe and South Africa are struggling for democracy against state power, is our answer to them that Parliament is going to do another cover-up? Is that to be a model for their aspirations?
I cannot recall so basic a constitutional choice as the one that faces the House. I hope that we do not let down the people who elected us to this place to defend their rights.
10.50 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on getting the Adjournment debate and raising this important matter. He has raised a number of serious allegations about the conduct of civil servants, members of the security and intelligence services and others, suggesting that they have been, or may have been, involved in the dissemination of false information about Members of Parliament and, indeed, other elected representatives.
I should like to make it quite clear at the outset that it is no part of the official duties of any Crown servant to disseminate false information about Members of Parliament in order to denigrate them in any way. This Government and, I am sure, previous Governments, as well as Members of both sides of the House, would regard any such action as unacceptable. I believe that it is clearly understood by all Government servants who are well aware of the conduct expected of them. Anyone found to have breached such codes of conduct would face severe disciplinary action and, in appropriate cases, criminal charges.
Let me draw yet again the distinction already clearly drawn. It is clear that there was in the early 1970s some disinformation which sought to denigrate the Provisional IRA by the use of disinformation in a way that would not now be allowed. The Government judge that no useful purpose would be served by an inquiry now into those matters, given that they took place many years ago, under previous Administrations, in a policy framework long since changed, and amid all the operational stresses of the early and peak years of a very difficult emergency. The Government fully accept, however, that disinformation aimed at Ministers or former Ministers would be a different and special matter. But that matter was dealt with

867
by the Prime Minister's 1987 statement; and no new evidence of any substance has emerged since then to put that statement in question.
Mr. Kevin McNamararose—
Mr. Hamilton: I will not give way. I have a number of points to cover. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield talked at great length.
In the exchanges after the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last Thursday, a number of hon. Members indicated that they had documents or other information to support allegations of serious wrongdoing by Government servants. If they consider that they have evidence that demonstrates that Government servants have issued disinformation about. Members of Parliament, I urge them to let me see it. At present, I am aware of no substantive evidence to support allegations of that nature. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he has fresh evidence that documents of this kind did indeed come from Government sources, he had better send it to me to be looked at on its merits.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), whose experience and integrity we all respect, though I have to say to him that I am puzzled by his apparent readiness to assume that the forged 1971 letter, thanking him for a non-existent donation, must have come from a Government source. If he has evidence for that assumption, I hope that he will make it available forthwith. No trace of such a letter has been found in departmental records.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned Mr. Taylor. I am aware of recent newspaper reports that Mr. Taylor would be willing to give evidence in support of allegations that Government servants issued disinformation against Members of Parliament. If Mr. Taylor believes that he has evidence of serious wrongdoing of the kind now in question by Government servants, he had better make it available direct to my Department, as his former employer. But I note that in Mr. Paul Foot's book he is quoted as saying that the contents of the Clockwork Orange file had always been removed before he inspected it. I also note that one of the documents which he is now quoting as claiming to have seen is a letter which the right
868
hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has said was dated 1971. Seeing a copy of such document is one thing; having evidence that the document was produced in Headquarters Northern Ireland is another. In any case the date on that letter is some three years earlier than the date on which Mr. Wallace has said that he began work in Headquarters Northern Ireland on material designed to denigrate Members of Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Broderick, who is reported in Sunday's newspapers to have said that he never saw anything about Clockwork Orange. What he is now reported as knowing relates entirely to the circumstances in which Mr. Wallace left the employment of the Ministry of Defence, and that is a matter bearing upon the inquiry by Mr. Calcutt.
Mr. Wallace has claimed that he was involved in the preparation of a campaign designed to discredit Members of Parliament while he was working for the Army information service in 1974, and that his activities were part of a project called Clockwork Orange. He has stated that initially this was planned as an exercise to undermine the credibility of the Provisional IRA by exposing the personal vulnerabilities of its leaders. The papers that have recently been retrieved confirm that a plan of that name was considered at that time, but never cleared. I must emphasise that that plan related to the Provisional IRA and, most definitely, not to any Members of Parliament.
I should perhaps say a general word about disinformation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence explained to the House last Thursday, there are times when the use of disinformation is necessary for sound security reasons. He gave a personal example. He might also have mentioned the necessity of misleading terrorists to prevent them from committing yet another atrocity.
I see no grounds for denying ourselves that option, and I make no apology to anyone for expressing the view that it is legitimate to attempt, by prudent and proper use of disinformation, to prevent terrorists from murdering and maiming. Indeed, I would hope that, in the context of attempts to prevent terrorist murders—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Parking
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what guidance he issues to Government Departments on the provision of sufficient on-site car parking places for civil servants.

  Mr. Luce
  The provision of on-site car parking places for civil servants is a matter for individual Departments. Central guidance is not issued by my Department.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent representations he has received from the Civil Service trade unions on their wider obligations to the Crown in Parliament.

  Mr. Luce
  In the course of discussions about the revision of the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code to take account of the Official Secrets Act 1989, the unions expressed reservations about the implications of a passage in the revision which follows the note by the former head of the home Civil Service on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers (the Armstrong memorandum) in describing the constitutional position of civil servants in relation to Ministers. This is one of a number of issues to be discussed at a meeting which has been arranged between the Civil Service unions and the head of the home Civil Service.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  COCOM
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the recent Western European Union report on COCOM Doc. 1207.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 15 December to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas).

  Lebanon
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1989, to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North,Official Report, columns 328–29, if he will state what he regards as (a) substantive and (b) non-substantive concessions to the hostage holders in the Lebanon, in the development of policy to seek the release
  534
  of the British hostages; and what non-substantive concessions he is (i) prepared to make or (ii) has already made.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our policy of no substantive concessions precludes the payment of ransoms. It does not, of course, preclude contacts with those Governments, organisations or individuals who may be able to help secure the release of the British hostages. It would not be helpful to elaborate further.

  Extradition
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will now obtain and place in the Library copies of all communications between the then high commissioner in Malaysia, Mr. D. H. Gilmore CMG, and the then governor of Hong Kong, the late Sir Edward Youde, which occurred between 30 November 1985 and 1 June 1987, on the subject of the request, from the then governor of Hong Kong, to his Department for the extradition of Lorrain Osman and Dato Hashim Shamsuddin;

  (2) if he will now place in the Library all communications between the then high commissioner in Malaysia, Mr. D. H. Gilmore CMG and his Department which occurred between 30 November 1985 and 1 June 1987, on the subject of the request, from the then governor of Hong Kong, the late Sir Edward Youde, to his Department for the extradition of Lorrain Osman and Dato Hashim Shamsuddin;

  (3) if he will now place in the Library all communications between the then governor of Hong Kong, the late Sir Edward Youde, and his Department which occurred between 30 November 1985 and 1 June 1987, on the subject of the request from the then governor of Hong Kong to his Department for the extradition of Lorrain Osman and Dato Hashim Shamsuddin.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This matter remains sub judice. I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 1 December at column 456.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when a decision is going to be taken on the application made by Mr. Liaqat Hussain, who was born in 1965, Ref: IMM/98735, to the post in Islamabad to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and when Mr. Hussain was interviewed at the post;

  (2) if he has arranged for the post in Islamabad to issue a passport to Mr. Abdul Waheed, whose date of birth is 5 February 1964, Ref: IMM/87378; TH/4335/89; when instructions were issued to the post to issue entry clearance to Mr. Waheed; and when Mr. Waheed is going to be issued with a visa to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the questions to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive replies from the unit as soon as possible.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to ensure that the issue of human rights violations by China is raised at the forthcoming United Nations human rights commission.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  With our European Community partners, we have already raised our concerns about human rights violations in China at the current session of the commission on human rights. On 2 February, the presidency statement at the commission called upon the Chinese authorities to guarantee full respect of the human rights of their citizens throughout China including Tibet.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government will ratify the second optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Successive British Governments have taken the view that the decision whether or not to abolish or to reintroduce the death penalty should be left to individual Members of Parliament voting according to their own judgment. Accordingly, we will not take on an international obligation on the abolition of the death penalty.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any recent meeting with the director of the programme for promoting nuclear non-proliferation; and whether he plans any future meetings with this organisation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]: No. However officials of this Department have had meetings with this organisation.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to honour the United Nations resolution of 1947 guaranteeing a plebiscite on self-determination for the people of Kashmir.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]None. Britain voted in favour of the various UN resolutions on Kashmir. Much has happened since, including the 1972 Simla agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. We believe that the status of Kashmir can be settled only by agreement between the two sides.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement he has with Commonwealth nations in trying to resolve the demands for self-determination for the people of Kashmir.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]We have received representations both from India and from Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir. We believe the status of Kashmir can be settled only by agreement between those two Commonwealth nations.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India regarding the growing violence in Kashmir.
  536
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]In our recent contacts with both the Indian and Pakistan Governments we have noted that the situation in Kashmir is obviously of great concern to both, and expressed the hope that they would be able to reach a peaceful settlement of the issues involved.

THE ARTS

  Art Education Institutes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many art education institutes he has visited in the last three years; if he will list them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  In the last three years, I have visited the Portsmouth college of art and design and the Bournemouth and Poole college of art and design. I have been impressed by the work I have seen there and at other art education institutes which I have visited previously. Such institutes are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  British Library
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland of 25 January,Official Report, column 797, what consideration he gave to the letter dated 10 July 1989 from the director of the oriental collections and the India Office library and records, in reaching his decision to support the conclusions of the British Library Board.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]: I noted the contents of the letter from the director responsible for the British Library's oriental collections and India Office library and records. Decisions on the best use of the British Library's resources and the location of its collections are, however, for the British Library Board to make. I am confident that in making these decisions the board takes account of the advice of the library's managers.

  National Heritage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the annual grant to the national heritage memorial fund from his office 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. Luce
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]: The grants which my office has provided, or plans to provide, to the national heritage memorial fund are as follows:

  £ million

  1984–85

  4·0

  1985–86

  1·5

  1986–87

  1·5

  1987–88

  1·5

  1988–89

  1·5

  1989–90

  1·5

  1990–91

  1·5

  1991–92

  1·5

  1992–93

  1·5

  The Department of the Environment provides an equal amount of grant in aid to the fund.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Payroll Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the implementation of a payroll tax similar to that in the United States of America.

  Mr. Lilley
  The hon. Member would not expect me to comment on tax proposals in the run-up to the Budget.

  Age Allowance
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of the net changes in income to the Exchequer which will follow the introduction of the new rules whereby the age allowance and income limit applies to each person rather than as an allowance to a couple.

  Mr. Lilley
  When independent taxation is introduced in 1990–91, the cost of giving separate age-related allowances and aged income limits to individuals, rather than giving one such allowance to appropriate married couples, is estimated to be about £25 million in a full year. Aged couples will also gain about £340 million from disaggregating the wife's category B pension and wife's investment income. These estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Beer
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost advantage per 50 cl can over beer brewed in the United Kingdom of beer brewed in(a) France, (b) the Netherlands and (c) West Germany provided by their present excise duty and value added tax rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  Rates of excise duties and VAT on a 50 cl can of beer in France, the Netherlands, West Germany and the United Kingdom, according to the latest information available, are set out in the table:

  Country

  Excise duty (pence per 50 cl can)

  VAT rate

  Percentage

  France

  ½ p

  18·6

  Netherlands

  6 p

  18·5

  West Germany

  3 p

  14

  United Kingdom

  17 p

  15

  Rates of exchange as at 31 January 1990.

  Source: EC Excise Duty Tables.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether consideration is being given to the harmonisation of beer excise duties with other European Community countries before 1992.

  Mr. Ryder
  In January 1990, the Commission put forward revised excise duty rate proposals for alcoholic products. To date, there has been no discussion of these revised proposals. The United Kingdom view remains that centrally determined approximation of excise duty rates is neither necessary nor appropriate to achieve the single market. As changes to excise duties law require unanimous agreement, the United Kingdom's position is safeguarded.

  Share Ownership
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the numbers of new shareholders since 1979; and whether he intends to promote measures to further encourage the growth of individual share ownership.

  Mr. Lilley
  The joint Treasury and stock exchange survey carried out in January and February 1989 estimated that approximately 9 million people own shares directly, 20 per cent. of the adult population—a threefold increase since 1979.

  Privatisation
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates privatisation revenue will be in 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest estimate of net privatisation proceeds in 1989–90 is £4¼ billion.

  New Coins
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to introduce new 1p and 2p coins.

  Mr. Ryder
  Increases in the world price of base and non-ferrous metals have meant that the cost of producing United Kingdom 1p and 2p coins in bronze now exceeds their face value. The Master of the Mint is therefore considering proposals to replace the present bronze coins with coins made of copper-plated steel. The plated coins would have the same weight and diameter as the existing bronze coins but would be very slightly thicker. The new coins would circulate with the existing bronze coins.

  The Royal Mint has begun preliminary discussions with representatives of the vending industry, who are the only people likely to be affected by the difference in specification. The Mint will now contact representatives of the blind and disabled and other interested parties, mainly to reassure them that there would be no noticeable change in the size or feel of the coins.

  No final decision has been made about when the coins would be introduced. It would not be before 1991 at the earliest. If and when a date is set, it will be announced in
  the usual way.

  Debt
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of(a) individual, (b) corporate and (c) public debt in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1989; and what he estimates is the proportion of this debt which accrued to the Treasury in the form of revenues.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]The table gives the net financial wealth of the personal and company sectors, and net public sector debt:

  £ billion

  end–1979

  end–1988

  Personal sector

  170·6

  578·9

  Company sector

  -87·7

  -357·3

  Public sector

  -102·1

  -158·5

  Notes:—Positive numbers indicate net wealth, negative numbers indicate net debt.

  For public sector, figures refer to end of March 1980 and end of March 1989.
  539
  It is not clear what relationship between sectoral debt and Government revenues the hon. Member has in mind in the second part of the question.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Strangeways Prison
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what purpose is served by the chimney integral to Strangeways prison, Manchester; and whether he will consider its demolition.

  Mr. Mellor
  The chimney at Strangeways prison, Manchester is a ventilation shaft forming an integral part of the plenum system which provides heating and ventilation to the cell blocks. It has been working satisfactorily for over 100 years and seems likely to continue to do so for some time to come. There are no plans to demolish it and I would see no point in considering such an action unless its condition should deteriorate to such a degree that it becomes a safety hazard.

  Horse Race Totalisator Board
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the transfer of the Horse Race Totalisator Board to the private sector.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Advice from Lloyds merchant bank on the feasibility of privatising the Tote remains under consideration and the Government's conclusions will be made known in due course.

  Hoax Alarm Calls
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firemen in the past 10 years have been killed; and how many have been injured whilst responding to hoax alarm telephone calls.

  Mr. John Patten
  Between 1980 and 1989 fire brigades in England and Wales reported that 12 firefighters had been killed in the course of duty as a result of road traffic accidents. It is not possible to determine from the information available whether or not any of the firefighters were killed while responding to hoax alarm calls. Comparable information on the number of firefighters injured is not available.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the general public in the past 10 years have been killed; and how many have been injured by vehicles of the emergency services whilst responding to hoax alarm telephone calls.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not held centrally.

  Guildford Pub Bombings
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Surrey as to the measures being taken to apprehend the persons guilty of the Guildford pub bombings.
  540
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) on 4 December 1989 at column 75.

  Drugs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the agenda for the international conference to be held this year in London concerning drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am placing in the Library a paper giving details including the outline programme of the world ministerial summit to reduce the demand for drugs and to combat the cocaine threat.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been invited to the international conference on drugs to be held in London this year.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 25 January 1990 at column 870.

  Shotguns
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shotguns and semiautomatic shotguns that would become section 1 firearms from 1 February have been proofed by either the London or Birmingham proof houses, following their conversion under the terms of the Firearms Act 1988, to remain as shotguns.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the masters of the proof houses that approximately 33,000 adapted smooth-bore guns have been certified by the proof houses so as to enable the guns to be retained on a shotgun certificate; 21,000 of these were dealt with in Birmingham and the remainder in London.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many applications have been made to each chief constable of police for shotguns which have now under the terms of the Firearms Act 1988 become section 1 firearms to be held on firearms certificates; and how many such applications have been(a) granted, (b) refused and (c) withdrawn by the applicant.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that all chief officers of police have notified all shotgun certificate holders individually prior to 1 February 1990 of the changes in the law under the Firearms Act 1988 with regard to semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns that they have converted and reproofed or the owner makes an application for the shotgun to be held on a firearms certificate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In January Home Office officials invited the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to remind certificate holders about the end of 31 January 1990 of the seven- month transitional period in which to
  541
  comply with the new controls. I understand that ACPO has advised chief officers accordingly. But it is for certificate holders to ensure their compliance with the law.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) further to his answer of 31 January to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Gwent as to the date on which the shotgun, the property of Mr. G. W. Phillips, was taken by PC 853 Fairie; on what date it was entered by PC Fairie into police station records; and on what date it was transferred to Newport police headquarters and by whom;

  (2) further to his reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, on 31 January, if he will call for and place in the Library a report from the chief constable of Gwent covering the report compiled by PC 853 Fairie into the shotgun renewal application of Mr. G. W. Phillips;

  (3) if, further to his answer of 31 January to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, he will call for a report from the chief constable of Gwent as to which police officer laid evidence before the office manager, firearms administration, that the shotgun, the property of Mr. G. W. Phillips, was given into the possession of Mr. P. Stokes;

  (4) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Gwent as to who was requested by Mr. G. W. Phillips to hand the shotgun belonging to Mr. Phillips to Mr. P. Stokes;

  (5) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Gwent as to which police officers, by rank, countersigned the report of PC 853 Fairie into the renewal application by Mr. G. W. Phillips for his shotgun certificate; and on which dates in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The local administration of the firearms licensing system is a matter for the chief officer of police concerned.

  Mrs. Jan Begum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish that part of the letter written by an official of his Department to the hon. Member for Bradford, West on 25 August 1988, concerning the application of Mrs. Jan Begum, Ref: H197247/4, for British citizenship, that relates to the timing of the decision on her application; and when he intends to let Mrs. Begum know whether she has been granted British citizenship.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not the normal practice to publish correspondence with individual applicants. However, I can confirm that the letter of 25 August 1988 recorded progress, and our expectation that it would not take long to reach a decision. The facts of the case were not entirely straightforward, and action was delayed for a time while the fee was awaited. Some further delay was caused because action on the case was overlooked, and I am sorry that that happened. But the application was approved in August 1989 and the applicant was invited to take the oath of allegiance. As soon as she has done so, the certificate can be issued.

  London Underground (Smoking)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amount of each fine levied for smoking on the Tube since smoking was banned after the King's Cross fire; and if he will make a statement.
  542
  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: This information is not collected centrally but statistics available from the British Transport police, L division are given in the table:

  Persons1 fined for smoking on the Underground following the King's Cross fire on 18 November 1987 by the amount of fine imposed

  Fine imposed £

  1988

  1989

  <5

  —

  2

  10

  8

  2

  15

  2

  1

  20

  10

  7

  25

  7

  5

  30

  5

  3

  40

  2

  3

  45

  —

  1

  50

  5

  14

  75

  1

  —

  100

  1

  2

  <200

  —

  1

  1 Includes persons prosecuted for other offences at the same court appearance.

PRIME MINISTER

  United States of America
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to the United States of America.

  The Prime Minister
  I plan to attend the economic summit in Houston from 9 to 11 July.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment she has made of the effects of the Government's policies on the level of interest rates.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy objective is to bring inflation down. The level of interest rates is set to achieve this.

  European Community (Expansion)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have recently participated in discussions with other European Community states concerning the extension of membership of the European Community to include Scandinavian, central and east European nations; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There have been no recent substantive discussions among member states on this matter. The Community will need to look comprehensively at the implications of further accessions in due course. We agree with the general view within the Community that—until at least 1993—the emphasis must be on consolidation, not enlargement, and completion of the single market.

  Finchley
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Finchley.

  The Prime Minister
  As the Member for Finchley I hold regular constituency surgeries and deal with the many representations that are made.

  Literacy
  Mr. Boswell
  Q.224 To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received relating to standards of literacy.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government regularly receive correspondence about the standards of written and spoken English. It is important continually to seek to raise the standards of literacy.

  English is a core subject in the national curriculum. Attainment targets and performances of study for five and seven-year-old children were introduced in September 1989. The requirements for older children will be introduced in stages between now and September 1992. Assessment at regular intervals will mean that children with literacy problems will be identified at an early stage and can be given the necessary help.

  The Government have given priority to the literacy needs of adults. They have provided grants of £3 million this year to the adult literacy and basic skills unit. In addition, local education authorities are being assisted through education support grants to provide open learning centres, and the training of tutors of adult literacy and basic skills has been designated a national priority area under the LEA training grants scheme.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister to which Commonwealth countries the United Kingdom Government have made representations of concern about the abuse of human rights since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Where Commonwealth countries' practice on human rights has given cause for concern, we have made representations as necessary. These representations are sometimes more productive if undertaken without publicity. It would not, therefore, be helpful to list the countries concerned.

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the reforms which her Government have introduced in the conveyancing of homes since 1979; and which other areas are currently under consideration for such further reforms.

  The Prime Minister
  The following measures designed to improve the conveyancing process have been introduced by the Government since 1979:(1) the Administration of Justice Act 1985 which established licensed conveyancers; (2) the Building Societies Act 1986 which provided for the conveyancing of property by financial institutions.

  The Courts and Legal Services Bill currently being considered in another place includes provision for authorised conveyancing practitioners. The conveyancing standing committee at the Law Commission has published guides as to improvements in conveyancing practice on the following matters:
  (1) Pre-Contract Deposits; (2) Preliminary Inquiries; (3) House selling the Scottish way for England and Wales; (4) Local Authority Enquiries; (5) Conveyancing Claims; (6) Avoiding Completion Delays; (7) the operation of the Caveat Emptor rule.

  The Government have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to review estate agency practices. They have also asked that draft legislation should be prepared at the Law Commission to give effect to a commonhold scheme.

  Downing Street
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many injuries have occurred in Downing street due to(a) road traffic accidents, (b) pedestrians tripping over uneven paving slabs and (c) other causes for each of the past 10 years; what compensation the victims received; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware there have been no road traffic accidents in Downing street. The responsibility for compensating individuals in the event of tripping over uneven paving slabs rests with Westminster city council.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how often the front of 10 Downing street is(a) painted and (b) cleaned; whether the work is contracted out; what is the cost to public funds; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no set frequency for the external painting of No. 10 Downing street. The windows were last painted in 1984 and the front door in 1988. The brickwork of the Downing street elevation is stained black and was last restained in 1962.

  External decorating work is undertaken by contractors. The cost of repainting the external woodwork of Nos. 10, 11, and 12 Downing street was £16,000 in 1984.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the postmen who deliver mail to 10 Downing street have to(a) hold a pass and (b) be accompanied by a police officer; and how many postal deliveries 10 Downing street receives each day; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. 10 receives the normal number of postal deliveries. As regards the other parts of the hon. Member's question it is not the practice to comment on security matters of this kind.

  Petitions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy with regard to the disposal of items such as flowers, clothing and footwear handed in to her at 10 Downing street on the occasion of a right hon. or hon. Member presenting a petition on behalf of constituents.

  The Prime Minister
  Such goods are normally dealt with in accordance with the request, if any, which accompanies the petition.

  Chancellor Kohl
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet the Chancellor of West Germany; and what matters she will discuss.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to meet Chancellor Kohl before long. As is usual, there will be a wide range of issues to discuss including developments in eastern Europe, East-West relations, and European Community matters.

  Engagements
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.
  545
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a reception to commemorate the 150th anniversary of New Zealand's founding treaty.

WALES

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish rent arrears for each of the district councils and boroughs of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Rent arrears information in respect of 1988–89 for each local authority district in Wales is given in the table. The figures indicate both current and former tenants' arrears and are taken from returns supplied by local authorities to the Department.

  Local Authority

  Rent Arrears 1988–89 (£)

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  128,200

  Alyn and Deeside District Council

  106,400

  Arfon Borough Council

  130,000

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  154,820

  Brecknock Borough Council

  69,767

  Cardiff City Council

  732,889

  Carmarthen District Council

  107,929

  Ceredigion District Council

  105,000

  Colwyn Borough Council

  134,730

  Cynon Valley Borough Council

  217,720

  Delyn Borough Council

  130,284

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  110,242

  Dwyfor District Council

  14,120

  Glyndwr District Council

  217,598

  Islwyn Borough Council

  69,980

  Llanelli Borough Council

  275,236

  Lliw Valley Borough Council

  201,312

  Meirionydd District Council

  45,966

  Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council

  137,251

  Monmouth Borough Council

  116,077

  Montgomery District Council

  102,771

  Neath Borough Council

  190,809

  Newport Borough Council

  510,187

  Ogwr Borough Council

  1,158,015

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  149,590

  Preseli District Council

  232,600

  Radnor District Council

  21,000

  Rhondda Borough Council

  179,640

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  61,435

  Rhymney Valley District Council

  226,367

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  79,500

  Swansea City Council

  679,184

  Taff-Ely Borough Council

  333,620

  Torfaen Borough Council

  403,696

  Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council

  131,200

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  485,049

  Ynys Mon Borough Council

  144,170

  546
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance he plans for the housing authorities of Wales concerning rent arrears.

  Mr. Grist
  Rent arrears is a housing management issue and I look to councils to resolve it. I stand ready to consider any realistic proposals that the Council of Welsh Districts (CWD) cares to put to me to promulgate good practice.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the spending levels for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 for(a) the average of all Welsh county councils and (b) South Glamorgan council in cash and percentage terms.

  Mr. Grist
  Information for 1988–89 and 1989–90 is given in the table. Figures are not yet available for 1990–91.

  1988–89 revised estimate £000

  1989–90 budget £000

  Percentage increase

  Average of Welsh County Councils

  180,163

  193,506

  7·4

  South Glamorgan County Council

  191,174

  207,952

  8·8

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the spending levels for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 for(a) the average of all Welsh district councils and (b) Cardiff council in cash and percentage levels.

  Mr. Grist
  Information for 1988–89 and 1989–90 is given in the table. Figures are not yet available for 1990–91.

  1988–89 revised estimate £000

  1989–90 budget £000

  Percentage increase

  Average of Welsh District Councils

  7,297

  8,147

  11·6

  Cardiff City Council

  25,473

  30,501

  19·7

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

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 3.11 in "Welsh Agricultural Statistics No. 11, 1989", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Rural Affairs Unit
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up a rural affairs unit in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Effective arrangements already exist within the Department to ensure the co-ordination and implementation of the various policies which affect rural
  547
  areas of Wales. A close relationship is also maintained with other agencies and organisations having responsibilities and an interest in rural affairs.

  Mid-Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes to enhance economic activity in mid-Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Development Board for Rural Wales has the principal responsibility for the economic regeneration of mid-Wales. Its recently announced "Strategy for the 1990s" sets out its future intentions for the area. Apart from the Development Board for Rural Wales, other sources of economic and industrial assistance are available to mid-Wales through the Wales tourist board, the Welsh Development Agency and central Government.

  Upland Farmers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes to take concerning the difficulties encountered by upland farmers in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have just announced an 11 per cent. increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowance for hardy breed sheep in the severely disadvantaged area, bringing the rate up to £7·50. For the future, we shall seek to ensure that upland farmers in Wales are able to compete effectively and on equal terms with the rest of Europe.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the farmers' unions in Wales to discuss the needs of the upland farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets representatives from the Welsh farming unions to discuss a wide range of issues affecting agriculture in Wales.

  Rented Property
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes concerning the need for homes to rent in rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We are encouraging local authorities to make the best use of their housing stock through good housing management practice. Authorities are also encouraged to work together with housing associations to provide homes for rent in rural Wales. Furthermore the rural initiative launched by Housing for Wales last year has brought forward a number of pilot projects involving the provision of rented homes. Two research projects have been commissioned by Housing for Wales to establish the overall level of housing need in rural areas which will assist the accurate targeting of its resources. In addition, Housing for Wales has been asked to maintain significant investment in rural housing at around £25 million in the context of its overall programme.

  Cardiff-Wales Airport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy initiative he proposes to enhance the status of Cardiff-Wales airport.
  548
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Wherever possible, the Government encourage growth at regional airports, and they are already leading the way in liberalising European air fares and services. However, future development of Cardiff-Wales Airport Ltd. will depend on the expansion of services which is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the airlines.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet local government leaders and management of Cardiff-Wales airport to discuss future development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already arranged to meet the airport director in early March for discussions on the prospects for new services at Cardiff-Wales airport.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Cardiff Wales airport.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many official visits he has made to Cardiff-Wales airport.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  None. However my right hon. Friend is a frequent user.

  Welsh Water plc
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that Welsh Water plc meets its obligations to improve the quality and dependability of supply of water.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have recently established a drinking water inspectorate, details of which were given by the Minister for Housing and Planning in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on 21 December 1989. The Director General of Water Services also has duties under the Water Act 1989 to ensure that the functions of a water undertaker are properly carried out.

  Patients (Referrals)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how the cost of treatment for a patient referred to a treatment centre by a general practitioner will be met; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will make a statement as to why general practitioners will not be allowed to refer patients directly to treatment centres of the practitioner's choice.

  Mr. Grist
  Treatment centres are intended to help directly people who have been waiting too long for treatment for key disabling conditions. They will therefore offer those patients who have already been waiting over four months for the relevant operations the choice of earlier treatment at the centres. Treatment for all patients at the centres will be funded centrally. GPs will continue to be able to refer new patients direct to hospitals of their choice, which will continue to treat the majority of patients.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement as to which authority is to be responsible for the after care of a patient following treatment at a centre outside the patient's health authority.
  549
  Mr. Grist
  The consultant team at the centre will be responsible for post-operative care and follow-up, including any complications arising from the surgical procedure. However, with the agreement of the referring consultant, consideration may be given to conducting follow-up nearer the patient's home. The place of treatment for late surgical complications after completion of in-patient treatment should be decided by the patient and GP after consultation with the operating surgeon.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to set up a special fund to help meet the travel expenses of patients referred to treatment centres outside their own health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The cost of travel where medically indicated to and from the orthopaedic treatment centre at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, will be shared between the referring authorities and the centre itself; £20,000 a year of central funds are being set aside for this purpose. The arrangements for the other centres are currently under discussion. Patients on low incomes can obtain help with their travelling expenses to and from the centres from the Department of Social Security as with any other hospital service.

  Health Care
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to ensure a comprehensive range of health care services within each health authority in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill place a clear duty on district health authorities to secure an adequate range, quality and depth of services for their local populations. As now, some services will need to be provided to patients outside their district health authority of residence. In determining arrangements for the treatment of their residents, health authorities will wish to reconcile the need for service, quality of access to service, and value for money in the mode of provision.

  Polluted Beaches
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a list of the 10 most polluted beaches in Wales and give details of the most recent measurements of pollution on each of them.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available. However, the results of the 1989 survey of bathing water quality in England and Wales announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 25 January showed that 83 per cent. of the 48 Welsh waters listed under the terms of the EC bathing water directive complied with its bacteriological standards. Details have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Polluted Rivers
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a list of the 20 most polluted rivers in Wales and give details of the most recent measurements of pollution in each of them.
  550
  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available. However, the 1985 river water quality survey showed that 93 per cent. of all river lengths surveyed in Wales were in either class 1 or 2.

  Firearms Range, Cardiff
  Mr William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the date on which the safety certificate for the indoor firearms range at the national sports centre, Cardiff was first granted; and for which classes and calibres of firearms and muzzle energies it presently holds such a safety certificate.

  Mr. Grist
  The information provided by the Sports Council for Wales is as follows:Original certificate issued 18 July 1972 for the following:

  ·22 calibre rifle

  210 feet per pound muzzle energy

  ·22 calibre pistol

  100 feet per pound muzzle energy

  On 14 May 1984 upgraded to:

  ·380 calibre pistol

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by cost and project, the aid which is currently given to Bangladesh in the form of(a) grant aid and (b) repayable loans.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Under British bilateral aid to Bangladesh all assistance is provided in grant form.

  Capital aid projects funded under the programme at present are:

  Allocation (rounded)

  £ million

  Dhaka Power Phase II A

  11·5

  Dhaka Power Phase III

  58·9

  Second Gas Development Project

  22·9

  Bridging and Institutional Development

  11·8

  Tea Rehabilitation

  20·0

  Second Deep Tubewells Project

  17·9

  Second Rural Development Project

  6·6

  Third Health and Population Project

  8·0

  Technical Education Project

  1·4

  We also support a large number of technical co-operation activities, including training in Bangladesh and in the United Kingdom, consultants, advisers, aid personnel and equipment. In 1988–89 some £14 million was spent on these activities.

  In addition, Britain provides commodity aid for goods, equipment and spare parts to maintain and improve existing production capacity in Bangladesh. A grant for £15 million was signed in February 1989.

  Aid (Disabled People)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to ensure that an appropriate part of the financial aid given to countries is allocated to the needs of disabled people to ensure that they have equal opportunity in the development of their countries.
  551
  Mrs. Chalker
  In many developing countries the needs of disabled people are handled by the non-governmental sector. The ODA provides grants to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations operating in developing countries for the partial funding of their projects, which are usually carried out by local organisations. Within our Government-to-Government country aid programmes we are ready to respond positively to requests from recipient Governments to provide assistance to help them meet the needs of disabled people.

  Details of projects funded by the ODA, both directly and through non-governmental organisations, which focus on the needs of disabled people, were contained in the answer the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 6 December at columns 231-32.

EMPLOYMENT

  Tourism
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest available figures of the balance of payments deficit on the travel and tourism account; and what is his projection for the year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  During the first 10 months of the year, overseas residents spent an estimated £5,820 million in the United Kingdom while United Kingdom residents spent £8,370 million abroad. Estimates for the whole of 1989 will be published on 7 March.

  In-Training on YTS CITB schemes, as at 31 December 1989

  Occupational Group (TOC)

  White

  Black/Afro/Caribbean

  Indian sub-continent

  None of these

  Prefer not to say

  Total

  A. Administration and Clerical

  159

  —

  3

  1

  —

  163

  D. Selling and Storage

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  K. Construction and Civil Engineering

  27,960

  92

  68

  55

  164

  28,339

  M. Electronic and Electrical Engineering

  7,732

  51

  28

  16

  17

  7,844

  N. Mechanical Engineering

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  P. Motor Vehicle Repair and Maintenance

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Q. Non-Metal Processing

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  R. Printing

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  S. Clothing and Textiles

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  35,869

  143

  99

  72

  181

  36,364

  Training
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to relaunch Employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has no such plans.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all training enterprises and schemes which have been introduced since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The training programmes and schemes introduced by my Department since 1979 are as follows:

  Training Opportunities Scheme.

  Open Tech.

  National Priority Skills Scheme.

  Youth Training Scheme.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative.

  Local Collaborative Projects.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of YTS trainees in training broken down by ethnic background and the number of contracted places in(a) London and (b) Birmingham/Solihull for February 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of YTS trainees in training by ethnic background for the two areas requested on 28 February 1989 is as follows:

  Ethnic group

  London

  Birmingham/Solihull

  White

  16,630

  9,972

  Black/African Caribbean descent

  2,501

  573

  Indian sub-continent descent

  1,229

  830

  Chinese Vietnamese/mixed race

  579

  119

  Prefers not to say

  578

  63

  The number of contracted places for February 1989 are:

  Number

  London

  31,311

  Birmingham

  18,041

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the construction ITB YTS scheme showing the ethnic background and number of trainees in each of the occupational categories concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the number in training in YTS CITB schemes as at 31 December 1989 and gives the ethnic breakdown within each occupational area:

  Non Advanced Further Education/Work Related Further Education.

  Job Training Scheme.

  Training For Enterprise.

  Local Grants to Employers.

  Wider Opportunities Training Programme.

  New Job Training Scheme.

  Enterprise in Higher Education and other HE projects.

  Employment Training.

  Business Growth Training.

  Compacts.

  The Open College.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if employment training is to become a designated scheme under the Employment Act 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has no plans for employment training to be designated under the Employment Act 1988.

  Union Mergers
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to how many union mergers have taken place in the years since 1980, and as to what the sizes of the unions merged were.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There were 115 mergers involving a total of 2·7 million union members in the period 1980 to 1988; annual data are given in the table. Separate statistics on the sizes of individual unions involved in these mergers are not readily available.

  Year

  Number of mergers

  Number of members involved

  1980

  13

  113,235

  1981

  4

  8,617

  1982

  12

  1,455,207

  1983

  9

  65,320

  1984

  18

  142,302

  1985

  11

  73,526

  1986

  32

  50,530

  1987

  5

  125,200

  1988

  11

  673,300

  Total

  115

  2,707,237

  Labour Costs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of hourly manufacturing labour costs, indexed with the United Kingdom as 100, in West Germany, France, the United States of America and Japan in 1979 and 1989, and what is his estimate of an index of labour costs in the same countries in the same years, using an index of manufacturing productivity calculated on the same basis.

  Mr. Nicholls
  International comparisons of hourly manufacturing labour costs (excluding recruitment and training costs and costs of facilities and services) are made periodically by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics. Available data from this source are as follows:

  Index UK=100

  1980

  1988

  United Kingdom

  100

  100

  West Germany

  166

  172

  France

  120

  124

  United States

  132

  133

  Japan

  76

  121

  Manufacturing productivity data on the same basis are not available.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors were employed for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of factory inspectors employed in the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1980 is as follows (1 April figures):

  Year

  Number of factory inspectors

  1980

  759·0

  1981

  735·0

  1982

  678·0

  554

  Year

  Number of factory inspectors

  1983

  654·0

  1984

  627·0

  1985

  652·0

  1986

  623·0

  1987

  621·5

  1988

  592·5

  1989

  604·0

  11990

  624·5

  11 January.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources his Department has given for the implementation of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  These regulations will be enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and local authorities as part of their continuing programme of visits to premises. Responsibility for implementation of the regulations rests with industry. The HSE has been working closely with industry organisations and employers to encourage them to develop guidance for their members as well as promoting the regulations by a variety of means including national and trade advertising and the distribution of introductory leaflets.

  Training Agents
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training agents have been appointed in the Wakefield and Leeds area; which individuals or organisations are involved as training agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are four training agents in the Leeds and Wakefield area currently participating in ET.

  These are:

  Wakefield Training Agent

  Leeds City Council

  Shapman Ltd.

  The Leeds Chamber Training Agent.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the expenditure on Action for Jobs, in addition to expenditure on television advertising and printed material in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 was spent through the Central Office of Information:

  Mr. Eggar
  In addition to Action For Jobs expenditure on television advertising and printed material, the following amounts were spent through the Central Office of Information:

  1985–86 Nil

  1986–87 £1·7 million

  1987–88 £2·4 million.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all the changes in employment law since May 1979 which have affected women's rights to maternity leave.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Employment Act 1980 made the following changes:
  555
  Initial notification of intention to return after confinement must now be in writing and should include the expected week of confinement or, if confinement has occurred, the actual date.
  An employer has the right, not earlier than 49 days after the beginning of the expected week of confinement (or the notified date of confinement) to make a written request for confirmation in writing that the woman intends to return. If she does not comply within 14 days of receiving the request (or if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as is reasonably practicable) she will lose the right to return.
  Final notification of the intended date of return must now be made in writing at least 21 days (formerly 7 days) beforehand.
  A woman who has been prevented from returning because of an interruption to work must resume work not later than 28 days (formerly 14 days) after the interruption is over.
  The right to complain to an industrial tribunal if an employer does not reinstate her to her old job does not apply where it is not reasonably practicable for an employer to reinstate the woman in her original job (for reasons other than redundancy) and where an offer of employment is unreasonably refused.
  Employers with fewer than 6 employees no longer have to re-employ a woman if it is not reasonably practicable either to reinstate her in her old job or to offer her suitable alternative employment.

SCOTLAND

  Skye Toll Bridge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the planning procedure which he intends to follow in relation to the proposed Skye toll bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As indicated in "New Roads by New Means" (Cmnd. 698), it is proposed to introduce new legislation to provide revised procedures for the authorisation of privately financed roads. These would amend and supplement the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Alternatively, as with the M25 Dartford crossing, a project specific Bill may be judged the most suitable vehicle to progress Skye bridge timeously. In either case, the statutory procedures adopted will safeguard the environment and uphold the rights of individuals and local councils affected by such privately funded infrastructure developments.

  School Boards
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, in respect of each Scottish education authority area, the applications received by him to have the obligation to have a school board waived, in terms of

  Table 1

  Capital expenditure on roads and parking 1990–91

  Highway Authority

  Bid

  Sum of TSG ACG and SCA

  Column 2 as percentage of Column 1

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  City of London

  2·152

  0·562

  26·1

  Barking and Dagenham

  8·285

  5·370

  64·8

  Barnet

  2·551

  0·732

  28·7

  Bexley

  7·681

  5·003

  65·1

  Brent

  3·352

  0·743

  22·2

  Bromley

  10·281

  8·162

  79·4

  Camden

  3·494

  1·284

  36·7

  Croydon

  7·199

  2·778

  38·6

  Ealing

  16·092

  7·731

  48·0

  Enfield

  14·198

  11·790

  83·0

  556
  section 20 of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988; and if he will indicate those cases in which he has granted such a waiver.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: My right hon. and learned Friend has received one such application, which he has granted in respect of Graemsay primary school in Orkney.

  Sand-eels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will decide whether the ban on commercial sand-eel fishing in the Shetlands will be extended a further season.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]: A consultation paper setting out the scientific advice on sand-eel stocks and a range of possible management options for the fishery has been issued by the Department. Responses from several bodies are still awaited.

TRANSPORT

  Highway Authorities
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report for each highway authority in England(a) their bid for annual capital guidelines and transport supplementary grant for 1990–91, (b) the allocation announced in each case, (c) the allocation as a percentage of bid in each case and (d) the percentage of each authority's transport supplementary grant allocation attributable to minor works.

  Mr. Atkins
  "Capital allocations" under the present local government finance system are not equivalent to "annual capital guidelines" (ACGs) under the new one for 1990–91 onwards. For example, capital allocations included transport supplementary grant (TSG) but ACGs do not. Furthermore, local authorities are also given "supplementary credit approvals" (SCAs) in addition to ACGs to help them finance capital expenditure not met by TSG.

  Table 1 shows each local highway authority's bid for capital expenditure on roads and parking, the sum of its TSG, ACG and SCA allocations, and the percentage that the total allocations are of the bids.

  Table 2 shows authorities' bids and allocations for accepted expenditure, the percentage that allocations are of bids, and the percentage of accepted expenditure that is for minor works.
  557

  Highway Authority

  Bid

  Sum of TSG ACG and SCA

  Column 2 as percentage of Column 1

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Greenwich

  3·792

  1·168

  30·8

  Hackney

  3·662

  0·977

  26·7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6·009

  1·451

  24·1

  Haringey

  8·702

  6·162

  70·8

  Harrow

  12·380

  8·882

  71·7

  Havering

  2·222

  0·783

  35·2

  Hillingdon

  17·543

  9·956

  56·8

  Hounslow

  2·309

  1·098

  47·6

  Islington

  2·294

  0·717

  31·3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·671

  ·979

  58·6

  Kingston upon Thames

  5·275

  2·447

  46·4

  Lambeth

  0·990

  0·434

  43·8

  Lewisham

  7·777

  5·068

  65·2

  Merton

  20·813

  15·532

  74·6

  Newham

  6·774

  4·660

  68·8

  Redbridge

  2·729

  0·732

  26·8

  Richmond upon Thames

  2·741

  0·805

  29·4

  Southwark

  4·327

  1·950

  45·1

  Sutton

  8·514

  3·758

  44·1

  Tower Hamlets

  5·161

  1·098

  21·3

  Waltham Forest

  2·931

  0·782

  26·7

  Wandsworth

  13·202

  4·440

  33·6

  Westminster

  17·314

  4·956

  28·6

  Bolton

  5·444

  3·287

  60·4

  Bury

  3·145

  2·164

  68·8

  Manchester

  20·586

  13·201

  64·1

  Oldham

  10·823

  3·057

  28·2

  Rochdale

  5·208

  1·225

  26·0

  Salford

  14·364

  6·430

  44·8

  Stockport

  2·738

  1·417

  51·8

  Tameside

  6·461

  1·841

  28·5

  Trafford

  6·357

  1·955

  30·8

  Wigan

  6·939

  2·937

  42·3

  Knowsley

  3·427

  2·293

  6·9

  Liverpool

  8·250

  3·256

  39·5

  St· Helens

  6·727

  6·288

  93·5

  Sefton

  3·196

  1·340

  41·9

  Wirral

  4·391

  1·969

  44·8

  Barnsley

  6·260

  3·848

  61·5

  Doncaster

  5·221

  2·604

  49·9

  Rotherham

  4·614

  3·151

  68·3

  Sheffield

  16·932

  12·007

  70·9

  Gateshead

  6·274

  2·963

  44·1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9·803

  2·982

  30·4

  North Tyneside

  2·420

  0·695

  28·7

  South Tyneside

  4·260

  1·942

  45·6

  Sunderland

  8·120

  3·880

  47·8

  Birmingham

  27·312

  18·450

  67·6

  Coventry

  7·242

  3·836

  53·0

  Dudley

  8·462

  2·847

  33·6

  Sandwell

  6·326

  3·424

  54·1

  Solihull

  4·117

  1·753

  42·6

  Walsall

  9·242

  5·934

  64·2

  Wolverhampton

  10·028

  6·701

  66·8

  Bradford

  11·364

  6·709

  59·0

  Calderdale

  3·018

  1·524

  50·5

  Kirklees

  5·210

  0·795

  15·3

  Leeds

  10·125

  6·596

  65·1

  Wakefield

  9·507

  2·614

  27·5

  Avon

  18·900

  14·435

  76·4

  Bedfordshire

  9·008

  6·382

  70·8

  Berkshire

  24·775

  7·844

  31·7

  Buckinghamshire

  7·383

  3·240

  43·9

  Cambridgeshire

  15·976

  6·248

  39·1

  Cheshire

  19·586

  10·328

  52·7

  Cleveland

  15·159

  11·793

  77·8

  Cornwall

  14·531

  7·467

  51·4

  Cumbria

  8·345

  5·652

  67·7

  Derbyshire

  13·801

  4·935

  35·8

  Devon

  26·802

  11·423

  42·6

  Dorset

  14·000

  7·410

  52·9

  Durham

  7·658

  5·342

  69·8

  East Sussex

  16·048

  8·813

  54·9

  Essex

  31·913

  18·592

  58·3

  Gloucestershire

  10·835

  5·148

  47·5

  558 559

  Highway Authority

  Bid

  Sum of TSG ACG and SCA

  Column 2 as percentage of Column 1

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Hampshire

  22·456

  17·823

  79·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  7·883

  3·923

  49·8

  Hertfordshire

  9·910

  7·725

  78·0

  Humberside

  16·365

  12·989

  79·4

  Isle of Wight

  4·808

  1·616

  33·6

  Kent

  56·010

  31·272

  55·8

  Lancashire

  38·014

  29·369

  77·3

  Leicestershire

  14·303

  7·605

  53·2

  Lincolnshire

  7·535

  4·055

  53·8

  Norfolk

  20·279

  12·990

  64·1

  Northamptonshire

  16·050

  7·964

  49·6

  Northumberland

  6·570

  3·746

  57·0

  North Yorkshire

  15·041

  8·353

  55·5

  Nottinghamshire

  15·359

  5·900

  38·4

  Oxfordshire

  17·627

  7·814

  44·3

  Shropshire

  11·791

  5·106

  43·3

  Somerset

  14·748

  7·642

  51·8

  Staffordshire

  15·000

  7·303

  48·7

  Suffolk

  21·545

  8·969

  41·6

  Surrey

  24·643

  15·435

  62·6

  Warwickshire

  9·463

  2·932

  31·0

  West Sussex

  16·426

  10·577

  64·4

  Wiltshire

  13·214

  7·699

  58·3

  Table 2

  Transport supplementary grant for local roads 1990–91

  Highway authority

  Bid for accepted expenditure

  Gross accepted expenditure

  Gross accepted expenditure as percentage of bid

  Accepted expenditure for minor works as percentage of column 2

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  per cent.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  City of London

  0·935

  0·202

  21·6

  100·0

  Barking and Dagenham

  6·220

  5·296

  85·1

  5·6

  Barnet

  0·651

  0·322

  49·5

  100·0

  Bexley

  4·578

  4·568

  99·8

  6·1

  Brent

  1·502

  0·364

  24·2

  100·0

  Bromley

  8·652

  7·668

  88·6

  7·5

  Camden

  1·070

  0·378

  35·3

  100·0

  Croydon

  4·375

  1·776

  40·6

  40·9

  Ealing

  8·572

  7·408

  86·4

  7·6

  Enfield

  13·460

  13·562

  100·8

  2·6

  Greenwich

  3·785

  1·388

  36·7

  20·2

  Hackney

  2·072

  0·372

  18·0

  100·0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1·605

  0·296

  18·4

  100·0

  Haringey

  7·447

  5·792

  77·8

  4·0

  Harrow

  11·315

  10·728

  94·8

  3·1

  Havering

  0·327

  0·430

  131·5

  100·0

  Hillingdon

  13·915

  12·584

  90·4

  5·5

  Hounslow

  1·950

  0·958

  49·1

  41·6

  Islington

  0·939

  0·336

  35·8

  100·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·558

  1·220

  78·3

  24·4

  Kingston upon Thames

  3·112

  2·882

  92·6

  10·8

  Lambeth

  0·369

  0·308

  83·5

  100·0

  Lewisham

  5·699

  5·174

  90·8

  6·6

  Merton

  20·172

  14·550

  72·1

  2·4

  Newham

  5·353

  5·132

  95·9

  7·4

  Redbridge

  2·091

  0·268

  12·8

  100·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·770

  0·344

  44·7

  100·0

  Southwark

  3·427

  2·798

  81·6

  14·2

  Sutton

  3·154

  1·880

  59·6

  25·7

  Tower Hamlets

  1·655

  0·182

  11·0

  100·0

  Waltham Forest

  2·086

  0·562

  26·9

  91·1

  Wandsworth

  8·852

  3·122

  35·3

  29·5

  Westminster

  4·317

  1·384

  32·1

  33·4

  Bolton

  3·404

  2·984

  87·7

  6·3

  Bury

  2·065

  1·698

  822

  15·2

  Manchester

  16·208

  10·732

  66·2

  8·4

  Oldham

  7·618

  2·378

  31·2

  11·7

  Rochdale

  1·205

  0·378

  31·4

  100·0

  Salford

  11·928

  5·096

  42·7

  7·8

  Stockport

  1·251

  0·966

  77·2

  12·0

  Tameside

  1·814

  1·106

  61·0

  18·4

  560 561

  Highway authority

  Bid for accepted expenditure

  Gross accepted expenditure

  Gross accepted expenditure as percentage of bid

  Accepted expenditure for minor works as percentage of column 2

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  per cent.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  Trafford

  4·051

  0·778

  19·2

  35·7

  Wigan

  6·559

  2·944

  44·9

  1·3

  Knowsley

  2·684

  1·792

  66·8

  20·0

  Liverpool

  7·600

  3·300

  43·4

  6·1

  St· Helens

  6·277

  5·882

  93·7

  4·2

  Sefton

  1·823

  0·738

  40·5

  23·6

  Wirral

  3·916

  2·250

  57·5

  9·1

  Barnsley

  4·360

  3·348

  76·8

  11·2

  Doncaster

  2·819

  1·864

  66·1

  l7·1

  Rotherham

  3·426

  2·486

  72·6

  10·3

  Sheffield

  13·073

  11·192

  85·6

  5·3

  Gateshead

  5·651

  2·094

  37·1

  14·5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7·275

  3·824

  52·6

  10·0

  North Tyneside

  2·190

  0·306

  14·0

  100·0

  South Tyneside

  2·365

  1·450

  61·3

  13·8

  Sunderland

  7·305

  2·544

  34·8

  11·6

  Birmingham

  23·727

  15·790

  66·5

  4·5

  Coventry

  4·802

  2·948

  61·4

  12·8

  Dudley

  4·706

  1·150

  24·4

  20·1

  Sandwell

  5·533

  2·104

  38·0

  12·0

  Solihull

  1·038

  0·856

  82·5

  10·0

  Walsall

  6·053

  5·502

  90·9

  2·1

  Wolverhampton

  7·395

  6·334

  85·7

  3·6

  Bradford

  9·319

  6·884

  73·9

  7·0

  Calderdale

  0·894

  0·192

  21·5

  100·0

  Kirklees

  1·079

  0·270

  25·0

  88·9

  Leeds

  6·847

  6·064

  88·6

  7·3

  Wakefield

  4·320

  0·314

  7·3

  100·0

  Avon

  17·015

  13·428

  78·9

  2·1

  Bedfordshire

  8·328

  5·182

  62·2

  7·3

  Berkshire

  12·485

  4·614

  37·0

  9·4

  Buckinghamshire

  2·498

  2·306

  92·3

  5·4

  Cambridgeshire

  7·883

  4·414

  56·0

  13·9

  Cheshire

  10·572

  8·558

  80·9

  3·4

  Cleveland

  12·276

  11·084

  90·3

  2·2

  Cornwall

  9·440

  5·944

  63·0

  4·4

  Cumbria

  5·849

  4·652

  79·5

  6·7

  Derbyshire

  4·388

  1·864

  42·5

  16·7

  Devon

  18·284

  6·788

  37·1

  4·3

  Dorset

  12·380

  5·732

  46·3

  7·3

  Durham

  6·678

  4·820

  72·2

  10·6

  East Sussex

  9·175

  6·242

  68·0

  5·5

  Essex

  17·241

  13·672

  79·3

  3·3

  Gloucestershire

  9·383

  3·866

  41·2

  4·0

  Hampshire

  16·627

  15278

  91·9

  1·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  5·335

  2·926

  54·6

  9·2

  Hertfordshire

  8·600

  8·400

  97·7

  3·6

  Humberside

  12·972

  10·624

  81·9

  4· 1

  Isle of Wight

  3·950

  0·828

  21·0

  100·0

  Kent

  46·565

  30·450

  65·4

  1·3

  Lancashire

  32·236

  25·896

  80·3

  2·5

  Leicestershire

  9·431

  6·094

  64·6

  6·5

  Lincolnshire

  4·338

  3·148

  72·6

  12·2

  Norfolk

  14·090

  11·346

  80·5

  2·6

  Northamptonshire

  12·523

  6·998

  55·9

  9·0

  Northumberland

  4·739

  3·062

  64·6

  6·9

  North Yorkshire

  10·927

  7·688

  70·4

  5·0

  Nottinghamshire

  4·859

  3·828

  78·8

  12·9

  Oxfordshire

  10·243

  5·124

  50·0

  0·9

  Shropshire

  6·576

  3·182

  48·4

  4·6

  Somerset

  9·618

  6·812

  70·8

  1·7

  Staffordshire

  10·045

  5·826

  58·0

  6·7

  Suffolk

  12·908

  6·374

  49·4

  3·6

  Surrey

  19·438

  13·560

  69·8

  5·2

  Warwickshire

  5·187

  2·284

  44·0

  20·4

  West Sussex

  10·723

  9·564

  89·2

  2·6

  Wiltshire

  11·461

  6·320

  55·1

  2·7

  Notes

  1. Column 2 does not take into account any adjustments arising from underspends on accepted expenditure in previous years.

  2. Transport Supplementary Grant is paid at the rate of 50 per cent. of net accepted expenditure (ie after adjustment).

  562

  563

  3. For London, accepted expenditure for Transport Supplementary Grant includes each Borough's share of expenditure on the London-wide Urban Traffic Control system managed by the City of London on behalf of the Secretary of State which is not included in boroughs' bids but is included in their gross accepted expenditure. This is why for some London authorities their accepted expenditure is greater than their bid.

  London Assessment Studies
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will permit his Department's consultants to release detailed drawings to the public showing how specific properties will be affected by the proposals in stage 2B of the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since the consultants' preliminary drawings are only illustrative it would be inappropriate and misleading to release them to the public. Much more detailed design work will be necessary on any options which may be taken forward before it will be known how specific properties will be affected.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish in full the results of the public consultation on stage 2B of the London assessment studies and "Traffic in London".

  Mr. Atkins
  We have not yet decided in what form the results should be published.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will extend the time period given for public consultation over the London road assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  No.

  M1 (Lighting)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when motorway lighting will be installed on the M1 from Watford Gap to its junction with the M6.

  Mr. Atkins
  Motorway lighting is at present being installed from Watford Gap (junction 17) to Crick (junction 18) and will be completed by the end of this month. Further extension from Crick to the M6 junction (junction 19) is planned and should go ahead during the 1990–91 financial year.

  Roads (Sterilised Land)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate of land sterilised for other uses by the construction of(a) new two-lane highways, (b) new four-lane highways and (c) new six-lane highways measured in terms of land sterilised per 1,000 m of new road construction.

  Mr. Atkins
  The amount of land taken for road scheme varies according to topography, structures and the amount of landscape treatment. In terms of standard carriageway widths, the land take is as follows:

  Standard

  Width

  Area per 1000 metres

  metres

  (in hectares)

  Motorway

  Dual 4 lane

  =50

  5·0

  Dual 3 lane

  =43

  4·3

  Dual 2 lane

  =35

  3·5

  All-purpose

  Dual 2 lane1

  =38

  3·8

  564

  Standard

  Width

  Area per 1000 metres

  metres

  (in hectares)

  Wide single

  =26

  2·6

  Single

  =23

  2·3

  1 Includes allowance for footpaths.

  When the expanded roads programme is complete, the trunk road network in England will cover an area of 3,836ha, 0·29 per cent. of the total land area.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider the use of the Greenham Common airfield for civilian aircraft following the closure by the United States Airforce of its base there.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are prepared to look sympathetically at applications for civil use of Ministry of Defence airfields, where such use is compatible with their operational role. I understand that RAF Greenham Common will remain available to the United States Airforce as a standby operating base for the foreseeable future.

  Jubilee Line
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the developers' financial contribution to the extension of the Jubilee line in today's prices; and over what period it is due to be paid;

  (2) what is the formulation of the agreement between the developers and the Department of Transport over contributions towards the construction of the Jubilee line extension; and if it is available in written form.

  Mr. Portillo
  In my right hon. Friend's answer of 16 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)Official Report column 398, he said:
  "The Jubilee extension will cost about £1 billion in today's prices to which developers over time will be making a cash contribution of over £400 million".

  Of that sum just over £100 million will be paid within the next three years, with the balance to be paid in the years following the opening of the line, which is as yet an indeterminate date. The full total of contributions is not yet known as negotiations with some developers remain to be concluded.

  The understandings to this effect, reached in recent months between the Department and developers, remain to be executed as legal agreements between LRT and those developers, and contain commercially confidential material.

  London Docklands Railway
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the resignation of the manager of the docklands light railway; and when he expects a permanent replacement to be appointed.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is not an appointment made by the Secretary of State. It is a matter entirely for the board of London Regional Transport.

  Road Closure, Poplar
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in connection with the proposed road closure at the junction of Lanrick road and East India Dock road in Poplar, east London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No proposal has been made to close Lanrick road at its junction with East India Dock road. Representations have been received about the local authority's suggested closure of Lanrick road at its junction with Portree road. These were from the deputy mayor of the London borough of Tower Hamlets, the chief executive of the Poplar standing neighbourhood committee, the local Liberal Focus team, enclosing a petition signed by 230 local residents, and two members of the public. The Department is concerned at the safety implications of the proposed closure since it would create a cul-de-sac access to the busy A13 trunk road. My right hon. Friend would consider any formal proposal made by the local highway authority on its merits.

  Cost-benefit Analysis
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to change the method of pricing involved in the cost-benefit analysis, COBA 9, presently used by his Department.

  Mr. Atkins
  All the major economic parameters used in COBA 9 are kept under continuous review and adjustments made periodically. A number of major revisions have been made in the last three years. I have no plans, at present, to make any further revisions.

  Diesel Exhaust Fumes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce measures to reduce levels of hydrocarbons contained within diesel exhaust fumes.

  Mr. Atkins
  Regulations were made last year that will apply to new diesel-engined vehicles from 1 October 1990. They will introduce European Community limits on gaseous emissions, including hydrocarbons. The European Commission is expected to propose much tighter gaseous emission standards for lorries and buses later this year, and to propose limits on particulates. We are pressing the Commission to make its long-overdue proposals as soon as possible.

HEALTH

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private hospitals he has visited in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have not visited any private hospitals in the last 12 months.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 20 December,Official Report, column 333,
  566
  concerning the accountancy firms employed by his Department, if he will indicate (a) the names of the five firms, (b) a list of payments made to each in 1988 and 1989, (c) details of the consultancy contracts given to each firm and (d) who his Department consulted when drawing up the contracts.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information about the five consultancy firms employed by the Department is set out in the tables for both financial years.

  The individual contracts were prepared to accord with the specific requirements of the work undertaken, drawing as necessary on relevant expertise within the Department and in line with the guidance issued by Treasury on employment of external consultants.

  Financial Year 1988–89

  Accountancy Firm and Details of Contract

  Amount paid/contracted

  £

  1. Touche Ross (a) Statutory Audit of NHS

  147,954·70

  Touche Ross (b) Paymaster (Methods in NHS)

  20,000·00

  2. Ernst Young Statutory Audit of NHS

  181,806·30

  3. Coopers Lybrand Deloittes Statutory Audit of NHS

  153,872·90

  4. Price Waterhouse (a) Statutory Audit of NHS

  148,329·43

  Price Waterhouse (b) FMI policy and Financial Management Review of CCETSW1

  60,000·00

  5. Hodgson lmpey Statutory Audit of NHS

  120,555·10

  1 Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  Financial Year 1988–89

  Accountancy Firm and Details of Contract

  Amount paid/contracted

  £

  1. Touche Ross Statutory Audit of NHS

  301,011·52

  2. Ernst Young Statutory Audit of NHS

  204,413·49

  3· Coopers Lybrand Deloittes (a) Statutory Audit of NHS

  221,694·87

  Coopers Lybrand Deloittes (b) Hospital Cost Arrangements, Procedures and Systems

  40,000·00

  4· Price Waterhouse Statutory Audit of NHS

  187,488·29

  5· Hodgson Impey Statutory Audit of NHS

  135,663·45

  NHS Assets (Interest)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what level the interest elements of capital charges are set for National Health Service assets; how this figure is arrived at; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  When capital charging is introduced in April 1991, the interest rate to be applied to the current value of National Health Service assets will be 6 per cent. This rate is based on the discount rate used for the non-trading part of the public sector, as published by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1989.

  Tobacco-related Diseases
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the National Health Service of treating tobacco-related diseases.
  567
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 17 January 1990 at column 277.

  Computer Security
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken, and is taking to improve the security of its computer systems.

  Mr. Freeman
  For unclassifed but sensitive systems the Department of Health is expected to follow Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency guidance covering all aspects of IT security, and the application of this has been tightened recently. CCTA advice is kept under continuous review and is based on analysis of security risks and requirements using structured methods such as CCTA's risk analysis management methodology (CRAMM), which has also been made available commercially.

  More stringent conditions apply to classified systems.

  Temperature Controls (Food)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consideration he has given to representations by manufacturers and retailers of certain foods concerning new temperature controls and the commercial viability of their business;

  (2) what consideration he has given to representations by soft cheese manufacturers suggesting that any new temperature control will prevent the proper maturing of traditional soft cheeses;

  (3) what consideration he has given to stricter food labelling and improved food safety education as alternatives to statutory temperature controls in relation to food hygiene;

  (4) what plans he has to introduce statutory temperature controls regulating the temperatures of certain foods following the consultation document issued by his Department regarding proposed amendments to the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970;

  (5) what response he has had to the consultation document issued by his Department regarding proposed amendments to the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970;

  (6) when he intends to lay before the House amendments to the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970; and to what procedure they will be subject.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over 150 responses have been received to the consultation document, from all interested parties including those with a duty to enforce the regulations (environmental health officers); the retail trade, including representatives of small shopkeepers; delicatessens and market traders; catering organisations; refrigeration interests; delivery concerns; microbiological experts and trade associations, including soft cheese manufacturers, bakers and representatives of dairy and meat manufacturers.

  All the representations received are being given careful consideration in order to bring forward, in the near future, a measure which will balance the protection of the public health with the practicalities of implementation. In accordance with section 120(2) of the Food Act 1984, the regulations when laid will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. Questions of labelling and food
  568
  safety education and, indeed, hygiene in manufacturing processes are essential adjuncts but not alternatives to temperature controls and are being pursued in parallel.

  Compulsory Removal
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will take steps to compile annual statistical returns on the use by local authorities of powers of compulsory removal under the provisions of the National Assistance Act and the Mental Health Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  Certain statistical information is already collected centrally about the use of the compulsory powers provided by the Mental Health Act, including the number of cases of guardianship under sections 7 and 37. (The decision to use these compulsory powers is based on the recommendations of medical practitioners). At present we do not see any need to collect statistics on the use of the compulsory removal power in section 47 of the National Assistance Act.

  Social Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the work of the social services inspectorate during the last available year was concerned with private sector social services provision.

  Mr. Freeman
  Direct concern with private sector social services provision is a matter for local authorities, which are the registering authorities for private residential care homes. The Department's social services inspectorate works with the statutory, private and voluntary sectors in promoting good standards of care. The results of this work are published from time to time. For example, the inspectorate has recently produced a handbook, "Homes Are for Living In", designed to help care home managers and local authority inspectors evaluate the quality of care in residential care homes for elderly people in both local authority and independent sector homes.

  It would not therefore be practicable to apportion the inspectorate's work between sectors.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current state of the actions brought against any of the parties over the cardiac block at Great Ormond Street.

  Mr. Freeman
  All actions brought against parties involved in this case have now been settled.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any of the capital or revenue expenditure increase for 1988–89 over 1982 for the Hospital for Sick Children given in the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's letter of 29 January to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras represents spending on the cardiac block at Great Ormond Street.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities' annual accounts do not separately identify expenditure on specific schemes. The hon. Member may like to consult the authority concerned for this information.

  Acute Hospital Beds
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number of acute hospital beds in the north-west area in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is given in the table:

  Acute hospital beds in the North Western regional health authority

  Year

  1979

  1988–89

  Average daily available beds in the acute sector (including units for the younger disabled)

  13,545

  11,766

  Over the same period numbers of patients treated have increased through improved efficiency in bed usage: in-patient cases treated up 43 per cent., day cases doubled and out-patient cases up 11 per cent.

  Source: SH3 returns—1979.
  KHO3 returns—1988–89.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Soil (Straw Incorporation)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is taking place into the effects of straw incorporation into heavy clay soils.

  Mr. Gummer
  Expenditure by my Department on straw-related research is currently running at £706,000 per annum. Of this, £200,000 is concerned with the effect of straw incorporation into heavy clay soils and involves the following projects:

  Amount of funding in 1989–90

  Location and project

  £000

  ADAS (Sproatley and Rochford)

  50

  Straw incorporation on heavy clay and stony soils

  ADAS (Boxworth EHF and Drayton EHF)

  Effects of straw disposal by soil cultivation methods

  AFRC (IER)

  Studies on cultivation mechanisms for cereals and other crops

  150

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from, and what discussions he has had with, fishing industry representatives regarding prospects for the industry in 1990; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of any such meetings.

  Mr. Curry
  I and my officials are in frequent contact with the various representatives of the fishing industry. We discussed 1990 quotas and their implications in the run-up to the December Fisheries Council. I am working in close consultation with the industry to achieve improvements in our quota management and licensing arrangements and improved technical conservation measures.

  Straw
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received on research into alternative uses for straw.
  570
  Mr. Curry
  We have received the following reports on research into alternative uses for straw:Straw Disposal and Utilisation: A review of Knowledge: 1984; Working Party of the Straw Utilisation Group, MAFF; available in the Library of the House.
  Alternatives to Straw Burning: 1984; S. England, Imperial College London.
  The Effects of Field Burning Restriction, Straw Incorporation and Alternative Uses as Fuel, Fibre on Feed on the Amount of Field Burning and the Supply and Demand for Straw: Divisional Note DN 1307; E. Audsley, Institute of Engineering Research.
  Register of Research and Development on Straw Disposal and Utilisation: 1985; Chief Scientists' Group, MAFF, available in the Library of the House.
  Alternative Methods of Straw Disposal and Utilisation: 1987; National Society for Clean Air, England.
  The Biodegradation of Thatching Straw: 1988; J. J. H. Kirby and A. D. M. Rayner, University of Bath.
  The Economics of Whole Group Crop Cereal Harvesting: Divisional Note DN 1555; 1989; E. Audsley, Institute of Engineering Research.
  Experiments Investigating the Mechanical and Agronomic problems of Incorporating Stripped and Chopped Straw on Clay Soil. 1987–88: Divisional Note DN 1543; 1989, R. E. Cope, Institute of Engineering Research.

  Agricultural Extensification
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Countryside Commission to discuss agricultural extensification.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no present plans to do so, but I am always ready to meet Sir Derek to discuss matters of mutual interest and Ministers from this Department frequently meet Sir Derek at conferences and other functions.

  Haddock
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation his Department intends to offer those English fishermen who have been stopped fishing for North sea haddock because of overfishing by some Scottish FPOs.

  Mr. Curry
  Three Scottish and one English group exceeded their North sea haddock allocations in 1989 causing an early closure of the fishery. Compensation for the groups prejudiced by the early closure will be provided by deductions from the offending groups' 1990 allocations under established rules.

  Anthrax Vaccine
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the stock of anthrax vaccine currently available for use in Wales; what is its location; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no commercial source of supply of anthrax vaccine in the United Kingdom at present. Supplies of vaccine are, however, held at the central veterinary laboratory, Weybridge, for emergency use in the event of an outbreak anywhere in the United Kingdom.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the current level of farm incomes.
  571
  Mr. Curry
  Estimates of farm incomes for 1989 are contained in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1989", published today and available in the Library of the House.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will add the unfrozen 1 per cent. of temporarily suspended milk quota to the national quota for 1989–90, so as to avoid United Kingdom dairy farmers incurring superlevy.

  Mr. Curry
  The decision taken by the Council of Agriculture Ministers was to cancel 1 per cent. out of the 5·5 per cent. of suspended wholesale quota and to add an equivalent quantity of new quota to the Community reserve for distribution by member states to their producers. I am currently considering to which categories of producer this additional 1 per cent. should be allocated in the United Kingdom. While I will try to ensure that quota is distributed before the end of the current quota year I cannot guarantee that this will be achieved, since we need to obtain Commission approval for our plans. We will seek to have the new quotas in place as soon as possible.

  Computer Security
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department has taken and is taking to improve the security of its computer systems.

  Mr. Curry
  For unclassified but sensitive systems Departments are expected to follow the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) guidance covering all aspects of IT security and the application of this has been tightened recently. CCTA advice is kept under continuous review and is based on analysis of security risks and requirements using structured methods such as CCTA's risk analysis and management methodology (CRAMM) which has also been made commercially available.

  More stringent conditions apply to classified systems.

  Command Papers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons he ceased to publish the Command Paper entitled "Annual Review of Agriculture"; what information provided there is not included in the replacement volume entitled "Agriculture in the United Kingdom", published annually; and what matter in that publication could be, or was unsuited to, publication in the former Command Paper.

  Mr. Curry
  The then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 5 December 1988 that the results of the annual review of agriculture would no longer be published as a White Paper. Before our accession to the European Community, the annual review led to the determination of commodity price guarantees for the coming year, which were published as part of the White Paper. Since our accession the emphasis has shifted towards the annual negotiation of agricultural prices in the European Community. The annual review White Paper has effectively become a compendium of agricultural statistics and it was considered that it was no longer appropriate to publish these in a White Paper.
  572
  All the statistical information previously contained in the annual review White Papers is now published annually in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom", together with some additional material, and all the information in the current publication could have been published in the previous format.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to exempt any United Kingdom slaughterhouses from the requirements of EEC export standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The EC Commission envisages that in the single market the rules which at present must be observed by slaughterhouses which engage in intra-Community trade should be extended to all plants throughout the Community, with the possibility of some minor exceptions only. The precise arrangements will depend, however, upon decisions still to be taken by the Council of Ministers.

  I fully support the application of common standards to all plants and firmly believe that if any exceptions are to be permitted, for example for very small businesses trading locally, from some of the detailed structural requirements, they should be kept to a minimum and must not compromise hygiene standards.

  Breeding Ewes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his present estimate of the breeding flock of ewes in England and Wales and the number of ewes on which hill livestock compensatory allowance was(a) claimed and (b) paid in 1989 and 1988.

  Mr. Curry
  We estimate that the total breeding flock is currently 9·3 million ewes in England and 5·1 million ewes in Wales. The number of ewes on which hill livestock compensatory allowances were paid in the last two years is as follows:

  England million

  Wales million

  1988

  3·2

  3·9

  11989

  3·4

  4·0

  1 Provisional.

  Figures on the number of ewes on which HLCAs have been claimed are not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the new projects that he is now funding on bovine spongiform encephalopathy; how much is to be spent on each; where they are to be located; and how many scientists he expects to work on each.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is funding work on BSE to the value of £6·1 million over the years 1990–91 to 1992–93. The projects being funded are:

  (a) epidemiology; £0·6 million; at the Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL);

  (b) clinicopathology; £0·6 million; at the CVL;

  (c) transmission studies; £2·1 million; at the CVL, the Neuropathogenesis Unit (NPU) and the Royal Veterinary College;

  573

  (d) molecular biology; £0·5 million; at the CVL and NPU;

  (e) molecular genetics; £0·5 million; at the CVL and NPU; and

  (f) dam-offspring transmissions; £1·8 million; by the
  CVL at ADAS experimental husbandry farms.

  Further details of these research projects are contained in the interim Tyrrell report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. It is not possible to give a meaningful breakdown of the scientific staff to be engaged on each project.

  Salmon Dealers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions the Government have reached on schemes for the licensing of dealers in salmon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Our proposals for schemes of salmon dealer licensing in Scotland and in England and Wales, set out in the consultation papers issued last July, attracted responses from a wide range of interests. The Government have considered most thoroughly these responses as well as the benefits—in relation to the costs and other burdens involved—which these schemes might bring to continuing efforts to combat poaching.

  As was explained in the consultation paper, the Government's principal objective was to reduce trade in unlawfully taken salmon with as little disruption and control of the lawful trade as practicable. The proposed schemes took account of the previous round of consultations and sought to achieve the best practicable balance between the possible benefits and the regulatory effort and costs which would be required. In particular, it was proposed that the schemes should apply to all salmon and sea trout, including farmed and imported fish, but would exempt final sales of fish by hoteliers, restaurateurs or retailers which they had obtained from licensed dealers.

  Many who favoured salmon dealer licensing in principle argued that the schemes would not be effective with the range of exemptions that we had proposed. Some interests felt that salmon dealer licensing would work effectively only if compulsory carcase tagging (for which there is no legislative provision) was also introduced. On the other hand, fish farmers and many fish traders took the view that the schemes, even with the proposed exemptions, imposed an excessive and inappropriate regulatory burden on trade in legally obtained, and particularly farmed or imported, fish.

  The Government recognise that the proposed exemptions could undermine the potential effectiveness of the scheme. The scheme would have had to apply to dealers importing salmon and, because wild salmon and farmed salmon are virtually indistinguishable except 'under forensic conditions, to farmed salmon, too. It became clear that the proposed scheme would impose a heavy burden on many businesses even with the proposals for exemptions and with record-keeping requirements kept to a minimum. For many traders and markets the record-keeping requirements, in particular, would pose virtually insurmountable difficulties. Accordingly, it has now been decided not to proceed further with these schemes for licensing of dealers.

  The Government, however, view most seriously the problem of salmon poaching, as do district salmon fishery boards in Scotland, the National Rivers Authority in England and Wales and police authorities. Considerable
  574
  use has been made of the additional powers introduced in the Salmon Act 1986 to make it illegal to possess or handle fish which had been obtained in suspicious circumstances. Substantial resources will continue to be committed by district boards and the DAFS fishery protection service in Scotland and the National Rivers Authority in England and Wales to enforcement at the point of capture or attempted capture. Further consideration is being given to a proposed scheme of salmon tagging which the River Tweed commissioners have been drawing up as a measure of local river bank management.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the United Kingdom's manufacturing industry's current capacity for recycling waste paper.

  Mr. Forth
  Although my Department has not attempted a capacity estimate, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that in 1988 United Kingdom paper and board manufacturers consumed a total of 2,416,900 tonnes of waste paper. I understand that last year's total will be even higher.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much waste paper was imported into the United Kingdom in the year 1988-89 and the most recent 12 months for which figures are available, expressed in tonnes and sterling value.

  Mr. Forth
  The figures are as follows:

  United Kingdom imports of waste paper and paperboard1

  Year ended

  Tonnes

  £ thousands

  November 1988

  59,957

  8,970

  November 1989

  76,349

  12,287

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  1 Subgroup 251.1 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Package Travel
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on how the proposed European Community draft directive on package travel will affect current Association of British Travel Agents' codes of conduct.

  Mr. Forth
  An EC directive has yet to be formally adopted, although EC Ministers reached a common position on an amended proposal at the 21–22 December 1989 Council. It is therefore too early to say, in advance of its finally agreed form, how a directive might affect the operation of the ABTA codes of conduct. However, the Department of Trade and Industry will consult widely when considering how to implement any directive which is agreed in this area.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received the report on the prospects for south-west Yorkshire, Strathclyde, Greater Manchester and Merseyside in the European
  575
  Community single market proposed by the Catholic university of Louvain for the regional policy Commission; if he will seek to have the report made available to hon. Members, indicating what policy changes he is considering in his policy in response; and if he will make a statement on the studies he has commissioned on the problem.

  Mr. Redwood
  A draft report has been received from the Commission. Only selected regions within the Community were examined; these included Strathclyde and south Yorkshire. The Commission has not yet published the report, though a copy of the draft was placed in the Library of the House on 1 February. The report is being studied.

  Accountancy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he proposes to make to Sir Leon Brittan, and what evidence he intends to provide, for his consideration of new rules to ensure the quality of audit by accountancy firms throughout Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Textiles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the British Government have put any proposals to the European Community in discussions on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and textiles concerning safeguards, anti-dumping, access to new markets and preventing counterfeiting.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]The Government recognise the need for the return of trade in textiles and clothing to GATT rules to be accompanied by a strengthening of those rules. We have played—and will continue to play—an active part in the development of Community positions: we are keen to see progress in the current GATT negotiations on safeguards, anti-dumping, market access and intellectual property, all matters of great concern to the textile industry. The EC negotiators will have to judge all these matters in the light of progress in the GATT round as a whole.

  Beds
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the British Standards Institute to publish the revised version of BS6807, so enabling bed manufacturers to conform to the requirements of BS7177, with particular regard to the labelling of divan bases.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]BS6807—methods of test for the ignitability of mattresses—was published in 1986. I understand that the revised version which also covers testing of divans and bed bases, is due to be published about the end of March. The proposal to approve BS7177 for the purpose of the general safety duty of the Consumer Protection Act, was and remains limited to domestic mattresses.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many severe disablement allowance claimants are in receipt of(a) income support, (b) housing benefit, (c) another means-tested benefit; and if he will state for each group what his Department's estimate is of the reduction in dependence on income-related benefits resulting from the introduction of the three age-related additions to severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that about 140,000 severe disablement allowance claimants receive income support and that of these, about 50,000 also receive housing benefit. About a further 5,000 severe disablement allowance claimants receive housing benefit but not income support. The number receiving other income-related benefits is negligible. The introduction of an age-related addition for severe disablement allowance will result in a gross increase in expenditure of £110 million in the first full year after implementation (1991–92). The consequential reduction in expenditure on income-related benefits is expected to be £60 million leaving a net expenditure increase of £50 million. Almost all the reduction in income-related benefit expenditure stems from reduced dependence on income support.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the amount of reduction in dependence on income-related benefits by the introduction of the three age-related additions to severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The introduction of an age-related addition for severe disablement allowance will increase gross expenditure by £110 million in the first year after implementation (1991–92). The consequential reduction in income-related benefit expenditure is expected to amount to £60 million, leaving a net increase in expenditure of £50 million as a consequence of this measure.

  Maternity Payments
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the changes in social security law since May 1979 which have affected the entitlement of women to maternity payments, giving his estimate of the numbers affected by each measure and the savings, net of tax and benefits as appropriate, or cost of each measure.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The initial changes to extend eligibility for help with the costs of maternity were as follows:

  November 1980—introduction of single payments for maternity needs through the supplementary benefit scheme

  12 months ending

  Amount paid £ million

  Number of payments made

  December 1981

  2·6

  61,000

  December 1982

  5·4

  101,000

  December 1983

  8·5

  142,000

  December 1984

  12·8

  188,000

  February 1986

  16·9

  188,000

  May 1987

  18·3

  176,000

  Source: Annual Statistical Inquiries.

  Notes:
  577 The data relate to all payments made during the 12 months prior to the inquiry. However, they exclude payments made to claimants who ceased to receive supplementary benefit prior to the date of the inquiry. Therefore the figures quoted may be an undercount of the actual payments made.July 1982—abolition of contribution conditions for £25 maternity grant.Additional beneficiaries: 60,000.Additional cost: £1·5 million per year.The £25 maternity grant had not been increased since 1969. Most families could accommodate the cost of having a baby within their own resources, but for those who did need help £25 was clearly inadequate. The measures introduced in 1987 increased the grant by more than three times to £85 for people on low income.April 1987—abolition of single payments for maternity needs and maternity grant. Replacement by social fund maternity payment of £85.Women not entitled to maternity grant: 700,000.Savings: £17·7 million.

  Awards of social fund maternity payments

  Year

  Amount paid (£ million)

  Number of awards

  1987–88

  15·5

  193,000

  1988–89

  13·9

  162,000

  April 1989–December 1989

  10·9

  126,700

  There was no doubt that the maternity allowance no longer met its objective. The purpose of the allowance has always been to help pregnant working women to give up work in good time before the baby is due in the interest of their own and their baby's health. But the old contribution test meant that many women who had given up work before they became pregnant could still receive the allowance, whereas other women who had worked continuously over the previous 12 months failed to qualify. The new arrangements better targeted payments more
  directly on women with a recent employment record.
  April 1987—introduction of statutory maternity pay (SMP).Beneficiaries: 250,000 per year.Amounts of SMP paid:
  1987–88—£193 million.
  1988–89—£250 million.
  April 1987—introduction of revised contribution conditions for maternity allowance (MA).Beneficiaries: 45,000 per year.Amounts of MA paid:
  1987–88—£51 million.
  1988–89—£27 million.
  It is estimated that the combined effect of the SMP and MA changes was a PSBR saving of £13 million in 1987–88. About 94,000 women with no recent attachment to the employment field no longer qualified for MA; some 20,000 women qualified for MA or SMP for the first time.
  The rates of maternity benefits are subject to review each year. It is proposed for example that from April 1990 maternity allowance will increase from £33·20 to £35·70 per week and that the lower rate of SMP will be uprated in excess of the increase required to keep pace with the movement in prices from £36·25 to £39·25 per week. The social fund maternity payment will also be increased from £85 to £100.

  Maintenance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his statement of 30 January,Official Report, column 197, when the survey of courts and local Department of Social Security offices commissioned by his Department in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the
  578
  Lord Advocate's Department, will be completed, and if it will include data on lone parents not in receipt of state benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The maintenance survey of courts and Department of Social Security local offices will be completed in the summer and I can confirm that it will include data on lone parents not in receipt of state benefits. Further information about the survey is given in my answer yesterday to my hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Rochford (Dr. Clark), for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

ENVIRONMENT

  Storm Damage Assistance
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the city of Plymouth will be eligible for assistance under the Bellwin scheme following severe storm damage on 25 January;

  (2) what practical steps he is taking to advise local authorities of help available in the wake of severe storm damage.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department wrote on 26 January to all local authorities in England to notify them that the Bellwin scheme for special financial assistance to authorities in emergencies had been activated. We have written again today with full details of the operation of the scheme and application forms. A copy of our letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The scheme covers the cost of emergency work resulting from the storms of 16 and 17 December and 25 January, and also the floods in the Severn valley, which began on 29 January. If the city of Plymouth has incurred eligible expenditure above a threshold equivalent to a 0·15p rate, it will qualify for assistance under the scheme.

  Peak and Northern Footpath Society
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Peak and Northern Footpath Society was informed of the inquiry under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, section 210, into the Metropolitan Borough of Bury (Definitive Right of Way No. 3 St. John's Radcliffe) (Public Path Stopping-up) Order 1989; and whether as an objector the society was given sufficient notice.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Notification of the inquiry under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, section 210, into the Metropolitan Borough of Bury (Definitive Right of Way No. 3 St. John's Radcliffe) (Public Path Stopping-up) Order 1989, was sent by the Department on 26 January, four days before the inquiry. It is accepted that as a statutory objector, the Peak and Northern Footpath Society was given insufficient notice, and the inquiry has been adjourned until 21 March.

  Common Land
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to come forward with legislation arising out of the report on common land produced by the working party established by the Countryside Commission.
  579
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27 November 1989 by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), (Official Report, Vol. 162, c. 89).

  Rate Support Grant
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the cost of rate support grant in each of the last five years, and the proportion that rate support grant bears to total local government expenditure in each of those years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information for English authorities is as follows:

  Rate support grant (£ million)

  Total expenditure (£ million)

  Rate support grant as a percentage of total expenditure

  1985–86

  9,153

  21,662

  42·3

  1986–87

  9,051

  23,729

  38·1

  1987–88

  9,467

  25,677

  36·9

  1988–89

  9,687

  27,835

  34·8

  1989–901

  9,577

  29,564

  32·4

  1 Polytechnics were transferred from the local authority sector in April 1989.

  Computer Security
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department has taken and is taking to improve the security of its computer systems.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  For unclassified but sensitive systems, Departments are expected to follow CCTA guidance covering all aspects of IT security, and the application of this has been tightened recently. CCTA advice is kept under continuous review and is based on analysis of security risks and requirements using structured methods such as CCTA's risk analysis and management methodology (CRAMM), which has also been made commercially available.

  EC Water Directive
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to deal with levels of aluminium, nitrate and trihalomethanes above the European Commission's maximum admissible concentrations in Wakefield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has accepted programmes of works drawn up by Yorkshire Water services to achieve compliance with the standards in the EC drinking water directive on aluminium and trihalomethanes. The drinking water inspectorate established last month will monitor progress, and advise my right hon. Friend if any further action is necessary. I am not aware of any evidence that nitrate levels in Wakefield exceed the limit in the directive.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of naturally occurring lead is present within unleaded petrol; and what volume of lead is released into the atmosphere per annum by this means.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, the concentration of lead in unleaded petrol averaged 0.002 grammes per litre, much of which was residual lead being flushed out of the distribution system. Combustion of the unleaded petrol sold in that year resulted in the emission of 0·5 tonnes of lead.

  However, use of this fuel rather than leaded petrol avoided the emission of 35 tonnes. In 1989, we expect that the remarkable increase in the use of unleaded petrol will avoid emissions of around 600 tonnes of lead.

  Yorkshire's Water Environment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the distribution of the NRA report entitled "Guarding Yorkshire's Water Environment"; what was the cost incurred in the production and distribution of this document; and how it was paid for.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am informed by the NRA that its brochure, "Guarding Yorkshire's Water Environment", has been distributed to the media, local Members of Parliament, local authorities, NRA Yorkshire region staff and advisory committees, internal drainage boards and other relevant organisations. It is also made available to members of the public and others seeking information about the role of the NRA.

  A total of 4,000 copies of the brochure were printed at a cost of £11,410, paid for out of the NRA Yorkshire region public relations budget. So far, around 2,000 have been distributed, mainly by post.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the percentage of rate fund revenue account income represented by rate support grant for each charging authority for(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1989–90; and if he will give the equivalent figure for revenue support grant in 1990–91.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, of 28 July 1989,Official Report, columns 1200–2, listing all recent sources of legislation and official guidance on the operation of the community charge, and any further orders and regulations (a) laid before and agreed to by the House, (b) laid before, but not yet agreed to by the House and (c) yet to be laid before the House, giving in each case an outline of the area of implementation affected.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 17 January 1990,Official Report, column 254, which gave details of statutory instruments laid before Parliament up to that date. The other information requested is as follows:
  581
  Statutory Instruments laid before Parliament since 17 January 1990

  The Relevant Population (England) Regulations 1990—23 January 1990.

  The Charging Authorities (Notification of Population to Precepting Authorities) (England) Regulations 1990—23 January 1990.

  The Standard Community Charge (Multipliers) Order—5 February 1990.

  Community Charge (Co-owners) Regulations 1990—5 February 1990.

  Statutory Instruments to be laid before Parliament

  Form of the Community Charge and Rate Bill and accompanying information.

  Exemption for the severely mentally impaired.

  Exemption for 18 and 19 year olds in full-time non-higher education.

  Other funds.

  Levying bodies.

  Payment to and from authorities.

  Practice Notes issued to local authorities

  Collection Fund—August 1989.

  Students and the Community Charge—August 1989.

  Transitional Relief Scheme for England—December 1989.

  Environmental Protection Bill
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations that have been sent a copy of the schedules of prescribed processes and substances under clause 2 of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]The current schedules of processes and substances are working drafts which have been made available to Standing Committee H to inform discussion of part I of the Environmental Protection Bill. They are not the subject of a public consultation exercise, because they do not yet incorporate our proposals for processes to be prescribed on account of special waste arisings, or for waste substances. The drafts will be finalised as soon as possible, and incorporated in a draft of the regulations provided for under clause 2 of the Bill. This will be published for comment as soon as it has been prepared.

  Protected Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to include the brown hare on the wildlife and countryside list of protected species.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]We have no current plans to include the brown hare on the list of species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Its position will be considered further during the Nature Conservancy Council's second quinquennial review of species protection under the 1981 Act, due in late 1991.

  Newsprint
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set out for the most recent year available a table showing for the United Kingdom(a) the total usage of waste newspapers, (b) the volume of imports of newsprint and (c) the volume of imports of newsprint from the United States of America.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows:
  582

  1988 (tonnes)

  (a) Usage of newsprint-grade waste paper by United Kingdom paper and board manufacturers (see note below)

  367,742

  (b) Total imports of newsprint

  1,458,953

  (c) Imports of newsprint from the United States of America (included in (b))

  601

  Note: The above information has been provided by the British Paper & Board Industry Federation. The figure at (a) includes certain periodicals, magazines and telephone directories, as well as newspapers (for which no separate information is available).

  Canals
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Waterways Board to discuss future policy for canals.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 January 1990, c. 742]The Government have today published their response to the Environment Committee's report on the British Waterways Board. The Committee's report appeared at a significant stage in the management of the board's affairs and addressed some key issues which were under consideration by the Government. In our response, which reflects consultation with BWB where findings were directed at the board rather than the Government, we reply to the Committee's detailed recommendations and outline policy developments since the report was published.

NORTHERN IRELAND

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

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]In Northern Ireland, 292 metered water supplies were disconnected during 1989.

  None of these supplies was for use by domestic households only.

  Residents' Parking Permits
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for introducing residents' parking permits in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 2 February 1990]Legislation to permit the introduction of residents' parking schemes does not currently exist in Northern Ireland. Consideration is being given to taking enabling powers.

  Stalker Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the dates of formal requests from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to his Department for an investigation into alleged leaks emanating from the
  583
  Stalker inquiry, specifying whether the requests were made verbally or in writing and his reasons for acceding to or refusing such requests.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]Requests were received both verbally and in writing on 20 June 1986. Further requests were made in writing on 18 July and 20 August 1986 and 1 March 1987 and verbally on 6 April 1987.

  It was decided that in all the circumstances it would not be productive to mount a separate inquiry in an attempt to identify the individual or individuals alleged by Sir John Hermon to be leaking information from the inquiry by the Greater Manchester police into the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

ENERGY

  National Grid Interconnector
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the present capacity of the national grid interconnector between Scotland and England; whether it has been operated at full capacity; and what works would be required to increase the capacity by specified percentages.

  Mr. Baldry
  This link is a matter for the electricity industry, and I will ask the chairman-designate of the National Grid to write to the hon. Member. However, I understand that the firm capacity available for transfers between Scotland and England in normal circumstances is about 850MW, but this depends on system conditions.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1989,Official Report, column 779, he will now publish in the Official Report the dates on which the reports of the constituent bodies of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales have been published in each year since nationalisation, either for existing or predecessor corporations.

  Mr. Baldry
  In recent years these reports have been published in the period late July to early August. In 1989 the Electricity Council and the Central Electricity Generating Board published theirs in December.

  Connah's Quay Power Station
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet a deputation of Alyn and Deeside council concerning the future of the site of Connah's Quay power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions on the future of power station sites are presently a matter for the day-to-day management of the CEGB.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Drugs
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his reply of 23 January,Official Report, columns 594–96, to the hon. Member for Warrington, South, he will describe the arrangements for monitoring actual expenditure and claims by local education authorities for initiatives aimed at combating the misuse of drugs; and if he will publish relevant details of actual expenditure for this purpose in recent years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Expenditure on which local education authorities have claimed grant is as follows:

  Financial year

  Education support grant £ million

  LEA training grants scheme £ million

  1986–87

  1·50

  —

  1987–88

  2·22

  1·28

  1988–89

  12·40

  1·60

  1 Figures for 6 local education authorities still to be submitted.

  Grant is paid on the basis of claims from local education authorities, which must submit an auditor's certificate confirming that the claims have been made in accordance with the requirements of the programme in question.

  Teachers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers have left the profession in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on Monday 8 January, (Official Report, columns 186–87) to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey).

  Special Education
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by education authority(a) the total number of children in receipt of full-time compulsory education, (b) the total number of such children statemented as being in need of special educational provision and (c) the percentage of each authority's total thus statemented.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The total number of pupils in maintained primary, middle, secondary and special schools and the number and percentage with statements of special educational needs in each local education authority in England in January 1989 are given in the table. The number of pupils with statements includes all pupils in maintained special schools.
  585

  Number of pupils in maintained schools and proportion with statements January 1989

  All pupils in maintained schools

  Statemented pupils and special school pupils

  Statemented and special school pupils as a percentage of all pupils

  Barking

  23,307

  272

  1·17

  Barnet

  40,178

  525

  1·31

  Bexley

  31,627

  564

  1·78

  Brent

  32,499

  458

  1·41

  Bromley

  34,948

  844

  2·42

  Croydon

  40,916

  862

  2·11

  Ealing

  37,755

  634

  1·68

  Enfield

  37,894

  480

  1·27

  Haringey

  25,350

  376

  1·48

  Harrow

  26,077

  420

  1·61

  Havering

  35,714

  486

  1·36

  Hillingdon

  32,469

  453

  1·40

  Hounslow

  31,016

  780

  2·51

  Kingston upon Thames

  17,002

  334

  1·96

  Merton

  21,069

  341

  1·62

  Newham

  35,209

  672

  1·91

  Redbridge

  30,363

  459

  1·51

  Richmond upon Thames

  16,813

  284

  1·69

  Sutton

  22,193

  405

  1·82

  Waltham Forest

  30,386

  864

  2·84

  Birmingham

  169,359

  3,670

  2·17

  Coventry

  47,266

  1,078

  2·28

  Dudley

  45,575

  794

  1·74

  Sandwell

  49,191

  994

  2·02

  Solihull

  33,089

  480

  1·45

  Walsall

  46,394

  752

  1·62

  Wolverhampton

  40,597

  761

  1·87

  Knowsley

  27,609

  738

  2·67

  Liverpool

  78,809

  1,842

  2·34

  St. Helens

  30,819

  573

  1·86

  Sefton

  45,377

  699

  1·54

  Wirral

  51,772

  1,236

  2·39

  Bolton

  43,936

  588

  1·34

  Bury

  26,132

  605

  2·32

  Manchester

  69,686

  1,931

  2·77

  Oldham

  38,634

  813

  2·10

  Rochdale

  34,668

  724

  2·09

  Salford

  35,729

  811

  2·27

  Stockport

  42,131

  828

  1·97

  Tameside

  35,900

  662

  1·84

  Trafford

  28,710

  672

  2·34

  Wigan

  51,611

  895

  1·73

  Barnsley

  34,822

  381

  1·09

  Doncaster

  49,095

  854

  1·74

  Rotherham

  42,505

  783

  1·84

  Sheffield

  70,577

  1,430

  2·03

  Bradford

  82,745

  1,278

  1·54

  Calderdale

  31,933

  392

  1·23

  Kirklees

  61,908

  1,183

  1·91

  Leeds

  106,874

  2,525

  2·36

  Wakefield

  49,054

  805

  1·64

  Gateshead

  30,276

  524

  1·73

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  38,844

  938

  2·41

  North Tyneside

  30,841

  595

  1·93

  South Tyneside

  23,942

  461

  1·93

  Sunderland

  49,151

  835

  1·70

  Isles of Scilly

  265

  0

  0·00

  Inner London

  278,279

  8,568

  3·08

  Avon

  129,965

  4,108

  3·16

  Bedfordshire

  83,075

  1,518

  1·83

  Berkshire

  105,319

  1,963

  1·86

  Buckinghamshire

  94,119

  2,499

  2·66

  Cambridgeshire

  96,970

  1,826

  1·88

  Cheshire

  152,211

  3,509

  2·31

  Cleveland

  101,668

  2,334

  2·30

  Cornwall

  68,549

  1,552

  226

  Cumbria

  73,107

  1,410

  1·93

  Derbyshire

  141,040

  3,407

  2·42

  Devon

  132,008

  3,378

  2·56

  Dorset

  82,434

  1,729

  2·10

  Durham

  92,117

  1,479

  l ·61

  East Sussex

  81,859

  1,472

  1·80

  Essex

  222,742

  4,214

  1·89

  586 587

  All pupils in maintained schools

  Statemented pupils and special school pupils

  Statemented and special school pupils as a percentage of all pupils

  Gloucestershire

  74,550

  1,394

  1·87

  Hampshire

  211,733

  5,042

  2·38

  Hereford and Worcester

  95,318

  1,455

  1·53

  Hertfordshire

  147,794

  3,299

  2·23

  Humberside

  138,596

  2,062

  1·49

  Isle of Wight

  17,113

  375

  2·19

  Kent

  217,501

  4,417

  2·03

  Lancashire

  210,702

  4,458

  2·12

  Leicestershire

  138,339

  1,998

  1·44

  Lincolnshire

  83,052

  1,907

  2·30

  Norfolk

  101,465

  2,035

  2·01

  North Yorkshire

  99,190

  1,851

  1·87

  Northamptonshire

  93,894

  1,679

  1·79

  Northumberland

  48,480

  836

  1·72

  Nottinghamshire

  152,683

  2,449

  1·60

  Oxfordshire

  72,212

  940

  1·30

  Shropshire

  61,826

  1,516

  2·45

  Somerset

  62,022

  1,617

  2·61

  Staffordshire

  157,364

  2,572

  1·63

  Suffolk

  89,296

  2,088

  2·34

  Surrey

  120,101

  2,980

  2·48

  Warwickshire

  71,496

  1,674

  2·34

  West Sussex

  89,457

  1,468

  1·64

  Wiltshire

  77,603

  2,201

  2·84

  England

  6,945,860

  142,922

  2·06

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the number and the percentage of pupils suspended(a) in each of the city technology colleges in their first year of operation and (b) in the education authority surrounding each of the city technology colleges.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No pupils have been excluded from Kingshurst (Solihull) or Macmillan (Teesside) city technology colleges, and four pupils (some 2 per cent.) have been temporarily excluded from Djanogly college (Nottingham) in their first year of operation. No pupils have been permanently excluded.

  Over the same period in each case, 126 pupils (some 1 per cent.) in Solihull and 108 (0·3 per cent.) in Cleveland education authorities have been excluded from maintained secondary schools; and 67 (0·1 per cent.) have been permanently excluded in Nottinghamshire education authority. The authority does not keep records of temporary exclusions, since it regards these as simply a form of internal discipline.

  Teachers' Pay
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing the cost of teachers' salaries in each of the last five years, and the percentage increase in each year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Spending by local education authorities in England on school teaching staff, including national insurance and superannuation, is recorded in the annual expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment. Spending in the last five years for which such data are available was as follows:588

  Year

  £ million (Cash)

  Year on year increase per cent.

  1983–84

  4,752

  —

  1984–85

  4,946

  4·1

  1985–86

  5,233

  5·8

  1986–87

  5,765

  10·2

  1987–88

  6,325

  9·7

  The changes in spending reflect changes in the number of teaching staff, as well as in teachers' salaries.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the education capital allocations to each of the Tyne and Wear metropolitan boroughs in 1989–90 and 1990–91, in both cash and current prices; and what was the capital grant to city technology colleges in the Tyne and Wear area, in cash and current prices for the same years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  For 1989–90, local education authorities received capital allocations for education. With the introduction of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Department has issued an annual capital guideline to each local education authority for 1990–91, which is one element in the calculation of each local authority's basic credit approval for 1990–91 announced by the Department of the Environment. Table A shows the figures for the Tyne and Wear area. Table B shows the estimated total capital expenditure for the new build for Tyneside's CTC, which will be divided on a ratio of 80:20, split between the Department and sponsors.
  589

  LEA

  Allocations 1989–90

  Annual Capital Guidelines 1990–91

  Cash

  Current prices(1989–90)

  Cash

  Current prices(1989–90)

  Table A

  Gateshead

  1,052

  1,052

  1,082

  1,031

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,566

  1,566

  1,564

  1,490

  North Tyneside

  1,577

  1,577

  1,265

  1,205

  South Tyneside

  3,372

  3,372

  1,894

  1,804

  Sunderland

  3,859

  3,859

  1,883

  1,793

  Table B

  Tyneside CTC

  3,490

  3,490

  2,800

  2,667

  Notes

  1.All figures are in thousands.

  2.Current prices are calculated at 1989-90 prices using the GDP deflator.

DEFENCE

  United States Forces
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new facilities are being prepared in the United Kingdom for use by United States defence personnel.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new facilities are being prepared in the United Kingdom for use by United States defence personnel.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new facilities are being prepared in the United Kingdom for use by United States defence personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States maintains a continual programme of construction and works projects at its facilities in the United Kingdom. I understand that some 39 projects of various sizes are currently under construction for United States forces in this country. Around 120 further projects are currently at some stage in the design process. These totals include both United States and NATO-funded projects.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution United States military forces make to the defence of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contribution United States military forces make to the defence of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States makes the largest single contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, membership of which is fundamental to the defence of the United Kingdom.

  European Co-operative Long-Term Initiative for Defence
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money his Department has committed to the European co-operative long-term initiative for defence.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No money has yet been committed by any nation to this initiative. We expect that the first 590
  detailed collaborative programmes will be agreed in the course of this year. The precise extent of United Kingdom funding will then become clearer and will come from moneys voted for defence research.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his latest plans for the future use of RAF Greenham common.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his latest plans for the future use of RAF Greenham common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The remaining ground-launched cruise missiles are due to be withdrawn from RAF Greenham common by May 1991. After that date the station will remain available to the United States Air Force and revert to its former role as a standby operating base.

  In addition the station will continue to provide support to RAF Welford and under the terms of the INF treaty it will remain subject to short-notice inspection by the Soviet Union until the year 2001. It will also remain the designated point of entry to the United Kingdom for Soviet inspection teams wishing to visit either Greenham common or Molesworth.

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications of an elimination of the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe for the procurement of theatre nuclear weapons.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications of an elimination of the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe for the procurement of theatre nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications of an elimination of the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe for the procurement of theatre nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current position regarding Ferranti's interest in the contract for radar to be fitted to the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the reasons for his Department's choice of the Ferranti radar system for the EFA project.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  At this stage I have nothing to add to the information I gave the House during the Adjournment debate on 23 January 1990,Hansard, col. 869–72.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member on 23 January, col. 869–72.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation he has made of the need for the European fighter aircraft following the reduction of tension in Europe in the past year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  While we welcome moves towards a reduction in tension in Europe, there will be a continuing need to ensure the future air defence of the United Kingdom and of British forces wherever they may be located. We expect EFA to play a key role in this.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the security of military installations of privatisation of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the security of military installations of privatisation of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the security of military installations of privatisation of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has give to the future of defence security following the privatisation of the Property Services Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the security of military installations of privatisation of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the security of military installations of privatisation of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The arrangements for the security of military installations will not be adversely affected by the privatisation of the Property Services Agency.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of the armed services covering civilian ambulance services.
  592
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of the armed services covering civilian ambulance services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Up to 31 December 1989 extra costs in the region of £1·9 million have been reported for recovery by the Ministry of Defence from the Department of Health, the Scottish Home and Health Department and the Welsh Office.

  Flying Accidents
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians have died as the result of Royal Air Force flying accidents in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  One civilian has died as a result of Royal Air Force flying accidents in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years. The fatality occurred during a search and rescue mission.

  Trident
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his American counterpart to discuss the development of the Trident missile system.

  Mr. Tom King
  As I mentioned earlier in my answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I met the United States Defence Secretary in the course of my visit to the United States last week. I expect to meet him again during this year at NATO ministerial meetings.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) defective and (b) successful test firings there have been of the Trident D5 missile; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In 1989 the United States navy completed a series of 19 land-based Trident II D5 development test firings, of which 16 were successful (one partial), one was destroyed in error by the test range authorities, and two were unsuccessful. The United States navy is currently undertaking a series of submarine-launched test firings of the Trident II D5 missile of which there have been six successful and two unsuccessful flights. The causes of all unsuccessful flights have been diagnosed and corrected.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on progress on the Trident programme.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the Trident programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 January at columns 207–08,and to the detailed report on Trident which was placed in the Library of the House on the same day.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme.
  593
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Heifer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 January at columns 207–08.

  Defence Manufacturing
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of employment in defence manufacturing industry he estimates there will be in the year 2000.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of employment in defence manufacturing industry he estimates there will he in the year 2000.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he estimates there will be in the number of jobs in the defence manufacturing industries over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of employment in defence manufacturing industry he estimates there will be in the year 2000.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of employment in defence manufacturing industry he estimates there will be in the year 2000.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not for my Department to make general estimates of the future level of employment in private companies.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his Australian counterpart about compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his Australian counterpart about compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his Australian counterpart about compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces met a member of the Australian Federal Government last October to discuss a number of issues, including the question of compensation being sought for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about compensation for nuclear test veterans.
  594
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government have had no discussions with the United States authorities on this issue.

  Air Defence
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department is making of Britain's future air defence needs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future air defence needs of the United Kingdom are kept under constant review.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes to reduce the number of scientists employed in nuclear weapons development and construction.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes to reduce the number of scientists employed in nuclear weapons development and construction.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes to reduce the number of scientists employed in nuclear weapons development and construction.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of total accumulated defence expenditure, actual and anticipated, on nuclear weapons, including associated research in the years 1988 to 1991.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of total accumulated defence expenditure, actual and anticipated, on nuclear weapons, including associated research in the years 1988 to 1991.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of total accumulated defence expenditure, actual and anticipated, on nuclear weapons, including associated research in the years 1988 to 1991.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Estimated expenditure for 1987-88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 on the strategic nuclear force is shown in table 2.3 of volume 2 of the 1989 Statement on the Defence Estimates. Estimated expenditure for 1990–91 will be published in the 1990 Statement on the Defence Estimates.

  Expenditure Reductions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has identified any possible savings in defence expenditure over the next five years.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has identified any possible savings in defence expenditure over the next five years.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has identified any possible savings in defence expenditure over the next five years.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has identified any possible savings in defence expenditure over the next five years.
  595
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the 1980s major improvements have been achieved in procurement practices, in the cost-effective use of manpower and in reducing other operating costs through measures to increase efficiency. Savings from these and further such measures will continue to increase the value we get from the defence budget. I refer the hon. Members to the essay on the new management strategy on pages 43–44 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, vol. 1 (Cm. 675–1).

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence spending of the recently announced United States defence budget.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence spending of the recently announced United States defence budget.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence spending of the recently announced United States defence budget.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The plans for United Kingdom defence expenditure in the years to 1992–93 reflect our assessment of the sums necessary to maintain our security and sustain our responsibilities within the NATO Alliance. The United States defence budget proposals now before Congress do not alter that assessment.

  United States Secretary for Defence
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the United States Secretary for Defence; and what subjects he proposes to raise.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the United States Secretary for Defence; and what matters he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend had discussions with Secretary Cheney in Washington on 30 January on a range of matters of mutual interest. He expects to meet him again later this year at NATO ministerial meetings.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken in response to the Commission for Racial Equality report on racial discrimination in the Army.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken in response to the Commission for Racial Equality report on racial discrimination in the Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of a report by the Commission for Racial Equality on racial discrimination in the Army. The hon. Members may have in mind the report commissioned by my Department into ethnic minority recruitment into the armed services—a report which we have recently made widely available. I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the 596
  Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) on 23 January which set out in detail the action we shall be taking on the recommendations in the report.

  Defence Establishments (Security)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate an inquiry into security measures at defence establishments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Security measures at our defence establishments are regularly reviewed.

  Volunteer Reserves
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the volunteer reserves make to the United Kingdom defence capability.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the volunteer reserves make to the United Kingdom defence capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the essay at page 28 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, vol. 1, Cmnd. 675–1.

  Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals to increase the levels of pension for the war disabled.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals to increase the levels of pension for the war disabled.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals to increase the levels of pension for the war disabled.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The levels of pensions for the war disabled are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  United Nations Forces
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part British service personnel play in United Nations international peacekeeping and monitoring activities.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part British service personnel play in United Nations international peacekeeping and monitoring activities.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw).

  European Security
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the United Kingdom is making to confidence and security-building measures in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom is playing a full part, together with its allies, in the CSBM talks now under way in Vienna.

  Military Doctrines Seminar
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications of the recent seminar on military doctrines involving NATO and Warsaw pact senior officers.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications of the recent seminar on military doctrines, involving NATO and Warsaw pact senior officers.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications of the recent seminar on military doctrines, involving NATO and Warsaw pact senior officers.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications of the recent seminar on military doctrines involving NATO and Warsaw pact senior officers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The military doctrine seminar which concluded in Vienna on 5 February, and which involved representatives of all the 35 states of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) process, was an important and useful opportunity to exchange views, put forward our own thinking, and explore that of other nations.

  Light Attack Helicopter
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has completed his inquiry into evaluation of light attack helicopter alternatives.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Not yet.

  Land Holdings (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many acres of land are owned at the present time by his Department in Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At 1 April 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, MOD land holdings in Wales, including freehold and leasehold land and foreshore, stood at 52,038 acres.

  Nuclear Weapons (Anglo-French Co-operation)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current Anglo-French co-operation on nuclear weapon development.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current Anglo-French co-operation on nuclear weapon development.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current Anglo-French co-operation on nuclear weapon development.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo).

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to place an order for a type 23 frigate for the Royal Navy.
  598
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to place a further order for a type 23 frigate for the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Government remain committed to maintaining a force of about 50 destroyers and frigates, and we will place sufficient orders to meet that commitment. We announced an order for three type 23 frigates on 19 December 1989, col.197. We hope to invite tenders for a further batch of type 23s later this year. A decision on the size and timing of an order will he made once tenders are submitted by shipyards.

  Toxic Chemicals
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the disposal of toxic chemicals after use by the armed forces.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Toxic chemicals are disposed of through contracts laid by the Ministry of Defence with licensed disposal companies.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken in response to the report by Peat Marwick McLintock on recruitment of ethnic minorities into the armed services.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken in response to the report by Peat Marwick McLintock on recuitment of ethnic minorities into the armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) on 23 January 1990 at col.588–89.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits to the armed forces in 1989 year were of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin; and how many service personnel of similar background left.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The provisional results of the survey of ethnic origins of applicants to the armed forces during the financial year 1988–89, the latest period for which figures are available, indicate that 121 recruits classified themselves as Caribbean, 26 as African and 64 as Asian. Figures for those who left the armed forces are not available.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce defence expenditure in the light of the new situation in Europe.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to review the planned level of defence spending in the light of the changing situation in the USSR and eastern Europe.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on future defence policy of recent events in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in defence policy have taken place since the recent changes in Governments in eastern Europe.
  599
  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reassessment of the threat to the United Kingdom he is making following the recent changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We keep all potential threats to the United Kingdom under constant review.

  NATO Defence Ministers
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to attend a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers; what topics he expects to raise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet his NATO counterparts to discuss the military implications of the reforms currently taking place in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Tom King
  I will attend a meeting of the independent European programme group later this month. A range of issues of mutual interest will be discussed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of NATO; and what subjects he proposes to raise.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of NATO to discuss future NATO strategy in the light of the Vienna talks on conventional forces in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the Secretary-General of NATO. The next scheduled meeting is at the NATO nuclear planning group in early May, when a wide range of issues of mutual interest will be discussed.

  Disaster Relief
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role his Department plays in disaster relief.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role his Department plays in disaster relief.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence is always willing to respond positively to requests for military assistance in disaster relief at home and abroad. For an account of the part played by the armed forces in disaster relief operations during 1989, I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on 24 October 1989 at column 430.

  With the recent spate of bad weather, all three services have been engaged in a range of military assistance to the civil community tasks. Much effort has been directed at helping electricity boards to clear roads blocked by trees toppled during the gales, mobile generators have been supplied for a variety of purposes and service accommodation has been made available to house the
  600
  homeless. Should it be needed, military units are standing ready to provide assistance to communities at risk from flooding.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the overall value of defence exports for the past six months.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the overall value of defence exports for the last six months.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Figures for the overall value of defence exports are calculated on an annual basis. New contracts signed in 1988 are expected to be worth some £3,500 million. The figure for 1989 is not yet available.

  Defence Act 1854 (Repeal)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals to repeal the Defence Act 1854.

  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals to repeal the Defence Act 1854.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals to repeal the Defence Act 1854.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals to repeal the Defence Act 1854.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Service Personnel (Benefits)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice is given to armed service personnel and their families about their eligibility for social security and housing benefits and poll tax rebate.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice is given to armed service personnel and their families about their eligibility for social security and housing benefits and poll tax rebate.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).

  Strategic Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the implications for British defence policy of progress in the talks for the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We support the efforts of the United States and Soviet Governments to achieve deep cuts in strategic offensive nuclear weapons. The Government's policy remains as set out in paragraph 215 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 Cm. 675–1.

  Tank Movements, Wiltshire
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to visit Durrington and Amesbury in Wiltshire to discuss tank movements.
  601
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so.

  Defence Review
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to institute a defence review.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to institute a defence review.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

  Low Hying
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mid-air collisions have happened between low-flying aircraft that were not part of the same formation for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  The table gives the numbers of mid-air collisions between low-flying British military aircraft which were not part of the same formation for each of the last 10 years:

  Numbers

  1980

  0

  1981

  0

  1982

  1

  1983

  0

  1984

  1

  1985

  2

  1986

  0

  1987

  1

  1988

  1

  1989

  1

  1990

  1

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce an annual moratorium on low flying during the lambing season.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft have been written off as a result of accidents in low flying training since 1979; and what has been the total cost of these aircraft at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since 1 January 1979 104 British military aircraft have been written off as a result of accidents while undertaking low flying training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) announced on 14 December 1987 (col.411), it is no longer our practice to publish unit production costs. This precludes us from giving the total cost of military aircraft destroyed in accidents over any specified period since, by varying the period, commercial in confidence information could be deduced.

  Research
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's research contracts are currently placed with United Kingdom universities and other institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence has currently 745 research agreements and 106 research contracts placed with a wide range of United Kingdom universities and other institutions of higher education.

  US Construction Budget
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has regarding the United States fiscal year 1991 military construction budget for bases and facilities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand from information provided by the United States authorities that funding approval is being sought from their fiscal year 1991 budget for the following military construction projects in the United Kingdom:

  High Wycombe Air Station

  Dormitory

  RAF Alconbury

  Add to and alter dormitories

  Add to and alter physical fitness centre

  RAF Bentwaters

  Post Office

  Conventional munitions shop

  Field training facility

  RAF Chicksands

  Satellite communications facility

  RAF Lakenheath

  Add to and alter dormitory

  Alter munitions storage

  RAF Mildenhall

  Add to physical fitness centre

  RAF Molesworth

  Joint Analysis Centre

  Systems Controllerates
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the possible centralisation of the sea systems controllerate and other procurement executive staff within the travel-to-work area of Keynsham and Bath.

  Mr. Neubert
  Studies have been carried out into the relocation of the procurement executive's land and air systems controllerates and associated staff away from central London, and into the collocation of the sea systems controllerate. We are now consulting the MOD trade union side on the results of these studies, as is usual in such matters. A final decision will be taken only in the light of the outcome of these consultations and a full statement will be made at the appropriate time.

  F-15E Aircraft
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any proposals to station F-15E aircraft of the United States Air Force in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO is considering a number of options for adjusting its remaining nuclear forces following the signature of the INF treaty. These options include the possible deployment to Europe, including the United Kingdom, of longer-range dual capable aircraft from the United States. However, no decisions have yet been taken.

  West German Defence Minister
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the West German Secretary of State for Defence; and what matters he intends to raise.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his West German counterpart; and what matters he will discuss.
  603
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting Dr. Stoltenberg in Scotland later this month. I expect that a wide range of issues of mutual interest will be discussed.

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made with his review of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Further work is continuing in the light of the Ministry of Defence's consideration of the study by Peat Marwick McLintock into future arrangements for canine and equine-related training in the services.

  Tactical Nuclear Weapons
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had in the current year with his NATO colleagues about the modernisation of tactical nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has met a number of his principal NATO colleagues over recent weeks. NATO's agreed position of maintaining an appropriate mix of adequate, effective and up-to-date nuclear forces was among a number of items discussed.

  Colombia
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British military assistance to the Government of Colombia in their fight against the drug trade.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and as part of Her Majesty's Government's package of assistance to the Colombian Government, training is being provided to the Colombian law enforcement authorities in a number of areas including bomb disposal, close protection of VIPs and riverine patrolling. Royal Navy vessels in the area are also periodically deployed to provide maritime surveillance assistance to Colombia.

  Infantry Battalions
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the full complement and (b) the average strength of infantry battalions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The complement of an infantry battalion varies between about 590 and 680 officers and men according to its specific task at the time. As at 30 November 1989, the average strength across all infantry battalions was just over 580. These figures do not include Gurkha battalions, which have four rifle companies rather than the usual three, or infantry personnel employed in areas outside line battalions.

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to visit units of the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence hopes to take an early opportunity to visit the British Army of the Rhine. I visited the Commander-in-Chief BAOR on 24–25 January.

  East Germany
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on the possible military status of East Germany in the event of German reunification.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has had regular discussions with his NATO counterparts on a wide range of matters of mutual interest.

  German Reunification
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for defence policy of the initiatives being taken by the West German Government on German reunification.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We continue to believe that NATO will remain the foundation of western security and welcome the West German Government's continuing commitment to the Alliance.

  Training Deaths
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men died in training during the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1988, the last year for which figures are available, the deaths of 14 service personnel were recorded as being attributable to injuries sustained during exercises or training. This figure excludes the Gurkhas and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the reserve forces.

  National Sports Centre, Cardiff
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 30 January, on what date the report into the conditions of the national sports centre, Cardiff indoor firearms range was made.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The range was inspected on 8 August 1989 and a copy of the subsequent report was sent to the Sports Council for Wales on 15 August 1989.

  Mr. Hugh Mooney
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the role of Mr. Hugh Mooney in HQ Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Mr. Mooney was an information adviser to the General Officer Commanding.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Loans
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many studies were undertaken by his Department, or on behalf of his Department, to consider alternatives to the currently proposed student top-up loan scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  A wide range of options has been considered in advice from officials to Ministers.
  605
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the number of loans that will have been made to students under the Education (Student Loans) Bill by(a) October 1990, (b) November 1990 and (c) December 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  On the basis of a take-up rate of 80 per cent., some 455,000 students are likely to receive top-up loans in the 1990–91 academic year. Students will be able to apply at any time in the year; many will no doubt do so in the first few months.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet written to higher education institutions inviting them to discuss arrangements over certification for student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has written to the chairmen of representative bodies of higher education institutions inviting them to meet him to discuss their role in the top-up loans scheme.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will place in the Library copies of all studies undertaken by his Department which considered(a) the currently proposed top-up loan scheme and (b) alternatives to the proposed scheme.

  Education support grants programme—1986–87 actual expenditure for IT related activities

  LEA

  Micros for sen

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  Special needs in FE

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  Barking

  0·0

  23·6

  0·0

  0·0

  Barnet

  0·0

  76·1

  15·7

  0·0

  Bexley

  0·0

  7·8

  1·6

  0·0

  Brent

  0·0

  37·7

  6·0

  0·0

  Bromley

  0·0

  74·8

  17·6

  0·0

  Croydon

  0·0

  40·0

  0·0

  6·7

  Ealing

  0·0

  89·8

  27·2

  0·0

  Enfield

  0·0

  16·4

  2·6

  0·0

  Haringey

  0·0

  11·0

  0·0

  2·3

  Harrow

  0·0

  20·0

  0·0

  8·2

  Havering

  0·0

  2·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Hillingdon

  0·0

  46·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Houslow

  0·0

  44·7

  0·0

  0·0

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·0

  3·1

  0·7

  0·0

  Merton

  0·0

  11·4

  0·0

  0·0

  Newham

  0·0

  12·4

  6·3

  0·0

  Redbridge

  0·0

  4·9

  6·2

  0·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·0

  4·2

  0·0

  0·0

  Sutton

  1·6

  12·7

  5·0

  0·0

  Waltham Forest

  0·0

  0·0

  20·8

  0·0

  ILEA

  0·0

  545·2

  20·9

  0·0

  Birmingham

  0·0

  296·5

  31·4

  0·0

  Coventry

  0·0

  50·4

  15·2

  20·9

  Dudley

  0·0

  78·2

  17·6

  0·0

  Sandwell

  0·0

  5·3

  9·4

  15·7

  Solihull

  0·0

  1·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Walsall

  0·0

  2·4

  4·4

  0·0

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  23·5

  1·5

  0·0

  Knowsley

  0·0

  5·7

  0·0

  10·8

  Liverpool

  0·0

  5·5

  1·7

  0·0

  St. Helens

  0·5

  26·2

  10·5

  0·0

  Sefton

  0·0

  84·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Wirral

  0·4

  3·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Bolton

  0·0

  32·0

  3·7

  0·0

  Bury

  0·0

  14·0

  0·2

  10·2

  Manchester

  0·0

  62·2

  12·0

  19·0

  Oldham

  0·0

  1·1

  7·8

  0·0

  Rochdale

  0·0

  18·5

  0·0

  12·7

  Salford

  0·0

  0·0

  3·1

  0·0

  Stockport

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Tameside

  0·0

  6·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Trafford

  0·0

  6·8

  8·3

  0·0

  Wigan

  0·0

  33·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Barnsley

  0·0

  14·9

  0·0

  0·0

  606
  Mr. Jackson
  No. Advice from departmental officials to Ministers is confidential.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the amount of funds received by each local authority in each of the last five years for information technology purposes.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Several activities for which my right hon. Friend has allocated funds under the education support grant programme and the local education authority training grants scheme (and its predecessor the in-service teacher training grants scheme) support spending on information technology (IT). The relevant allocations of expenditure supported for the past five years are shown in the following tables. The grants paid under these programmes are additional to the general rate support grant which local authorities receive, and which they may use for IT purposes within education. Local authorities may also receive funds relating to the use of IT within education from other Government Departments and through contributions from private sources.
  607

  LEA

  Micros for sen

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  Special needs in YFE

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  Doncaster

  0·0

  5·8

  0·0

  0·0

  Rotherham

  0·0

  89·8

  7·9

  26·1

  Sheffield

  0·0

  80·0

  0·0

  8·9

  Bradford

  0·0

  18·2

  0·0

  0·0

  Calderdale

  0·0

  12·3

  0·0

  8·7

  Kirklees

  0·0

  146·4

  13·4

  0·0

  Leeds

  0·0

  146·0

  14·3

  0·0

  Wakefield

  0·0

  38·4

  0·0

  0·0

  Gateshead

  0·0

  42·9

  1·0

  0·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0·0

  95·4

  15·7

  0·0

  North Tyneside

  0·0

  2·5

  2·6

  7·9

  South Tyneside

  0·0

  22·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  0·0

  64·6

  8·7

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Avon

  0·0

  123·5

  9·0

  0·0

  Bedfordshire

  0·0

  112·0

  18·6

  0·0

  Berkshire

  0·0

  208·3

  31·4

  14·8

  Buckinghamshire

  0·0

  90·1

  25·0

  0·0

  Cambridgeshire

  1·1

  156·8

  31·4

  0·0

  Cheshire

  0·0

  174·3

  0·0

  10·0

  Cleveland

  0·0

  174·7

  0·0

  10·5

  Cornwall

  0·0

  50·8

  11·5

  0·0

  Cumbria

  0·0

  160·9

  2·5

  10·3

  Derbyshire

  0·0

  167·6

  26·1

  0·0

  Devon

  4·0

  285·2

  0·0

  16·9

  Dorset

  0·0

  179·2

  7·8

  0·0

  Durham

  0·0

  135·3

  0·0

  7·8

  East Sussex

  0·0

  109·8

  21·9

  0·0

  Essex

  0·0

  270·5

  16·2

  0·0

  Gloucestershire

  0·0

  154·0

  3·1

  0·0

  Hampshire

  0·0

  261·5

  4·9

  8·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·0

  161·3

  7·0

  0·0

  Hertfordshire

  0·0

  223·5

  19·9

  33·9

  Humberside

  0·0

  162·3

  16·1

  14·8

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  2·0

  2·1

  9·2

  Kent

  0·0

  182·2

  20·9

  0·0

  Lancashire

  0·0

  191·2

  25·9

  0·0

  Leicestershire

  0·0

  99·4

  25·1

  15·0

  Lincolnshire

  0·0

  80·7

  20·0

  17·7

  Norfolk

  0·0

  161·6

  7·3

  0·0

  North Yorkshire

  0·0

  68·5

  28·4

  0·0

  Northamptonshire

  0·0

  190·8

  0·0

  0·0

  Northumberland

  0·0

  37·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Nottinghamshire

  0·0

  150·1

  9·0

  8·6

  Oxfordshire

  0·0

  47·3

  0·0

  18·3

  Salop

  0·0

  42·4

  37·2

  0·0

  Somerset

  0·0

  5·2

  175·4

  24·9

  Staffordshire

  0·0

  243·5

  24·9

  28·0

  Suffolk

  0·0

  46·9

  10·5

  0·0

  Surrey

  0·0

  165·7

  7·3

  0·0

  Warwickshire

  0·0

  149·1

  18·1

  5·5

  West Sussex

  0·0

  212·8

  31·4

  0·0

  Wiltshire

  0·0

  187·1

  31·4

  10·5

  Total

  7·6

  8,245·8

  1,039·5

  423·3

  Education support grants programme—1987–88 Actual expenditure for IT related activities

  £ thousand

  Local education authority

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  Special needs in FE

  Barking

  20·8

  35·0

  0·0

  Barnet

  82·6

  12·8

  0·0

  Bexley

  9·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Brent

  26·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Bromley

  20·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Croydon

  23·1

  34·0

  0·0

  Ealing

  21·7

  23·3

  9·6

  Enfield

  71·4

  0·0

  0·0

  Haringey

  10·2

  0·0

  0·0

  Harrow

  110·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Havering

  1·0

  5·0

  0·0

  Hillingdon

  37·9

  9·4

  0·0

  Hounslow

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  608

  Local education authority

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  Special needs in FE

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·0

  7·5

  0·0

  Merton

  5·6

  23·0

  0·0

  Newham

  21·5

  0·0

  12·1

  Redbridge

  0·7

  0·0

  0·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  18·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Sutton

  1·2

  0·0

  0·0

  Waltham Forest

  22·8

  40·7

  0·0

  ILEA

  432·1

  18·1

  16·0

  Birmingham

  106·9

  30·0

  11·5

  Coventry

  73·2

  32·8

  14·5

  Dudley

  61·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Sandwell

  2·1

  0·0

  15·6

  Solihull

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Walsall

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Wolverhampton

  23·9

  0·0

  0·0

  Knowsley

  2·1

  0·0

  0·0

  609

  Local education authority

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  Special needs in FE

  Liverpool

  4·2

  30·8

  0·0

  St. Helens

  37·6

  38·9

  0·0

  Sefton

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Wirral

  44·6

  0·0

  10·4

  Bolton

  63·4

  36·6

  10·4

  Bury

  11·1

  7·3

  0·0

  Manchester

  83·6

  45·0

  0·

  Oldham

  3·2

  0·0

  29·5

  Rochdale

  5·1

  0·0

  4·4

  Salford

  0·8

  0·0

  0·0

  Stockport

  28·2

  0·0

  0·0

  Tameside

  5·0

  0·0

  9·3

  Trafford

  45·0

  17·5

  0·0

  Wigan

  34·4

  0·0

  0·0

  Barnsley

  46·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Doncaster

  44·1

  0·0

  31·1

  Rotherham

  48·1

  0·0

  17·7

  Sheffield

  82·5

  49·0

  15·6

  Bradford

  20·4

  30·2

  17·9

  Calderdale

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Kirklees

  164·8

  11·4

  15·6

  Leeds

  198·8

  7·3

  0·0

  Wakefield

  25·0

  0·0

  6·0

  Gateshead

  19·4

  0·0

  9·6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  130·8

  0·0

  0·0

  North Tyneside

  8·1

  21·5

  0·0

  South Tyneside

  9·4

  0·0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  58·4

  19·9

  12·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Avon

  125·4

  0·0

  0·0

  Bedfordshire

  93·4

  0·0

  10·0

  Berkshire

  131·6

  50·0

  0·0

  Buckinghamshire

  183·8

  39·0

  0·0

  Cambrideshire

  70·6

  27·0

  0·0

  Cheshire

  134·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Education support grants programme—1988–89 Approved expenditure for IT related activities

  LEA

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  IT in schools

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000

  (£ 000)

  Barking

  0·0

  0·0

  55·3

  Barnet

  97·0

  31·3

  106·7

  Bexley

  0·0

  57·2

  67·2

  Brent

  0·0

  0·0

  75·2

  Bromley

  6·5

  0·0

  84·3

  Croydon

  0·0

  0·0

  102·1

  Ealing

  129·1

  0·0

  85·9

  Enfield

  33·5

  40·2

  77·9

  Haringey

  29·0

  0·0

  60·9

  Harrow

  29·5

  0·0

  73·2

  Havering

  2·1

  0·0

  106·7

  Hillingdon

  41·3

  0·0

  71·6

  Hounslow

  4·3

  51·9

  47·4

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  0·0

  0·0

  38·5

  Merton

  4·0

  0·0

  35·8

  Newham

  4·3

  83·6

  91·8

  Redbridge

  4·3

  0·0

  73·4

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  3·2

  0·0

  39·5

  Sutton

  3·2

  0·0

  55·0

  Waltham Forest

  1·5

  0·0

  74·5

  ILEA

  394·8

  0·0

  796·4

  Birmingham

  122·9

  62·7

  554·2

  Coventry

  23·5

  80·9

  119·9

  Dudley

  24·7

  27·8

  121·6

  Sandwell

  4·3

  66·5

  126·9

  Solihull

  2·1

  0·0

  88·5

  Walsall

  2·1

  0·0

  128·6

  Wolverhampton

  6·5

  0·0

  126·1

  Knowsley

  4·3

  0·0

  99·2

  Liverpool

  8·8

  0·0

  276·1

  St. Helens

  29·6

  0·0

  89·6

  Sefton

  0·0

  0·0

  147·5

  Wirral

  6·5

  0·0

  146·0

  Bolton

  28·6

  0·0

  91·1

  Bury

  17·7

  0·0

  89·6

  Manchester

  80·2

  0·0

  174·4

  610

  Local education authority

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  Special needs in FE

  Cleveland

  64·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Cornwall

  88·7

  38·0

  31·1

  Cumbria

  183·2

  0·0

  13·0

  Derbyshire

  192·7

  50·0

  16·0

  Devon

  158·5

  52·1

  6·3

  Dorset

  121·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Durham

  71·0

  0·0

  12·5

  East Sussex

  111·1

  25·6

  0·0

  Essex

  223·2

  40·0

  0·0

  Gloucestershire

  177·3

  40·0

  16·1

  Hampshire

  133·7

  85·0

  0·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  13·5

  0·0

  14·9

  Hertfordshire

  195·4

  20·0

  0·0

  Humberside

  53·7

  11·0

  0·0

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Kent

  90·6

  24·5

  0·0

  Lancashire

  208·4

  33·5

  13·6

  Leicestershire

  162·8

  20·0

  0·0

  Lincolnshire

  63·2

  0·0

  0·0

  Norfolk

  84·3

  26·0

  0·0

  North Yorkshire

  41·4

  20·0

  9·9

  Northamptonshire

  141·8

  0·0

  0·0

  Northumberland

  31·1

  8·2

  0·0

  Nottinghamshire

  116·2

  0·0

  0·0

  Oxfordshire

  67·9

  0·0

  0·0

  Salop

  88·2

  40·0

  0·0

  Somerset

  163·7

  0·0

  0·0

  Staffordshire

  104·7

  0·0

  0·0

  Suffolk

  127 ·8

  0·0

  9·9

  Surrey

  31·7

  38·3

  9·7

  Warwickshire

  70·1

  29·3

  0·0

  West Sussex

  141·6

  0·0

  10·4

  Wiltshire

  76·3

  18·0

  0·0

  Total

  6,769·9

  1,322·4

  442·3

  611

  LEA

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  IT in schools

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  Oldham

  8·8

  0·0

  115·3

  Rochdale

  11·1

  0·0

  80·2

  Salford

  4·3

  0·0

  90·0

  Stockport

  5·0

  0·0

  150·4

  Tameside

  11·6

  0·0

  120·3

  Trafford

  11·1

  35·0

  100·4

  Wigan

  11·1

  0·0

  160·0

  Barnsley

  8·8

  0·0

  116·0

  Doncaster

  6·5

  0·0

  132·6

  Rotherham

  47·0

  17·6

  122·7

  Sheffield

  30·6

  30·1

  235·3

  Bradford

  6·5

  65·4

  265·1

  Calderdale

  2·1

  30·3

  112·9

  Kirklees

  126·7

  0·0

  189·2

  Leeds

  48·9

  0·0

  359·7

  Wakefield

  8·8

  31·1

  165·8

  Gateshead

  8·2

  33·0

  86·6

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  117·6

  0·0

  109·1

  North Tyneside

  0·0

  0·0

  74·8

  South Tyneside

  53·4

  0·0

  57·7

  Sunderland

  78·4

  0·0

  135·5

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  0·0

  1·3

  Avon

  136·8

  47·0

  329·1

  Bedfordshire

  67·9

  32·9

  258·0

  Berkshire

  54·9

  100·5

  359·3

  Buckinghamshire

  146·0

  48·7

  322·3

  Cambridgeshire

  21·7

  83·0

  308·4

  Cheshire

  38·0

  59·9

  407·1

  Cleveland

  53·0

  135·9

  285·6

  Cornwall

  51·2

  0·0

  217·8

  Cumbria

  119·9

  0·0

  271·2

  Derbyshire

  157·8

  0·0

  484·2

  Devon

  167·3

  146·5

  401·7

  Dorset

  53·1

  100·5

  253·0

  Durham

  36·3

  0·0

  315·5

  East Sussex

  92·6

  0·0

  178·3

  Essex

  195·7

  0·0

  811·8

  Gloucestershire

  128·0

  0·0

  221·2

  Hampshire

  119·3

  201·4

  593·2

  Hereford and Worcester

  14·2

  0·0

  283·3

  Hertfordshire

  118·3

  0·0

  488·8

  Humberside

  69·3

  0·0

  410·9

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  0·0

  55·6

  Kent

  24·3

  0·0

  528·3

  Lancashire

  113·3

  123·9

  653·9

  Leicestershire

  33·4

  46·0

  389·7

  Lincolnshire

  16·7

  0·0

  285·5

  Norfolk

  40·6

  0·0

  349·9

  North Yorkshire

  0·0

  0·0

  342·2

  Northamptonshire

  154·4

  0·0

  304·3

  Northumberland

  10·3

  0·0

  158·0

  Nottinghamshire

  71·8

  0·0

  397·3

  Oxfordshire

  21·8

  0·0

  274·0

  Salop

  11·1

  0·0

  200·8

  Somerset

  122·2

  23·9

  193·8

  Staffordshire

  124·6

  0·0

  516·9

  Suffolk

  56·9

  0·0

  240·7

  Surrey

  15·5

  0·0

  399·9

  Warwickshire

  27·8

  0·0

  251·3

  West Sussex

  111·1

  45·6

  235·6

  Wiltshire

  48·4

  69·5

  231·4

  Total

  4,601·4

  2,009·8

  20,789·3

  Education support grants programme—1989–90 Approved expenditure for IT related activities

  LEA

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  IT in Schools

  LMS

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  (£ 000)

  Barking

  0·0

  0·0

  49·5

  106·8

  Barnet

  102·6

  16·1

  87·3

  161·6

  Bexley

  0·0

  35·9

  70·7

  126·7

  Brent

  0·0

  56·3

  68·6

  146·7

  Bromley

  6·9

  0·0

  88·4

  133·7

  Croydon

  0·0

  0·0

  85·8

  181·6

  Ealing

  136·6

  72·8

  92·1

  161·6

  612 613

  LEA

  IT in NAFE

  CMIS

  IT in Schools

  LMS

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Enfield

  35·3

  53·1

  67·8

  160·7

  Haringey

  30·6

  51·0

  62·8

  96·8

  Harrow

  31·2

  66·6

  55·0

  130·7

  Havering

  2·2

  0·0

  116·5

  154·7

  Hillingdon

  43·7

  0·0

  67·0

  147·7

  Hounslow

  4·6

  53·3

  50·5

  137·7

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  27·6

  49·9

  40·9

  78·8

  Merton

  4·3

  0·0

  38·1

  91·8

  Newham

  4·6

  70·0

  117·0

  145·7

  Redbridge

  4·6

  28·8

  70·1

  127·7

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  3·4

  0·0

  35·3

  66·9

  Sutton

  3·4

  0·0

  53·2

  88·8

  Waltham Forest

  1·5

  0·0

  71·9

  148·7

  ILEA

  417·6

  746·2

  726·4

  54·0

  Birmingham

  130·0

  131·0

  610·2

  705·0

  Coventry

  53·7

  60·6

  115·9

  186·6

  Dudley

  26·1

  43·5

  114·9

  201·6

  Sandwell

  4·6

  70·3

  120·7

  197·6

  Solihull

  2·2

  29·6

  84·2

  129·7

  Walsall

  2·2

  40·0

  139·5

  186·6

  Wolverhampton

  6·9

  0·0

  106·0

  165·6

  Knowsley

  4·6

  71·0

  106·8

  108·8

  Liverpool

  9·3

  42·0

  305·2

  281·4

  St. Helens

  94·9

  28·4

  131·8

  114·7

  Sefton

  0·0

  0·0

  149·3

  176·6

  Wirral

  6·9

  0·0

  126·8

  197·6

  Bolton

  30·3

  55·1

  142·3

  169·6

  Bury

  18·7

  0·0

  71·4

  105·8

  Manchester

  84·8

  117·0

  186·3

  274·4

  Oldham

  9·3

  0·0

  112·7

  146·7

  Rochdale

  11·7

  49·8

  91·4

  146·7

  Salford

  4·6

  0·0

  76·0

  141·7

  Stockport

  5·3

  0·0

  152·8

  157·7

  Tameside

  12·3

  0·0

  87·0

  137·7

  Trafford

  11·7

  29·0

  82·9

  117·7

  Wigan

  11·7

  0·0

  177·2

  194·6

  Barnsley

  9·3

  0·0

  123·0

  121·7

  Doncaster

  6·9

  0·0

  149·7

  201·6

  Rotherham

  50·0

  4·7

  110·4

  153·7

  Sheffield

  32·4

  113·5

  221·1

  270·4

  Bradford

  6·9

  112·3

  236·6

  346·2

  Calderdale

  2·2

  42·2

  116·2

  104·8

  Kirklees

  144·9

  58·4

  230·7

  231·5

  Leeds

  51·7

  189·1

  359·4

  422·1

  Wakefield

  9·3

  53·5

  200·8

  187·6

  Gateshead

  8·6

  114·7

  82·2

  102·8

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  124·3

  0·0

  92·1

  158·7

  North Tyneside

  0·0

  0·0

  71·0

  138·7

  South Tyneside

  2·2

  0·0

  66·7

  85·8

  Sunderland

  82·9

  0·0

  122·4

  207·6

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  0·0

  1·3

  2·0

  Avon

  144·7

  65·5

  474·9

  462·0

  Bedfordshire

  71·8

  82·1

  246·3

  321·3

  Berkshire

  58·0

  211·8

  305·3

  375·2

  Buckinghamshire

  154·4

  50·9

  259·2

  387·2

  Cambridgeshire

  23·0

  147·4

  329·3

  347·2

  Cheshire

  40·2

  210·4

  389·8

  483·0

  Cleveland

  56·0

  147·4

  311·5

  424·1

  Cornwall

  54·1

  95·1

  209·1

  203·6

  Cumbria

  126·8

  61·1

  242·9

  207·6

  Derbyshire

  166·7

  0·0

  444·1

  510·9

  Devon

  174·5

  320·0

  434·4

  445·0

  Dorset

  56·1

  141·5

  236·6

  301·3

  Durham

  38·3

  0·0

  324·5

  304·3

  East Sussex

  11·7

  0·0

  173·2

  274·4

  Essex

  207·0

  233·7

  932·4

  798·3

  Gloucestershire

  125·5

  0·0

  249·0

  263·4

  Hampshire

  153·7

  484·5

  588·6

  805·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  15·0

  87·9

  280·9

  343·3

  Hertfordshire

  125·2

  311·0

  414·2

  527·9

  Humberside

  73·3

  0·0

  455·7

  541·8

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  0·0

  50·4

  56·9

  Kent

  88·5

  228·4

  640·5

  797·3

  Lancashire

  82·9

  217·0

  545·1

  770·3

  Leicestershire

  35·4

  48·1

  401·0

  544·8

  Lincolnshire

  17·6

  0·0

  254·2

  289·4

  Norfolk

  42·9

  188·7

  290·9

  342·3

  614 615

  LEA

  IT in NAFE (£000)

  CMIS (£000)

  IT in Schools (£000)

  LMS (£000)

  North Yorkshire

  14·2

  0·0

  334·0

  322·3

  Northamptonshire

  163·2

  145·4

  408·9

  326·3

  Northumberland

  10·8

  0·0

  150·4

  194·6

  Nottinghamshire

  74·7

  0·0

  355·9

  551·8

  Oxfordshire

  23·1

  0·0

  196·4

  232·5

  Shropshire

  11·7

  0·0

  183·1

  204·6

  Somerset

  129·3

  84·3

  188·3

  213·5

  Staffordshire

  78·6

  0·0

  496·0

  563·8

  Suffolk

  24·9

  94·9

  203·7

  331·3

  Surrey

  16·5

  128·4

  384·2

  458·0

  Warwickshire

  29·4

  173·4

  244·9

  278·4

  West Sussex

  117·6

  36·2

  218·1

  324·3

  Wiltshire

  84·7

  109·2

  236·0

  241·5

  Total

  4,856· 1

  6,860·0

  20,673·7

  25,000·0

  Education Support Grants Programme—1990–91 Approved expenditure for IT related activities

  £000

  CMIS

  IT in schools

  LMS XXIII

  City

  0·0

  0·5

  0·0

  Camden

  32·4

  36·0

  108·0

  Greenwich

  23·0

  62·0

  0·0

  Hackney

  67·3

  46·3

  137·0

  Hammersmith

  50·6

  30·5

  100·0

  Islington

  57·2

  40·7

  120·0

  Kensington

  0·0

  19·2

  76·0

  Lambeth

  72·0

  50·4

  153·0

  Lewisham

  58·7

  58·0

  0·0

  Southwark

  36·1

  55·9

  164·7

  Tower Hamlets

  24·0

  52·6

  154·0

  Wandsworth

  84·9

  53·5

  150·0

  Westminster

  38·1

  30·5

  94·0

  Barking

  64·9

  36·3

  150·0

  Barnet

  71·3

  64·6

  211·0

  Bexley

  16·5

  47·0

  167·0

  Brent

  66·6

  46·9

  175·0

  Bromley

  104·0

  57·7

  188·0

  Croydon

  58·0

  63·5

  220·0

  Ealing

  69·5

  66·1

  176·0

  Enfield

  77·3

  55·7

  176·0

  Haringey

  71·4

  42·5

  175·0

  Harrow

  116·6

  39·9

  121·0

  Havering

  62·0

  71·1

  181·0

  Hillingdon

  59·0

  49·3

  168·0

  Hounslow

  22·7

  36·2

  166·0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  59·9

  30·3

  121·0

  Merton

  39·6

  31·2

  143·0

  Newham

  62·5

  90·3

  193·0

  Redbridge

  32·6

  48·6

  154·0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  116·0

  26·5

  125·0

  Sutton

  126·0

  39·6

  133·0

  Waltham Forest

  75·0

  49·0

  168·0

  Birmingham

  102·2

  444·8

  635·0

  Coventry

  111·7

  74·2

  235·0

  Dudley

  79·6

  74·5

  209·0

  Sandwell

  22·0

  80·8

  252·0

  Solihull

  49·6

  55·2

  176·0

  Walsall

  44·7

  93·4

  239·0

  Wolverhampton

  97·9

  29·9

  229·0

  Knowsley

  91·8

  70·9

  164·0

  Liverpool

  38·7

  225·6

  412·0

  St. Helens

  36·4

  91·2

  174·0

  Sefton

  128·0

  105·4

  223·0

  Wirral

  100·0

  92·7

  224·0

  Bolton

  107·6

  110·0

  226·0

  Bury

  64·7

  41·4

  170·0

  Manchester

  100·6

  134·2

  351·0

  Oldham

  53·1

  94·3

  207·0

  Rochdale

  36·0

  55·1

  195·0

  Salford

  72·8

  56·4

  220·0

  Stockport

  28·7

  106·3

  234·0

  Tameside

  89·0

  57·4

  195·0

  Trafford

  80·0

  58·0

  190·0

  616

  CMIS

  IT in schools

  LMS XXIII

  Wigan

  52·0

  103·6

  262·0

  Barnsley

  96·7

  75·9

  217·0

  Doncaster

  65·0

  99·8

  264·0

  Rotherham

  106·6

  79·7

  230·0

  Sheffield

  196·2

  134·3

  337·0

  Bradford

  49·8

  177·7

  441·0

  Calderdale

  34·5

  79·9

  201·0

  Kirklees

  110·3

  153·9

  315·0

  Leeds

  187·4

  253·5

  509·0

  Wakefield

  77·6

  137·9

  277·0

  Gateshead

  163·0

  55·9

  188·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  52·0

  69·5

  208·0

  North Tyneside

  92·0

  56·2

  185·0

  South Tyneside

  43·0

  45·4

  155·0

  Sunderland

  87·0

  82·7

  229·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  1·1

  6·0

  Avon

  177·6

  327·4

  611·0

  Bedfordshire

  99·9

  146·9

  440·0

  Berkshire

  263·9

  197·0

  490·0

  Buckinghamshire

  84·9

  156·6

  437·0

  Cambridgeshire

  154·8

  238·6

  469·0

  Cheshire

  157·0

  268·3

  754·0

  Cleveland

  153·3

  232·2

  455·0

  Cornwall

  189·4

  148·0

  413·0

  Cumbria

  116·3

  169·6

  4940

  Derbyshire

  100·0

  258·6

  733·0

  Devon

  334·8

  277·2

  701·0

  Dorset

  179·9

  147·9

  386·0

  Durham

  150·0

  229·3

  485·0

  East Sussex

  135·0

  125·4

  389·0

  Essex

  145·3

  612·4

  1,034·0

  Gloucestershire

  137·0

  156·3

  477·0

  Hampshire

  503·9

  399·8

  891·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  160·9

  186·2

  521·0

  Hertfordshire

  492·2

  285·2

  750·0

  Humberside

  173·0

  289·5

  690·0

  Isle of Wight

  45·6

  33·8

  137·0

  Kent

  129·1

  358·9

  1,074·0

  Lancashire

  261·3

  366·3

  1,004·0

  Leicestershire

  24·4

  267·0

  630·0

  Lincolnshire

  100·5

  173·I

  508·0

  Norfolk

  130·3

  211·3

  554·0

  North Yorkshire

  109·0

  226·0

  636·0

  Northamptonshire

  136·0

  226·9

  487·0

  Northumberland

  43·3

  99·4

  314·0

  Nottinghamshire

  275·2

  218·8

  762·2

  Oxfordshire

  155·0

  137·7

  421·0

  Salop

  100·0

  123·8

  383·0

  Somerset

  173·6

  119·2

  389·0

  Staffordshire

  150·0

  286·2

  730·0

  Suffolk

  116·4

  157·2

  496·0

  Surrey

  119·3

  212·0

  541·0

  Warwickshire

  140·9

  144·6

  367·0

  West Sussex

  38·0

  145·9

  390·0

  Wiltshire

  113·6

  158·6

  468·0

  England Totals

  11,134·5

  13,806·2

  35,662·7

  617

  In-service training grants scheme 1986–87 Allocations for IT-related activities

  Microelectronics

  £

  Barking

  2,960

  Barnet

  4,640

  Bexley

  4,230

  Brent

  3,950

  Bromley

  4,840

  Croydon

  5,470

  Ealing

  4,550

  Enfield

  4,720

  Haringey

  3,110

  Harrow

  3,210

  Havering

  4,810

  Hillingdon

  4,060

  Hounslow

  3,630

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,130

  Merton

  2,640

  Newham

  4,260

  Redbridge

  3,800

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,060

  Sutton

  2,850

  Waltham Forest

  3,890

  Inner London

  33,640

  Birmingham

  20,910

  Coventry

  6,190

  Dudley

  6,160

  Sandwell

  6,350

  Solihull

  4,380

  Walsall

  5,950

  Wolverhampton

  5,410

  Knowsley

  3,680

  Liverpool

  9,730

  St. Helens

  4,160

  Sefton

  5,820

  Wirral

  6,630

  Bolton

  5,590

  Bury

  3,360

  Manchester

  8,300

  Oldham

  4,750

  Rochdale

  4,490

  Salford

  4,670

  Stockport

  5,670

  Tameside

  4,480

  Trafford

  3,950

  Wigan

  6,880

  Barnsley

  4,740

  Doncaster

  6,130

  Rotherham

  5,680

  Sheffield

  9,910

  Bradford

  10,060

  Calderdale

  4,070

  Kirklees

  8,100

  Leeds

  13,800

  Wakefield

  6,470

  Gateshead

  3,950

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4,720

  North Tyneside

  3,700

  South Tyneside

  3,060

  Sunderland

  6,460

  Isles of Scilly

  40

  Avon

  16,890

  Bedfordshire

  10,680

  Berkshire

  13,820

  Buckinghamshire

  12,280

  Cambridgeshire

  12,030

  Cheshire

  19,460

  Cleveland

  12,500

  Cornwall

  8,510

  618

  Microelectronics

  £

  Cumbria

  9,620

  Derbyshire

  18,500

  Devon

  17,340

  Dorset

  10,510

  Durham

  12,140

  East Sussex

  10,160

  Essex

  30,200

  Gloucestershire

  9,680

  Hampshire

  28,310

  Hereford and Worcester

  12,840

  Hertfordshire

  19,140

  Humberside

  18,250

  Isle of Wight

  2,150

  Kent

  29,580

  Lancashire

  27,570

  Leicestershire

  17,740

  Lincolnshire

  11,100

  Norfolk

  13,600

  North Yorkshire

  12,630

  Northamptonshire

  11,700

  Northumberland

  6,070

  Nottinghamshire

  20,040

  Oxfordshire

  9,810

  Shropshire

  8,130

  Somerset

  8,220

  Staffordshire

  21,090

  Suffolk

  11,830

  Surrey

  16,000

  Warwickshire

  9,480

  West Sussex

  11,920

  Wiltshire

  10,630

  Local education authority training grants scheme 1987–88 Indicative allocations for IT-related activities

  Microelectronics(schools)

  Microelectronics (FE)

  £'000

  £'000

  Barking

  13

  21

  Barnet

  22

  7

  Bexley

  19

  3

  Brent

  19

  6

  Bromley

  22

  4

  Croydon

  25

  4

  Ealing

  20

  5

  Enfield

  22

  5

  Haringey

  15

  4

  Harrow

  15

  6

  Havering

  21

  3

  Hillingdon

  18

  2

  Hounslow

  17

  3

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  10

  4

  Merton

  12

  3

  Newham

  19

  7

  Redbridge

  17

  2

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  8

  6

  Sutton

  12

  4

  Waltham Forest

  17

  5

  ILEA

  154

  76

  Birmingham

  96

  19

  Coventry

  28

  7

  Dudley

  27

  8

  Sandwell

  29

  8

  Solihull

  20

  5

  Walsall

  27

  4

  Wolverhampton

  24

  6

  Knowsley

  16

  3

  Liverpool

  44

  14

  St. Helens

  19

  7

  Sefton

  26

  9

  Wirral

  30

  9

  619

  Microelectronics (schools)

  Micro electronics (FE)

  £'000

  £'000

  Bolton

  25

  7

  Bury

  15

  2

  Manchester

  39

  15

  Oldham

  22

  3

  Rochdale

  20

  3

  Salford

  22

  4

  Stockport

  28

  6

  Tameside

  20

  5

  Trafford

  17

  5

  Wigan

  31

  8

  Barnsley

  21

  3

  Doncaster

  28

  8

  Rotherham

  25

  5

  Sheffield

  44

  12

  Bradford

  45

  9

  Calderdale

  19

  3

  Kirklees

  36

  7

  Leeds

  62

  14

  Wakefield

  28

  6

  Gateshead

  18

  3

  Newcastle

  22

  6

  North Tyneside

  17

  4

  South Tyneside

  14

  5

  Sunderland

  29

  4

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  Avon

  77

  17

  Bedfordshire

  46

  12

  Berkshire

  60

  17

  Buckinghamshire

  54

  9

  Cambridgeshire

  54

  15

  Cheshire

  86

  20

  Cleveland

  55

  10

  Cornwall

  37

  8

  Cumbria

  43

  8

  Derbyshire

  81

  15

  Devon

  75

  24

  Dorset

  45

  9

  Durham

  54

  11

  East Sussex

  45

  11

  Essex

  132

  22

  Gloucestershire

  44

  10

  Hampshire

  124

  37

  Hereford and Worcester

  56

  14

  Hertfordshire

  85

  25

  Humberside

  80

  14

  Isle of Wight

  10

  2

  Kent

  129

  27

  Lancashire

  122

  36

  Leicestershire

  78

  15

  Lincolnshire

  48

  10

  Norfolk

  59

  12

  North Yorkshire

  56

  16

  Northamptonshire

  53

  10

  Northumberland

  27

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  87

  23

  Oxfordshire

  43

  12

  Shropshire

  36

  9

  Somerset

  36

  11

  Staffordshire

  94

  19

  Suffolk

  52

  10

  Surrey

  72

  17

  Warwickshire

  42

  12

  West Sussex

  52

  11

  Wiltshire

  46

  14

  620

  Local education authority training grants scheme 1988–89 allocations for Information Technology-related activities Indicative allocations for national priority areas 18 (Information Technology in further education) and 12 (New Technologies across the curriculum)

  18 Information technology

  12 New technology across the curriculum

  £000

  £000

  Barking and District

  3

  16

  Barnet

  7

  27

  Bexley

  4

  22

  Brent

  7

  23

  Bromley

  5

  26

  Croydon

  5

  30

  Ealing

  5

  24

  Enfield

  6

  26

  Haringey

  5

  17

  Harrow

  6

  18

  Havering

  3

  25

  Hillingdon

  2

  21

  Hounslow

  4

  20

  Kingston upon Thames

  4

  12

  Merton

  3

  14

  Newham

  8

  23

  Redbridge

  2

  21

  Richmond upon Thames

  6

  10

  Sutton

  5

  15

  Waltham Forest

  5

  21

  ILEA

  80

  185

  Birmingham

  22

  115

  Coventry

  8

  33

  Dudley

  10

  32

  Sandwell

  8

  34

  Solihull

  5

  23

  Walsall

  4

  32

  Wolverhampton

  7

  28

  Knowsley

  3

  19

  Liverpool

  16

  53

  St. Helens

  7

  22

  Sefton

  7

  32

  Wirral

  10

  36

  Bolton

  7

  30

  Bury

  3

  19

  Manchester

  19

  47

  Oldham

  4

  26

  Rochdale

  3

  24

  Salford

  5

  26

  Stockport

  7

  31

  Tameside

  6

  24

  Trafford

  5

  20

  Wigan

  9

  36

  Barnsley

  4

  24

  Doncaster

  8

  33

  Rotherham

  7

  30

  Sheffield

  15

  51

  Bradford

  11

  55

  Calderdale

  3

  22

  Kirklees

  8

  43

  Leeds

  16

  74

  Wakefield

  6

  33

  Gateshead

  3

  21

  Newcastle

  7

  26

  North Tyneside

  4

  20

  South Tyneside

  7

  16

  Sunderland

  5

  35

  Avon

  20

  92

  Bedfordshire

  14

  56

  Berkshire

  20

  73

  Buckinghamshire

  10

  65

  621

  18 Information technology

  12 New technology across the curriculum

  £000

  £000

  Cambridgeshire

  15

  65

  Cheshire

  23

  103

  Cleveland

  12

  66

  Cornwall

  9

  46

  Cumbria

  10

  52

  Derbyshire

  19

  97

  Devon

  28

  90

  Dorset

  10

  55

  Durham

  12

  65

  East Sussex

  13

  55

  Essex

  25

  159

  Gloucestershire

  12

  52

  Hampshire

  40

  149

  Hereford and Worcester

  16

  67

  Hertfordshire

  27

  102

  Humberside

  10

  96

  Isle of Wight

  2

  12

  Kent

  30

  155

  Lancashire

  41

  147

  Leicestershire

  17

  95

  Lincolnshire

  12

  58

  Norfolk

  14

  71

  North Yorkshire

  18

  68

  Northamptonshire

  10

  64

  Northumberland

  3

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  25

  103

  Oxfordshire

  14

  51

  Shropshire

  11

  43

  Somerset

  12

  44

  Staffordshire

  21

  112

  Suffolk

  11

  63

  Surrey

  19

  86

  Warwickshire

  13

  51

  West Sussex

  12

  63

  Wiltshire

  16

  55

  Local Education Authority training grants scheme 1989–90 allocations for IT-related activities.Indicative allocations for national priority areas 12 (information technology/subject competence in further education) and 10 (new technologies across the curriculum)

  12 IT/Subject Competence

  10 New Technologies across the Curriculum

  £,000

  £,000

  Barking and Dagenham

  10

  17

  Barnet

  21

  28

  Bexley

  11

  23

  Brent

  21

  24

  Bromley

  14

  26

  Croydon

  20

  31

  Ealing

  13

  26

  Enfield

  19

  27

  Haringey

  14

  18

  Harrow

  17

  19

  Havering

  10

  26

  Hillingdon

  8

  22

  Hounslow

  11

  21

  Kingston upon Thames

  14

  12

  Merton

  9

  15

  Newham

  25

  24

  Redbridge

  7

  22

  Richmond upon Thames

  14

  11

  Sutton

  14

  16

  Waltham Forest

  13

  21

  ILEA

  171

  193

  Birmingham

  74

  120

  Coventry

  28

  35

  622

  12 IT/Subject Competence

  10 New Technologies across the Curriculum

  £,000

  £,000

  Dudley

  33

  33

  Sandwell

  28

  35

  Solihull

  18

  24

  Walsall

  15

  33

  Wolverhampton

  23

  29

  Knowsley

  11

  19

  Liverpool

  37

  54

  St. Helens

  22

  22

  Sefton

  20

  33

  Wirral

  29

  37

  Bolton

  22

  32

  Bury

  7

  19

  Manchester

  62

  49

  Oldham

  13

  27

  Rochdale

  11

  25

  Salford

  4

  27

  Stockport

  20

  32

  Tameside

  20

  25

  Trafford

  18

  21

  Wigan

  28

  38

  Barnsley

  12

  25

  Doncaster

  25

  34

  Rotherham

  22

  31

  Sheffield

  44

  52

  Bradford

  41

  57

  Calderdale

  11

  23

  Kirklees

  28

  44

  Leeds

  42

  76

  Wakefield

  22

  34

  Gateshead

  9

  22

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  21

  27

  North Tyneside

  14

  21

  South Tyneside

  19

  17

  Sunderland

  16

  36

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  Avon

  62

  96

  Bedfordshire

  41

  59

  Berkshire

  59

  76

  Buckinghamsire

  24

  68

  Cambridgeshire

  35

  69

  Cheshire

  77

  110

  Cleveland

  42

  69

  Cornwall

  26

  48

  Cumbria

  30

  54

  Derbyshire

  57

  100

  Devon

  75

  95

  Dorset

  33

  58

  Durham

  42

  67

  East Sussex

  42

  58

  Essex

  76

  166

  Gloucestershire

  43

  55

  Hampshire

  109

  155

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  52

  70

  Hertfordshire

  85

  106

  Humberside

  46

  100

  Isle of Wight

  11

  12

  Kent

  82

  161

  Lancashire

  127

  153

  Leicestershire

  47

  99

  Lincolnshire

  35

  61

  Norfolk

  45

  75

  North Yorkshire

  49

  72

  Northamptonshire

  28

  67

  Northumberland

  10

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  84

  106

  Oxfordshire

  37

  53

  Shropshire

  30

  45

  623

  12 IT/Subject Competence

  10 New Technologies across the Curriculum

  (£000)

  (£000)

  Somerset

  39

  46

  Staffordshire

  67

  116

  Suffolk

  39

  65

  Surrey

  54

  89

  Warwickshire

  43

  52

  West Sussex

  37

  66

  Wiltshire

  55

  58

  Local education authority training grants scheme 1990–91 allocations for IT-related activities Indicative allocations for national priority areas 14 (IT in further education) and 9 (new technologies across the curriculum)

  IT

  New Technologies

  £,000

  £,000

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  20

  Barnet

  6

  34

  Bexley

  5

  28

  Brent

  6

  28

  Bromley

  5

  31

  Croydon

  6

  37

  Ealing

  5

  31

  Enfield

  5

  33

  Haringey

  5

  22

  Harrow

  9

  22

  Havering

  5

  31

  Hillingdon

  5

  26

  Hounslow

  5

  26

  Kingston upon Thames

  5

  14

  Merton

  5

  17

  Newham

  7

  29

  Redbridge

  5

  26

  Richmond upon Thames

  5

  14

  Sutton

  5

  19

  Waltham Forest

  5

  26

  Camden

  5

  17

  Corporation of London

  0

  *

  Greenwich

  5

  28

  Hackney

  5

  19

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5

  13

  Islington

  5

  17

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  9

  Lambeth

  6

  21

  Lewisham

  5

  25

  Southwark

  5

  24

  Tower Hamlets

  5

  23

  Wandsworth

  7

  23

  Westminster

  6

  14

  Birmingham

  19

  146

  Coventry

  8

  41

  Dudley

  10

  39

  Sandwell

  8

  41

  Solihull

  5

  29

  Walsall

  5

  39

  Wolverhampton

  6

  34

  Knowsley

  5

  23

  Liverpool

  11

  65

  St. Helens

  7

  26

  Sefton

  6

  39

  Wirral

  8

  45

  Bolton

  6

  38

  Bury

  5

  23

  Manchester

  16

  59

  Oldham

  5

  33

  Rochdale

  5

  30

  Salford

  5

  31

  Stockport

  7

  38

  624

  IT

  New Technologies

  £,000

  £,000

  Tameside

  5

  30

  Trafford

  6

  25

  Wigan

  9

  45

  Barnsley

  5

  29

  Doncaster

  7

  41

  Rotherham

  6

  36

  Sheffield

  11

  61

  Bradford

  12

  69

  Calderdale

  5

  28

  Kirklees

  9

  53

  Leeds

  12

  90

  Wakefield

  6

  41

  Gateshead

  5

  26

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6

  33

  North Tyneside

  5

  25

  South Tyneside

  6

  20

  Sunderland

  5

  43

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  Avon

  18

  115

  Bedfordshire

  12

  71

  Berkshire

  18

  92

  Buckinghamshire

  7

  82

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  84

  Cheshire

  20

  132

  Cleveland

  11

  82

  Cornwall

  7

  59

  Cumbria

  9

  64

  Derbyshire

  15

  120

  Devon

  21

  115

  Dorset

  10

  70

  Durham

  12

  80

  East Sussex

  13

  70

  Essex

  21

  199

  Gloucestershire

  12

  66

  Hampshire

  31

  186

  Hereford and Worcester

  14

  85

  Hertfordshire

  24

  127

  Humberside

  13

  119

  Isle of Wight

  5

  15

  Kent

  22

  193

  Lancashire

  37

  184

  Leicestershire

  14

  120

  Lincolnshire

  10

  73

  Norfolk

  13

  90

  North Yorkshire

  14

  86

  Northamptonshire

  8

  82

  Northumberland

  5

  42

  Nottinghamshire

  23

  126

  Oxfordshire

  13

  64

  Shropshire

  9

  54

  Somerset

  12

  56

  Staffordshire

  19

  139

  Suffolk

  11

  79

  Surrey

  15

  106

  Warwickshire

  12

  63

  West Sussex

  10

  80

  Wiltshire

  15

  69

  Notes to tables:

  1. The main Education Support Grant programmes which have supported spending on Information Technology, and which are listed in the tables, are:

  i. Micros for SEN (the provision of microelectronic equipment designed or adapted for use by children with special educational needs (SEN)).

  ii. IT in NAFE (the development of the use of information technology at non-advanced further education (NAFE) establishments).

  iii. CMIS (computerised management information systems—the provision of data processing equipment, accessories and software for use in the management of further education establishments).

  625

  iv. Special needs in FE (the provision of computerised learning aids at further education establishments for use by students with special educational needs).

  v. IT in Schools (the promotion of information technology as an aid to learning in schools).

  vi. LMS (the provision of management information systems for use in connection with schemes for local management of schools).

  2. Projects supported under certain other ESG activities may also have had some IT element.

  3. The allocations shown for the LMS activity in 1989–90 and 1990–91 are the total allocations for that activity. IT for management information systems is only one of the categories of expenditure covered by the activity, which also covers staff training and the provision of central LEA support. The IT element within the total sum for the activity was £12 million in the 1989–90 programme and £23 million in the 1990–91 programme. This element cannot be separately identified within the allocations to individual LEAs.

  4. The Local Education Authority Training Grants Scheme (LEATGS) replaced the former In-Service Teacher Training Grants Scheme in April 1987. The allocations given for the LEATGS show the expenditure supported under the relevant National Priority Areas. Local Education Authorities are free to add to those sums from the allocations made under the LEATGS in support of local priorities, or from their other sources of income.

  5. In the 1989–90 LEATGS programme, the National Priority Area shown in the Table as "IT/Subject Competence" covered training to develop competence in the teaching of technical, commercial or professional subjects in the light of recent developments in industry, commerce or the professions, including the teaching of IT and its integration across the curriculum. The element for IT cannot be separately identified within the allocations to individual LEAs.

  6. The rate at which grant is paid in support of the allocations shown in the tables has varied.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the percentage of the education support grant which has been allocated to information technology in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Various aspects of information technology (IT) have been supported through a range of activities within education support grant (ESG) programmes over the last five years. These activities include those relating to IT as an aid to learning in schools, IT for pupils 626
  with special educational needs in schools, local management of schools, computerised management information systems for colleges, IT as an aid to learning in further education, and IT for students with special educational needs in further education. The proportion of the total ESG programme accounted for by the allocations for these activities is:

  per cent.

  1986–87

  11

  1987–88

  9

  1988–89

  24

  1989–90

  35

  1990–91

  34

  In addition, projects supported under certain other ESG activities may have had some IT element.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on the level of spending on information technology over the next two years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend considers that, within the resources available to the education service, the level of spending on information technology (IT) should take account of the requirements of the Education Reform Act as well as reflecting the wider benefits which pupils, students, teachers and others can derive from the use of IT. In relation to schools and colleges, it is for each local education authority, and under local management, the institutions concerned, to determine the level of spending consistent with this approach, in the light of local circumstances. My right hon. Friend is continuing to support such spending through the LEA training grants scheme (LEATGS) and education support grants (ESGs). The LEATGS allocations for 1990–91 were announced on 18 December and the ESG allocations on 18 January. Together they will support at least £55 million of spending on IT. My right hon. Friend will be announcing his proposals for the ESG and LEATGS programmes for 1991–92 in due course.

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.

Poland and Hungary: Assistance
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they are giving to help reforms in Poland and Hungary.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Know-how funds for Poland and Hungary have been created to transfer the skills needed to run free market economies and democratic societies. We have given 100 million dollars to the international stabilisation fund to support Poland's IMF-approved economic reform programme. We stand ready to help support a firm economic reform programme for Hungary when one is agreed with the IMF.
The UK is also playing a leading part in the European Community programme which in 1990 will disperse £210 million in Poland and Hungary, on top of the food supplies worth £23 million for Poland approved last month.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his extremely helpful and encouraging reply. My noble friend Lady Cox initiated a debate on this subject on 11th December on her return from Poland. She spoke of the great lack of food and medical supplies there. Will my noble friend confirm that medical supplies will be included in the European aid package?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. One of the matters that the EC is concentrating on is the supply of medical assistance. The Commission held a meeting of the group of 24 donor countries on 26th January to discuss further medical assistance. The United Kingdom emphasised the urgent need for that to be brought forward.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the countries referred to in the Question are inviting help for the supply of know-how, both technical and administrative, in order to help their small companies? What steps are the Government taking to assist in that direction?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have been providing precisely that kind of help to Poland particularly through the know-how fund. There are currently a large number of projects that are in hand or are to be implemented or completed. I shall be happy to send the noble Lord a list of those projects and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, while the change of the Polish people to democracy is particularly welcome to all of us, that democracy cannot last unless they feed the stomachs of their own people. If the Government want democracy to succeed, as we all do, what are they doing to ensure that countries such as Poland get out of the awful economic mire that the wretched communists have left them in?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, food aid has featured highly on the list of priorities. The EC has already contributed 100 million ecus in the first tranche and last month announced a further £23 million of food aid. In addition to that, Community project assistance for Poland and Hungary worth 300 million ecus has been announced and the United Kingdom has also provided a food project worth £15 million.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we appreciate the unilateral assistance which Her Majesty's Government are giving to these two countries, is it not the case that the problem encompasses the massive economic problems not only of the two countries referred to but also of all the other East European countries including the Soviet Union? Should not the policies of this country and our allies be to ensure that at this critical point in history we should be doing everything we can to establish stable democratic governments in all those East European countries as the consequences of destabilisation and Balkanisation are too terrible to contemplate? The challenge is great but the opportunities are also great. In those circumstances will Her Majesty's Government consider giving a lead in calling an international economic conference to consider whether the problems can be resolved on a global scale?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, we are helping on an international basis, principally through the group of 24, whose efforts are being co-ordinated by the European Commission. That is achieving quite good practical results in the short term.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider extending the terms of reference of the know-how fund so that it includes references to deal with Poland's desperate environmental problems at the present time?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly. So far as concerns environmental problems, we and our European partners have set aside between £35 million and £50 million of the EC's project assistance for Poland and Hungary this year for environmental assistance.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I work frequently in Poland and so far have not heard of or seen any special funds that have been allocated specifically to the health service there. Is the Minister aware that the Polish health service is in chaos? Conditions are desperate and far worse than they

697
were 25 years ago. It is known that 120 hospitals started by the Poles are incomplete. In addition, the foundation which I represent requires a minimum of £12 million to £14 million to build further homes and hospitals for all age groups and disabilities and the thousands of sick, destitute and dying, particularly those with cancer and leukaemia and many other disabilities and diseases. Can the Minister therefore say what funds have been allocated to the health service in Poland, because we have been told that assistance is to be provided from this fund or that fund or the know-how fund, but neither I nor the Health Minister in Poland can pin it down?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords admire the work that the noble Baroness does in Poland. I shall certainly bear in mind very carefully what she has said today. I have already referred to assistance with medical supplies, but I shall take account of what she said.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Europe was saved from chaos at the end of the war by the imaginative scheme of the Marshall Plan and that this country contributed 1 per cent. of its GDP to assist European countries less fortunate than ourselves? Can he give us any hope that a similar imaginative plan will be agreed between us and our allies in order to take advantage of the tremendous change which is taking place in Eastern Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that I can give the noble Lord some encouragement. I have already referred to the group of 24 countries which have declared their willingness to respond to the needs of other countries in Eastern Europe as well as Poland and Hungary. We have already announced that our know-how fund will be extended to other countries in Eastern Europe as and when they make a firm commitment to democracy.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on a story in this morning's newspapers to the effect that Conservative Members of the European Parliament want the funds for building up democracy in Eastern Europe to be sent exclusively to parties of the centre right? Is the story true? If it is true, will the Government dissociate themselves from that intention in favour of sending funds impartially towards the construction of democracy itself, which comes first?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have not seen the story to which the noble Lord refers. The know-how fund is directed towards politicians of all kinds. Groups of Hungarian and Polish politicians have already participated in successful seminars on the UK parliamentary system organised by the Great Britain-East Europe Centre.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the European Conservative group joined with others in setting up a fund to help all parties in
698
Hungary and Poland to set up democratic bodies and that the Socialist group in the European Parliament voted against the proposal?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, noble Lords will be grateful for the information which my noble friend has provided on the subject.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to aid, will the Government also consider trade, particularly in the case of Poland? In the light of discussions which some of us had with Lech Walesa, the great Polish trade unionist whose organisation has played such a vital role in these events, would it not be sensible for our Government to invite the Polish equivalent of the CBI and the TUC to increase trade, in addition to contributing in the form of aid?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, trade is principally a subject for the judgment of commercial companies. It is for them to decide whether to invest in Poland. The know-how fund to which I have already referred gives assistance to people such as those to whom the noble Lord referred to learn how to operate in a market economy.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the aid is spread among small companies, since that is not only the most economic way of dealing with the problem but also at this stage of the development of Eastern Europe any company of value is likely to be small?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the aid is not given to individual companies. The know-how fund is aimed at teaching people how to run companies.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the vast number of technical and commercial problems faced by Polish industry and commerce can only be solved by a huge range of detailed contacts between companies there and companies here? Is he aware that Germany in particular is outstripping by a long way the contacts gained by British industry? In view of the importance of joint enterprise in the solution of the problems, will the Government undertake a widespread publicity campaign to make British industry aware of the opportunities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that it is for the Government to make British industry aware of the opportunities. British industry is obviously well aware of the changes. No one could not be aware of what is going on in Eastern Europe. I am sure that companies will take advantage of the opportunities when they are presented to them.

Education: Pupil Assessment
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to avoid potential conflict between the requirements of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) and the requirements of the national curriculum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is to be a single framework of assessment for pupils at the age of 16 whereby pupils will be assessed within 10 levels of achievement on the national curriculum scale. The main form of assessment will be the GCSE and pupils will be awarded a GCSE certificate if they achieve level 4 or better. GCSEs will be available in single subjects and also in combinations of subjects. The Schools Examinations and Assessment Council is developing revised GCSE national criteria embodying the statutory attainment targets and programmes of study for the foundation subjects.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting reply. May we interpret it as meaning that there will be greater flexibility in the teaching available to youngsters between the ages of 14 and 16?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness has picked up a concern expressed by all our secondary schools. That was the single most common concern that has come back from the secondary schools. I am happy to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State responded positively to that concern in his speech to the Society of Education Officers on 25th January. He has called for a broad and balanced curriculum, flexibility to meet the needs of all children from the most able to the least able and —another important feature—continuity between stages of education —primary, secondary, further and higher education.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, how does the Minister's reply this afternoon compare with the report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools which was published yesterday and in which the inspector was not happy about the way in which things are going at present?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not know about the report. I have not seen it, but it has probably not kept up with the pace of change. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to amend the 1989 information regulations to introduce the flexibility called for by teachers with regard to what is known in the jargon as Key Stage 4 for all children aged between 14 and 16. I am convinced that, if the noble Lord reads the speech, which is deposited in the Library, he will be heartened by the detail in which it sets out the flexibility that will apply to children of all abilities.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, will that flexibility allow pupils to drop subjects before the fourth year of secondary education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is sticking to the original suggestion that core subjects, plus technology and modern languages, will have to be studied to the end of Key Stage 4. However, for the brightest pupils, there will be flexibility to substitute subjects during that key stage and for the least able there will also be flexibility to introduce other subjects. To that end, BTEC, City and Guilds and Royal Society of Arts qualifications will also be considered to dovetail into the attainment scale.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are pleased that there will be greater flexibility, as we had all expected? We gather that there is a certain amount of trouble in getting teachers to agree to do all the assessment and examining that will be necessary in all key stages and that they will be thoroughly exhausted by the time they reach Key Stage 4. Perhaps I may say ——
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask that, when the noble Baroness has had time to read the Chief Inspector's report, she will add her voice to the need for greater flexibility still and for a little less assessment which takes up the time of teachers who are much needed for other purposes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point about the need for flexibility. That is important, but it is also important that we do not return to the bad old days of so much flexibility that nothing is studied in any depth. The balance between core foundation subjects and flexibility with the non-core foundation subjects is problably the best bet for our young children.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Baroness, the document to which reference was made is freely available even to Ministers. I assure her that it makes extremely interesting reading.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall get to the question; there is no problem there at all. Is the noble Baroness aware that, in referring to the speech made by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the Times Educational Supplement stated that, in the eyes of the head teachers who will bear the brunt of managing the package of measures that he announced last week to a stunned Society of Education Officers, he failed on all three counts dealing with overcrowding, fragmentation and certification? Is it not a serious state of affairs when a distinguished journal such as the Times Educational Supplement believes that it should say that kind of thing about the Secretary of State's speech?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for not yet having read that document. The House sat until about three this morning, I was in my bed at 4 a.m., on the road again at quarter to eight and have been at meetings ever since.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have however read in detail the whole speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 25th January in which he dealt in great detail with the overcrowding, fragmentation and certification issues. I should prefer to return to that question when the noble Lord has read the speech in the same detail as I have done.

Planning Permission: Statutory Obligations
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the planning permission process, due regard is given to the needs of the handicapped and the elderly; and, if so, why it is that the new Oxford railway station will be as inconvenient as the old, and Oxford bus station is inaccessible to taxis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, developers are statutorily obliged to provide suitable access for disabled people to a wide range of buildings used by the public. Local authorities have a duty, when granting planning permission for such buildings, to draw attention to those statutory obligations. The problems mentioned in my noble friend's Question are matters for the local authority.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, which I expected. However, does he agree that it is reprehensible that the central bus station in Oxford City, which was convenient albeit rather old, has been replaced by a new bus station with no access to taxis? People arriving on long-distance buses from London Airport and elsewhere in England cannot find a taxi when they arrive at the bus station. Surely that matter should have been dealt with at the early stages of planning. As the Minister will know, the old station at Oxford has been replaced by a new station ——
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Faithfull:——with no access for the elderly and handicapped other than a bridge and steps. Does he agree that that point should also have been dealt with, and that Network SouthEast should have taken note of the Department of Transport's advice?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords would be extremely upset if I came to the Dispatch Box and announced that Marsham Street intended to take over the local planning process. Those problems should have been resolved by the local planning authority. That is its duty, one which it was elected to undertake.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, although the Minister is in effect washing his hands of his responsibility and says that this matter is the responsibility of the local authority, will he say what monitoring steps the department takes to ensure that local authorities comply with the law? The thrust of the Question is the sad plight of the chronically sick and disabled. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that every local authority complies fully with its duty and responsibility to the chronically sick and disabled, many of whom are silent when it conies to making known their needs?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is no doubt well aware, Section 106 of the
702
Transport Act 1985 lays down the criteria to answer his point. However, I should draw his attention to the fact that Wandsworth, a borough which is not often in his good books, supplied 90 per cent. of the cost at Clapham Junction of providing the answer requested by those who need better facilities at Oxford —an answer which has not been provided by a Socialist-led council.

Medium Term Financial Strategy
2.58 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they still have a medium term financial strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that intriguing reply. Since the latest in the long line of monetary benchmarks announced by the Government —MO —is proving unaccommodating and running well above the target range set in the last Budget, and, since inflation, both the RIP and the underlying rate which the Government tend to prefer are running well ahead of Treasury forecasts, does the Minister agree that an honest and logical application of the medium term financial strategy—should the new Chancellor be able to find it —would involve higher interest rates and higher taxation, or both?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. My right honourable friend has made it clear that interest rates will remain as high as is necessary for as long as is necessary to achieve the required effect in bringing down inflation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not possible that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, meant RPI and not RIP as he said?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that my noble and learned friend is correct.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there exists an impression, which is not confined entirely to this side of the House, that the Government are far less concerned with the medium term financial strategy than they are with the medium term election strategy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that that concern is more appropriate for the other side of the House than for my side. We remain committed to the objectives of the medium term financial strategy and, as I stated, interest rates will remain as high as is necessary for as long as is necessary.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as we are on the subject of medium term strategies, are the Government contemplating the introducton of a medium term

703
industrial strategy, bearing in mind the need to widen our industrial base and make it more efficient so that we can compete more effectively when the enlarged European market comes into operation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that question goes very wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I repeat: bringing down inflation is the Government's top priority.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why until recently we were told that we were enjoying an economic miracle but we are now told that things are so bad that we must have 15 per cent. interest rates indefinitely?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we do not have to have interest rates at 15 per cent. indefinitely. I said that interest rates will remain as high as is necessary for as long as is necessary to achieve the required effect in bringing down inflation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord did not tell us exactly what the medium term financial strategy was. Does he agree that the medium term financial strategy —as it appears to us —means higher interest rates, higher prices and lower production? Is not that to be the effect of the medium term financial strategy?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. Perhaps I may quote from the Financial Statement and Budget Report of 1989–90, published last March:
"Since its inception in 1980, the MTFS has provided a nominal framework within which the Government pursues its objective of bringing down the rate of inflation".
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that my noble friend Lord Donoughue was right when he said that the Government should declare RIP to the medium term financial strategy? In fact, it has been abandoned by the Government. There is no medium term financial strategy, despite what they say. Will the noble Lord come clean and admit that that is the Government's position?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I had made myself perfectly clear. The objectives of the medium term financial strategy and the central role of monetary policy in reducing inflation remained unchanged throughout the 1980s.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on criminal justice proposals.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about an hour and that during that adjournment the Second Reading of the Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill will be taken.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 4 [United Kingdom evidence for use overseas]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 17, after ("State") insert ("or, if the evidence is to be obtained in Scotland, the Lord Advocate").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if it is neither an impertinence nor presumptuous for me to think so, I believe that it may be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if, when moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 19 inclusive. Those amendments in my name are all drafting amendments.
They bring the Scottish law into line with the English law as is proposed in the Bill. They do not at all alter the substance of the Bill. If your Lordships are happy with that explanation, I propose to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 4 to 19 when we come to them. Should any of your Lordships wish for an explanation of any one of the amendments, I should be happy to do my best to give it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment repeats an amendment which appeared on the Marshalled List at Committee stage. Perhaps I may briefly tell the House the purpose of it.
I believe that it is the wish of both sides of the House to ensure that the proper and reputable elements of the City are protected. Bankers have relied for their custom on their reputation for confidentiality in the relationship of banker and customer. The Bill enables a convention to be entered into and it is a convention that has a very justifiable origin. The Bill enables us to sign a convention which allows the United Kingdom in Europe to have mutuality of co-operation and help in regard to criminal offences. With that objective nobody would want to quarrel, certainly nobody on these Benches.
However, by way of a protocol there is a provision which enables a foreign government to require our Government, and in turn for us to require a banker, to deal with what is termed by that government a criminal offence relating to fiscal matters. In our country there are many fiscal matters which do not enter into the criminal realm. However, other countries, quite properly from their own point of view, have a criminal system which deals with fiscal affairs generally. This situation requires a provision for mutual criminality (if I may use that phrase) or a mutual criminal law situation.
If there were not that mutual criminal law situation, it would mean that the country which has fiscal matters as part of its criminal law would be

705
able to ask —in fact, demand —that our bankers should divulge various pieces of information to the demanding country. One imagines that that information would naturally include copies of bank statements.
Your Lordships may think that it would be an odd situation if indeed it were the position that a bank in the United Kingdom should not be obliged to reveal such information to our own authorities but would have to do so in the case of a foreign customer. Noble Lords may agree that it is hardly likely to induce foreign customers to deposit money with our banks if those banks and their accounts are to be subject to the demands which are open to a foreign government by virtue of our entry into this convention and protocol.
When I moved this amendment at Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was kind enough to support me, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rose in my defence, if that is the appropriate phrase to use. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked the Minister a question which I paraphrase, but noble Lords may take it for granted that it is accurate. He said, "Is it a fact and do I understand you correctly to mean that we would not be able to sign the protocol and the convention if we were to agree to this amendment?"
Anyone who knows the noble Earl as I have the fortune to do will know perfectly well that if there were any misunderstanding as a result of his reply to that question it would have been inadvertent or as a result of a lack of briefing. However, the noble Earl said in very clear terms, "Yes, that is the position". Again the noble Earl did not say —and I use precisely the same phrase; it must have been inadvertent —what the position was with regard to other countries that had signed the convention and had dealt with the protocol.
The position is this. Eight countries have signed. Of those eight, four have made a reservation in the terms of this amendment; namely, that they will not agree it in regard to fiscal matters. There has been no difficulty. I know that the Minister will agree that I dealt with his replies on the last occasion to the amendment with the same degree of courtesy and understanding that he would have accorded to me had the position been reversed, as it could very easily have been. Had I been in that position I too might have been misled. However, I do not wish to be misled now. I therefore advocate this amendment to the House. It has the full approval of the British Bankers Association. Indeed, it is their plea that your Lordships' House should agree the amendment. It has the full approval of the Law Society. Your Lordships will now know that one half of the countries signing the convention have done exactly what I ask your Lordships to do in this amendment.
Noble Lords may wish to know the names of the eight countries. They are as follows: Denmark, Greece, Italy, Austria, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. The four countries which have said that they will not agree to the fiscal provisions in the same way that I have asked for in this amendment are Austria, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has raised the matter again because it is a matter of first-class principle. We are going into a Common Market. How far do we take the rules? Do we take them to a degree that will injure our activities, in particular our financial activities, in this country? That is what the noble Lord has said. I know that he is backed by the bankers. They are concerned that matters of high commerce should for quite irrelevant reasons become known to other countries.
I believe that we have to draw the line there and to say that that is not necessary. It is quite clear that other countries have quite willingly signed the protocol with the reservation such as we would make. My noble friend objected to accepting the proposal before. He stated, with that reservation, that it would make it impossible for us to agree to what was laid down. It is quite evident that that is not the case. In those circumstances I ask the noble Earl to accept the principle.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should be very sorry indeed if the question that I asked at Committee stage were to get the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, into any trouble. Although I understand the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if he and other noble Lords will look at col. 882 of the Official Report at Committee stage he will find that the noble Earl made the position absolutely clear. He stated:
"In effect, this means that acceptance of the amendments would, since they impose a dual criminality requirement as a prerequisite to the grant of assistance under Clause 4, make it impossible for us to accede to the fiscal provisions of the additional protocol".
On that basis, I do not think that there could be much misunderstanding about what the noble Earl said. However, in his defence, since my name was mentioned, I thought it only right to draw attention to what he said.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I wish only to say this so that there is no misunderstanding. That is exactly what I was quoting. The Minister inadvertently gave the impression that it would be impossible to sign the protocol if the amendment that I have moved were agreed to. That is not the position, as is shown by the fact that four other countries have done just that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, since we can make only one speech during Report stage I do not propose to breach the rules of order.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for two matters. First, he brought us back to a state of order. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had slipped us out of such order wholly inadvertently. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was for once very concerned that he had got me into trouble. That is a very easy situation for me to get into. However, I assure him that on this occasion it was not his fault but that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, very kindly said that I was courteous and understanding in my approach to matters, and I

707
would hope to be so today. The last thing that I would wish to do would be to mislead either the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, or anyone else. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for having come to what I believe is the important part of this concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the fact that we had a debate during the Committee stage on the bankers' concern about the operation of Clause 4. I sought on that occasion to explain the safeguards which are already in the Bill and to set out the reasons why an amendment along the lines now proposed would be both unnecessary and damaging to our ability to co-operate with other countries in the fight against crime. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has suggested that it may indeed be possible to ratify the additional protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters while still having a dual criminality requirement in fiscal cases, as these amendments propose.
The protocol is a complex document and its relationship to the convention is equally so. But it is important to bear in mind that the protocol is not only concerned with fiscal offences. This is the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned. In all it concerns three separate and distinct measures of which fiscal offences are only one. It is possible to ratify the protocol itself if the state concerned can accept any one of those three measures. It follows that it is perfectly possible to ratify the protocol without accepting its fiscal provisions. Article 8 of the protocol makes this possible.
But this would be of very little advantage to us since the other two matters with which the protocol is concerned are largely procedural. In short, there will be only very limited benefit to us in ratifying the protocol unless in doing so we are able to accept its fiscal provisions. In my remarks in our debate in Committee I tried to make it as clear as possible that it was the fiscal provisions of the protocol that we were concerned to be able to ratify. If the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, were to be made to the Bill it would render it impossible for us to accept the fiscal provisions of the additional protocol. We could accept the other provisions but not the fiscal provisions. This is because there is nothing in the wording of the protocol which makes it possible to accept the fiscal provisions but to make this acceptance subject to a dual criminality test. That is the real difficulty with the noble Lord's amendment. The advantages that we believe will follow from ratifying the fiscal provisions of the additional protocol and co-operating with other countries in proceedings involving fiscal offences are, in the Government's view, persuasive.
I hope that that explanation, coupled with the assurance that I gave to the noble Lord in Committee, will satisfy him. I repeat the assurance that I gave him. The noble Lord asked whether I could give an assurance in relation to any fiscal matter complained of. My answer was that the Secretary of State would not give such consent unless
708
a similar matter was a criminal offence in this country.
I explained that I could not give a blanket assurance which would bind any future Secretary of State. However, I gave the assurance that any future Secretary of State, confronted with such a situation, would give it his serious attention. I believe that to be the case. While I understand the noble Lord's difficulties, I assure him that if his amendment were passed he should not be able to sign that part of the protocol which refers to fiscal matters.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he explain why Austria, Iceland, Norway and Sweden appear to have excluded the fiscal requirements of the protocol?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the reservations made by the other countries are not in the terms of the amendment. They state that the four countries concerned will not assist at all in fiscal cases; not that they would do so subject to dual criminality.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I regret some of the statements made by the noble Earl only because I regarded as being unfortunate two matters to which I referred. The noble Earl will realise that I am not impugning any part of his integrity when talking to, leading and informing the House. I know him too well to believe that that is in issue.
However, what are we to assume when the following is the position? First, the House was not informed that four countries had made the reservation, as they were entitled to under Clause 8 of the protocol. Secondly, what is one to infer from the question asked at col. 884 of Hansard dated 22nd January:
"I understood him to say that if the Bill were amended in this fashion we would not be able to ratify the convention. Am I correct in that assumption?"?
The noble Earl's answer was, "Yes". As I understand it, that means that one cannot ratify the convention if one makes a reservation in regard to fiscal matters, as four countries have already done.
It would be wrong of me to ask for a Division on the matter. I rely upon what the noble Earl said on the last occasion about what the Secretary of State may do when met with a demand from a foreign country where there was not mutual criminality. He voiced the weakness of that situation in saying that he cannot bind a future Secretary of State. I hope only that all future Secretaries of State will be honourable and will read what the noble Earl said on the last occasion and has repeated on this occasion. However, it would have been most wise and proper if the noble Earl had seen fit to accept the amendment in the light of the information which I have now brought to the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to clarify one matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is always fair and I was not conscious of misleading the House. He referred to a question

709
which was asked in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. He said:
"I understood him to say that if the Bill were amended in this fashion we would not be able to ratify the convention. Am I correct in that assumption?".
I said, "Yes". I should have been more accurate if I had said, "Yes, we would not be able to ratify the fiscal part of that protocol".
As I have explained this afternoon, it is true that we could ratify the protocol but without the fiscal advantages. However, as I have also tried to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, we believe that it is important to ratify the fiscal advantages.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for that clarification. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("England, Wales or Northern Ireland or, as the case may be, Scotland").
Page 4, line 30, after ("State") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Lord Advocate").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as I said when I moved Amendment No. 1, Amendments Nos. 4 to 19 cover matters relating to Scotland in order to bring its law into line with that of England and Wales, as is proposed in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
"Search etc. for material relevant to overseas investigation: Scotland
.—(1) If, on an application made by the procurator fiscal it appears to the sheriff—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom has been committed; and

(b) that the offence would constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment if it had occurred in Scotland,

the sheriff shall have the like power to grant warrant authorising entry, search and seizure by any constable as he would have at common law in respect of any offence punishable at common law in Scotland.
(2) No application for a warrant shall be made by virtue of subsection (1) above except in pursuance of a direction given by the Lord Advocate in response to a request received by the Secretary of State—

(a) from a court or tribunal exercising criminal jurisdiction in the overseas country or territory in question or a prosecuting authority in that country or territory; or

(b) from any other authority in that country or territory which appears to him to have the function of making requests for the purpose of this section,

and any evidence seized by the constable by virtue of this section shall be furnished by him to the Lord Advocate for transmission to that court, tribunal or authority.
(3) If in order to comply with the request it is necessary for any such evidence to be accompanied by any certificate, affidavit or other verifying document the constable shall also furnish for transmission such document of that nature as may be specified in the direction given by the Lord Advocate.
(4) Where the evidence consists of a document the original or a copy shall be transmitted and where it consists of any other
710
article the article itself or a description, photograph or other representation of it shall be transmitted, as may be necessary in order to comply with the request.
(5) The Treasury may by order direct that any powers to enter, search or seize granted by virtue of subsection (1) above which may be exercised by a constable shall also be exercisable by, or by any person acting under the direction of, an officer commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979; and the Secretary of State may by order direct that any of those powers shall also be exercisable by a person of any other description specified in the order.
(6) An order under subsection (5) above shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Interest on sums unpaid under confiscation orders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 11:
Page 12, line 23, after) ("1973"( insert ("or under section 396(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975").
Page 12, line 27, after ("Court") insert ("or, in Scotland, the sheriff").
Page 12, line 30, after ("payment)") insert ("or under subsection (2) of section 396 of the said Act of 1975 (which makes similar provision for Scotland)").
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("that section") and insert ("the said section 31 or under section 407(1A) of the said Act of 1975").
Page 12, line 35, at end insert ("and in Scotland shall be the rate applicable to an award of damages in the Court of Session").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Extradition]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 15:
Page 15, line 17, leave out ("or").
Page 15, line 19, at end insert—("or
(k) an offence to which section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 relates;").
Page 15, line 27, after ("Convention") insert ("(i)").
Page 15, line 29, at end insert (";and
(ii) an offence to which section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 relates;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 16, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) In relation to Scotland, any expression used in this Part of this Act which is also used in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 has the same meaning as in that Act and "drug trafficking offence" means an offence to which section 1 of that Act relates.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [United Kingdom Evidence for Use Overseas: Proceedings of Nominated Court]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 18, line 44, after ("State") insert ("or, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Consequential and other Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 22, leave out lines 16 to 21 and insert —
("4. —(1) The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 1—

(a) in subsection (2) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted —

"(cc) an offence under sections 11, 13 or 17 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990;",

and in paragraph (d) for "or (c)" there shall be substituted ", (c) or (cc)";

(b) in subsection (6) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted —

"(e) manufacturing or supplying a scheduled substance within the meaning of section 11 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 where the manufacture or supply is an offence under that section;".

(3) In section 3(3) after the words "section 43 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or section 13 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990".
(4) In section 5(2) the words from "at the date" to "first occurs)", the words "on that date" and the words "as at that date" shall cease to have effect.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 23, line 18, at end insert —

("1987 c. 41.

The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987.

In section 5(2) the words from "at the date" to "first occurs)", the words "on that date" and the words "as at that date".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
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.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "embryo", "gamete" and associated expressions]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("stated") insert ("or implied").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 4 concerning the same point. I consider both amendments to be purely drafting amendments,
712
although sometimes it turns out that they amount to more than drafting when it comes to the crunch.
It is stated in Clause 1(a):
"References in this Act to an embryo, except where otherwise stated, are to a live human embryo".
However, Clause 3(2) states:
"No person shall place in a woman … a live embryo other than a human embryo".
It is perfectly clear from the context that the live embryo there mentioned is meant to be a non-human embryo. That is the only way in which the sentence can make sense. But under Clause 1(1) it can refer only to a human embryo because it is not otherwise stated. Therefore, at present the subsection provides that no person shall place in a woman a live human embryo other than a human embryo. That, of course, is nonsense.
That situation would be avoided if my amendment were accepted. It inserts the words "or implied" after the word "stated" in Clause 1(1). Mutatis mutandis, the same applies with regard to Amendment No. 4 if Clause 1(3) is read in conjunction with Clause 3(2)(b). I hope that I have expressed the position clearly. It is rather confusing, but I believe that both amendments need to be made. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps I am foolish, but I am not quite clear what else could be implanted into a woman except a human embryo. While I find this whole matter totally repellent, this is absolutely ridiculous. What are we talking about? The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, did not explain what is the alternative.
Lord Ennals: Since this is the first intervention which I make in this debate, I should say that I shall be speaking in a personal capacity. That saves me repeating myself on every intervention which I make. Speaking from this Front Bench, I am speaking for myself.
In relation to this amendment, I find it very difficult to conceive of legislation which deals with implications. Implications are always very difficult to define. An implication is like a nod and a wink. I know what is stated but I do not know what is implied. I hope that my noble friend will not proceed to a Division on this amendment. I do not believe that it is suitable to legislate for a matter of judgment rather than of fact.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has kindly drawn attention to this question in order to focus on, for example, the provision in Clause 3(2). The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked what is involved. I cannot make it plainer than to say that what is involved is "a live embryo other than a human embryo"; for example, some form of animal embryo. This makes it quite clear that no person shall place in a woman a live embryo other than a human embryo. That is the purpose involved here. The noble Baroness may feel that that is so extraordinary that it should not be prohibited but extraordinary things can happen and, therefore, it is wise to make the prohibition.

713
As regards the amendment, the advice which I have been given is that the meaning of Clause 3(2) is absolutely plain and that no further clarification is necessary. It would seem to me that the statement in Clause 3(2)(a) as a whole is a statement that the first word "embryo" there appearing is not a human embryo but an embryo other than a human embryo. I should have thought that that is reasonably plain. Accordingly, the advice that I have received, which I pass on to the Committee, is that this amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Kilbracken: I am glad to know that the noble and learned Lord does not believe that the amendment is necessary. I know that if any Member of the Committee other than a Minister tables an amendment he is often told that it is deficient because, although it is clear what he means, it is not absolutely exact down to the last sentence and syllable. It seems to me that the wording on this occasion is not exact because in Clause 3(2) it simply is not stated, as it has to be in Clause 1(3), that the embryo is a non-human embryo. However, in view of what the noble and learned Lord said, I do not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("embryo") to ("the") in line 8 and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a matter of drafting. If we now continue with Clause 1(1) we read that:
"References in this Act to an embryo, except where otherwise stated, are to a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete and, for this purpose, fertilisation is not complete until the appearance of a two cell zygote".
I have tried on other occasions to cut down on the number of words used in legislation and I do not see why on this occasion we have to say:
"A live human embryo where fertilisation is complete",
and then go on to say when it is to be considered that fertilisation is complete. Therefore, I propose that a whole line should be cut out of the subsection and that it should read:
"are to a live human embryo after the appearance of a two cell zygote".
That says exactly the same thing but cuts out a dozen words. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: While I believe that if this amendment were passed, it would not affect the definition in the sense of altering its meaning, what is proposed to be cut out contains words of explanation which are important for ordinary people —and that includes myself—understanding exactly what is involved here.
We shall come to deal in some more detail with this matter when my noble friend Lady Elles proposes her Amendment No. 3. However, for the time being, I simply suggest to the Committee that it is as well to state in the definition clause the steps by which that
714
definition is arrived at. The appearance of a two cell zygote might not be completely self-explanatory to everyone who takes up this Bill. On the other hand, I believe that the idea of completion of fertilisation is something which is more readily understood. The steps by which the definition is arrived at is helpful in enabling people to grasp what the definition seeks to do.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that although he has raised a point of considerable interest it may be wise judgment —and I revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, that this is a matter of judgment —to leave this matter as it is.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I shall also be very interested to here what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will say on the next amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("embryo") to end of line 9 and insert ("and, for this purpose, an embryo shall be taken to exist from the time that a single sperm has completed penetration of an egg.").
The noble Baroness said: Before I propose this amendment I should like to make a few general remarks which I think are important in regard to the way in which we debate this issue. It must be made clear at the outset that the main objective, which I think is shared by us all, is to provide a legal framework related to human fertilisation and embryology against the background of far-reaching and fast moving medical and scientific development. Inevitably there will be disagreements throughout this stage of the Bill, but no one should be falsely accused of tabling wrecking amendments unless those making the accusations, having listened carefully to the arguments, will state clearly and definitely what wrecking has been made or what it was intended to wreck.
History has, regrettably, shown that religious wars are always the most serious and bitter. However, I fervently hope that this Chamber will not become a battleground. In that connection, I should state that I am not a Roman Catholic. If you are a Catholic, you tend to be attacked. That is not the reason I am not a Catholic; I just happen not to be one. I am a very ordinary member of the Church of England.
I should now like to speak to the purpose of this amendment. I make it perfectly clear at the outset that it is not to prejudice the issue which we shall debate on Clause 11. I do not intend to open that debate now. That issue remains completely open. It follows the purpose of the Bill to make provision, in connection with human embryos and arty subsequent development of such embryos, to prohibit certain practices in connection with embryos or gametes. That is in line with the Warnock Report which recommended that the embryo of the human species should be afforded some protection in law. That recommendation is found at paragraph 11.17 of the report. As legislators therefore we have to consider the best and most effective way of fulfilling that recommendation.
The amendment also seeks to ensure that the commitment given by Her Majesty's Government, that both Houses will have the opportunity of voting on whether research should be allowed on the human embryo, is fully honoured and on identical terms with Clause 11, subsections (1) and (2). To ask the legislators to vote on anything which is not clear would be like asking them to vote on a false prospectus.
As legislators, therefore, we have to consider these points. If the embryo is to be protected it should be assumed that it must be protected at all stages of its existence, from its initial development right through its various stages. What help do we get from the Bill itself? In Clause 3(4), referring to the primitive streak, the calculation of when 14 days are to run begins with the day when the gametes are mixed. If the vote goes in favour of research under Clause 11, the 14 days will start to run from the time when the gametes are mixed. That, as I understand it, is the meaning of the Bill. I do not argue with that; that is as it is drafted. It is, if I may use an analogy, the time when the clock starts to tick.
Turning back to Clause 1, the definition in the Bill states that:
"fertilisation is not complete until the appearance of a two cell zygote".
I am sure that many of us —those of us who are not scientists —have been fed with an enormous amount of literature to try to decide what happens when, how and why. From what I have read —and I shall obviously listen with great respect to those who disagree, particularly those who have scientific experience —it is clear that the definition is seriously flawed. Nothing that I have read on this subject shows that the human embryo is only complete when a two-cell zygote is formed. If you follow through the process the formation of the single cell zygote seems to be the point when fertilisation is completed, but that does not consider the fact of when it starts.
The consequence therefore of the way in which Clause 1 is drafted is that the time from the stage that the gametes are mixed, as in Clause 3(4), to the stage of the two-cell zygote —and I understand there is no disagreement about this by the scientists —is about 30 hours. That is therefore about 30 hours after what I would refer to, as I did in relation to Clause 3(4), as the time when the clock starts ticking.
There are several consequences because of the way in which this definition is drafted. If research should be allowed, that is no problem for Clause 11 as far as the 14-day period is concerned; that is clear. If research should not be allowed —I do not go into the merits —it would not be allowed from the stage of a two-cell zygote; that is, the embryo would be available for research, if so desired, or experimentation up to that stage of its development. It is therefore incumbent on all who do not agree with my amendment, or some similar amendment with the same significance, to state the purpose for which they would use that 30 hours.
Apart from the research issue, because that is only one part of this very important and difficult Bill, throughout the Bill protection is given for storage,
716
keeping or using the embryo, as in Clause 3; and the same protection is given for gametes, under Clause 4, and for other related purposes. However, there would be no protection under the Bill as it is now drafted for that period which could legitimately be called the "conceptus", between the periods of the entry of the sperm into the ovum and the time that the two-cell zygote is formed. That is a period of about 30 hours altogether when there would be no protection for the single-cell zygote which, as I understand it, is formed approximately 20 hours after the penetration of the sperm into the egg.
Having explained the purpose of my amendment, with the permission of the Committee I will briefly explain why I propose this specific amendment. Many distinguished scientists have written on this subject. Fertilisation is the start of the process of growth and development which through childhood produces an adult human being. As the Warnock Report states, no particular part of the development and process is more important than any other; all are part of a continuous process.
The definition in the Warnock Report, paragraph 1.4, takes as a starting point the meeting of egg and sperm at fertilisation. It is 20 to 24 hours after that time that the fertilisation is complete; when two nuclei have fused and a single-cell zygote is formed which contains, as I understand it, 46 chromosomes of which 23 are from the sperm and 23 from the egg. The chromosomes identify the genetic structure of a new individual human being, which structure, of course, lasts the whole lifetime of that individual.
The definition in the Bill, therefore, is in my view defective even with reference to the term "completion", because it is clear from the definition that I have read that completion is before the formation of the two-cell zygote. Perhaps I may quote two very distinguished professors. One is Professor Moore of the University of Toronto, an acknowledged expert. He explains in The Developing Human:
"Fertilisation is a sequence of events that begins with contact between a sperm and a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of the nuclei of the sperm and ovum and the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes. This process lasts about 24 hours ending with the formation of a single cell zygote".
That particular definition explains why it is so difficult in law to fix the time at which one is prepared to say that the human embryo begins at a certain time or whether, as in the Bill, it is not only after it is formed, but even six hours after that. Progress, an organisation in favour of research, states in its booklet Freedom to Choose:
"The first earliest visible evidence of fertilisation is the appearance of the two pro-nuclei approximately 12 hours before the pre-embryo undergoes division to the two cell stage. Second, it is possible that an unfertilised egg may divide into two cells without fertilisation having taken place".
It continues:
"Fertilisation is a sequence of events which begins with contact between a sperm and a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of the nuclei of the sperm and the ovum".
Finally, I refer to an excellent report written by Professor Short of Monash University on reproduction in mammals. Writing on the enormous diversity of reproductive mechanisms across mammalian species, he states:

717
"About the only common factor is somewhere along the line a spermatozoa meets an egg and so a new individual is formed".
In my submission it is that individual who should be protected under the law of this country.
It is important at this stage of the Bill to know what we are talking about and what will be the consequences if we get it wrong. This amendment, if accepted, or indeed similar wording which would meet the objections I have made, will close the gap of 30 hours which, as the Bill is presently drafted exists between the mixing of the gametes, as in Clause 3(4), and the present defective definition of the human embryo in Clause 1(1). I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: It might perhaps be convenient if I indicate a view upon this matter, not seeking in any way to restrict discussion on it, but in order to indicate the position which I shall take with regard to it.
First, I congratulate my noble friend on the very clear way in which she introduced this highly technical amendment. Secondly, I join with her most emphatically in the spirit which she sought to set before the Committee as the way in which the debates on this Bill should be conducted. I and Members of the Committee know that there are many very strongly held views on these matters which are utterly fundamental to human life and to our individual views on it. I believe that we shall be able to conduct our debates in Committee with a mutual respect for the differing views which each of us holds, in the hope that ultimately we shall be able to get a Bill which is effective for the regulation of these very important matters in our country.
Subject to the very unwelcome possibility of the Parliament Act, but leaving that out of account, in order to get a Bill it will be necessary to secure sufficient agreement to its provisions in both Houses for the Bill to pass into law.
With that introduction I now turn to this amendment. As my noble friend has explained, the purpose of it is to change the definition of "embryo" in Clause 1(1). The effect of the amendment is to define the term "human embryo" in a way that goes back to the moment when the process of fertilisation begins. As my noble friend has made clear, precisely which definition is taken does not affect the main question concerning Clause 11, because whatever one's view is about that clause, one can give effect to it in one way or another whatever the definition may be. My noble friend has chosen to raise this particular matter. Therefore, it is important to consider it, leaving for later consideration the important questions that arise as regards Clause 11 of the Bill.
As drafted, Clause 1(1) defines an embryo at the point where the process of fertilisation began, when the sperm head penetrates the egg, and as being completed with the appearance of a two cell zygote. This aspect of the Bill has caused considerable interest since the Bill was published. However, I point out to the Committee that it is derived directly from what is said in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the White Paper, as also amplified in the footnote to paragraph 7.
718
The White Paper says at paragraph 7:
"… there are difficulties in pinpointing particular events, since most stages of development occur over a period of several hours or days. For example, fertilisation is not an instant event but a continuous process which takes about 24 hours, ending as the fertilised egg begins to divide(1)".
There then follows the footnote, which states:
"The process of fertilisation is generally regarded as beginning with the passage of sperm throught the corona radiata, a layer of cells surrounding the egg, and ending with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes immediately prior to the first cell division of the fertilised egg".
That leads to paragraph 8, which states:
"The Government proposes that legislation should apply to embryos created in vitro (ie by mixing sperm and eggs together in a dish), from the point at which fertilisation is completed. The start of cell division would be taken to be proof that the process of fertilisation has ended".
I have read that out at length for two reasons. The first is to stress that what is in Clause 1(1) has been stated policy for over two years and until recently without particular dissent. The second reason is to make it clear that the purpose of the subsection is to provide a certain and clearly discernible meaning to the term "embryo". In this difficult and often controversial field, certainty and clarity are qualities which are very desirable.
As I understand it, my noble friend's chief concern is that this definition would leave the embryo, as defined by my noble friend as existing from the completion of penetration of an egg by a sperm, unprotected for a period of around 24 hours. I recognise the concern she feels about this matter. It may therefore be helpful if I do two things.
First, to set out in my own words what I understand to be the scientific position in this period. Of course, I am subject to correction by Members of the Committee who know a great deal more about the matter than I do. I shall set out my understanding in order that the generality of us can follow. Secondly, I shall set out the effects of the Bill as it stands over this period of time while fertilisation is taking place.
On the scientific position, when human sperm and ova are mixed in a glass dish, there follows a variable period until the sperm head passes through the outer layer of the ovum. This stage can be noted by careful observation but, when it has taken place and the membrane of the sperm head and egg have fused, I understand that it is not possible to detect from the outward appearance that sperm entry has occurred.
For a time then, on looking at the ovum, one cannot tell whether a sperm has entered it or not. A later stage, which is also detectable, is the appearance of the formation of two pronuclei some 16 or more hours after the start of the fertilisation process. After about six to eight hours more, the pronuclei disappear and again the outward appearance of the ovum does not indicate whether it has been penetrated by a sperm. Members of the Committee will observe that during this time there are two periods during which, through observation, one can tell that penetration of the ovum by a sperm has occurred, interspersed with periods when no visible sign of this is observable.
It is after the further period of uncertainty that one can observe division into two cells which later

719
undergo further cell division. The important point is that, from the initial cell division stage, it will always be apparent that fertilisation has been completed. There are no subsequent periods of uncertainty after this stage. That completes my attempt to state the position as regards development.
I turn now to the effects of the amendment on the Bill as it stands. We are talking in practice about the protection offered to an embryo which is being developed in vitro or in a dish. The Committee will note that Clause 3(1) makes it clear that:
"No person shall … bring about the creation of an embryo … except in pursuance of a licence".
That applies to the period before the embryo comes into existence as defined. It is therefore clear that the one cell zygote stage can be within the ambit of the Bill. I move now to Schedule 2 to the Bill, as regards treatment services. Paragraph 1(1) makes it clear that such a licence may authorise,
"bringing about the creation of embryos in vitro."
Paragraph 1(3) goes on to specify that a licence for treatment,
"cannot authorise any activity unless it appears to the Authority to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of providing treatment services".
Even before the existence of an embryo as defined in Clause 1(1), it is apparent that the statutory licensing authority will have powers of control over what is done in the course of providing treatment services before the two cell zygote stage.
I turn now to the question of research and Clause 11. Here I emphasise once again that the Bill offers the Committee a choice in that clause of whether to accept limited research on embryos or whether to ban it altogether. I suggest to the Committee that we should not, before we reach Clause 11, seek to anticipate what the decision of the Committee will be on this very difficult issue.
Noble Lords: Hear! hear!
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: In saying that, I recognise the fear of many Members of the Committee that the definition of "embryo" in Clause 1(1) may, if the vote on Clause 11 goes against research, leave uncontrolled any research on in vitro fertilisation up to the two-cell stage, for a period of around 24 hours. But I point out to the Committee that Clause 3(1) provides that no one can bring about the creation of an embryo except in pursuance of a licence while paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2 says that a licence for treatment may authorise
"bringing about the creation of embryos in vitro"
for use in treatment services. It is apparent therefore that if research is rejected, the Bill will prevent research projects in which it is intended to create a two cell zygote.
The question is whether the Bill will sufficiently apply to all relevant research projects in the United Kingdom, especially those where the intention is that they shall be completed before the two cell stage. On this I have listened closely to what my noble friend has said, and of course I shall listen carefully
720
to what noble Lords who will participate in the debate may say. The Government will consider, before Report stage, and in the light of the Committee's decision on Clause 11, whether the position on the Bill in relation to control in the period before the two cell zygote stage is reached is satisfactory. Depending on the results of this consideration the Government will decide whether they should introduce an amendment at Report to enable the House to consider this matter again.
There may be more than one way to achieve the result that my noble friend might have in mind in that event. Her amendment represents one way of dealing with it. It may well be that there are other ways of doing it which can be based on precisely determined events. That is an important aspect. We wish to have in this difficult area a clearly enforceable regime. It is therefore important —it may not be possible but it is important if possible —to try to base that on precisely determined events. In saying this I accept that if we cannot find a solution which satisfies my noble friend, she will wish to press her amendment, or perhaps an updated version of it, at Report stage.
I hope that what I have said will indicate not only the difficulty of the issue we are debating but also the Government's desire, now that doubts have been expressed about what had been a reasonably unchallenged proposal in the 1987 White Paper, to consider carefully what has been and will be said in this debate. I hope also that my noble friend Lady Elles and noble Lords who may speak in support of the amendment will in their turn accept that a clearer picture is likely to emerge on this issue when we have been able to make further progress on the Bill. I thought it might be useful to state the position at this stage without in any way seeking to inhibit noble Lords who wish to express views on the matter.
Lord Ennals: I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Baroness moved the amendment. What she said about the mood of the debate was absolutely right. If someone has used the word "wrecking" it certainly is not anyone I know. We are grateful both to the noble Baroness for raising the issue and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for saying that the time for us to look at this matter will be after we have debated Clause 11, which calls for the major decision, and before we move to Report stage. Secondly, I very much appreciate the fair and balanced way in which, both at Second Reading and today, the Lord Chancellor presented the case. All sides of the Committee will appreciate the way in which he did so.
With few exceptions in this Chamber —those exceptions are notable ones —we are laymen who know what we know only because others have told us. That certainly applies to me, and I suspect that it applies to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. We manage the terms correctly and we sound knowledgeable. But the knowledge is not that which we have gleaned for ourselves; it is knowledge which has been conveyed to us. It was because this is such a difficult subject and because so few of us know the subject as we know most things in life that the Warnock Committee was established. It was

721
established in order that we could have before us a pattern of legislation which was comprehensible and, as the Lord Chancellor said, clearly enforceable.
It is interesting that, in terms of a definition, the kind of problem referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, was not touched on by the Warnock Committee as being a way forward in legislation. In paragraph 1.4 the committee said:
"we have taken as our starting point the meeting of egg and sperm at fertilisation".
Those words are similar to those of the noble Baroness, but at no stage that I know of has the new definition which she has suggested been put forward. It was not in the White Paper. So far as I know it has not been put forward by most of the "pro-life" organisations. It was not put forward by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, at Second Reading, or indeed by the noble Baroness in her own excellent speech at Second Reading. Therefore I think we would be unwise to be pushed into a new definition, particularly when the definition involves considerable difficulties.
I too take my brief from experts—in this case, from the Medical Research Council. It says that the definition in the Bill as drafted was chosen because a readily identifiable morphological change occurs at the first cell division. The only way to tell whether the sperm has penetrated the egg is by fixing and staining. This would involve the destruction of the pre-embryo, the word which we are not supposed to use. Presumably the intention of the amendment is to protect the inseminated egg. In fact it would have entirely the opposite effect. In order to verify the legal definition and enforce the law, embryos would have to be destroyed in order to confirm their former existence. I believe that the definition in the Bill is one which we should not seek to change at this moment. I do not disagree with the Lord Chancellor that it would be reasonable to return to it, but the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would create the great difficulty that in order to confirm its former existence it would be necessary for the embryo to be destroyed.
I hope that with the explanation and the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the noble Baroness will feel that this is an issue to which we can refer later but with which we should not deal at this moment. It would in any case anticipate the crucial debate on Clause 11. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press the amendment to a vote.
Lord Swann: I am troubled by the amendment. In saying so I declare an interest of sorts. Some 40 years ago the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and I spent a great many hours looking at and experimenting on the process of fertilisation. This did not involve human eggs or human sperm —there was little of that in those days—but eggs and sperm which looked extremely like human eggs and human sperm though in fact they came from an invertebrate animal. Both of us spent many hours watching under the microscope and carrying out a variety of experiments. We discovered a good many things which go on in the early stages, but I shall not give the Committee a biological lecture on that.
722
I confirm totally what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said. It is difficult to tell when a sperm has penetrated an egg. It is difficult enough with invertebrate eggs, which are clearer and easier to look at under a microscope. Moreover, it is by no means certain that, having penetrated, it will form a proper pro-nucleus, as it is called, and by no means does that always move towards the nucleus of the egg and the resulting fusion. There are in fact many things which can and sometimes do go wrong between mixing sperm and eggs. Indeed, you only know that things have gone right when the two nuclei have fused. However, that is often very difficult to see unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, you kill the egg and stain it. The only easy way to tell is when the egg divides for the first time into two. Then you know that the whole process of genetics and growth has been launched.
Therefore, although I respect the motives behind the amendment, I feel that it is confusing and in some degree incorrect.
The Duke of Norfolk: I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I happen to be a Catholic and that I hope that everything which happens during the course of this debate will be done in the usual pleasant and happy way in which we deal with matters in this Chamber of which I have the honour to be a Member. I am a very new Member —some noble Lords have been here for many years —but I am very proud and glad to be here. I loathe any question of our having unpleasant arguments.
However, having said that, I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I disagree with what he said. I mentioned this issue in my Second Reading speech; I did so most clearly. I referred to the period of 33 hours and said that it was one of the aspects which worried me. I should like to continue a little further so as to make certain that the views of the pro-life group in this country will be clearly expressed.
The group is very worried about any attempt not to say in plain English that it wants no experiments from fertilisation onwards. Further, as noble Lords will realise from what has already been said, there are variations on when life actually starts. We say that from the start, whenever that may be, there should be no experiments. The various medical journals that one can read always say that life starts from fertilisation. However, it has lately been said that it is in fact 30 or 40 hours later. The group wishes to make quite clear just what it is talking about. I hope that my noble friend Lady Elles will withdraw the amendment and that she will return to the matter on Report. Life could then be defined as being from the very beginning of fertilisation, whenever that may be.
The Bill as drafted will make experimentation on embryos permissible up to 30 hours, without a licence for experimentation being required. Such work could be undertaken to try to develop new abortifacients and contraceptives. Experimenting on drugs to prevent fertilisation would result in embryos being created when a drug failed to work. That is how it would be done.

723
The group recently organised a Gallup poll. It was conducted from 13th to 18th December. Gallup polls are always undertaken in a very fair way; indeed, you cannot put down leading questions and hope to receive an answer. The company decides how the questions are put and they are put in a fair and responsible way. The poll was commissioned by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children on behalf of Life. It showed that 57 per cent. of the public oppose the use of human embryos for the development of new contraceptives and that 68 per cent. opposed their use for the development of abortifacients. It is intolerable that such experiments should be permitted in this way, without defining more accurately how life begins.
Those noble Lords who support such experimentation would like to include provision for experimentation up to 14 days in Clause 11, if they can get a majority. But I do not wish to discuss that matter now. However, they have also made clear the fact that they would like all research carefully controlled and licensed. As the Bill stands, anyone can produce embryos and perform any kind of research upon them without a licence, so long as they were destroyed before the first cleavage; that is, before the two-cell zygote started to form. I do not really think that those noble Lords would like to see this in effect. I hope therefore that we can agree to correct this drafting error.
An embryo must come into existence when separate gametes cease to exist —that is, when the 23 chromosomes of the man and the 23 of the woman have united. We are defining that as when the sperm has penetrated the egg, for want of a better definition. However, I should like to state quite clearly that the group believes that the beginning of life is the very beginning and it wants that fact to be covered in the Bill when the noble and learned Lord returns to the matter on Report.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I do not wish to prolong the debate on this issue, having heard the very well-argued speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the comments made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the prospect of this amendment being modified on Report. However, there are one or two points that I should like to draw to the Committee's attention. They relate to the definition. I do not believe that one can define an embryo until the genetic material from the gamete of the male —that is, the sperm —and the genetic material in the ovum of the female have fused.
I appreciate the reason for the noble Baroness's wish that this gap of up to 30 hours from the moment when the sperm penetrates the ovum should fall within the ambit of the Bill. I believe that at that stage it would be proper to call the combination of the sperm and the ovum the conceptus. After all, it is the product of conception, but it is not in my view yet an embryo until the fusion has taken place between the material from the sperm and that from the ovum and until it has then demonstrated its ability to divide at the two-zygote stage. That is the crux of the argument at present. However, the problem is that after the sperm has penetrated the
724
ovum and even when two pro-nuclei have formed, one of them containing material from the sperm and the other containing material from the ovum, the process may end at that stage and the conceptus may degenerate. Moreover, even at the single-cell zygote stage, when fusion has taken place, degeneration may yet again occur spontaneously.
Of course there are other situations where there may be three pro-nuclei within the conceptus at that stage, but two of these may have come from the ovum by division of the ovum without fusion and, therefore, without fertilisation. I think that that issue makes the whole problem extremely complex. Therefore, I very much hope that a way can be found of protecting the conceptus within this early period without prejudice to the status of the embryo as defined in the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I referred to this point on Second Reading. I said then that I thought the Government had got the Bill right: that conception is not a moment in time, but a process in time. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the lucidity with which he described the process of fertilisation. He did so in very simple language that we could all understand. Fertilisation should be completed at the right temperature. Therefore, is inserting a thermometer into the mixture an experiment? I shall return to that point later when dealing with my definition of an experiment.
In our ordinary lives we are not accustomed to processes which have no definable or identifiable beginning. Yet, we know that if we wake up with a cold in the head and with a runny nose it could develop into bronchial pneumonia and we might die. There is an identifiable end to life, but not necessarily an identifiable beginning to one's terminal illness. Indeed, one may have picked up the bug the day before but one does not know when or from whom. The process of fertilisation is something which has no identifiable beginning. Quite apart from the process of contact between the egg and the sperm, there is a prior process of chemotaxis in which the sperm swims up, as it were, a concentration gradient towards the ovum which is emitting something which attracts it —much as moths can be attracted from very great distances by the odour of a female moth.
The process of penetration is not like sticking a drawing pin into a piece of paper; it is a process of mutual digestion between the skin of one and the skin of the other. It again is a process of time which has no identifiable beginning, and so I cannot support the amendment. If the noble Baroness chooses to divide the Committee, I shall have to go into the Lobby against her.
The Lord Bishop of London: Following what the noble Earl has said, I should like to make one general point. It is true, as he says, that there are many situations in human life where we are involved in a process. The taking of any point in that process is, to some extent, an arbitrary matter. In considering the Bill, we are not involved in making scientific

725
definitions, extending scientific research, or anything of that kind. We are legislating. It is frequently necessary, where processes are concerned, to define a point for the purpose of legislation.
Perhaps I may take the simple example of marriage. Marriage is a continuing process. There are various elements within that process; but, nevertheless, for practical purposes, within human society it is necessary to define the moment at which people get married. All I want to suggest is that at various points in the Bill it may be necessary for us to make certain definitions. They may not be scientifically satisfactory and they may be to some extent arbitrary, but if we are legislating it is necessary to do so. I hope that we shall not shrink from that and fall back into a kind of vague process—theology, as one might say—merely to avoid making such definitions.
Lord Adrian: I shall follow along the lines taken by the right reverend Prelate. I too am concerned about the definition of terms in legislation and their meaning in the Act, as it will be. We need a term to describe the early stages of the process; that is, after the sperm has entered the egg, and the first appearance of what might, in a sense, biologically be called an embryo. The word "conceptus" has been used by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. It is a good term. It is one used by embryologists when they wish to define the particular period while the chromosomal material from the mother and the father is being reorganised into the potentiality of a new individual. The conceptus can be thought of as a blueprint, and the embryo can be thought of as the individual growing which results from the blueprint having been achieved.
The process of achieving the blueprint (the plan) is complicated and risky and one can tell that it has come to an end at the first division into the two-cell zygote; but the point about using the word "conceptus" is that in that stage the fertilised egg is a concept of an individual and not the individual. It is only when the blueprint has been achieved and the building begins —one brick being laid on the next —that one can say that the embryo starts.
It is important —this is the point that the right reverend Prelate was making—in legislation not so to stretch the words into new definitions that there are unforeseen consequences. I entirely agree that if research is lost and is to be banned, which I believe would be a great tragedy, it is important that the 30-hour period be covered. I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say that the Government are prepared to consider that point and will come back with appropriate amendments.
Baroness Elles: I should like to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on the amendment to Clause 1. It is, as has been evident from noble Lords who have spoken —especially those with scientific experience —a difficult matter. I am therefore extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he has approached it. He has undertaken that it will be
726
looked at again. I hope that the 30 hours will be covered in some way, thus reflecting the views of some noble Lords, and that the subject will come back on Report. If the amendment is not satisfactory, it is understood that I reserve my right to table some other amendment, possibly along the lines discussed this afternoon. On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: This will be a convenient moment for the House to hear the Statement, and therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Criminal Justice Proposals
4.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place about the Government's proposals for criminal justice legislation, which we are publishing today in the White Paper Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public: The Statement is as follows:
"In preparing these proposals for a coherent legislative framework for sentencing, our aim has been to ensure that offenders are punished according to the seriousness of their crimes and receive their just deserts, and to see that the public are properly protected. Really serious crime, particularly serious violent crime, has to be followed by really severe punishment and I am sure the House would agree that the right punishment for serious violent crime is a long prison sentence. But we know that prison can all too often reinforce criminal habits, and many more less serious offenders could be punished in the community where they can repay their victims and do tough and demanding work for the community.
"It is therefore important that the judges should, before passing a custodial sentence, satisfy themselves that no other course is right; and it is important that realistic options for punishment in the community should be available with those options presented clearly to the courts. We therefore propose, first, that the Crown Court should have a new power to impose a longer sentence on a persistent violent offender than would be justified solely by the seriousness of the immediate offence in order to protect the public from serious harm from him; but the distinction between violent crime and property crime should be more clearly marked by changes in the maximum penalty for theft from 10 to seven years and in the maximum for non-domestic burglary from 14 years to 10 years; the maximum for burglary from a persons' home quite rightly would remain at 14 years; secondly, that new legislation should require a court to consider whether the

727
offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified. For all but serious offences the court would be required to give reasons for passing a custodial sentence and would have to consider a probation report setting out options for punishment in the community before doing so.
"We further propose to increase the courts' powers to impose community penalties. There would be a new power to combine community service and probation. Community service ensures that the offender makes reparation to the community through unpaid work. Probation gives offenders an opportunity to sort out their problems and to lead a law-abiding life in future. We do not think that one should exclude the other. The courts would also, and additionally if appropriate, be enabled to make curfew orders, with monitoring, to keep offenders at home and away from their criminal associates, at particular times of the day.
"We plan new national standards for the most important aspects of the probation service's work, including preparing reports for the courts and running probation centres. We shall shortly publish consultation documents about some of these standards and about the future organisation of the probation service. We believe that the probation service should make more use of voluntary organisations and the private sector to carry out its increased responsibilities effectively. The probation service will, however, keep its central role in supervising offenders and ensuring that court orders are carried out.
"Many offences can be dealt with adequately by financial penalties. The priority should be offenders paying compensation to their victims. But fines could be used effectively for more offences if they were assessed in units according to the seriousness of the offence and then converted into money according to an offender's means.
"We believe that custody should be reserved for the most serious offenders. We can only justify spending well over £1,000 per month in housing, feeding and clothing a criminal, we can only justify depriving an offender of the opportunity to maintain his family, compensate his victim or make reparation to society when the offence is so grave that there is no realistic alternative to imprisonment. But when prison is the right and proper sentence then it is essential that the sentence served should be more closely related to the sentence passed and we are going to introduce new parole arrangements based largely on the recommendations of a committee set up to review parole arrangements in England and Wales and chaired by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. The Government are most grateful to my noble friend and his committee for their really valuable work.
"This would be the effect of the changes: first, remission, which at present reduces most sentences by a third and which is in addition to any parole granted, would be abolished. All prisoners would spend at least half their sentence in custody whereas at present most can be released
728
after one third; secondly, those serving up to but not including four years' imprisonment would have to serve half their sentence, followed, except in the case of sentences under a year, by a period on licence under supervision; thirdly, those serving from four years up to but not including seven years would serve at least half their sentence and would then be eligible for release on a selective basis until they have served two thirds of their sentence. The decision on this would be delegated to the Parole Board. When released they would be under supervision until three-quarters of their sentence has expired; fourthly, those serving seven years or more would be subject to release on a selecive basis after half their sentence but the final decision will rest not with the Parole Board but with the Secretary of State.
"The decision whether or not to release a person on parole would be clearly based upon the risk to the public of that person committing a further serious offence. We intend to take new powers to give policy directions to the Parole Board so that we can lay down these criteria. This should make for greater consistency in the decisions to release, the conditions of the parole licence and the arrangements for supervising prisoners after release.
"If a released prisoner is convicted of a further imprisonable offence before the end of his sentence, the court would be able to return him to custody to serve out the remainder of that first sentence in addition to any sentence it gives for the new offence.
"There are important proposals in the White Paper about young offenders. The juvenile court would become a youth court and would deal with offenders aged 17 as well as those aged 16 and under. We intend to increase the powers of the courts to make parents take greater responsibility for the offences committed by their children under 16. In particular we intend to require parents to attend in all cases when their children are brought before the court on a criminal charge and we are going to make it possible for the magistrates to take into consideration the means of a parent in deciding on the appropriate fine.
"The Government firmly believe that in all we do we should have at the forefront of our minds the victims of crime and it is time to spell out what victims are entitled to expect and the help available to them and to consider what more needs to be done. We shall therefore on 22nd February, European Victims Day, publish our Victims Charter. But the proposals I have outlined today should make sure that criminals are properly punished.
"These proposals point to the most fundamental and far-reaching changes for at least half a century in the way we publish offenders in this country. They are part of our wider policies on crime with the greater emphasis we have given to crime prevention and more help and support for victims. They offer just deserts to the offender and reassurance to the law-abiding citizen."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating a most important Statement on a most important White Paper. The aims of that White Paper—namely, that those who commit violent crime should be adequately punished —must be right, and that part of the White Paper that deals with the protection of the public must be right. When I talk in terms of violent crime I obviously include violent sexual crimes as well.
We listened to this Statement and to the White Paper against a background that has been mentioned so often in your Lordships' House; namely that we have the largest number of prisoners in Europe both in absolute terms and in proportion to our population. The House will therefore be interested to see how far this White Paper deals with that problem.
The phrase at the beginning of the Statement is used correctly:
"we know that prison can all too often reinforce criminal habits".
I looked in the Statement for a reference, presumably to be made in the White Paper, to what one does about the serious problem that we have of recidivism and in regard to our necessary task of rehabilitation. I found no reference to that important matter. I saw no reference to the afer-care of prisoners when they come out in order to try to stem the tide of recidivism. I wonder whether the Minister when he replies would tell us whether there are any progressive measures aimed to deal with that important matter, especially, as I have said, when one considers the numbers in our prisons.
The Carlisle committee —that presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle —was mentioned in the sense not only of dealing with remission but of making prison sentences more realistic in regard to the sentences imposed. We shall have to reflect upon that measure and again, as I say, look to see what effect it is going to have upon the overcrowded prisons that we have at the moment.
Probation officers have been mentioned. I think of them at once in regard to after-care and rehabilitation. Can we be quite sure that the role that is being set for probation officers will in no way demean their status and certainly not interfere with their very honourable and useful position in society as being the friends, and advisers and supervisors too of those who are in prison and come out of it?
I think that all of us are interested in the problem of juvenile crime. After all, it is unfortunately the juveniles, the young people, who contribute most to the numbers of criminals we have in this country, which is a very regrettable state of affairs.
We were all interested in the idea of the youth court incorporating those who are 17. That seems to me to be a useful step. There was reference to parents being brought into court and into the criminal situation which surrounds their children. That is absolutely right, not so much from the point of view of making parents responsible for the crimes of their children, unless the lack of parental care or the surroundings at home are responsible for the
730
criminality of the children, but of trying to establish a partnership which could and should exist between court and parents in order to try to save juveniles from a life of crime. That is obviously an important measure.
Victims of crime were mentioned. I was happy to see that the Statement drew particular attention to that matter and to a celebration that will take place in regard to victims of crime. However, will the Government remember that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 reduced and in some cases removed compensation for victims of crime? Will the Government also remember that the minimum threshold for those entitled to claim compensation was reduced, thereby removing the right to compensation from some 10,000 people a year?
In drawing attention to these matters I do not wish it to be thought that my remarks are unnecessarily critical of a White Paper which has many good features about it. That is obvious from the Statement. However, there are matters to which attention should be drawn because they are so important. I end with the reference to consistency of sentence. The public, perfectly reasonably, are perturbed about the inconsistency and at times complete unreasonableness, as they see it, in the two extremes of too much leniency or too much severity. There does not appear to be a consistency which can be agreed. I say that most respectfully as regards the judges as I know they meet from time to time, indeed it would appear almost continually, in order to deal with sentencing policy.
If we are sincere, as I am sure the judges are, in saying that we want to protect the public, to reduce crime in this country, to ensure that our prisons are not overfilled and to ensure that justice emanates from the way in which sentences are imposed, should there not be a sentencing council which meets regularly and continuously and which would deal consistently with sentencing policy? That would not only afford justice but also help in reducing the shocking figures of crime in this country as all of us would wish.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. I, too, think that there are a number of sensible proposals in the document. However, it would obviously be premature to express an opinion on many of them without having had the opportunity of reading the White Paper. The White Paper deserves to be judged by three tests. The first is whether it will bring down the size of our inmate population. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has observed, we have the highest prison population in Europe. That is, unhappily, nearly the only European league table of which this country is top.
Secondly, in aiming to give effect to that reduction in the size of the inmate population, have the Government put forward enough non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment, including parole, which will give some guarantee that many of those now held in custody could be transferred to the community? Thirdly, on the matter of victims, I

731
welcome very much the fact that the Government will bring forward a victims' charter. They have, to be fair, made substantial sums of money available to the National Association of Victim Support Schemes. We all welcome that and look forward to the publication of the victims' charter.
That brings me to the references in the Statement to the Carlisle Committee's report. I should indicate some satisfaction that a number of the recommendations of the committee have been accepted. Is the noble Earl aware of our delight that it appears that the truly deplorable new parole policy introduced by Sir Leon Brittan when he was Home Secretary is no more? Many of us opposed that policy when it was introduced. The Government never found it possible to give any coherent explanation in this House or elsewhere as to why such a policy should be introduced by means of administrative fiat. We are delighted to see the end of that policy. I should say in passing that at a moment like this it is right to remember the member of the parole board, Dr. Julian Candy, who resigned publicly over the introduction of that policy.
Does the Minister recall that the Carlisle Committee drew attention to the fact that there was a risk that, even if all its recommendations were accepted, the numbers in prison could increase unless there were substantial changes in sentencing policy? It would be of immense help to us if the noble Earl could indicate whether the statistical branch of the Home Office has been able to give Ministers some outline estimate of the effects of the introduction of this policy. As we all know, Home Office statisticians have had that responsibility in the past when changes of criminal justice policy have been introduced. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could tell me whether they have been asked to make any estimate on this occasion.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have there been discussions with the judiciary to give some comfort to Ministers that the acceptance of many of the recommendations of the Carlisle Committee will not lead to an increase in the size of the prison population?
I must indicate also our welcome of the fact that, other than in the more serious cases, judges and magistrates will be required to give reasons for a custodial disposal rather than a non-custodial one. That is substantial progress and I very much welcome it. Is the Minister also aware that we unreservedly welcome the reduction in maximum sentences for burglary and theft? That is altogether admirable. We find it easy to do that given the fact that we introduced just such amendments to the last criminal justice Bill when we were firmly opposed by the Government. We welcome them as converts to our cause.
I have one question on sentencing. The noble Earl indicated that there would be a new power to impose longer sentences on those whom I believe he described as persistent violent offenders. Certainly all of us recognise that there is a need to deal with such offenders in a most vigorous fashion, but will the noble Earl indicate how this new penalty will be distinguished from the former sentence of preventive
732
detention which had to be scrapped because it was an abject failure?
On the matter of probation, most of us welcome the fact that there are to be consultation documents on the future of the service. I should be grateful if the Minister could give me some indication of when those will be published. Will they be published before Easter, for instance? It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us that. He will realise that there is a particular reason for that question. Given the fact that relations between the probation service and the Government could hardly be described as particularly warm, the sooner there is some clarification of the future of the service the better.
Finally, it will be our desire to be as helpful as possible when the Bill on criminal justice eventually reaches this House, as I assume that it will in the next Session of Parliament. As we know, we have immense problems in our prisons. We also have extremely strained relations between the Government and our most important non-custodial organisation, the probation service. Nevertheless, having said that, we can all give a welcome to many of the proposals in the document which I believe will have beneficial effects.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome which the noble Lords gave to the Statement. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for saying that the aims must be right and that the protection of the public must be right. That is clearly most important. He was concerned to know whether the large prison population is likely to be reduced as a result of the White Paper. All I can tell him is that we hope that it will, but it will take time to see how the changes work out. The intention is that people who commit less serious crimes should undergo their punishment in the community and not in prison. That should help to reduce the prison population.
The noble Lord was concerned about recidivism and rehabilitation. That is a matter which is always at the forefront of our minds. I remind the noble Lord that many steps have been taken, not least through the probation service, which exists to help in that respect. We believe that if people are able to serve their sentences within the community and not fall into the hands of professional criminals in prison the chances are that fewer will return to crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to sentencing councils. Obviously it is desirable that there should be a reasonable amount of continuity in sentencing. We do not believe that sentencing councils are the correct solution. A variety of guidance is available to judges and that will be supplemented by the framework that we propose.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to what were described as the Brittan proposals. He said that they had not been particularly liked by some. It is the Government's intention to abolish them because we believe that what we are setting up in their place will be much fairer.
Both noble Lords were concerned about the probation service. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, hoped that the roles given to the probation service

733
would not demean its status. It is not our intention to demean the status of the probation service. We consider that it does an enormously important job of work. We should like to see its work expanded so as to cover the matters to which the White Paper refers.
I can assure the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the Government will be issuing a Green Paper in the near future. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether that would be before Easter. I can tell him that it will be in the near future and he will have to decide whether Easter comes within that category, but he may be surprised by how quickly it arrives.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also welcomed the proposed alteration in sentencing for burglary and theft. The reason for those changes is that in 1988 there were only two cases of non-domestic burglary in which the sentence was more than seven years. That is why we considered that it would be appropriate to reduce the maximum sentence from 14 years to 10 years. Similarly, very few people receive sentences of more than five years for theft. Therefore we regarded it as appropriate to reduce the maximum sentence from 10 years to seven years.
A number of other points were made, but in view of the other business of the House I believe that it would be inappropriate to answer all of them. However, I shall refer to compensation, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board have more than doubled, from less than 23,000 in 1979–80 to an estimated figure of over 55,000 10 years later. It is our desire to see that people are adequately and properly compensated.
Both noble Lords referred to a number of other points. I hope that it will be acceptable if I write to them rather than delay the House in its consideration of the matter before it, which was interrupted by the Statement. I am grateful to both noble Lords. The Statement sets out a major shift of emphasis in criminal justice. It will be necessary for your Lordships to consider the White Paper in full because it is a far-reaching document.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a great many people who are deeply disturbed by the incidence of crime in this country —and most ordinary people are very worried about it —will welcome the Statement and the White Paper as indicating a determination by the Government to come to grips at least with some of the problems?
Is he also aware that some people —certainly myself—welcome the fact that the Government are now taking a grip on the parole system? He may recall that over many years I have raised the question, without getting much response. I am therefore delighted to see the action now being taken.
Is my noble friend also aware that it seems very good sense to require parents to attend court when young children appear on a charge? It is only remarkable that that has not been a compulsory provision for many years.
734
As I listened to my noble friend, my only doubt was whether it is wise to make the proposed substantial reduction in the maximum sentence for theft. I accept that, as he said, most theft charges carry a sentence well below that figure. However, there have recently been one or two spectacular thefts running into millions of pounds. I wonder whether it is wise, knowing that such thefts will continue, to reduce the maximum sentence and therefore possibly the overall deterrent effect. Is it not worth considering retaining the present level of sentence solely to deal with those exceptional but very dramatic cases?
Finally, perhaps I may echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about consistency of sentences. I accept that many criticisms of inconsistency in sentences derive from lack of knowledge of the circumstances in a particular case. It is very easy to criticise sentences when one does not know the full facts. Nonetheless, is my noble friend aware that some people feel that there are extremes in sentencing, both ways, and that so me method of persuading the judiciary to adopt a somewhat more consistent line on sentences would be very acceptable to public opinion and undoubtedly in the public interest?
5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his welcome of the Statement. I know that he has always been much concerned about the effects of crime. I am glad that in particular he approved of the proposal that parents should attend court. The purpose is to involve parents with what their children do, not only for the purposes of rehabilitation but also when the children offend against the community.
My noble friend referred to the reductions in sentence and asked whether it would be right to keep the maximum sentence. We thought it right to reduce the maximum sentence for the reasons that I gave; namely, that few people are at present given the maximum sentence. There therefore seemed to be relatively little point in keeping the maximum sentence at that level. However, combined with that is the hope that the sentences served will bear much more of a relationship to the sentences passed than has been the case heretofore.
I understand my noble friend's concern that sentences are not always apparently common as between one court and another. That matter always gives concern. The judiciary is also concerned about it, but, as my noble friend rightly said, it is a matter for the courts to sentence as they think appropriate. It is therefore difficult to be too dogmatic as to what the sentence should be. However, the judiciary and those involved with it are particularly concerned that there should be as reasonable an amount of commonality between sentences as is possible.
The Earl of Longford: On first hearing, I cannot make up my mind whether the proposals will do more good than harm. For reasons implicit and to some extent explicit in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if judges persist in their present sentencing attitudes the proposals will undoubtedly increase the

735
numbers in prisons. That follows from the Carlisle Report and other discussions. There is no question about that. The issue is whether the judges will not only be asked to be slightly more consistent, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but whether they will be asked to pass less extreme sentences. It is not by accident that we have the highest prison population; it is because the judges in this country pass the most severe sentences. In view of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, what steps, if any, does the noble Earl propose to take?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should have thought that of all people the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would have been pleased with the White Paper because it does what he has advocated for a great many years; namely, that people who have committed offences should serve much of their sentence outside prison rather than inside it. I could not resist a wry smile when the noble Earl said that the fact that we had the highest prison population in Europe was entirely due to the judges. They are responsible for sentencing, but those people who go to gaol usually do so because of what they have done, not because of what the judges have done.
I was surprised that the noble Earl said that he did not know whether the proposals would do more good than harm. No one can know that. However, it is the Government's intention that the White Paper will do a great deal more good than harm for the very reasons I have given; namely, that those who commit lesser offences will not become so much involved in prison with those who have committed greater offences and will serve their sentences outside. On the other hand, those who commit bad offences should serve their sentences more in keeping with the sentences which have been passed.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that anyone with experience of the Home Office over the years is bound to find that there is a great deal to welcome in the proposals put forward today? On the whole, I support them strongly.
However, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether he appreciates that the importance of the state of our prisons today is crucial. If we do not pay attention to it, it will cause a great deal of trouble in the future. Over many years successive Home Secretaries of all parties have made strenuous efforts one way and another to improve our prisons. None of us can say anything other than that the prison population in this country has risen inexorably until it has reached the stage at which it is not only dangerous but wrong for our society. It is always worth remembering—perhaps my noble friend will comment on this point —that any nation which neglects the state of its prisons and of the prisoners in those prisons is not a society as it should be. We in this country must take that point seriously into account.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. It means a great deal to those who are in the Home Office that someone with
736
his experience of the Home Office should welcome the Statement. I recognise the problem about prisons to which he referred; namely, that a state which neglects its prisons and those in the prisons is on a difficult course. We agree in toto with that point. A great deal, although not enough, has been done to resolve the problem about which my noble friend is so concerned for the very reason that, if those aspects of our society are neglected, they will cause more trouble later.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, perhaps I may add a brief word of welcome to the Statement on two grounds. The first concerns the reference in the Statement to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Here my reasons differ from those of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. As I understand the Statement, the Government give substantial confirmation and support to the findings of the report. Speaking personally from a background at the Parole Board, I was delighted to learn that the work of the Parole Board over the years is to be confirmed and in certain important respects strengthened. In that connection, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl one question. According to page six of the Statement, for those prisoners serving more than seven years the final decision in the selective process for additional release on parole will rest with the Home Secretary and not with the Parole Board. May I take it —I hope that this is the case —that the advice of the Home Secretary regarding selection will nevertheless come from the Parole Board?
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may ask another question on a note of concern arising from the reference to the probation service made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Earl. With regard to the social work skills and highly successful results of the probation service in helping prisoners to return to society, there is a reference on page three to the powers of the courts to make curfew orders and to monitor prisoners in the community at various times of the day. As the noble Earl well knows, that is a matter of great concern to the probation service as it appears to conflict with the service's social work. Have the Government in mind any alternative means by which those surveillance jobs may be done?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his welcome and the fact that he approves of the confirmation of the report produced by my noble friend Lord Carlisle and his committee. He was concerned about the responsibility resting with the Home Secretary and whether those people serving longer sentences were to be released. The philosophy behind the proposal is that those released into the community, and the public hazards that might therefore be created are a responsibility for the Home Secretary who will of course take advice from the Parole Board.
The details regarding curfews and monitoring to which the noble Lord referred have yet to be worked out. If those who have committed certain offences are kept away from their associates at the time when they are looking to be re-associated with them through a curfew, for example, the chances of those

737
people re-offending by getting back into bad company will be lessened. Obviously the exact details of how that will happen have yet to be finalised.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I should just like to say two or three sentences to my noble friend. I do not know whether one can ever reform a man's character by depriving him of his liberty but I should have thought that it was extremely doubtful. What is quite certain is that a man's character can be debased by the conditions that he has to endure while he has lost his liberty.
I should like to reinforce the words of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, who has far more experience than I. The conditions in our prisons are not simply a function of the numbers in them or even the numbers of prison places available. It is the actual conditions of the prison regime which in my opinion are degrading to the human character.
I should like to say a few words in favour of the judges, who seem to me to have been unjustly criticised. Those who say that we above any other country in Europe send more people to prison may be statistically correct. However, they must also ask themselves whether the pattern of crime that is being committed at this time on an increasing scale inside this country in some ways is not worse than that of many of our European neighbours.
Obviously judges need to pursue a consistent sentencing policy. No doubt my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is the recipient of the same kind of postbag that I received from people, sometimes from Members of the House of Commons who ought to know better, who believe that the Lord Chancellor orders judges about like a regimental sergeant major telling them what to do. That is of course not the case. However, I received nine complaints of undue leniency to every complaint of undue severity.
I do not know the answer to these questions and I doubt whether many other people do either. My own conviction may be described in two precepts: first, the disposal of a criminal case can never be judged until, at the very least, the transcript has been read; secondly, the court of Appeal has and ought to perform the function of imposing —except in the case of a few eccentrics (who exist in any group of several hundred people) —consistency of sentences and the proper kind of disposal for particular crimes which is expected of judges.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble and learned friend's doubt about whether a person's character can be reformed by depriving him of his liberty. It is something that is always very difficult to discern. However, society has a right to be protected from those who commit the most serious crimes. That is why such offenders have to be removed from society. My noble and learned friend is entirely right to say that, having removed them from society, they then have to be held in conditions which are acceptable to both society and themselves. That is desirable. My noble and learned friend will realise, as indeed will other noble Lords, that it is a vast
738
task. However, it is one to which we have set our hands.
My noble and learned friend produced an image of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor regimenting judges like a regimental sergeant major. I imagine that the Lord Chancellor would be given fairly short shrift if he tried to do that to any judge. However, my noble and learned friend is quite right to say that people expect consistency and therefore will write, I assume, to the Lord Chancellor of the day to complain when in their opinion the sentences passed have not been consistent. But I know, as do my noble and learned friends, that as a whole judges are concerned to ensure that there should be a reasonable degree of similarity in sentences passed for similar crimes; but within that judges must be free to pass whatever sentence they think is correct.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to my noble friend for the fact that I was not in the Chamber when he started to repeat this Statement. Having had an opportunity to look very quickly at the White Paper, I understand that he has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations of the committee which I had the honour to chair. I should like to thank him very much for that. In fact I believe that what the committee proposed with regard to parole is a far more coherent pattern for sentencing than exists at the moment.
I believe that we have removed substantially the disparity that existed between what the judge said and what happened in practice. I believe that our proposals give a meaning to the totality of the sentence that it did not have before. I remind my noble friend that so far as concerns shorter sentences, the committee believed that its proposals would restore judicial confidence in the release mechanism. However, it also believed that implementation should go hand in hand with a determined effort to reduce the length of the shorter sentences in view of the fact that meaning is now to be given to the whole of the sentence. I hope that the Home Office has not ignored that point.
Finally, with regard to longer sentences, I welcome, as I know all members of the committee will welcome, the acceptance by the Home Office of our recommendation that in future parole should be based on review of the length of sentence that the person had had passed rather than the type of offence of which the person was convicted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I can assure him that the concern that he expressed has not been lost on the Home Office. He and his committee have produced a report that has enabled us to find the right way forward. We have accepted the majority of the committee's recommendations. Quite clearly it will be necessary for some of the sentences to be lowered; otherwise the prison situation will be even worse. However, that is a matter for the judges.
If my noble friend's thesis, on which the report was based, comes out correctly, we should end up with people serving sentences which are more

739
appropriate to the sentence passed, the sentences being passed being slightly less than has been the practice before and many more people spending their "reforming time" outside prison than inside.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that it would probably be the wish of the House to resume as soon as possible the Committee stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, wants to speak. I suggest that she make her intervention and after my noble friend has replied we resume the Committee stage.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I follow the rules of procedure which, I am sorry to say, other noble Lords do not appear to have done. I understood that one puts questions on a Statement. I welcome the Statement. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government will consider ensuring that the amount of money that they give to the resettlement of offenders will always be balanced against the money that they give to the victim support schemes? In every crime there is an offender and a victim. I regret that the noble Earl referred to "less serious offences". As I said before, to the person against whom an offence is committed, all offences are equally serious.
I hope that, in giving guidelines to the magistrates, the Government will be extraordinarily clear that it is becoming increasingly difficult for those who act in a judicial capacity to decide whether they are carrying out the sentence that the offence deserves or whether it is a sentence that will be acceptable to the Government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that it is a question of the sentence being acceptable to the Government. I understand the noble Baroness's concern but I could not possibly give her an undertaking that the same amount of money being spent on the resettlement of offenders will be spent on the victims. The two things are not necessarily comparable in money terms, although I accept that they are highly comparable in human terms. The way in which victims are compensated cannot be equated in monetary terms with what is spent for the resettlement of offenders. However, I understand the noble Baroness's concern.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
5.20 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Other terms]:
The Earl of Halsbury moved The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert —
(" "experiment" means any procedure physical, chemical or biological whose outcome is not sufficiently certain as to make it unnecessary;").
The noble Earl said: I speak also to Amendment No. 6, which is grouped with the amendment. These are definitions that I gave at Second Reading as to what "experiment" and "project of research" meant to me. It seemed to me after that that it would be good to have them in the body of the Bill for reference. In that context perhaps I may appeal to the noble and learned Lord that the Bill be rearranged so that all the definitions appear in one place as an index, possibly with an asterisk as to their first occurrence. That would be a great help for anyone studying the Bill. It is complicated enough.
I await any comment from the noble and learned Lord or any of my scientific colleagues in the Committee as to whether or not they believe that I have drawn these definitions in acceptable terms. I have tried to draw them as widely as possible. For example, sticking a thermometer into something to tell the temperature when one does not know the temperature is an experiment of a kind. Another one —to which I can refer at a later stage of the Bill —is feeding an embryo with a little glucose and measuring its lactic acid output on the basis that the most active embryos are probably the most suitable for implantation. That again falls within my definition of "experiment". I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): I beg the pardon of the Committee. I should have put the question first, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill?
Clause 1 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government have not included a definition of research in the Bill because they believe that for the purpose of the Bill it is not necessary and indeed is undesirable to do so. We have the feeling that the word "research" is probably as clear as any substitution for it. The same is true of "experiment".
It is not easy to deal with the matter in a very comprehensive way. However, I take one example. I read with great interest the definition of "experiment" that the noble Earl has put forward. Would it include growing up, for example? I refer to the ordinary process of a child becoming an adult. I am not sure. However, that is a test of the definition.
The "project of research" has as its main idea in the definition of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury:
"any experiment or observation or sequence thereof designed to establish knowledge of the subject matter to which such experiments or observations are directed".
It has been suggested to me that to establish knowledge may be one thing. One may also have a project of research intended to apply what one has discovered to some other situation. It is open to question whether, if one is seeking to apply the knowledge one has already discovered to a new situation, one is seeking some knowledge of that situation. We feel that the word "experiment" and the idea of "project of research" are sufficiently clear to make it unwise to define them further. It may not be easy to hit on definitions for either of these that are all-embracing and add to the clarity of the phrases themselves.

741
I know that the noble Earl may have a different idea. I put these matters forward for his consideration.
The Earl of Halsbury: I do not wish to fight this as a matter of principle. I am not an expert on the drafting of legislation. The noble and learned Lord is. If he tells me that it is unnecessary, I am prepared to accept that.
Knowledge covers how to do something, or to make something, or to understand something; and that is that. I do not know whether or not growing up is a procedure. The noble and learned Lord and I are at one on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 24, after ("provided") insert ("to the public or a section of the public").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a government amendment. The idea of the amendment is to make it clear that the Bill is not intended to apply to self-administered treatments. It has been suggested to us that Clause 4(1)(b), which prohibits the use of a man's sperm in the course of providing treatment services except in certain circumstances where a person is licensed to do so, would make self-administered treatment unlawful. By amending the definition of "treatment services", it is intended to make it clear that the treatment services to which the Bill applies are those that are provided to the public or a section of the public. That is what the Government seek to achieve by the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("women to carry children") and insert ("a specified woman to bear a child").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment my contention is that the present definition of "treatment services" is too broad. It could be interpreted to mean almost anything since many procedures could be said to help women in general to bear children. Crucially, it could be interpreted to include research on the human embryo, thus pre-empting the decision of the Committee on Clause 11 that we shall be discussing in due course.
As with other forms of infertility treatment covered by the Bill, such as AID (artificial insemination by donor), the amendment will ensure that treatment is treatment and not research. It is to everyone's advantage that research and treatment are clearly distinguished. Whichever way the decision on embryo research goes, we shall need to dstinguish between the two. In essence, it is a drafting amendment to avoid ambiguity rather than a matter of policy. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand the purpose for which my noble friend has moved the amendment, but, with great respect, I question whether it assists the definition of "treatment services" as,
742
"medical, surgical or obstetric services provided for the purpose of assisting women to carry children".
The importance is to be given to the words
"provided for the purpose of assisting women to carry children".
I believe that it is plain that research is distinguished from treatment by that aim. The objective of research is not to provide a particular service for the purpose of assisting women to carry children where the services are medical, surgical or obstetric.
If the intention is to make the scope of control as broad as possible within the limits of the general policy of the Bill, I believe that it is not wise to seek to limit the definition of treatment services, because that is the basis on which one aspect of the control is to be exercised.
In the light of these considerations, my noble friend may feel that the amendment does not exactly serve the purposes that he had in mind when putting it forward.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment. If the Bill is left as it is surely all the research into making more efficient the methods of IVF would come under the heading. It is to assist women to carry children. Surely my noble friend Lord Ashbourne is right in saying that the provision would include a large measure of work which we normally regard as research. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has made clear that such work is not intended to be covered by the subsection.
The Lord Chancellor: It is important to notice the emphasis on the words "provided for". The Bill states:
"medical, surgical or obstetric services provided for the purpose of assisting women to carry children".
I believe that research, whatever it may be, would not be a service provided for the purpose of enabling or assisting women to carry children. The case may be that indicated in the definition put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which we have not yet incorporated; that is, some assertainment of knowledge, for example, in relation to what treatment services should be provided. The emphasis is on the object of the service as provided for the purpose of assisting women to carry children.
If the intention is to limit research, that would not be made clearer by the addition of the words "a specified woman to bear a child". It might be that the research would be directed to a particular woman. I do not believe that the amendment hits the mark which my noble friends are seeking. It is a difficult target and I believe that the matter may merit further consideration.
The Duke of Norfolk: I should like to make the matter more precise. The words were contained in the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill tabled by Enoch Powell in the other place. I more or less copied his Bill and brought it before your Lordships' House about a year ago. I had wide support on Second Reading but did not carry on with the Bill.

743
Such specification is required in order to draw a firm distinction between treatment and research. Treatment involves an embryo being produced to enable a specified woman to bear a child rather than for the purpose of enabling women in general to bear children. It could include research being carried out on the embryo which might enable other women at a later stage to bear children. We do not wish to see research carried out on embryos. If we define it as an embryo being created for a specified woman to bear a child, that embryo must be put into that woman.
Lord Milverton: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Ashbourne. As a result of the Bill one hopes to see what is lovely, noble, beautiful and true maintained. That is the reason why I support my noble friend and why I have great reservations about the issue. One wonders whether in the end what is noble, beautiful and of worth in a human being will be kept unless there is great spiritual insight among men and women.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In moving the amendment my noble friend said that it was important to make a distinction between treatment and research. If treatment is carried out in a certain place for a succession of couples, always in order to enable the specific woman in each case to carry a child, is properly recorded and the track record of the treatment through the years is observed, that becomes research. That has been pointed out to me by scientists who are doing that. A distinction cannot be made. Research does not begin and end in any one place; treatment is part of research. The amendment is confusing although I understand the intention of my noble friend.
Lord Somers: I have it on the highest authority that a professor of the Royal College of Physicians has laid down that, for example, in the case of cystic fibrosis, if one were to destroy every defective embryo holding a defective gene it would take 1,250 years to halve the incidence of the disease. In the case of other diseases it would take even longer. I believe that at present research on embryos is not of much use except for the purpose of enabling a woman to bear a child.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I support the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, Clause 8(8) provides that one of the functions of the authority would be to keep under review information about embryos and their subsequent development and the provision of treatment services. I understand why the amendment has been proposed but the term "treatment services" is extremely broad. It embraces a wide range of medical, surgical or obstetric services provided for the purpose of assisting women to carry children. That explanatory phrase does not refer to a form of treatment used for the benefit of a particular woman. It is a broad, inclusive term relating to services available to women in general.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I wish to add one further point. In trying to envisage how the provision will work in operation, I wonder whether it is true that if the amendment were passed one would have to hedge it around with further legislation to ensure that it did not become a farce. One can envisage that people may put forward the name of a specified woman in that way but with a wider purpose in their minds. I do not believe that the purposes behind the amendment can be achieved by the form of wording suggested.
Lord Stallard: I become more confused as the discussion goes on and I am trying hard to come to terms with some of the expressions and the points that are being made. However, I was not confused when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, moving the amendment. It appears to be a reasonable attempt to tidy up an untidy provision.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confused me even further. He said that the provision was specific. However, I am worried about all experimentation on embryos and I believe that we must be specific. My fear is that the provision is not specific enough. If it was specific we may lose some of our fears in respect of other parts of the Bill. Therefore, to tidy up the matter at this stage appears to be a good idea.
It is a fair drafting point to say, "We should make this specific and enable a specified woman to bear a child". I believe that there is a difference between that and general research enabling any woman to bear any children. It ties it down. I assumed that that was what we were trying to do.
Also, as the right reverend Prelate suggests, I am assuming that all the people involved in this will be honourable. I know that that is perhaps not true at present in some places. However, I must assume that there will not be attempts to specify a woman's name for the purpose of an experiment in order to fiddle the books, as it were. I do not believe that that can happen; I hope that it will not happen and I certainly would not embark on a Bill with that in mind.
I believe that it is necessary if we are serious —and I am serious —about our fears as to experiments on embryos to be specific about what is to be specified as treatment and what is to be specified as research into more general treatment for wider application for women in general.
This amendment does not deal with what will happen to spare embryos; we shall come to that later on. That is another discussion. It can probably cover some of the aspects which we have missed in our discussions on this amendment. However, I thought that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, was perfectly reasonable and I support it.
Lord Kilbracken: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could tell me when he comes to reply exactly what he sees as being covered by the phrase "carrying children" because it does not normally include either conception or childbirth although we have been talking as though bearing children is included in the phrase. Surely that is something quite different.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: Purely as a matter of drafting, it seems to me that the apprehension underlying the feelings of the movers of this amendment is quite unfounded. A court called upon to construe a definition section looks not only at the defining words but at the phrase to be defined. If a person who engaged in the kind of research which is thought to be offensive and at which in certain respects this Bill is directed sought to defend himself by saying, "Oh, I have only been engaged in providing treatment services provided to the public or a section of the public", he would never succeed.
Lord Brain: Is this not too restrictive? I understand that the process carried out in in vitro fertilisation requires the implantation of more than one embryo. If this amendment is carried, only one embryo may be implanted because a specified woman cannot be given more than one child. I suspect that the wording is defective.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I am very sorry that my efforts to assist have only created more difficulty for the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. Perhaps I can have another try. He wants to make this specific. Of course there are different matters which one wants to make specific. I rather suspect that what is wanted by my noble friend who moved the amendment is something which makes it clear that treatment services will not enable research to be carried on, if research is prohibited, under the name of treatment. I believe that that is the point which my noble friend is making. I cannot see how it helps to specify in relation to a particular woman. That is the wrong kind of specification. The specification required should be directed at what is included in treatment. As I said earlier, that is why I believe that the phrase "provided for" is important.
This amendment was presented by my noble friend Lord Ashbourne as an amendment designed to deal with drafting. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk referred to the Bill which he presented which bore somewhat of a resemblance to that presented by Mr. Enoch Powell in another place. There the policy would be described as rather different. There the idea was that a particular treatment would be licensed. The idea of this Bill is that the licensing authority will consider what it is that a particular clinic is doing and what the conditions should be and will grant the licence and then the clinic will deal with patients and treat them according to the licence.
If this amendment is passed the result will be that every licence must specify a particular person in respect of whom it is to be granted. That will do nothing to further the interests which were suggested as being behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ashbourne. It would create a quite needless and useless duplication, or indeed mutiplication, of bureaucracy.
I do not believe that I can make it any plainer than that. I can see that the more the matter is tied down, the more satisfactory it may be to some. However, one may be tying down the wrong thing.
746
If it is tied down to a particular individual, that does not assist in tying down what may be done in respect of that individual, which is really the matter being aimed at. We rely on the phrase "provided for" for that purpose.
These are difficult issues. I do not seek to pretend that this is easy. However, I am trying to warn the Committee against taking a course in wishing to tie something down which has the effect of making matters worse.
Lord Ennals: If it is any reassurance to the noble and learned Lord, I agree with every word he said.
The Duke of Norfolk: I hope that it is not out of order for me to speak now. I see that the Chief Whip is nodding. That does not always happen. I obviously have not explained myself properly. We do not like to see any experiments carried out on any embryo. However, the pro-life group agrees that there should be therapeutic treatment for the benefit of that embryo. We regard the embryo as a born child or a grown-up. Treatment can only be carried out on that born child or grown-up for its own good. That cannot be so if it is carried out for the benefit of other people. We put in this amendment —and it was in the Enoch Powell Bill —to try to limit it so that only an embryo which will be inserted into a woman can be treated for the benefit of that embryo.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I wholly agree with my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and Lord Bridge of Harwich. The amendment is shooting at the wrong target with the wrong weapons. One can only construe a definition in an Act of Parliament by looking at the context in which the phrase is used in other sections. If you look for a moment at Clauses 4, 11 and 13 you can find that if you tried to apply the definition proposed in the amendment to any of those clauses you arrive at nonsense.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he really believes that the word "carry" is appropriate in that context. It seems to me that the word "carry" could mean to carry in one's arms. I wonder whether the word "bear" may not be better.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: It was my understanding of this amendment that, in stipulating that treatment services covered by the Bill should be given to specified women, that did not mean that separate licences, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, would be needed for each individual woman. My understanding is that one licence would be issued to cover the treatment services which could be given to any number of women whose names would have to be entered on the appropriate record.
My only other point is that where I think that this phrase and the definition of it is terribly important is in Schedule 2, paragraph 1(1), where it says:
"A licence under this paragraph may authorise any of the following in the course of providing treatment services".
I understand that the choice we were to be given in

747
the equivalent of Schedule 2, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (1) and (2), was between some research and no research. When we looked at the phrase "treatment services" and married it up with the definition which is the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, we felt that Schedule 1 allowed an appreciable amount of research, and that is what was at the back of the worry which led to this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk made it plain that he wishes the test of research, or the test of something that is not research, to be the purpose of assisting either the embryo itself or its development. That is exactly the emphasis that this definition has; that the treatment services are to be provided for the purpose of assisting women and not for anything else. They are to assist women to carry children.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked whether the word "carry" is appropriate. I suggest that it is appropriate. The object is to create conditions under which an implanted embryo is in the uterus of a woman and it is to that purpose treatment services are directed.
With regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, I can see that what is covered in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 may require to be looked at. I can understand that he may have some questions about that, but I do not understand how putting the name of the specific woman into the definition would assist in that in the slightest. That is the problem. Naming the woman is perhaps the best way to simplify the amendment —it insists on naming the specific woman. How does that of itself restrict what can be done with embryos in connection with that woman? The answer is that it does not. It only creates unnecessary complications in licensing and has no bearing whatever on the list in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2.
The Earl of Perth: I have listened to the debate on this amendment and it seems to me that there is a very genuine worry on the part of those who tabled the amendment and those who have spoken in its support; that is, the question of the meaning of the word "treatment".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it means "to assist" and does not allow research. That may be, but I ask whether he will look at this matter again, not in any way to say that he accepts the amendment but to see whether the genuine fears of those who have spoken cannot in some way or other be allayed by a form of drafting of that sentence which refers to "treatment services".
The Lord Chancellor: I should like to make clear from the outset that I shall listen to everything that is said, take account of concerns and seek to meet them. All I seek to point out at this stage is that the suggestion made in this amendment does not appear to be directed effectively to meeting the concerns which prompted it. I shall certainly consider whether those concerns can be met in some other way as we proceed. I am not sure that this discussion has so
748
far suggested a way forward in that regard, but that is the situation.
Lord Ashbourne: May I say how grateful I am to all noble Lords for taking part in the debate on this amendment, and particularly to the Lord Chancellor for explaining the views of the Government so cogently.
I am not very happy because it seems to me —I am a simple man —that any amendment which is set to remove ambiguity must be a good amendment. I cannot see that allowing ambiguity into legislation can ever be helpful or useful. However, I shall read very carefully what has been said, and the Lord Chancellor has indicated he will look at the matter. I may come back at Report stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 2, after ("cryopreservation") insert ("and any other method of suspending animation")
The noble Duke said: At present embryos, sperm and to a lesser extent eggs are stored by cryopreservation —however that is pronounced; my attempt at pronouncing Greek is not good. I took Greek for six weeks; the class was cut in two and I was in the half that did not go on.
The Bill enacts time limits for the storage of gametes and embryos and also specifies that for the purpose of a time limit on experimentation, storage does not count. No other technique of storage is possible at present. However, such techniques may be developed in the future. It is advisable, therefore, to allow for this. This amendment allows for any other methods of suspending animation —that is, temporarily suspending the life process, growth and development —to be counted as storage for the purposes of this Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: When this Bill was drafted our information was exactly the same as that of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk; namely, that cryopreservation was the only method of "keeping" that was available. We have used the word "keeping" in the Bill to accommodate any development of other methods of keeping that might arise. We want to make clear that the only one we knew of was cryopreservation. However, no harm is done by making clear the intention that any other method of keeping is covered. It is entirely in line with the spirit of Clause 2(2) and therefore, as my noble friend has put forward this point, I undertake to consider it and will seek to bring forward an amendment on Report on the lines he suggested.
The Duke of Norfolk: I thank the noble and learned Lord and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert —
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that an embryo shall have the legal status of a person.")
The noble Lord said: I apologise for putting Amendments Nos. 9A and 9B down so late in the day —only this morning. I will not weary the Committee by reciting the reasons, but I apologise in the interests of getting on. I have been advised by the Public Bill Office that the right place to put these amendments is at the end of the definition clause, where they are.
The Bill as introduced does not say whether an embryo is a person or a chattel in law, or indeed any other sort of thing in law. It was represented to me that this is a bad plan because to leave it undefined is likely to leave it to the definition of the courts at a later date. We cannot know what courts and in what context. It has been put forward that it is the duty of Parliament to tackle great moral and legal difficulties like this directly, in the first place, by primary legislation.
What might happen? People fall out and when they fall out they go to court. When they fall out about stored embryos it seems very likely that they will fall out as grievously as they do about divorce, about the care of children after divorce and all that tangle of very intimate emotional questions.
In the United States and Australian courts—these are two countries well up in the league of technology, as we are in this country —there have already been cases which have come to contradictory conclusions on this point. I wish to take a moment to tell the Committee what they are.
As long ago as 1978, in the case of Del Zio v. Presbyterian Hospital, in New York State, the court appeared to decide that an embryo was a chattel. Later, for legal reasons, it was found that it had not so decided though that was the opinion when the court considered the matter. More recently, in September of last year, in the case of Davis v. Davis heard in the Tennessee Circuit Court, the court decided fairly and squarely that an embryo is a person.
I turn now to Australia and the case of Rios —concerned with stored embryos. The parents were killed in an air crash. Litigation ensued and the relevant expert committee; namely, the Waller Committee —I do not know whether it corresponded exactly with the Warnock Committee —advised that the embryos should be destroyed. After pressure it was decided that the embryos should be set aside and allowed to die. The state government of Victoria then introduced a new section in statute law providing that the Minister has to direct the court what to do in certain circumstances. General confusion has ensued out of that case because of the uncertainty whether the embryos were persons or chattels.
A further case is pending in a United States Federal Court concerning stored frozen embryos. The owners or donors wished to transfer them from Virginia to California. That, if you please, has been caught up in the law of interstate commerce which clearly points to the conclusion that an embryo is a chattel and not a person. So the issue is facing every which way in those two countries.
One can imagine the contexts in which litigation might ensue if an embryo is not decided by
750
Parliament to be either a person or a chattel. Divorce proceedings are obvious. Proceedings between or concerning unmarried people may become tied up with opinion concerning the suitability of one parent or the other to bring up the embryo or to dispose of it. In testamentary proceedings can one bequeath an embryo to others? Can one bequeath anything to an embryo? These questions would be settled differently if the embryo were a chattel from how they would be settled if the embryo were a person.
As regards immigration proceedings, couples may seek to enter the country bringing frozen embryos with them. Here we begin to touch on criminal law. One can even imagine customs proceedings. It would be one thing if an embryo were an object which could be brought into the country. But theft is a very likely issue. An embryo made here by IVF may be stolen and taken into a country with tighter laws than ours. For example, an embryo may be taken to a country which has decided that an embryo was a person.
Lastly, there will be a black market in embryos whatever the law is. There is always a black market in regulated products. It is worth noting that in the existing black market for children for adoption —we know that this country is not a centre for that traffic—children with fair hair and blue eyes fetch a higher price than others. It may also be assumed that chattels which are expected to have fair hair and blue eyes will fetch higher prices than chattels that are not expected to.
A good many different branches of law will be concerned with this question, and there are many levels and types of court which may be seized of the cases when they crop up. I believe that it would be a great neglect of parliamentary duty if this Bill did not settle by a simple declaration the status of the embryo in law for the later avoidance of unnecessary and confusing litigation.
As to the form of the two amendments which, as Members of the Committee will see at once, are mutually contradictory, I have taken a leaf from the Government's book and tabled them so that the Committee can adopt either if it wishes. I say at this point that if anyone can think of another status in law for frozen embryos I would not regard my two alternatives as exclusive of all others. It may be interesting to discuss whether, first, the status of an embryo needs greater description in the Bill than it has now. Secondly, if that is so, the question is what that description should be.
It is possible that this debate will not be the last on this topic as the Bill proceeds through this House. I look forward to learning a great deal, as I am sure that all Members of the Committee will, from the lawyers among us of whom I am not one. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I rise to oppose this amendment and its ugly sister which immediately follows. An embryo is not a chattel, and to destroy it if it were would be trespass to somebody else's property. A human entity which is living is not a chattel and neither is it a person in any ordinary sense. Most extraordinary results

751
would occur if it were. Could it bring an action by its next friend? I suppose that its name would be A N Embryo by its next friend, Mrs. Smith. It would be able to bring an action for personal injury if it were damaged. I suppose the loss of expectation of life might be among the general effects for which general damages could be awarded.
It is wrong to try to define a human embryo in terms of established legal definitions which are plainly inapplicable to human embryos. Why must an embryo be one or the other? Why cannot it be just an embryo? This question is like Achilles and the tortoise, the old Stoics and Epicureans and the Greek philosophers who invented puzzles in order to make them unanswerable. It is far better not to attempt to define these matters.
If the present amendment is allowed it would have the curious effect of rendering it murder to destroy an embryo in a way which is certainly the case if any form of experimentation were allowed. It is far better not to go down this road at all and to let an embryo be an embryo, and nothing else.
Lord Somers: I do not normally have the impertinence to differ from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, but on this occasion I am going to. I believe that an embryo should definitely be a person. It is an instance of human life. If it is that, who is going to say when it ceases to be just an embryo and becomes a person? There are a few differences because it does not have to pay income tax.
Noble Lords: Or the poll tax!
Lord Somers: Apart from that it is definitely a person.
The Lord Chancellor: I am rather surprised that there seems to have been a pause in the discussion. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, the categories of the existing law were developed by analysis of relationships with which our system had to deal. One of the matters with which it did not have to deal at the time the categories were developed was the embryo. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and her committee had to consider this matter. I can do no better than quote from paragraph 10.11 of their report:
"Until now the law has never had to consider the existence of embryos outside the mother's uterus. The existence of such embryos raises potentially difficult problems as to ownership. The concept of ownership of human embryos seems to us to be undesirable. We recommend that legislation be enacted to ensure there is no right of ownership in a human embryo. Nevertheless, the couple who have stored an embryo for their use should be recognised as having rights to the use and disposal of the embryo, although these rights ought to be subject to limitation. The precise nature of that limitation will obviously require careful consideration. We hope the couple will recognise that they have a responsibility to make a firm decision as to the disposal and use of the embryo".
Although there is no specific provision in the Bill to say in terms that there is no right of ownership of a human embryo, the policy in the Bill is very much based on the Warnock Report's recommendations on this aspect. It is fair to say that
752
few comments were received about these matters during the two rounds of consultation which preceded the publication of the White Paper in November 1987.
Schedule 3 to the Bill, which sets out a detailed scheme of consent, follows the spirit of the recommendations of the Warnock Committee. I am sure that we are right not to seek to define ownership as in these amendments. The scheme of Schedule 3 requires that an embryo once created is to be used only in accordance with an effective consent given by those from whom it has been created. The ultimate sanction, as it were, is that any embryo in respect for which there is no longer an effective consent for use or storage is to be allowed to perish. This appears to be the best way forward at this juncture.
The various cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred illustrate how difficult it is for lawyers to cope with the kind of problems with which his amendments deal. They come to contradictory conclusions, as he pointed out, even though they may start off, so far as the law is concerned, from somewhat similar concepts. The real difficulty is that the concepts in the existing law of person, the rights of persons, the concept of chattel and so on do not fit the embryo. I should have thought that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham must be right. We should leave "embryo" as "embryo" and seek to deal with the conditions which affect it after the manner of Schedule 3. Noble Lords may have different views about that. There is room for difference of treatment in detail of these matters. This seems to be a fair way to take the matter forward. To go down the road of the amendments would be to pose conundrums which might be fascinating for lawyers to discuss but which would not really deal with the fundamental problems.
Lord Prys-Davies: Although I speak from the Front Bench I do so in a personal capacity. I do not find the amendments helpful. There are difficulties about the status of a person. Is it to be the status of a child; is it to be the status of a fetus, or what: There are difficulties also over the status of a chattel. The term is used in legislation —for example, in the Sale of Goods Act —but none of us would dream of using the term chattel in the sense that it is used in the Sale of Goods Act. I do not think the amendments are helpful and they should not be pushed any further.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet: This has been a shorter debate than I expected. Perhaps we can have a longer one later. I fully took the force of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. Nobody knows what an embryo is in law. It was to start the process of helping our society to make up its mind that I introduced the amendments. I was surprised that the noble and learned Lord did not refer to any of the four cases which simply illustrate the confusion which the good Americans and good Australians have fallen into for lack of a statutory definition when they come to deal with the nitty-gritty of everyday life between people who are at odds.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I rise only to answer the noble Lord's question. My experience of quoting American cases is like swimming in treacle; they ask themselves a silly question and then they give a foolish answer.
Lord Kennet: I have little doubt that the present state of British law in this matter is inadequate to cope with this new technology. Whether to propose a remedy to that is itself a foolish activity or whether it is only my answers that are foolish I am not sure. However, I do not believe that the Americans are much more foolish than we are.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor remarked how difficult it was for lawyers to cope with this problem and how likely it was that they would come to contradictory conclusions. That is exactly my point. I introduced these imperfect amendments with the idea that it was the duty of Parliament to help them to come to conclusions and to forestall those contradictions with something which, in the judgment of Parliament, was just and sensible. Obviously we do not have it. These amendments do not contain it.
However, I do believe that even this tiny debate demonstrates an underlying schizophrenia, using the word in the layman's sense, which exists about the embryo. Is it a thing with which we are allowed to do what we want, or is it a very small human being, which it would indeed be murder to destroy? We cannot make up our minds and we have great difficulty in finding any meaningful words which lie between those two positions. That underlies the whole Bill and will continue to do so.
I should like to invite any noble Lord who shares my perplexity about the matter of definition to be in touch with me between now and the next stage of the Bill. I hope that, although he has not said so, the intention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be that the Government will not shut their mind entirely to any helpful proposals on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9B not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 6, after ("has") insert ("become").
The noble Lord said: I tabled this amendment because I was absolutely certain that the verb "to implant" could not be used intransitively as it is here in Clause 2(3) of the Bill which reads:
"until the embryo has implanted".
I felt completely confident about the matter because I looked it up in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I found that there was no example of it having been so used over the past 250 years covered by that dictionary. However, during the last hour I took the precaution of referring to the Oxford English Dictionary which is the longer version, where I found that in embryology —but only in embryology —it has been used intransitively since 1955. Therefore I do not intend to press the amendment. However, it may be that the noble and learned Lord will wish to comment on the matter. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord is absolutely right. The general usage is a transitive one but embryology uses it intransitively. However, the Bill is not meant for embryologists; it is meant for ordinary people. Therefore, although the Bill as drafted takes —not surprisingly —the usage of the embryologist, because it was working in that particular area of science, when we saw the noble Lord's amendment we recollected that it did properly reflect the more general practice. Therefore, I thought it wise to accept the amendment. Accordingly, I propose to recommend that Members of the Committee do likewise.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Prohibitions in connection with embryos]:
Lord Somers Lord Somers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, leave out line 9.
The noble Lord said: This is purely a probing amendment and is not of any great importance. However, it occurred to me that any married couple who proceed in the normal way of married couples will be creating an embryo. Therefore it seems a little unnecessary that they should have to get a licence in order to do so. Of course, I am not sure whether the marriage licence could be used as a substitute in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It seems to me that the noble Lord has not read Clause 1(2) of the Bill. The creation has to be "outside the human body". I should point out that, at any rate, none of my children was born that way.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I should confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that one of the purposes of Clause 1(2) is to try to deal with the matter and make it clear that we are not dealing with the ordinary procedures to which he referred but the rather extraordinary procedures which require regulation under the Bill.
There is a possible problem which may arise in another connection about whether there is any need to regulate any treatments which are somewhat abnormal; that is, other than those which are out with the body. However, so far as concerns this particular problem, I think that Clause 1(2) is the answer.
Lord Somers: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("a live") and insert ("an").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. I should like to maintain the general hilarity which currently exists in the Committee, but I do not see much possibility of that as regards this particular amendment. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the extraordinary inclusion of the word "live" in Clause 3(2)(a) and (b). The passage reads:

755
(2) No person shall place in a woman —

(a) a live embryo other than a human embryo, or

(b) any live gametes other than human gametes.

The inclusion of that word is doubly unnecessary: first, because surely no one will suggest placing a dead embryo or dead gametes into a woman; and, secondly, because in Clause 1(1) we already know that references to an embryo,
"are to a live human embryo".
Moreover, Clause 1(3) reads:
"References in this Act to gametes, eggs or sperm, except where otherwise stated, are to live human gametes, eggs or sperm".
Therefore, from both those points of view, the inclusion of the word is unnecessary. I propose that the passage should be amended to read:
"No person shall place in a woman —

(a) an embryo other than a human embryo, or

(b) gametes other than human gametes".

I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may deal with the noble Lord's second point first. The definition imports the idea of "live" so far as concerns human embryos. Therefore the definition clause does not import the word "live" where it is another embryo that is in question. It takes us back to the argument as regards the original amendment with which the noble Lord started the proceedings.
The second point is perhaps more difficult. As understand it, the situation is that, however macabre it may be to seek to put a dead embryo or dead gametes into woman's body, it would have no genetic or physical consequence. The mischief which is being attacked here is that of doing anything which may lead to the creation of hybrids. It is the idea of a genetic development by use of a non-human embryo in a woman's body that is in question.
Therefore, although the removal of the word "live" would not do any harm, because what would remain would include live as well as dead embryos, the intention is to focus upon what is the real difficulty or mischief which we are seeking to address. Keeping the word "live" in the Bill makes that fact plain and distinguishes it from other procedures, however macabre they may be, which are not in contemplation. I must confess that it never occurred to me to think of anything other than a live embryo in this context. It is only right to make that emphasis so that the reader may fully understand.
Lord Kennet: I rise to say briefly that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. Having considered all that has been said, in my view there can be no objection to removing the word. Indeed, it would achieve the same purpose. Now that such a situation has been imagined —and I would not like to judge whether the noble Lord's imagination is macabre —why should we not remove the word?
Lord Kilbracken: For my part, I never imagined that anyone would even consider the possibility of putting a dead embryo or gamete into a woman's
756
body. Indeed, I should say that the idea is macabre. Surely we do not have to put a provision into the Bill which stipulates such a thing is not permitted. No one would try to do this. In any case, if the word "live" is left out it still prohibits the use of a dead embryo. It seems to me to be completely grotesque. However, in the light of the lack of support I have received, apart from that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I am not inclined to insist upon the amendment. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 13, after second ("embryo") insert ("the creation of which was brought about using the eggs of that woman and the sperm of her husband").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 29. In a nutshell these amendments would limit treatment to married couples using their own gametes or, put more simply, AIH (artificial insemination by husband) would be permissible but AID (artificial insemination by donor) would not.
It might be helpful if I were to run over the underlying thinking behind the amendments. The first premise is that children need to be born into a stable union of two people committed to each other. Marriage is a public sign of that commitment. Couples who cohabit, or live in sin as we would have said 10 years ago, usually do so because they do not wish to make a long-term commitment to each other. Is that a sound environment for bringing children into the world?
The amendments are supportive of the family, the fundamental unit of society. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, initiated a debate on the family on 29th November in which many of your Lordships took part. It is good to see the noble Baroness in her place. The underlying groundswell of opinion during that debate was that the family needed to be buttressed. It needed to be supported. It needed to be built up. I wish to quote from the right honourable Member for Finchley who said on 25th May 1988:
"We must strengthen the family. Unless we do so, we will be faced with heartrending social problems which no government could possibly cure or perhaps even cope with".
More recently, I should like to quote the right honourable Member for Mole Valley, Mr. Kenneth Baker, the chairman of the Conservative Party, who said:
"But it is indeed a pity that we have to rely so heavily on the resourcefulness of single parents in coping with the task of raising children which nature intended to be the work of two people. The theorists of the permissive society claimed that the interests of the parent and the interests of children always went hand in hand; but what more people now recognise is that parents have duties to children that involve sacrificing some of their own wants for their children. Having children creates duties and obligations".
As the father of a handicapped child, I assure the Committee that I strongly endorse that quotation.
To return to the right honourable Member for Finchley: on 17th January she made a widely reported speech at the National Children's Home, in which she addressed the complex issue of

757
maintenance payments by absentee fathers. Yet Clauses 3 and 4 still allow women who are neither married nor cohabiting to become parents through AID. The full impact of the clauses is that national resources may be used legally to encourage single parenthood and that children born to single women would obviously have no statutory father.
It is indeed sad that Her Majesty's Government cannot see the financial and moral inconsistency of that aspect of the Bill. I challenge the noble and learned Lord to explain that inconsistency in the clearest possible terms if the Government are not minded to support the central amendments.
We know nothing of the long-term psychological and emotional effects of AID. Is it not a dangerous path to tread, creating as it does, a Pandora's box of legal, medical and psychological problems? I am going to ask your Lordships to close your eyes and to try to imagine that your mother had told you today that you had been born by AID and that the man you had called your father all your life was not in fact your father. How would you feel about the man, perhaps a medical student, who had so glibly given his sperm? What feelings would you have towards him and his possible motives? And what feelings towards your mother who had deceived you for so long?
I can speak only for myself, but I suspect that I might have feelings of anger and frustration and a sense that I had been deceived. We are talking about the sanctity of human life. Is it right to treat human life so lightly?
On a more down to earth note, if the Committee were to make today a firm decision to ban AID by supporting the amendments, we could delete Clause 26, the "Meaning of 'Mother'", Clause 27, the "Meaning of 'Father'", and Clauses 28, 29 and 30 which seek to regulate the problems created by AID. I know that some Members of the Committee may feel that the amendments lack compassion and it is true that if one partner has faulty gametes and requests donation, the amendment would prevent such help. It does not of course in any way affect adoption.
The Committee might at this juncture like to reflect upon the detailed screening process through which prospective parents who wish to adopt have to go before they are accepted as suitable to adopt a child, in contrast to the negative screening which goes on to have a child by AID. If the Committee feels that there may not be enough babies to meet the needs of those seeking to adopt, it will have an admirable opportunity to amend the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, to be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on 21st February, to tighten up the gaping holes in that piece of legislation.
I am asking for the Bill to follow the truth. Here scripture is relevant. In John, Chapter 8, verse 32, Jesus says:
"If' you continue in my word you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free".
The amendments present the simplest, most honest and yet workable format for improving the Bill with regard to artifical insemination. It avoids the pretence of calling someone else father, and
758
children will know that, although artificial means may have been used in their conception, at least their parents are their parents. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It might possibly be of assistance if I said a word or two at this stage. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, is designed to prohibit all gamete donations. I have enormous sympathy with the amendments. There was a time when I would have supported them because I find the whole idea of gamete donation repellent. However, after lengthy reflection, and it has been lengthy because I first raised the subject in this place six and a half years ago, I have come to the conclusion that in an intensely personal matter of this kind it is not for me to impose my views upon others.
I think that to have, or not to have, a donor child is perhaps a personal decision for the couple concerned. Having said that, I absolutely appreciate Lord Ashbourne's point about a donor child discovering later in life that he or she, is a donor child. I shall return to that subject when I move amendments to Clauses 26 and 27.
I have therefore decided to oppose these amendments, and later this evening shall be moving amendments of my own to prohibit, in the interests of resultant children, the provision of AID and in vitro techniques and services to unmarried women. If the noble Lords, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and Lord Milverton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, press these amendments and win I understand that it is likely that they will be reversed when the Bill goes to another place, and then it will be too late to introduce my amendments, for when a Bill returns from another place we can only agree or disagree with their amendments. We cannot at that stage introduce fresh amendments of our own.
I therefore implore those noble Lords not to press their amendments, but if they do I hope that the Committee might reject them and support my amendments, on the basis that the interests of the children are of paramount importance, and that it is crucial to have that half loaf instead of going all out for a whole loaf and ending up with nothing. Incidentally, I wonder whether or not the amendments outlawing gamete donation are possibly defective, since Section 27 of the Family Law Act 1986 apparently regards AID as legal.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I do not of course doubt for a moment the sincerity of my noble friend behind me in proposing this amendment. Nor do I suppose for a second that he is lacking in compassion. However, I suggest that this amendment is wholly lacking in common sense. Let us look at what it says. It says that a married couple who employ AID will be punishable under Section 36(6) by six months' imprisonment. That is what my noble friend proposes.
A woman who lives with a man, or with men, promiscuously, and produces a number of illegitimate children is totally immune from process under this amendment and will continue to be the

759
mother of illegitimate children. How, in those circumstances, this amendment is supposed to preserve the sanctity of the family absolutely baffles any kind of description.
If an unmarried couple use AID, the penalty is six months' imprisonment under the amendment. But I have known cases —and I daresay noble Lords have known cases, or read about them in our social history —where a married couple have in fact been unfaithful to one another and the husband of that married couple has brought up the child as his own, and the child has remained under the belief that it is a child of the family. I regard that as a highly moral action on the part of the husband, but if it had been done by AID the husband would have been a criminal. I think that this is nonsense.
I hope that my noble friend will believe that I am just as sincere a Christian as he is. I happen to believe that sexual intercourse outside marriage is a sin, but I would not punish it by six months' imprisonment, nor would I punish fornication in the same way. Whatever can be said about adultery or fornication, they are a good deal more pleasant than AID would be, and I do not really see why AID should have an added punishment.
The Duke of Somerset: In the scenario painted by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, if I had just been told by my mother about AID I would consider how good it was to be alive, because if it was not for the donor I should not even exist.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: I wonder whether I have completely misunderstood the argument which has been presented so far, or whether my noble friend Lord Ashbourne has not very much overstated his own case. He has presented the case for the amendment apparently taking as his base the alleged fact that in vitro fertilisation and AID are synonymous. However, they are not.
The noble Lord's amendment proposes to make it illegal to place in a woman "a live embryo other than a human embryo" and so on. AID does not place any live embryo anywhere, as I understand the meaning of the words. It is simply the introduction of a male sperm into a woman. There is no question of any glass dish involved in this at all. I would personally support the amendment if only my noble friend could make it clear that AID does not come into the argument at all.
The Earl of Halsbury: My views are identical with those of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, so far as my personal behaviour is concerned. I would never under any circumstances allow a child of my loins to be brought up by other people. But I am in the difficulty, as so often we all are, that I am a Christian legislator in a secular community, and my personal views are not those that I must necessarily impose on others.
In that community AID is now a fairly established practice, and it would be unwise to use this Bill to disestablish it. Therefore, if my noble friend Lady Saltoun expresses herself "Not Content" when the
760
voices are collected, I shall say the same and follow her into the Division Lobby.
Lord Prys-Davies: I very much respect the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, but this amendment is a worrying amendment. It really represents the most restricted and constrained approach towards the treatment that would otherwise be available under the Bill. It is restrictive —and we must emphasise this —in two ways. First, because the treatment is restricted to parties of a marriage whose union has been formalised either by a civil or a religious ceremony, and the treatment would not be available to cohabiting couples or to a single woman. I do not want to anticipate the debates that will be coming up later on the amendment in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, but we are entitled to ask: why should treatment depend on marital status, and why should the law discriminate against cohabiting couples or even single women?
Then there is the second restriction. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has referred to this. The amendment restricts the treatment even within marriage to an embryo that has been brought about by the eggs of the woman who receives the embryo, and the sperm of her husband. That rules out sperm donation; it rules out egg donation. Currently, as we know, both the eggs and the sperm may be donated. That is being resorted to because couples who desperately wish to raise a family may be sterile, or, alternatively, one of them may be a carrier of a serious hereditary disease. While accepting the sincerity of the mover of this amendment, it is our submission that one cannot justify the banning of the egg or sperm donation without being pretty indifferent to the needs and hopes of very ordinary people in our country.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I have listened to the discussion on the amendment with great interest. I am clear that the amendment as it now stands will not achieve what the movers clearly wish it to achieve. It will certainly not achieve the statement about a concern which they have. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, use the phrase, "legal, medical and psychological problems" when I suspect that as much as anything he is concerned about a moral issue. It is important to state before the discussion ends that many of us are concerned with the fact that marriage is something which binds together the whole question of sexual relationships and parenthood. That is something that we do not wish to see undermined by legislation. Anything which legislation seems to do in that way always leaves many of us concerned. On the other hand, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, there is a place for a sense of reality about what is possible in our present day society.
I wish to make two points on this matter. The first is that any form of assistance from an outside donor, a third party, violates in some sense the exclusive union that exists between a husband and wife in a way that adoption does not. What has happened is that a third person has been involved in the creation of that child. We may recognise that that is not

761
adultery in the normal sense —I am quite clear that it is not as it has a much more deliberate and almost clinical quality than adultery —but, nevertheless, there is an invasion of the union. We do not yet know enough to know what the consequences will be for many marriages where this has happened in terms of how people handle the matter later on.
My second point has already been raised. It is that anonymity in this area is something that we need to avoid as far as possible when the children are growing up. The interests of the child must be paramount; that is to say, they must take precedence over the needs of the parents, especially those of the mother to find fulfilment in the bearing of a child. The concern that has grown over the past few years about helping children who have been adopted to know something of their roots must have a parallel in this matter. I hope that that issue will be addressed carefully as we work our way through the legislation, if we are to allow the development of donor intervention to take place.
The Earl of Lauderdale: The Committee will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashbourne for saying what he has said in the way he said it. I believe that that is so whatever point of view individual Members of the Committee may hold. My noble friend drew attention to the context in which this whole Bill has been brought before us which is the context of family life. Unless the Bill has been brought before us in the context of family life its context must be that of treating people like cattle. It is one or the other. I do not wish to raise the temperature of the debate as I know we have all been busy trying to keep the temperature down. However, that comparison must be made. This whole matter must be treated either within the context of the family or of the farmyard. Having said that, I was much impressed by what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said. If we were to press this amendment now and therefore prevent the discussion and the proper handling of her amendments which also relate to the context of family life, we would be doing a disservice to society, to the Bill and to ourselves.
One matter has been raised which will no doubt come up again. We have heard some Members of the Committee on the other side of the Chamber saying that it does not really matter whether children are born of a formally married couple or what is commonly called a stable, but what more often proves to be an unstable, relationship. Whatever our views on theology or sociology may be, we all know very well that much delinquency derives from broken families, broken homes or from children who have been driven out of their homes because their mother has found a new partner who cannot stick her children. Many of the children on the streets of London are the product of that situation. I beg the Committee to give its mind to that context when progressing through every stage of the Bill.
I put my name down to this amendment readily and perhaps not with sufficient thought because I never think of the legal consequences, unlike my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. I never thought of a six months' gaol term and other such
762
matters. However, I feel that there is an important distinction to be made in all our minds here between AID and AIH. That is so whatever position we hold on a moral, theological, philosophical, social or political viewpoint. AID is the farmyard, like it or not, but AIH is the home. That is why I support the amendment in principle.
I believe that my noble friend may wish to consider withdrawing the amendment and returning to it at a later stage when we have had a chance to consider the amendments of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. In the meantime, I beg the Committee to look at this whole matter in the context of the family and not of the farmyard.
Lord Winstanley: I should mention one point which is perhaps related to what the noble Earl has said to us. Surely he would accept that a child born to a loving married couple as a result of AID is a wanted child. That situation has occurred. However, does the noble Earl accept that many children are born every day who are not wanted by anyone at all although they are born to properly married couples?
The Earl of Lauderdale: I accept that there are unwanted children. We all know of such children and of the sadness they feel when they discover they are unwanted. However, that does not disprove the value, merit or ideal of family life and its stability and coherence. Nor does it disprove the respect for the traditional values with which society has endowed family life down the centuries, irrespective of Christianity. That is the point I am trying to make. Whatever our position in terms of religion, science, philosophy or agnosticism, the family is a natural unit and it is in all our interests to develop and protect it. That is the context in which I ask the Committee to study this matter.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I do not think that the noble Earl should suggest that this amendment can be taken away for its merits to be reconsidered because it does not have any. It is highly discriminatory. When one considers this matter in relation to present social trends, sexual relationships and the matter of non-discrimination between men and women, the whole idea is Victorian. We have to avoid legislating in Victorian terms on a forward looking Bill of this great importance and imagination. We do not discriminate in abortions. We are about to stop discriminating as regards taxation. We provide state services to women; therefore women are entitled to be considered by reference to their status in relation to those services and not solely in relation to the legalised married state. That theory has been tested on 1,000 women. They were all against the discriminatory idea that these services should be available only to married couples. Some single people can make perfectly good parents. If one examines the social aspect of this matter, one can become a little confused about the blessings of family life, or indeed the confidence that many young people have in it. In those circumstances we must deal with this matter as relating to the rights of women and in response to the social trends of the day.
The Earl of Lauderdale: The only discrimination in which I shall indulge is as regards not responding to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I have long since learnt that that is a very dangerous thing to do as we then continue all night. Therefore I shall discriminate against my taste to reply to the noble Lord.
7 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to support the noble Earl and the right reverend Prelate. I am afraid that I shall take issue with my noble friend on this side of the Committee. Of course he mentioned society. What kind of society do we have? What do we have to be proud of? There are thousands of cases of child cruelty every year, child murder and child rape. The cases invariably involve someone who is described by the strange term "live-in lover". That is a revolting description of a strange condition. We all know that a man will not care greatly for a child of which he is not the father. In some unusual cases they care for the children, but it is not the instinctive feeling that a man has for a child of his own. We have to consider that point.
I find the Bill totally repugnant. Some of the more frivolous amendments are a relief. I had to go out for a cup of tea before we considered again the business of bits in a dish. To me that is not what human life is about. Human life has dignity. It is the result of an act of two people who love each other and want to have a child. It is not this cold-blooded business.
Yesterday we had to listen to legal definitions which confused us; today we have the scientists and the embryologists. I have never heard of some of the things that have been mentioned. I had heard of an embryo, but I did not even know that I had had the benefit of all those other things before my children were born.
I am very grateful to the noble Lords who introduced the amendment. We take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that they had not thought out the question of the penalty. However, that does not in any way militate against the value of the amendment. Perhaps we can return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Milverton: I have no shame about having put my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ashbourne. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate because his remarks were very much on the nail. They reflect the reason why I put my name to the amendment and why I have in a sense come full circle and have come to have a very strong feeling of distaste for the Bill as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has.
As the right reverend Prelate said, we are not helping marriage. We are not helping young people to love and treasure marriage where it is truly compassionate, a man and woman giving themselves to each other. As the right reverend Prelate said, we are drawing a line which will not help marriage but in the end —and I hope that I am wrong —make it a haphazard affair. Those of us who feel strongly about marriage are in a minority. I prefer to be in that
764
minority rather than be party to the "Let's do everything with it" attitude of the time.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: As I put my name to the amendment I believe that I ought to say a few words. It is a pity that two important points have been combined in the one amendment. One is the provision of treatment to unmarried women and the other is the question of AID and egg donation.
All that I should like to say on those two points is that we have heard a very good speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, which has made the debate and the time we have spent on it worth while. I shall read that speech with great interest.
As to the question of providing treatment to unmarried women, we shall have another opportunity to debate that matter under the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I look forward to that.
The Lord Chancellor: All members of the Committee will agree that this has been a very important debate and one on which we face very important issues. I should like to say, first, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who expressed a distaste for the Bill, that if he believes that such matters ought to be regulated then a Bill such as this is essential. I do not believe that any of us relishes the difficult task which is involved in coming to decisions in these areas. However, I believe that we have a duty as legislators to seek to achieve a regulation of the matters in our nation which will last.
That brings me to underline the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. As a devout Christian, as he undoubtedly is and as he manifested to us, he has to take account of the fact that he is legislating for a number of people, some of whom at least do not share his convictions. It is necessary that we take account of that also. The difficulty is to know how far one can go in accommodating those differences of view and still produce a satisfactory regulatory system.
In my third point I take up the quotations of my noble friend Lord Ashbourne from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Government are committed, as I am, to the family as an important institution in our country. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has expressed himself differently. However, for my part —and I speak on this matter on behalf of Her Majesty's Government —I believe that the family is a vital institution in a healthy society. I should not like to see anything allowed to undermine that.
As has been pointed out, there are two aspects to the amendment. The first is that treatment of that kind would be available only to parties to a marriage. That is the position that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, takes up in her amendment, to which we shall come later. The second point is that the amendment restricts the use of gametes to the gametes of those who are parties to the marriage. In

765
other words, if the difficulty in fertility lies with the husband or there is some other problem of a genetic character regarding his powers to produce children, the parties to the marriage will not be allowed, if the amendment is carried, to accept donation from anyone else. That is what distinguishes the amendment from the amendment proposed by the noble Lady.
The question is whether the interests of preserving the family go as far as the amendment. If I was speaking entirely for myself I might well reach a different view, but in seeking to establish a legislative framework which will regulate the matter for the country as a whole I have to ask my noble friend whether it is wise to go thus far. I understand and accept that so far as he is concerned his conscientious conviction would prevent him and like-minded people from adopting the course of using the gametes of anyone outside the marriage to assist in overcoming that type of problem. I accept that and I share the convictions very strongly. However, as has been said, we must accept the fact that that practice has been going on in this country for some considerable time. Until now, no attempt has been made by the Government of the day, at least on a concerted scale, to legislate to prevent it. It may not therefore be wise to press that aspect of the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred to the rights of women and to discrimination. I understand his point of view. I also understand and draw attention to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley; namely, that the child conceived by a donor in the circumstances that we contemplate is probably very much wanted and will be born into an affectionate and stable relationship. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, said, that child has the benefit of being born and of having life in consequence of that.
As I indicated, my personal conviction would go along with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said on the matter. However, with regard to the practicalities of legislation, I wonder whether my noble friend is right to press the amendment, given that another amendment of a more limited kind will be proposed shortly.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham drew attention to the contrast between that kind of situation and the situation, as it were, open in nature, and to the effect of the amendment with regard to criminal sanctions. Another point must be taken into account: it would not only be a criminal sanction. If the amendment were to be passed, it would be the understanding of my noble friend that this option would at least not be lawfully available. The practical effect of his amendment would be not so much that people would land up in prison, but that the option of that method of procreation would not be available. I believe that is the effect that my noble friend has in mind. I hope that, in the light of all those considerations, he will feel able to take an appropriate course in respect of the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will comment on the important point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. Surely in
766
all this legislation we are talking only about in vitro fertilisation; namely, that which takes place in the dish outside the human body. Nothing in the legislation relates to AID or AIH, and both would still be available even if the amendment were agreed.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, that may well be true as matters stand. There is a suggestion that it might be wise to legislate to cover those treatments too. However, the Bill states:
"This Act, so far as it governs bringing about the creation of an embryo or the keeping or use of an embryo, applies to bringing about the creation of an embryo outside the human body or keeping or using an embryo outside the human body".
The treatments which are possible in relation to the Bill include,
"medical, surgical or obstetric services provided for the purpose of assisting women to carry children".
That provision is not restricted to bringing about the creation of an embryo.
Lord Kilbracken: An unmarried couple would still be able to make use of AID or AIH.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Not AIH.
Lord Kilbracken: No, not AIH.
Lord Ashbourne: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords, particularly my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, for taking part in the discussion which seems to be central to the Bill. I am extremely glad that Her Majesty's Government are committed to the family. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who recently introduced a debate on the subject, will also be glad to hear that
I can only say, and I say this with great regret, that senior Ministers in the Government —the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary, possibly the two most senior members of the Government concerned with those matters—frequently make speeches with which I wholly agree, but unfortunately there seems to be a serious communication gap somewhere down the line. Many noble Lords are far more experienced than I am in the process of government. We have heard those positive statements by the Prime Minister. She makes them quite frequently. I go along with them 100 per cent. and think, "Good-oh, we must be getting on track at last". Yet, having heard those mighty pronouncements from the top members of the Cabinet and the Government, we find those gaping holes in legislation where artificial insemination by donor is encouraged, fatherless children come into the world on every side and the Government try to cut down expenses and not make payments. It amazes me. The Broadcasting Bill which is going though another place contains the most appalling anti-Christian legislation. I find it difficult to see how such legislation can come about.
I was grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham for pointing out the possible effects of the amendment. I had not fully appreciated the impact of that side of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord

767
Houghton, appeared to say that, as a great many things are happening in this country, we should go along with them and not accept my amendments. It seems to me that, because those things are happening in this country, we have the highest divorce rate in Europe, we are equal first with Germany in the abortion table, there is appalling child abuse and prisons are fuller than in any other country, both in absolute and relative terms. Is that the kind of thing of which we can be proud?
We must get down to basics and this matter is one of the basics. I entirely endorsed that groundswell of opinion in the recent debate on the family. If we get the family right, all those other things will come right as a spin-off effect. Our prisons will not be bursting; our rate of abortions will not be higher than anywhere else; marriages will not break down; and divorce will not be higher than anywhere else. The cause of the problem is that marriages go wrong. I recommend that the Government focus on the cause of the problem and do not spend their life trying to shore up holes in the dyke as they occur.
I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for her amendments with which we shall deal shortly. In the circumstances, I shall not press my amendment to a vote, but I may well return to the matter on Report. I shall certainly consider carefully the noble Lady's amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("any live").
The noble Lord said: When the noble and learned Lord resisted my Amendment No. 12, I decided that I would not move Amendment No. 14 and slipped away to the Bishops' Bar. While there I looked at it again and I wondered what it was that we were saying. I realised that I would have this opportunity I to take another bite at the cherry. The spectre that he held up was of a dead embryo being placed in a womb, and that was his main reason, as I understood it, for resisting my amendment.
But if my amendment does not go in and the word "live" remains at subsection (2)(a) —
"No person shall place in a woman … a live embryo … or… any live gametes"—
that has exactly the opposite effect. That makes it perfectly legal and perfectly all right to put a dead embryo in a woman or to put dead gametes in a woman. Therefore I feel that he, unlikely as it might seem, must have got it the wrong way round. Therefore, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: It is absolutely true that the Bill as it stands does not prohibit, as it were, the implantation in a woman of dead, non-human gametes. That is absolutely plain. But the point is that the mischief with which this provision is designed to deal is the mischief of inserting live, non-human gametes in a woman. The potential harm of that is very great indeed.
The real point of the drafting phraseology is that it emphasises the nature of the mischief at which
768
this provision is directed. To make it more general and include something which nobody thinks is likely to happen but, if it did happen would have no particular effect other than to be macabre, is to deaden and dilute the emphasis of the Bill as drafted.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the second attempt perhaps enables me to emphasise, more clearly obviously than I did before he resorted to the place of refreshment, that the particular point that he makes in this amendment is not a good one.
Lord Stallard: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained the point quite adequately. However, what becomes the Act and the statute are the words in the Bill and not his explanation. It seems to me that if he accepts the point made by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, then that word should be in the Bill. No one will read the noble and learned Lord's explanation. People will read the Bill. If the Bill is wrong and allows this malpractice, then the Bill should be altered.
The Lord Chancellor: The Bill is right. I do not for one minute believe that many people will want to read a Lord Chancellor's explanation, but when they read the Bill they will see that the evil with which we are trying to deal is that of seeking to implant in a woman live, non-human gametes. That is what we are aiming at.
It damages the thrust of that provision to try to aim widely. Instead of directing one's shot at the proper target, it may be thought better to have a great dispersal of shot, as if one does not know what one is trying to hit. But the force of this drafting means that it is directed precisely to the evil that we are trying to combat. That appears without any explanation from the Lord Chancellor if one just reads the Bill quietly and calmly. That is all that I am saying to the noble Lord.
Lord Kilbracken: As I read this Bill, I see that it says that:
"No person shall place in a woman … a live embryo other than … or … any live gametes".
My automatic reaction is to say, "Okay, then it is perfectly all right to insert a dead embryo; otherwise why specify a live embryo or any live gametes?"
However, I do not wish to labour this point any further and I accept what the noble and learned Lord said. I feel that I have made my point. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill should begin again at 25 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) (Bill) [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

769
The aim of the Bill is to eliminate as soon as possible CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances. Failure to do so will result in further destruction of the ozone layer, leading to increased incidence of skin cancer, possible cancer and genetic damage, stunted growth and other damage to plants and crops as well as significant damage to terrestrial and aquatic food chains. The other reason for eliminating CFCs and other such chemicals is that they are very important greenhouse gases, as became very clear in last week's debate on the greenhouse effect.
One molecule of CFC12 is 10,000 times more effective at trapping radiation than is a molecule of carbon dioxide. In 1987 NASA, the United States space agency, sent a converted U2 spy plane over Antarctica. It found that the ozone hole was the size of the USA and as deep as Mount Everest. At certain altitudes 97.5 per cent. of the ozone was missing.
CFCs are not natural gases. They were invented in 1930 by the same man who put lead in petrol. Therefore they have only been about for 50 years and already we are more than aware of the damage that they do. The scientific facts and figures are now largely beyond dispute and widely accepted. In 1987 the Montreal Conference saw 46 countries sign an agreement to cut by half consumption of some CFCs and halons, mainly in fire extinguishers, by 1999. That is now accepted as totally inadequate. A further meeting of 81 nations in Helsinki in May 1989 loosely agreed to ban all CFCs by the year 2000 but that was conditional on acceptable replacements being found. Some of the new replacements, while less harmful than CFC12, still have ozone-depleting and greenhouse-inducing properties.
The United Kingdom has a very important role to play. It is the leading producer and exporter within Western Europe and itself uses some 6 per cent. of the world's CFCs. By contrast, China, which has refused to sign the Montreal Protocol, is responsible for a mere 2 per cent. of CFC releases. However, countries like China, India, Indonesia and Brazil are all intent on raising the living standards of their people, which is quite understandable. Among the things with which they want to provide them are refrigerators. Even if those contries were to sign the Helsinki agreement, which they are unlikely to do under present conditions, they would still be allowed to increase their domestic consumption up to the permitted level, which means that global use of the substance will be approximately double the 1986 level. It is therefore the responsibility of developed countries to produce alternatives. A complete ban on every CFC by the year 2000 would not stabilise ozone levels until 2050 because of the CFCs already emitted that have yet to reach the ozone layer.
I now refer to the main proposals of the Bill. Clause 1(1)(a) brings forward from 1999 to 1995 the date when CFCs have to be eliminated. It appears that that would be perfectly possible because, for instance, Sweden has already undertaken to eliminate CFCs by 1994. If it can be done in Sweden, I presume that it can also be undertaken here.
Clause 1(1)(b) refers to the elimination of the use of CFCs in the manufacture of flexible foam by 1st July 1991. This perhaps poses the most difficult problem. Less success in research has been achieved
770
so far, but a West German company, Thanex Chemicals, has now developed a flexible foam without CFCs. It therefore appears realistic that the aim of the Bill could be achieved.
The safe destruction of used flexible foam poses a perhaps more dfficult problem. However, there seems to be no reason why such foam could not be safely stored until such time as an appropriate method has been perfected.
In Clause 1(1)(c) the Bill proposes the elimination of CFCs in aerosols from 1st July 1991. To a large extent that has already come about due to consumer pressure. However, a prohibition in law is still necessary. The consumer pressure has been particularly effective in the use of household and cosmetic aerosols. I have personal experience, for instance, that buying hairsprays without CFCs turned out to be slightly cheaper than buying those that contained CFCs. The consumers are not in the same position to pressurise fire extinguisher manufacturers or computer cleaning manufacturers as they are over the use of aerosols. It is therefore important that the Government take a hand. We all know that CFCs are also present in the coolant of refrigerators. That liquid can be easily sucked out. Some councils—very few—already do so. There are also some refrigerator companies, such as Bejam, who voluntarily collect their old refrigerators and deal with the CFCs in them.
I was interested to see a press release from the Department of the Environment issued on 29th January when Mr. David Trippier was present at the Runcorn headquarters of ICI. He launched the company's initiative to recycle chlorofluorocarbons. Under a new recycling scheme CFCs from scrap refrigerators will be removed by local authorities and other agencies and returned to ICI in cylinders for recycling or safe disposal. That is tremendously welcome. However, I still believe that we need legislation to make certain that all local councils are made responsible for ensuring that such collection is carried out by them. The cost of a piece of machinery to get rid of the CFCs in refrigerators is quite small —about £5,000. There is no reason why councils should not be forced by law to use the facilities that exist.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley said on 25th January 1989 about CFCs:
"The science is clear. The solutions are at hand and the cost is not prohibitive".
It is for that reason that the Bill clearly states the time limits by which CFCs have to be phased out.
Clause 1(1)(d) deals with other ozone depleting substances, including methyl-chloroform, used in manufacturing processes, and states the time limit as 1st January 1993. The UK Government are resisting calls for a ban on methyl-chloroform and other Class 2 ozone depleters. The United States, the USSR, Holland and Australia all want action. Methyl-chloroform is thought to cause 16 per cent. of ozone depletion. The abolition of the use of methyl-chloroform would have an almost instantaneous effect on the stabilising of the ozone level. Methyl-chloroform remains in the atmosphere for only 15 years compared with over 100 years for CFCs. If that gas were dealt with, we should have

771
gone a long way towards reducing the level of ozone depletion. The UK Government want a freeze at present levels and a review in 1994, which is much too late.
Subsection (2) of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make proposals in line with the timetables in Section 1 and to establish the penalties to be imposed on manufacturers and others who fail to comply with the timetable.
Subsection (3) makes provision for the proposals made under subsection (2) to be made by statutory instrument but provides that no such instrument shall come into force unless a draft thereof has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Clause 2 establishes that the release into the atmosphere of CFCs used in refrigeration shall be an offence. Clause 3 makes provision that all items containing CFCs and other proven ozone-depleting substances be labelled as such. Clause 4 deals with the penalties to be imposed on persons who contravene the requirements in Clauses 2 and 3.
Clause 5 makes provision for the setting up by the Secretary of State of a committee independent of his department, including representatives of industry, consumers, scientific experts and anyone else he considers appropriate. This committee shall report on the facilities existing for the reprocessing, conservation and disposal of CFCs. He shall also advise on any incentives needed for the safe disposal of these substances and on any incentives needed to require the manufacturer to use alternatives to CFCs, whether in domestic, industrial or other equipment. This committee shall report as soon as it considers feasible. The report should be published in full and the Secretary of State should act upon its recommendations as soon as the committee considers practical.
In his speech in the debate on the greenhouse effect, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, at col. 230 of the Official Report of 29th January, stated in conclusion:
"However, governments cannot, before they act, wait until they can be more certain that science is giving the right answers. They must begin now to adopt insurance or what are called 'no regrets' policies, particularly to reduce emission of greenhouse gases. Those policies can be put into effect without causing drastic economic or social difficulties".
About five minutes before I rose to my feet I was handed a letter from the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is a non-profit making organisation and charged by Royal Charter to act in the public interest. It states:
"The Society welcomes the opportunity occasioned by this Bill to discuss the issues that surround the use and disposal of CFCs. There is clearly a need for continuing scientific research on this issue. The Society particularly supports the provision for the establishment of a committee, with widespread representation including appropriate scientific expertise, to report on measures needed to require the safe disposal, conservation and recycling of CFCs and to report on alternatives to CFCs in domestic or industrial usage. The Society welcomes the research efforts being made by the chemical industry to discover and develop suitable alternatives".
There is no reason why the timetables proposed in the Bill should not be implemented. For the sake
772
of the future of the planet we should implement them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Robson of Kiddington.)
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I support the intention of the Bill. When in September, 1987, the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer was signed by 25 participating countries, it was accepted as a considerable step forward. However, new scientific evidence soon made us realise that the protocol was not strong enough and that much more urgent action was needed.
Discussions are already taking place in advance of the second meeting in June, 1990, of the parties to the Montreal Protocol. It is widely believed that the new target to be discussed will be the complete phasing out of CFCs over 10 years instead of the present target of a 50 per cent. reduction. For reasons which I shall outline, it is likely that even that target will be improved upon.
Apart from their effect on the ozone layer, CFCs are now identified as one of the major contributors to the greenhouse effect, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness. The response to government exhortations and strongly-expressed public opinion has made our aerosol industry largely phase out its use of CFCs. I understand from the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association that only a few aerosols for industrial and medical applications are now in use. At the time when aerosols were in wide use that quantity was reckoned to be 10 per cent. of the whole. I do not know whether the percentage has decreased, but I know that what is now in use is only a small percentage of what it was.
BAMA was concerned about the time limit imposed on the Bill because it considered that it would make those uses impossible. It did not know what alternative would be available to it. Production of CFCs has already declined in this country as a result of the reduction in aerosol use and because new refrigerators use less of the gas than the older models. However, there is a problem with CFCs in refrigerators already in use, both domestic and commercial. While they remain in use all is well; they become a problem when they reach the end of their lives.
Until recently the facilities for recovering and recycling were sparse, as the noble Baroness said. Most discarded fridges found their way to the corporation tip —a source of pollution for the future —and many of them remain there. However, ICI has now launched a comprehensive recovery and recycling scheme. Given co-operation by the public, local authorities and industry, we should be able to contain the problem from now on. ICI has established a network of over 50 depots for recovered CFCs. They are recycled where possible, but when that is not possible they can be safely disposed of by the company.
Meanwhile, research has continued into alternatives for CFCs. During 1988 ICI announced a viable alternative. It is HFC134A and has survived further prolonged testing. Only yesterday I learnt

773
from ICI that it anticipates full commercial production in January, 1991. I understand that it is a "world first" and that ICI is convinced that the problem of CFCs will rapidly diminish once the gas is in commercial production. The alternative gas is known as "Klea", which I understand is Greek for "green and verdant". It is possible that the future may prove it to be not so green and verdant, but for the moment we must take it as it is.
I am not given to optimism as regards environmental matters but I believe that we are on the verge of solving this particular problem. No doubt there will be others. Dr. Farman, the leading expert on ozone depletion at the British Antarctic Survey, wonders whether we should not adopt the precautionary principle for all new emissions into the atmosphere. Perhaps he is right. However, for the moment I believe that the noble Baroness can take heart, even if her Bill makes no further progress —and that is always a strong possibility with a Private Member's Bill of this kind —because the end that she seeks may well be in sight.
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for introducing the Bill and for the clear and precise way in which she has outlined its objectives. I have no doubt that we all share a deep concern about the manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons and the grave danger that they present to the ozone layer once released into the upper atmosphere. In my view, no effort should be spared to curtail and eliminate the use of CFCs, and that is why I welcome the Bill. However, the problem is global and the Bill seeks to legislate only for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as is within our power in this House.
The Montreal Protocol is doing excellent work in bringing together the nations of the world in recognising and solving the problems. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and having his reassurance about the continuing good work being carried out by the convention.
There is a lethal cocktail of carbon dioxide and chlorine gas in the upper atmosphere. Even if no more CFCs are released into the atmosphere there is already sufficient to cause depletion of the ozone layer for another 70 to 100 years.
Clause 5(1)(c) empowers the Secretary of State to establish a committee to report:
"on any incentives or measures needed to require the manufacture and use of alternatives to CFCs whether in domestic industrial or other equipment".
That is the strongest aspect of the Bill and the one on which I wish to concentrate. We should give a clear lead. There is in this country a wealth of scientific talent. News of the ICI gas, Klea, is most encouraging but no effort should be spared to find an alternative ozone-friendly gas.
The developing countries of the world are entitled to expect so-called luxuries which we tend to take for granted; for example, refrigerators, deep freezers and air conditioning. There is no danger while those units are sealed and working correctly. Danger arises only when the gas escapes through damage or when the items have been scrapped.
774
It will be difficult enough to monitor our own market and give teeth to Clause 2 of the Bill, which makes it an offence to release CFCs into the atmosphere. I do not know how we can expect the developing countries to adopt a fail-safe way of ensuring that CFC gases will in all cases be extracted from refrigerators. I believe that it would be folly to expect that that could take place in developing countries. Therefore, the main effort must be to find a substitute benign gas before world trade in the refrigeration and air-conditioning market moves further ahead.
I believe that, little by little, time is running out. There is no doubt that past man-made mistakes have contributed to a great weakening in our ecosystems. We must act quickly to try to reverse the trend. I do not believe that we shall have a second chance. I welcome this Bill as representing a tangible step in the right direction. I hope that it will show a lead to the many other nations which are equally concerned with this problem.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure that all of us who badgered the Government before the Montreal Conference for dragging their feet are immensely grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this Bill. Like my noble friend Lady Nicol, I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly and shall give it all possible support. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, will proceed with it, not only because of the value of the Bill itself but also because if she does, there are certain amendments that I should like to move that I believe will strengthen its effect.
There are two issues that worry me which are not in the Bill but are omissions from it. First, as I read it at present, the force of the Bill is confined to this country. What is happening in the chemical world both here and in America, but particularly here, in the search for alternatives to appliances which use CFCs? As my noble friend mentioned, there has been a development of the new gas HFC134A. I am not as optimistic as my noble friend Lady Nicol about its benign quality. I hope that the Minister who is to reply for the Government can enlighten the House on that. I can only put forward what I have been told from the sources which have been researching into this matter. I am told that this new gas is 2,500 times more dangerous in its contribution to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. We cannot afford to concentrate on the abolition of one dangerous gas only to find that we have produced something even more dangerous or even equally as dangerous. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that for the House.
I also understand that the new gas is five times as expensive as the use of CFCs. If the Government believe in market forces, that is hardly a way to persuade people to substitute the new gases for CFCs.
I believe that the kernel of this issue is to be seen within what my noble friend Lady Nicol has explained as coming from ICI. Is it not the case that all the testing of these new gases is carried out by the companies and not by the Government and that commercial confidentiality comes into it? I

775
particularly welcome the proposal in the Bill that an independent committee should be set up. I hope that it will look at such issues and not simply concentrate on the abolition of CFCs at all costs. That certainly requires a diminution of present day commercial confidentiality because here we are talking not about the profits and secrets of a company but about the future of mankind.
The second point which I should like to emphasise follows on from that. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the greatest challenge to mankind for the next 50 years is to find the means by which the half of the world which is outside the market —the third world and developing countries —can reach at least a reasonable sustainable standard of living without following the bad example which we have set in poisoning the atmosphere and destroying the planet. That is a tremendous challenge.
My worry about the Bill is that is seems to confine itself to this country. I should like to see within it not just a prohibition on the use or emission of CFCs in this country but also on their production in this country for export. That might be implied in certain of the wording but it is not sufficiently specific to protect what I believe is the very vulnerable third world to which appliances will be exported from this country. After all, the United Kingdom today is the biggest exporter in the world of CFC gases. In 1988 it exported to 117 different countries.
It is surely our responsibility to ensure that this country does not export either appliances which contain CFCs or appliances which contain any other noxious gases. We must devote our research, particularly our chemical research, in this country to the development of environmentally benign technologies which will allow third world countries to advance their standard of living at least to a point at which they can sustain life but without going through the destructive uses to which we have put the industrial revolution.
With those observations and queries which I hope the Minister or perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify, I support the Bill although I believe that it can be strengthened. I hope that she will continue with the Bill in order that it can be strengthened in the ways in which I have indicated.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Bill probably strikes at the heart of the environmental debate. We are not only saying that we should do something but it gives us a timetable in which to do it. On these issues there has been an unfortunate tendency for people to say that something should be done but here we are saying that it should be done within a given period and what will happen if it is not done; in other words, we are setting ourselves a series of standards. There are not enough concrete suggestions and aims which we can fulfil. In the environmental sphere there is far too much talk and supposed good intentions. We must start taking more and more measures along these lines so that we have something at which to aim.
Once that point is made, I should like to say that the Bill fulfils that aim, in that it sets out a timetable
776
in which we should get rid of these harmful gases. Once we have done that we can then pat ourselves on the back and say to those people in the developing world "We have done something with the technology that we have created which is part of the industrialisation you are trying to achieve for higher economic standards. Will you follow?" Once we have instituted the means to fulfil this regulation we will also be able to offer them the aid and the technical process for ensuring that they can follow.
Many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have pointed out the problem which runs the whole way through the environmental debate. We have set standards for economic growth and activity which require a degree of industrialisation. Industrialisation tends to be damaging to the environment. We struggled through industrialisation which meant that possibly we did irreparable damage to our domestic environment. It is worth remembering, for instance, that Europe became completely deforested long before we even considered the problems of the rain forests. We are asking people to do what we say and not what we do. We must be able to offer them help. On that score we must be prepared to offer them technical and also economic aid.
Thus it is vitally important—this brings me back to my initial point —that we ourselves set an example by ensuring that such measures as this are in law and also that we have the technical ability to help others achieve the same aim. On those points I believe the Bill should stand. After the speeches of other noble Lords in this debate, I think there is nothing left to be said.
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this Bill has been welcomed by every speaker who has addressed the House this evening and I do not intend to break with that. I welcome the Bill; I welcome the thinking behind it and I welcome any attempt which is made to strengthen the provisions of the Montreal Protocol and the decisions which have been taken by this and other governments throughout the world to deal with the horrific problem of the depleting ozone layer.
As a number of noble Lords have rightly said, this is not simply a problem for this country. It is a world problem and it is a problem which increasing industrialisation and improving standards of living, particularly throughout the third world, will exacerbate. It is undoubtedly the case that people in third world countries will not be satisfied by what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly called "Do as I say and not as I do". We have carried out our industrialisation process for two centuries virtually regardless of the environment. Now, when we are sufficiently well off to afford both the research and the minor inconveniences of dealing with CFCs in aerosols, for example, we become pure and say to the third world, "You cannot have the refrigerators we have enjoyed even though your climate is very much worse in most cases". We tell them they will have to replace the gases used with a substance which, as my noble friend Lord Hatch says —I do not know the background to his figures but they

777
sound convincing to me —will be more expensive than the existing gas used in refrigerators and may also be substantially more damaging to the ozone layer than CO2.
Therefore, it is clearly necessary for us to be pure, but that is not enough. The fundamental difficulty with this Bill is inevitable in the idea that it should be brought into British law; that it can apply only to the British Isles and not apply to any other country. Lying behind the admirable intention of the Bill is the determination and intention, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will confirm in winding up on behalf of the Government, to participate actively in world measures, global measures, to reduce ozone depleting substances. That is the crux of the matter and that is what will have the very real effect we need to slow down, let alone halt or reverse, the damage which is being done and has already been done to the ozone layer.
I have a number of detailed problems with regard to the drafting of the Bill, but they can be dealt with perfectly well in Committee. I have a difficulty about the meaning of the word "eliminate". Clause 1 sets timetables for the elimination of ozone-depleting substances in the manufacture of flexible foam. That I can very well understand, though I understand from the Royal Society of Chemistry that the alternatives presently available have the problem of not being as fire resistant as the flexible foam which is now used. There may be a problem in that direction with regard to the deadline which is proposed.
I understand what is meant by the elimination of CFCs in aerosols, though again we all understand from the aerosol manufacturer's association that 99 per cent. of aerosols produced in this country no longer have CFCs in them. The only problem that remains is with aerosols such as asthma inhalers and pain relieving sprays, for which no suitable substitute has yet been found.
I understand what is meant by the use of CFCs and ozone-depleting substances in solvents used in manufacturing processes. Again, I would only say that we are not yet clear as to the alternatives. That will need to be brought out more clearly in Committee. Despite that, there is a difficulty in the definition of what is meant by "elimination". Does it mean only the elimination of products manufactured in this country? Does it mean the elimination of imports and exports of products using ozone-depleting gases?
Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol proposes the elimination of exports of products using ozone-depleting substances by 1st January 1993. Is that included in the intention of the Bill? That could well be clarified when we deal with the Bill in Committee. Does that mean the elimination of emission into the atmosphere on scrapping? Article 2 makes it clear that that applies to CFCs; it is not clear whether it applies to other ozone-depleting substances. There may be improvements to be made in that direction.
I suggest that there is also a problem with the use of the phrase "other ozone-depleting substances". Unless the noble Baroness means to restrict those ozone-depleting substances to those controlled
778
substances which are defined in the annex to the Montreal Protocol, it is a very wide phrase. A large number of things deplete the ozone layer other than those controlled substances. Reference has already been made to CO2 and chlorine gas. They are less ozone-depleting weight for weight —whatever the measure is —but there are far more of them around. Unless we intend to take action against CO2 as emitted by the internal combustion engine, for example, anything that we do with CFCs is relatively trivial. The problem of the ozone layer is much wider than the scope of this Bill if, as I think I am right in saying, the Bill proposes to cover only the controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol.
I do not criticise the intention of the Bill. I do not say it is not worth enacting, but there are many more things which have to be done if we are to tackle this problem. As all noble Lords have said, notably my noble friends Lord Hatch and Lady Nicol, this is a world problem. It is the intention of the Government to participate actively in tackling the world problem with the contribution of resources from this country, and that is the real test.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, this Bill addresses itself to a subject of vital importance. Without the ozone layer we would suffer a greatly increased incidence of skin cancer and eye disorders. There would probably be damage to the immune system, increased disease in animals, reduced crop yields and damage to the plankton at the bottom of the food chain. As yet, the massive depletion which we see each spring over Antarctica (the ozone hole) does not appear elsewhere. However, it is caused by CFCs, halons and methyl chloroform and could appear elsewhere if we continue to use these chemicals as we have in the past.
Moreover, the chemicals which damage the ozone layer also contribute to the greenhouse effect. So what we do to protect the ozone layer does help to reduce the prospect of global warming. We cannot protect the ozone above our heads by limiting only our own use of CFCs. The effect of emissions is worldwide, wherever they take place. For this reason, the Government's policies are overwhelmingly directed towards achieving a global response to what is a global problem. Action by one country is of relatively little effect.
In the international sphere we have a leading position which we are determined to maintain. It was British scientists, in the British Antarctic Survey, who first discovered the Antarctic ozone hole. We played an important part in the negotiation of the Vienna Convention, and the Montreal Protocol, which limits the production and consumption of CFCs and halons. Soon after the protocol was agreed, however, we received scientific confirmation that the ozone hole was caused by CFCs, and that more general ozone depletion over the northern hemisphere was also taking place. We immediately accepted the need for a much stronger protocol, and we ensured that the European Community took a firm and early stand, pledging a phase-out of CFCs by the end of the century.
The Saving the Ozone Layer conference, which we hosted in London last March, in partnership with

779
the United Nations' environment programme, was a great success. One hundred and twenty-three countries attended and 85 of them sent Ministers. They all agreed, for the first time in an international forum, that CFCs would have to be phased out entirely.
That message has taken root. The Montreal Protocol is now due for revision, and negotiations are taking place aimed at a considerable strengthening of its provisions. We expect these changes to be adopted at the second meeting of the Montreal Protocol parties, which we will host here in London in June. There is general agreement that CFCs should be phased out, at least in the developed countries, by the year 2000. In the negotiations the European Community is calling for faster reductions than any other participant. Its position is based on our own proposals. The EC proposals call for a 50 per cent. reduction in 1986 levels of CFC production and consumption by July of next year, an 85 per cent. reduction by July 1995, and a complete phase-out by the beginning of the year 2000. The Bill before us asks the Secretary of State to propose a timetable for the total elimination of CFCs by 1995. However, we believe that our proposals go as far as is practicable in present circumstances and perhaps I can explain why.
Many CFC uses can be ended by using existing technologies in new ways. We believe that British industry has already reduced its use of CFCs by 50 per cent. by such means, even though that is not required by the existing protocol until 1999. However, there are other uses, particularly in refrigeration, medical and some industrial aerosols, and rigid polyurethane foams, which will need new substitute chemicals currently being developed by the chemical manufacturers.
Progress on these chemicals is good, but their introduction is not a quick process. Investment in production facilities cannot be made until we are sure that the new chemicals can do the job, and until we are sure that they are better than CFCs for the environment. Perhaps the lengthiest aspect of their development is adequate toxicity testing; namely, making sure they are safe for human beings to use. Some of these new chemicals will be available by the 1995 date provided for in the Bill, but others will not. And for some applications, particularly in the medical field, proper toxicity testing and certification will take us close to the end of the century. It is for these reasons that our own proposals for the elimination of CFCs use do not go as fast as those set out in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have listened very carefully to his explanation of why the timetable proposed in the Bill is thought to be impracticable. Can he answer the point made by the noble Baroness. Lady Robson, as to why Sweden has been able to improve on it? Can the Minister say what it is that the Swedes have discovered, apart from social democracy, which makes them so much better at this issue than us?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot answer for the situation in Sweden. We have to negotiate within the context of the European Community and together we have to reach a co-ordinated position.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that answer. The noble Lord should have been able to answer the question because it is well known that Sweden has an earlier deadline. If the noble Lord cannot answer now will he be good enough to write to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, with the information that is required?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that I shall write to him on that matter. As well as the overall elimination of CFCs the Bill provides for faster timetables to eliminate their use in particular areas of application; namely, by July 1991 in the case of flexible foam and aerosols, and by January 1993 when used as a solvent.
Our approach, and the approach of many governments around the world, is to limit the overall production and supply of these chemicals, and to let industry get on with the job of finding substitutes. If we felt that they were failing to put in the necessary effort to do so, we would certainly want to consider legislation against particular uses. But so far, all the evidence is that industry is falling over itself to stop using ozone damaging substances. Almost all aerosol production has now been converted away from using CFCs. The manufacturers of flexible foam also expect to stop using CFCs by the end of 1993.
The Government's approach of limiting overall supply is followed in the Montreal Protocol and in the European legislation which implements it in the community. Within that framework, the European Commission is negotiating voluntary agreements with different sectors of industry to seek to ensure that they abandon CFCs as quickly as they can. These agreements can cover a range of measures more effectively than legislation could provide for. They channel industry's efforts into co-operative action to achieve the quickest possible results, rather than coerce them with rigid legislative deadlines. The knowledge that supply is disappearing provides the background incentive for all sectors of industry to move away from CFCs as quickly as they can.
The Bill requires the elimination of CFCs and methyl chloroform used as solvents by 1993. Again, the Government cannot judge precisely when they can safely be replaced in each application. Solvent users will be constrained by the limitations placed on the overall supply of CFCs. The supply of methyl chloroform must also be reduced, and we will argue to that effect in the renegotiation of the Montreal Protocol.
The Bill requires that the release of CFC refrigerants into the atmosphere should be an offence. It is important that those who deal with refrigeration equipment should act responsibly, and ensure that refrigerant is returned for recycling or safe destruction. However, we believe that this is best encouraged by incentive rather than legislation. CFC refrigerants are colourless and odourless gases, which would make legislation difficult to enforce. The incentive is provided by the reduction and elimination of CFC production in that eventually

781
the only material available for maintaining equipment using CFCs, will be that which is recycled from old refrigerant.
The demand from consumers that companies act responsibly has resulted in supermarket chains leading the way in responding to this need. Local authorities and retailers alike are starting to respond to the public demand that old fridges and freezers are drained of refrigerant before going for scrap.
Last week my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside launched a new nationwide service to recycle refrigerant from domestic appliances, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred. Every retailer, and every local authority, will now be able to get advice on how to collect the CFCs from old machines, and will be able to use ICI's containers and its national network of distribution centres, to return the refrigerant for recycling. This splendid initiative is wholly commendable and demonstrates the private sector's constructive response, without the need for specific legislation.
The Bill also calls on the Secretary of State to establish a committee to report on the whole question of recycling and disposal of CFCs and other ozone depleting substances. In fact the Department of Trade and Industry has already commissioned consultants, with very similar terms of reference. The Government will consider what further measures may be necessary in the light of their report.
Finally, the Bill would require products containing CFCs to be labelled as such. As noble Lords may be aware, last August the Government issued a consultation paper on the question of environmental labelling of all products. The consultation showed widespread support for a Europe-wide voluntary scheme which manufacturers can use if they can show that their products are friendly to the environment, taking into account their whole lifetime from manufacture through use to ultimate disposal.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has proposed such a scheme in the European Community Environment Council and, as a result, we understand that proposals from the Commission are imminent. This will go much wider than CFCs, and will offer consumers the ability to choose products which are made with due regard for the environment as a whole. It is useful to know that a refrigerator has been tested as energy efficient, is easy to recycle, and contains a minimum of CFCs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked about the new gas HFC134A. I understand that this is to replace CFC12. It contributes to the greenhouse effect only 10 per cent. of the damage done by CFC12 and it does no damage to the ozone layer. The noble Lord also asked me about the testing of new gases. This is done and paid for by the companies themselves but they have to inform the authorities about the results. I also understand that the world's chemical companies are co-operating and pooling their results on toxicity and safety testing.
In conclusion, I should like to say how much I welcome the opportunities for debate provided by
782
the Bill. We applaud the intentions behind the Bill and we agree that the present Montreal Protocol is quite inadequate. It is true that to some extent the Bill and the Government address the problem in different ways. In some areas this is because we are a little less optimistic about the speed at which new substitutes can be introduced. In others it is because we are taking action in a broader context and our policy for protecting the ozone layer forms part of that action. Our prime concern is that nothing should inhibit our full participation in the international agreement which is essential for any resolution to this problem. I am sure that noble Lords will wish the Government every success in their efforts to secure a truly effective global response when they host the second meeting of the Montreal Protocol parties in June.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and all other noble Lords who contributed to the debate. Of course we wish the Government every success in hosting the conference in June. There is no difference between the Government's response and what I am trying to do in the Bill. There is no reason at all why a country on its own should not take the kind of action that Sweden has taken. Noble Lords have said that it is a world problem and that what one country does has little effect. But it has some effect. We together create the enormous effect. Every country that withdraws and sets a timetable will help in regard to ozone depletion.
We hear about the difficulties of setting timetables because we are not yet quite certain when alternative substances will be available. We are all quite sure that an enormous amount of work is being done on these alternative substances. But I have learnt throughout my life that to have a time limit on something concentrates the mind beautifully. One manages to put in more effort and one achieves the results sooner. We have to start somewhere. I believe that we should start with our own country, so that when we go to international conferences we can say: we have done it, we have set an example, we have taken action. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
8.28 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("after the appearance of the primitive streak") and insert ("more than 14 days after the gametes are mixed, exclusive of any time during which the embryo is stored.").
The noble Lord said: I want to emphasise that this amendment, which should be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 23, is not concerned with any matter of principle but simply with a question of drafting, in the hope that several lines of the Bill can be deleted and at the same time the Bill can be made more intelligible.
Clause 3(3) at present states that a licence cannot authorise,
"keeping or using an embryo after the appearance of the primitive streak".
Subsection (4) explains this but takes up four lines in doing so. The primitive streak is to be taken to have appeared,
"not later than the end of the period of 14 days".
My feeling is that it would be clearer, briefer and better simply to say that a licence cannot authorise keeping or using an embryo,
"more than 14 days after the gametes are mixed, exclusive of any time during which the embryo is stored".
That says precisely the same thing but avoids bringing this mysterious primitive streak into the matter and having to explain what is meant by "primitive streak".
Embryologists do not notice whether or not the primitive streak is there. They do not say, "Wait a moment, boys. There's a primitive streak here, we have to stop experimenting". They simply assume that 14 days after the gametes are mixed it has appeared, and experiments cannot go on after that period. Therefore I propose by way of Amendment No. 16 to insert certain words and by way of Amendment No. 23 to leave out subsection (4). I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, explained to the Committee, there is no question of policy or substance here; it is purely a drafting question. While I entirely sympathise with his intention to simplify the drafting of Clause 3(3) in seeking to remove the need for Clause 3(4) by deleting the reference in Clause 3(3)(a) to the "primitive streak", I think that it would be unfortunate if the amendment were accepted.
In fact, the primitive streak may occur earlier than 14 days after the process of fertilisation is complete. It is that point rather than the precise timing which is crucial because after the primitive streak appears it is clear that it may develop in a way which leads to a single or a multiple pregnancy. The primitive streak gives a clear sign for the cut-off point for embryo research which the Warnock Committee recommended and upon which Clause 3(3)(a) is based. I think that we should lose more than we would gain in simplified drafting by omitting any reference to it.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: I shall not press the amendment. However, I am not convinced by what the noble and learned Lord said. He pointed out that the appearance of the primitive streak may occur earlier than 14 days. Indeed, that may be so. But the point is that it does not matter whether it occurs earlier than 14 days. It does not matter if it occurs after 10 or 12 days. I say that because, for the purposes of the Bill, if we look at subsection (4) it simply states,
"the primitive streak is to be taken to have appeared in an embryo not later than the end of the period of 14 days".
784
That is what really matters. We are not going by whether the primitive streak has actually appeared; we are simply going by the lapse of 14 days after the mixture of the gametes. Therefore what the noble and learned Lord said about the appearance of the primitive streak perhaps occurring earlier than 14 days seems to me to be irrelevant.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord would like to reconsider the matter. I am not, however, asking him for any kind of undertaking. I must say that I am not convinced by his reply but, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("other species of animal") and insert ("non-human species").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to clarify the intention of the Government as regards this subsection. We have been told by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the Bill is for ordinary people. But, apparently, in Clause 3(3)(b) we seem to have been reduced to a species of animal. It would greatly assist if we could have some clarification on the matter.
In Clause 3(3) there is no mention of humans as opposed to animals. Therefore, when it refers in paragraph (b) to,
"any other species of animal",
one wonders which other species of animal and what it is to be compared with. It appears, therefore, that the subsection is not particularly clear. I do not wish to go into any philosophical or biological arguments as to genes and species—nor, indeed, are we playing the game of animal, vegetable or mineral —but the fact is that we must make clear what is proposed in the clause. I assume that it is the Government's intention to say that a licence cannot authorise the placing of an embryo in the womb of any species other than a human being —and, consequently, not an animal.
As my noble and learned friend will know only too well, in law the definition of an animal, and I quote from Halsbury, Volume 2, paragraph 201, is:
"The term animal includes all creatures not belonging to the human race".
Therefore, I should have thought that in law my amendment would be perfectly justifiable in substitution for Clause 3(3)(b). I shall be most grateful for my noble and learned friend's consideration of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like to say that I completely agree with the noble Baroness. I think that the wording she has proposed is greatly preferable. However, there is another point which I should like to draw to the noble and learned Lord's attention. Regardless of whether the noble Baroness's amendment is accepted or the present text remains, it is not possible to place an embryo in a species. That applies to both drafts. So far as I am aware, the embryo is placed in the womb of a member of a species. Therefore to talk about placing an embryo in a species is, if I may say so, nonsensical.
The Earl of Halsbury: It may be appropriate if I intervene here on this matter on the basis of advice given to me by a very skilled experimental embryologist. Trans-specific fertilisation is not possible: God has set his seal against it. The zona pellucida of the ovum and the tip of the sperm are species specific. In other words, you cannot have a trans-specific fertilisation. It is a nonsense. There are, however, certain exceptions to that rule. For example, very closely related species such as the horse and the donkey can interbreed. However, their offspring are not fertile jennets, they are mules.
However, there is one exception which has apparently been presented to us as a gift. I refer to the hamster. It does not have a zona pellucida and therefore can be penetrated by human sperm in order to assess the viability of the male who originally ejected the sperm. The hamster is the only animal known to science in which that can be done. From the standpoint of experimental embryology it is exactly like a piece of litmus paper, which turns pink on contact with acid and blue on contact with alkaline. The test indicates whether a sperm is viable.
As Members of the Committee are doubtless aware, the Australians are very sensitive about the implications of importing animals into their country. They had a plague of rabbits at one time. Australian scientists have been working very hard to try to find an alternative to the hamster. However, they have found it quite impossible to do so. Therefore, Australian embryologists now import frozen hamster ova. I think that that factor should be remembered when we are talking about trans-specific fertilisation. As I said, God has set his seal against it. It is only possible in very rare circumstances. Of course, you can interbreed a lion and a tiger to get a liger or a tigon, but, again, they are just big cats which differ somewhat in their markings but not by much more than that. In remotely related species this cannot be done.
Lord Kilbracken: My noble kinsman Lord Halsbury is almost always right. However, if he is right on this occasion I wonder whether he can explain paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 2, which reads:
"A licence under this paragraph may authorise fertilisation by mixing human sperm with the egg of another species of animal for the purpose of developing more effective techniques for determining the fertility of human sperm".
The Earl of Halsbury: The noble Lord is quite correct; indeed, that is exactly what I said.
Baroness Elles: As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is giving us lessons in biology, can he confirm that one cannot,
"mix gametes with the live gametes of another species of animal",
as referred to in Clause 4(1)(c)? It would be most helpful if the noble Earl would give us the benefit of his advice on the matter.
The Earl of Halsbury: I should say that Clause 4(1)(c) is otiose.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not think that we should pass this particular amendment for the moment. My noble friend has made a point upon which I should like to take the advice of parliamentary counsel.
786
Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, although he has no particular amendment on the matter, also appears to have a pretty good point which I should like to draw to the attention of the draftsman. I hope that my noble friend will give me the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Elles: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 21, after first ("nucleus") insert ("or component of a nucleus").
The noble Earl said: I tabled the amendment at the suggestion of a skilled experimental embryologist, to cater for the possibility of genetic engineering in the human species. Micromanipulation in the hands of embryologists is becoming incredibly sophisticated and more and more powerful, if I may put it that way. The ability to manipulate microscopic elements of a living cell is fantastic if one goes into the detail of it. The two amendments are designed merely to include not only a nucleus but any component of a nucleus. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 3 provides that a licence cannot authorise replacing a nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus taken from a cell of any person, embryo or subsequent development of an embryo. This amendment would provide, in addition, that a licence could not authorise replacing a nucleus or component of a nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus or component of a nucleus taken from a cell of any person, embryo or subsequent development of an embryo.
I can appreciate the spirit in which the amendments are moved, but the Government believe that the purpose of the amendment is already provided for elsewhere in the Bill. Paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 2 prevents a licence for treatment being granted to authorise altering the genetic structure of any cell while it forms part of an embryo. Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2 prevents a licence for research, if Parliament decides to authorise such research, being granted to authorise altering the genetic structure of any cell while it forms part of an embryo except in circumstances provided for in regulations. Those regulations would require an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. That regulation-making power reflects the policy set out in paragraph 36 of the White Paper which indicated that there should be
"a power for Parliament itself, by affirmative resolution, to make exceptions to [the prohibited activities] if new developments made that appropriate".
Replacing a nucleus or component of a nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus or component of a nucleus taken from a cell of any person, embryo or subsequent development of an embryo would also involve altering the genetic structure of any cell while it forms part of an embryo. Thus, except in circumstances provided for in regulations, the activities the amendment seeks to prevent are already prohibited by the provisions of Schedule 2 as it is at present drafted.

787
As the activities described in the amendments would involve altering the genetic structure of a cell while it forms part of an embryo, the Government are satisfied that they are already provided for in Schedule 2 and therefore oppose the amendments.
The noble Earl will appreciate, if I am right so far, that the power of Parliament to approve by affirmative resolution exceptions in the light of developments would be affected by the amendment if it were accepted. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that, although the concern that he has expressed is a real one, it has been covered.
The Earl of Halsbury: On the basis of the assurance given to me by the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No 20:
Page 2, line 22, leave out from ("from") to end of line 23 and insert ("any other cell.").
The noble Lord said: Once again, this is an amendment which seeks merely to shorten the Bill by about one line in Clause 3(3)(d), which at present provides:
"A licence cannot authorise—replacing a nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus taken from a cell of any person, embryo or subsequent development of an embryo".
I propose that that should simply read:
"replacing a nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus taken from any other cell".
That is three words instead of a dozen. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The prohibition in Clause 3(3)(d) is designed to prevent cloning using human embryos. The reference which the amendment seeks to take out to
"replacing a nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus taken from a cell of any person, embryo of subsequent development of an embryo"
is designed to specify the circumstances in which those activities are to be prohibited. Although the amendment is superficially attractive in that it may have the same effect as the current drafting, this provision is an important one and it would be unfortunate if there were any loss of clarity. We believe the emphasis on the circumstances to be important.
Lord Kilbracken: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord found that my proposal was only superficially attractive. I thought that it was perfectly attractive. "Any other cell" clearly includes all the cells already enumerated in the Bill. However, if for those obscure legal reasons the wording that he already has is indispensable, I shall of course beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert —
788
("(e) placing an embryo in an unmarried woman.").
The noble Lady said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 and 33A. The amendments form a package. The object of the amendment is to prohibit the provision of AID to unmarried women, lesbian couples or unmarried couples. It is true that many single women have succeeded in giving their child a good home and upbringing, and that their children are wanted and very much loved. No one would deny that; but their children must, in the nature of things, suffer some disadvantage from the lack of a father, if only that they have only one parent who loves them and belongs to them instead of two.
It does not end there. Children learn primarily from example, by copying what they see. It is by example that a boy learns how to be a responsible husband and father and how to treat his own children in turn. It is by example that a girl learns how to be a wife, from seeing how her mother cares for her father. So the father is enormously important, if only as a role model. Most widows who have had, through no fault of their own, to bring up their children single-handed will agree with what I have just said.
It is for similar reasons (the role model reasons) that the Committee may consider that lesbian couples should not be eligible to receive AID or in vitro fertilisation services. Some people argue that since it is legal, and often desirable, for single women, and even men, to adopt children, it should also be legal for them to have AID, but there is a great difference between placing a child who already exists with a single person when that child would otherwise be brought up in an institution, and deliberately creating a child to be brought up in circumstances which must be less than ideal.
There is also the question of whether in vitro techniques should be made available to couples who are not legally married. Many people believe that it is all right to make such services available to unmarried couples who are in what is called "a stable relationship", but if the relationship is really so stable why will they not get married? Until April of this year there has been and will be the fiscal reason: that as long as husbands and wives were taxed together they would be worse off financially, and there were also disadvantages as regards mortgages. But that excuse for not marrying will have vanished on, I think, 6th April this year, before this Bill can become law.
In most cases the only real reason for a cohabiting couple not marrying is that one party, or both parties, want to feel free to break up the partnership should they wish to do so without the expense, delay and inconvenience of a divorce. There are exceptions. There may be somebody whose marriage has failed miserably and whose husband, or wife, will not divorce them, and who does form a stable relationship with another man, or woman. Those may be the exceptions, but otherwise I must say that I think that the relationship is not really as stable as it sounds, and a child of it may very well end up with only one parent.
Most doctors who provide these services are very careful and responsible as to whom they will treat with what is, at present, a scarce and expensive form

789
of treatment. But there have been cases where IVF treatment has been given to unmarried women, or unmarried couples. Whether it is in this country or not I am uncertain. Surely, therefore, some prohibition of this should appear on the face of the Bill. It should appear not in regulations, which can be altered, possibly by negative resolution at the whim of a future Secretary of State; nor in regulations made by the licensing authority, to be altered at the whim of the licensing authority; but on the face of the Bill, where an Act of Parliament will be required to change it.
Surely too the dictum of the United States Declaration of the Rights of the Child 1959, Principle 2, should be our guiding principle throughout this Bill. That is:
"The child shall enjoy special protection and shall be given opportunities and facilities by law and by other means to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner, and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose the best interests of the child shall be the paramount considerations."
That was the guiding principle of the recent Children Act, and all through our deliberations on that Bill last year the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor kept reminding us of that fact.
Much as we all sympathise with the plight of childless women who may not have the good fortune to be happily and legally married, their best interests are not necessarily the best interests of such children as AID and in vitro fertilisation techniques may enable them to bear. There would seem to be a conflict of interest here. The interests of those who cannot have children in the normal way and want them, and the interests of the children they may have are not necessarily compatible. Under these circumstances, surely the best interests of the children must be the paramount consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I appreciate what lies behind the amendment moved by the noble Lady, but I am very unhappy and I hope that the Committee will not go down what I think is a disturbing road. I believe myself to be a family man, sharing family values. I do not think it is my responsibility to tell other people what they should do. Having children is a private area of human affairs. I believe that it is really not for the state to decide who should or should not be allowed to bear children.
I ask, who are we to decide? The noble Lady gave some examples, and suggested that if any woman does not get married, it is for some particular reason. Well, I think she must decide for herself. It is not for us to decide for her, or on her behalf, why she did not get married. Parenting, in any case, is a high-risk activity. It may be by conclusion that there are some women, or some couples, who are likely to be good mothers and parents and some who are not. That judgment may be affected by all sorts of factors such as age, temperament, mental and physical health, and quality of housing, etc. The question of whether a couple has gone through a form of marriage vows is hardly relevant to the quality of parenthood.
I know, and I am sure that the noble Lady knows, of some marriages that have hopelessly broken down. She knows that a high proportion of our marriages
790
break down. There are some homes where there is a marriage vow, but my God there is no love within those families. Yet, on the other hand, I know very well a young woman who had two children outside wedlock, and 10 years later, now married, has a third child. She was no less a good mother before getting married than she is now. She has always been a good mother.
I find these amendments most unfortunate. In a sense if we were to pass them we would be bossy, judgmental, and interfering. We must respect the right of a woman, after appropriate counselling —and I emphasise the importance of counselling in so many aspects of this Bill —to make her own decision. Marriage is no indication necessarily of a serious commitment to creating a loving home.
Other medical treatments are not denied to unmarried women. There is no suggestion that the National Health Service should not offer its services, or should offer less services, to unmarried women than to married women and married couples. There is no suggestion that social benefits should be denied to cohabiting couples. There is no discrimination on these grounds in the field of education, of schooling. It is a fact that between one in three and one in five families with school-aged children have only one parent. There are many more families where there have been changes in who takes responsibility for the parenting, so that the child is, for instance, living with the mother and a stepfather.
There are a number of other factors. At least one in eight couples in this country are thought to have an infertility problem at some time. Many seek a solution through reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilisation. In comparison, the number of single women using these technologies is on a tiny scale. We are not dealing with something huge. I was told that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service has eight infertility clinics, and fewer than 200 single women have become pregnant in the 12 years of the donor insemination service.
Some believe it wrong deliberately to bring children into a single-parent family though, as the noble Lady said, adoption agencies now accept single women and single men as adoptive parents. They must have done it on the basis of sound judgment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Would the noble Lord give way: I said that I thought that that was a different situation altogether. The child already existed. It was not being created for the purpose of going into a one-parent family.
9 p.m.
Lord Ennals: The noble Lady made that point but I was not quite certain of the significance of that statement. Often a couple who are living together, not necessarily in wedlock but cohabiting, have as great a need for children to bind them together and create a family as an adoptive family. Many of the judgments that have been made support that view. In any case, there is no reason why a single mother should not subsequently marry and allow her child to gain a father, whereas if she delays having a child until she has found her lifelong partner it may be biologically too late for her to have a child.

791
There are also difficulties as regards enforcement of the law. If a marriage certificate had to be produced, a clinic would have to prove that a woman was not separated, divorced or widowed. Such a law would encourage marriages of convenience. We also have to consider whether this kind of restriction would be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention recognises and guarantees the right of every individual to found a family and to have his or her private and family life respected. Thus it preserves for the individual an area of strictly private morality in which the state may not intervene. I hope, for those and other reasons which will no doubt be presented, that this amendment will not go further this evening.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I do not wish to impugn in any way the sincerity of the motives which led the noble Lady to promote this amendment. However, I think it is a misuse of the Bill. The Bill is designed to control, more or less on the lines of the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the subject of in vitro fertilisation and research into embryology.
One must consider the legal consequences of this amendment, if it were passed. If a woman is living apart from her husband she may, if the amendment is passed, quite legitimately, though married, have an AID offspring. Nothing will happen to prevent that. If on the other hand she is unmarried she will be liable, as will the donor if he acts knowingly, to a penalty of imprisonment. I wonder whether there is much sense in that.
I am sorry to say that there will always be an intelligent minority who prefers what I might call the good old-fashioned version of procreation. If those people choose to produce an unmarried parentage together by the good old methods of procreation, whether living together or not, they are not touched by this amendment. If they are not living together the absence of a father will be just the same whether the child was produced by ordinary sexual intercourse or by AID. There is a total anomaly about trying to prohibit AID by the methods of this Bill, with criminal sanctions, while refusing to go the whole hog —I hope that that expression will not cause offence to anyone —in prohibiting, as the Puritans did in the 17th century, both adultery and fornication. Fornication and adultery were prohibited by the Puritans but that measure proved to be disappointingly unpopular. The Restoration brought in Charles II and jolly Nell Gwynn.
I hope I am not being unduly frivolous about what is a serious subject. However, I do not think we should make asses of ourselves. This kind of amendment, which is designed to prevent AID because it is AID, but to a limited extent, while allowing every other kind of sexual aberration without criminal sanctions, would make asses of us.
Baroness Elles: We are talking about IVF. Therefore, we are not talking about AID. The proposal by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is to exclude from the provision single unmarried women who presumably are not necessarily infertile —I
792
understood IVF was for infertile couples —and who do not form part of a couple. Will the noble and learned Lord address himself to that aspect of the matter? I believe his remarks did not touch on that.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I must apologise to my noble friend for my terminological inexactitude. The point is valid whatever name one gives to the process. When I was still single I received a telephone call from a totally unknown woman asking me to become the father of her child. In those days AID had not been invented. I had certainly not heard of AIF or any of the other alternatives. I had only heard of fornication. At any rate I treated the request as a compliment, but I respectfully declined the invitation. But I do not believe the morals of such situations affect the validity or otherwise of this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble and learned Lord must not keep us in suspense. What did he do?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I respectfully declined the offer, while thanking the young lady for her courtesy in offering me the first chance, if it was the first chance.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I share many of the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about these amendments. In the first place they will introduce a new form of discrimination against women. The Bill as amended would exclude unmarried, infertile women from certain treatments involving embryo research, but would give unmarried men who can benefit from such treatments access to all the facilities.
Further, I do not think that the noble Lady has allowed sufficiently for the very large numbers of women who would be affected by their exclusion from these services. Statistical data recently available for the first time, published in a valuable article by John Haskey and Kathleen Kiernan in the last number of Population Trends, show that in 1987, 900,000 couples were cohabiting and living as families with their 400,000 dependent children. Two-thirds of those couples were single people who had never married. That is a very large number. Half of them were under 30. The number of never-married women aged between 18 and 49 cohabiting trebled in the eight years between 1979 and 1987.
Those are families. Their stability is suggested by the fact that more than half of all the men and women who married in 1987 had cohabited for less than two years previously. For a very significant proportion of those 900,000 couples we are seeing the transformation of families into marriages.
Under the amendments, those of such couples who are infertile —and between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent. of them will be in that situation —will be unable to say, as their 18th century forebears would have said, "Let us get married when you are pregnant". It may very well be that we should distinguish between cohabitation and a family with marriage and with children.
I also share the difficulties of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, as to how the noble Lady's amendments will

793
be enforced. Will women patients be required to present themselves at clinics for treatment carrying their marriage lines? Will a Woolworth's ring serve, as it did for lay workers like myself at local Family Planning Association clinics in the 1950s which would only give contraceptive advice to the married? Would not such inquisitions be regarded by the married and unmarried alike as gross violations of the privacy of their intimate relations and lives? Those are interferences which in this country we have resolutely declined to make in the past.
The noble Lady's amendments make no provision for the inevitable hard cases which would arise. For example, a married couple who have been trying for a child for 12 years reach the point of going to a clinic for an embryo to be placed in the woman. Going up the clinic steps the husband slips and breaks his neck. What will happen then to that unmarried woman? As a widow she will be unmarried. If we are to enact such provisions we must take very much more elaborate arrangements for the difficulties than the amendments propose.
I respect and understand the reasons why the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has moved the amendments. However, I do not believe that they accord with prevalent attitudes towards women or to the family or sexual and reproductive behaviour. However we define morality in these areas, we shall never be able to enforce it by law. We may recall one of the more extreme examples of such an attempt. In Scotland in 1563 adultery was made an offence punishable by death. There is still dispute among Scots historians as to whether or not anyone was hanged.
There are multiple causes of single parenthood. The numbers that would be affected by the Bill are very small indeed. It is in no sense a Bill which justifies the description of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, of a Bill bringing in fatherless children from all sides. We have a million and a half of them already. Many of us are extremely anxious about the consequences of the break-up of families upon divorce, a subject which was explored in lengthy discussion by noble Lords in a debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs.
These are genuine problems. I do not suggest that they are not serious and genuine problems, but we cannot tackle them and should not attempt to tackle them through a Bill which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pointed out, is directed to a wholly different purpose. Let us tackle the problems in relevant ways, not in this kind of amendment.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: The noble Lord has invited us to tackle the Bill in relevant ways within seconds of telling us that there are a million and a half fatherless children in this country. If that is not relevant to the Bill, I do not know what is. He has told us, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that it is preposterous that we should try in a Bill to interfere with private judgment on private matters. But what do we do as legislators every day of the week?
Legislation is about human behaviour, like it or not. It is about imposing restraints on the one hand and releases on the other so that we can live together sensibly, humanely and in a civilised fashion. To say
794
that it is impossible in principle to legislate about private matters makes nonsense of our procedures from Monday to Thursday in this House. We discuss it all the time in one way or another, directly or indirectly, whether we are discussing crime, schooling, drugs or a million other subjects, even energy policy and the kind of cooker that one uses. The whole matter is always related to private decisions by private people. Surely the function of legislators is to put into a usable form the feelings and consensus of society as a whole.
That is where I find the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, relevant. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, is always plausible. Alas, one cannot help but listen to him. I am spellbound every time he speaks. I wish that he did not do so because I am often nearly convinced. We are discussing all the time how human behaviour can be made compatible, if I may put it that way. It relates all the time to private decisions in the secrecy of our hearts. That is what we are about. Thus, to say that this or that aspect should not be considered in the Bill because it is private is absolute rubbish.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Perhaps I may briefly express my concerns about the amendments. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, quite rightly said that fathers are important. No one would disagree that fathers are of great importance to children. However, the noble Lady also said that it was wrong per se to bring children into single-parent families. Perhaps the noble Lady will explain later what she meant by that. I believe that it is no justification for her amendments.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps I may explain at this stage what I meant. I think that it is wrong to bring children into single-parent families by artificial means. We all know that children often occur in single-parent families. That is in the nature of things, but I cannot believe that it is right deliberately to bring a child into a one-parent family by artificial and possible expensive means.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The noble Lady implies that a single-parent mother is under a disadvantage, but that is not acceptable.
As the debate on the family which I introduced some time ago has been mentioned, perhaps I could briefly reiterate the major force of what I said then. Although I too would always favour a nuclear family as the right setting in which to bring up children, today's facts and statistics mean that we must support the family in whatever structure. That was in the interests of the children. There was general agreement in that debate that this was the major priority today. While supporting the nuclear family we must also support the family as it exists. Research shows that many young people quite deliberately do not go through the formalities of a marriage but have a stable relationship. They themselves have perhaps come from divorced parents and suffered all the anguish that is certainly experienced by children of divorced parents.
I should like briefly to support the observations of my noble friend Lord Ennals. First, from the point of view of discrimination I believe that to restrict a

795
single woman from conceiving by any means that she chooses is clearly an overt form of discrimination on the basis of her marital status. My noble friend Lord Ennals spoke about the European Convention on Human Rights recognising and guaranteeing the rights of every individual to found a family and have his or her private and family life protected. That was based on the European convention. Perhaps the noble Lord who spoke critically of my noble friend on that point will agree that it is the European convention which lays down that particular right.
Another point is that the Pregnancy Advisory Service has said that it would not be prepared to operate a partial DI service. So why should some women be penalised for choosing to attend a safe and reliable clinic rather than face possible risks by either self-insemination or, indeed, casual sex? Surely, as the noble Lord said, the intention of the Bill is to provide a safe treatment service by a system of public regulation. These amendments would go right against that intention.
The amendments have caused great concern to many organisations. I am sure that many of us have heard about their anxieties. I certainly have received many letters. It has also been pointed out that many children have already been born by donor insemination. If this amendment were carried it would attach a retrospective stigma of criminality to the circumstances of their birth.
I find these amendments very worrying for the reasons that I have given and the reasons given by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor.
Lord Ashbourne: I apologise to the noble Baroness for having risen a little too speedily. I commend these amendments to the Committee. In my opinion they are both moderate and balanced. Personally, I would have preferred them to have gone further but I do not think that the Committee need have any worries in supporting them.
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries".
If the Members of the Committee do not feel in their hearts able to support these amendments, I suspect that they may find that the voyage of life is indeed bound in shallows and miseries.
The Earl of Halsbury: Having failed to support the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, I thoroughly endorse the amendments of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
We have to put up with situations that are less than ideal: broken marriages, couples living together, one of whom may be deserted by a lover who leaves her pregnant, children rendered fatherless by the death of the father and so on. However, we do not have to encourage such situations. The reason that I support the noble Lady is simply because I want to see the seal of parliamentary disapproval set upon the machinations of the permissive society, which has been a disaster for this country. For that reason, if the noble Lady chooses to divide the Committee, I shall follow her into the Division Lobby.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I find it bizarre that artificial means should be suggested to encourage lesbian couples to have children. We are told of a group of single, mainly homosexual, men who are campaigning for the right to bring up a child. I find it beyond comprehension. It takes me back to the 1960s, when licence was given which, in my view, has done immense damage to this country. The question has been asked, how could such licence be controlled? If one wishes to adopt a child one has to go through a certain process of screening. A similar process could be adopted. There is always the family's own GP who is in a position to recommend that somebody either goes to hospital for the treatment or does not.
Finally, the cost to the NHS is soaring with all the new possibilities of treatment. To saddle it with this extra cost of treatment, as is suggested, for lesbians and single women is to my mind absolute nonsense.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I should like to comment on one point. It has been implied that people who underwent unauthorised treatment would be involved in criminality. But that is not what the Bill states. If the amendment were passed, the Bill would provide that a licence cannot authorise placing an embryo in an unmarried woman. On that basis it would be an offence to issue a licence authorising treatment which is banned by the Bill, or it would be an offence to carry out the treatment —that is, the placing of an embryo in an unmarried woman —without a licence, which would not be obtained. But the people undergoing the treatment would not be committing an offence.
I should like to support the amendment. Perhaps I may say that I was appalled at the view of marriage of the noble Lord Lord Ennals. If that is the message that we shall send out from this Chamber tonight, we shall strike a heavy blow against the family.
Lord Hylton: I have the greatest possible sympathy for the values and principles that have moved my noble friend and kinswoman to put forward the amendment. I entirely agree that it is highly desirable that all children should have two parents if that is at all possible. However, the weakness of the amendment is that it seems to discriminate against the infertile unmarried woman or couple because those who are fortunate enough to be fertile will simply go ahead in the normal way.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I believe that there is one aspect that needs a little improvement. As we all know, there are couples who live together throughout their lives although unmarried for one reason or another. It does not matter what the reasons are. They are living together as a married couple. That would be a marriage that was made not by any formal ceremony on this earth but a marriage nonetheless, in my view, although not recognised by law. Surely it would be possible for couples in such a position to enter into a contract that they would live together and bring up their children as a family.

797
If such a contract were entered into then it would be possible to allow in vitro fertilisation for the woman who was unable to bear a child in any other way. For instance, it would cover the situation in which one of the partners had been married but for one reason or another was unable to obtain a divorce. They would be living together although not married in the name of the law. However, if they have entered into a contract to bring up the children as a family they should not be denied the right.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, gave as an example a couple who had been living together, had two children, were then married and had another child. That example was totally irrelevant; they did not need in vitro fertilisation because they had proved themselves in the normal and natural way. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, gave as an example an unmarried couple who visited the surgery but the male partner tripped on the steps and fell down dead. Exactly the same thing would be happening at home if they were going up to bed and he fell down the stairs. It is a fallacious argument.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: Does the noble Lord agree that all the arguments he has put forward are arguments against the amendment?
Lord Swinfen: No.
Viscount Caldecote: The extraordinary aspect of the debate is that we all profess our keenness to help the stability of family life and marriages. Yet every time we debate an amendment that is intended to do so we shy away from it on the grounds that it is interference with individual liberty. That is a totally unconvincing argument, as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has clearly put before us.
It is a nonsense and goes against experience to believe that giving everyone complete freedom to do exactly as they wish increases the strength of the family and human happiness. As we have seen in the cases of free and easy divorce and abortion, the pendulum swung too far in the direction of freedom. We are in grave danger of not making a contribution towards returning the pendulum to a more reasonable position when dealing with the Bill now before us.
It may be that the amendment put forward so eloquently by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is not the best way of achieving the objective. However, can we not accept that the principle behind it is right? If there is a detailed way in which it can be improved in order to overcome the difficulties, we must find it. It is no good constantly putting forward difficulties. We must find a way of strengthening family life, which we all agree to be important. I support the noble Lady's amendment, but if there is a better way of achieving the principle we should try to find it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I shall be only too glad to be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, ventured to say that there would not be a criminal offence if the amendment were passed and breached. Will my noble and learned friend read
798
carefully Clause 3(1) and Clause 36? I also wonder whether the noble Lord, who I do not believe has done so, would care to do the same.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I had done so. Clause 36 states:
"A person who contravenes section 3(2) or 4(1)(c) of this Act, or does anything which, by virtue of section 3(3) of this Act, cannot be authorised by a licence, is guilty of an offence".
If the amendment is passed that guilty person is not the one who undergoes treatment but the one who places the embryo in an unmarried woman.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps the noble Lord will read Clause 3(1) and no other, and then read it with Clause 36.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may remind the Committee of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in response to an earlier debate today. He made the very good point that the single woman who will seek treatment under the provisions of this Bill will have thought deeply over the issue before deciding to receive treatment. Under the Bill she will receive counselling and will have satisfied herself that she is adequately prepared for parenthood and all its implications. That point should not be overlooked.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: She will not only have satisfied herself that she is ready for parenthood but she is also facing, in the case of Amendment No. 21, a most unpleasant experience. In vitro fertilisation is not a pleasurable experience. I know many women who have undergone the procedure, and I believe that any woman who is convinced enough to go through that will love her child.
Lord Kilbracken: There seems to be this extraordinary opinion that if a child is born to a married couple he will automatically be brought up in conditions of perfect stability and happiness. That is an absolute fantasy. Life is simply not like that at all. It was not like that for me in my childhood and, unfortunately, it was not like that for my children in their childhood. If it was suggested that couples must enter into a contract that the children should be brought up against a stable background, I wonder how many married parents would be prepared to sign a contract of that kind.
Baroness Elles: I just want to intervene on one aspect of this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, spoke about children not necessarily being happy in an ordinary family. Those of us who have done social work for many years, particularly dealing with one-parent families, will know of the enormous unhappiness and financial difficulties, desertion and isolation which women particularly feel, and even more so if they have children. You cannot equate happiness with being a member of a family and you certainly cannot equate it with a child being left with one single mother wherever it is in the United Kingdom, because one sees all too often the intense poverty, isolation and unhappiness of those people. I strongly support the amendment in order to discourage people from having children

799
if they do not at least have the family structure and financial support which they need in those circumstances.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wonder whether Members of the Committee realise that the speeches we are hearing in favour of this amendment are going absolutely against what is now public policy in this country; that is, the policy of non-discrimination. It is that issue of principle which will be taken as the judgment for what Members of the Committee are asking us to do. We have the Equal Opportunities Commission to support a non-discrimination Act and to persuade all concerned in all circumstances that they must not take marital status into account.
That is public policy. I believe that it will be a grave mistake if Members of the Committee think that they can go against that without the Government having to reconsider their position in this regard because that will be extremely difficult to justify. It is not so much the argument as to whether people will do this or that or will treat their children better than others or whether the family is the circle best calculated to produce the young people we want. What is at stake here is the gesture, the conflict with principle which women have fought for a generation to establish. Those women say, "Our marital status is our business. We will not have it quoted for us or against us. We will choose our way within the law and the law does not forbid us from producing families if we are not married. The law does not interfere". The law permits the NHS to produce for a woman who already has three children the fertility drug and she then produces another seven. That is permitted under our Naional Health Service on the ground that we must not dictate to people what they shall do in that particular aspect of private life.
That is the situation we have here, I am afraid. It is very late at night and we might run away with our emotional response to this situation, but I beg the Committee to consider whether it would be wise to go against public policy in this serious matter tonight.
The Lord Chancellor: We have had a very important debate on an extremely difficult subject. I shall seek first of all to deal with the effect of the amendment on Clause 3. It would deny unmarried women access to in vitro fertilisation treatment. The amendments to Clause 4 would prevent them from receiving donor insemination from licensed treatment centres.
I have looked carefully at the question raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I think the practical answer is that if the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is agreed to, it would not be possible to grant a licence to authorise in vitro fertilisation for people who are not married. The person providing the treatment, if the amendment were to be passed, would commit the offence of doing something which could not be authorised by a licence under Clause 36(1)(b). However, the person receiving the treatment would probably not be committing an offence. That is the advice I have
800
received and it is my own reading of the provisions. Obviously it is subject to fuller consideration if there is any question about it.
The second general matter that I should mention is my understanding of the European convention in relation to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 12 of the convention provides that men and women of marriageable age have a right to marry and found a family according to national laws. The advice I have received is that, if the amendments of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, were passed, these would not prevent women from marrying, obviously, and therefore the relevant article of the convention would not be breached.
The matters which have been raised are certainly difficult. It is plain that the principles underlying the amendment are of widespread application and are attracting a great deal of support. I speak for the Government in saying that I share the desire of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that the sanctity of the family unit should not be lost sight of in the wish to help childless couples have the children they can so fervently desire.
It is important to keep the issue in perspective. The number of patients receiving the treatments to be licensed by the Bill is very small when compared with the number of births. Within that small number experience suggests that the proportion of children born to unmarried women is tiny. Moreover, one has to consider, as has been pointed out, the situation with regard to natural methods of procreation.
I intend now to mention some of the issues which will need to be considered before reaching a view on these amendments. It is certainly very difficult to decide whether it is right that the law should specify that the treatments to be licensed under the Bill should be confined to married couples. The availability of infertility treatments to particular patients is normally a matter for individual clinical decision by the doctor, by the person who wishes to obtain the treatments and by the partner, if one is involved.
In the case of artificial insemination by donor, in practice there would be some difficulty about prohibiting the artificial insemination of an unmarried woman. The technique is straightforward. I understand that self-insemination can be readily achieved without clinical assistance. I gather that advice in this connection is easily available, but concern as regards the risk of contracting HIV from unscreened donors in recent years has resulted in more would-be single mothers turning to clinically supervised sperm banks.
However, it would clearly be unfortunate if this Bill was seen in any way to be conflicting with the importance we attach to family values. As the Bill stands, apart from these amendments, the authority has to prepare a code of practice which Ministers will approve before publication. It will need to give general guidance to clinics on this sensitive aspect of their work. In particular, we would expect the code of practice to highlight the importance of the welfare situation of any child to be born as a result of the treatments. Attention has already been directed to the requirement of counselling concerning these treatments.

801
It is important that counselling should take account of the aspects of welfare of any child to be born as a result of the union or the treatments. There may be situations in which a person would not at first sight be willing to accede to the principle of these amendments. Yet on fuller consideration of the issues, if the person came to the clinic and received counselling, that person might see that, after all, the principle was a good one and should be given effect to. One must not leave out of account the possible effect of counselling on the attitude of the person concerned as regards the possible result of treatments.
The idea of highlighting the aspect of the possible child's welfare would be entirely in line with the policy that lies behind the legislation on children, including the Children Act of last year, which has already been referred to and which started its parliamentary course in your Lordships' House. The issues raised by these amendments are complex and touch on personal values and opinions which I feel sure each of us holds dear.
In effect it is an issue of conscience. It is on that basis that I urge the Committee to make up its own mind on this matter. In reaching a decision it is clearly important that full account is taken of the future welfare of any child.
9.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: We have had a very interesting and far-reaching debate on these amendments. I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part and put their views, whether or not they agreed with me. Many of them did not. Perhaps I may comment on one or two of the views expressed. I am sure that the young mother referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was a good mother. I did say that many single women were good mothers. But she could not offer the child the inestimable benefit of a father's loving care.
All the arguments I have heard against my amendments put the interests of the woman concerned before those of the child. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that I do not think that the number of women affected is relevant. Neither is it relevant that the number of cohabiting couples increased by a multiple of three between 1979 and 1987. It might interest some noble Lords to know that in the old days in country districts in the part of Scotland where I live, it was the custom for a man to live with a girl for a year. If at the end of the year she was pregnant he had to marry her. If she was not, they could part. Nobody minded. It was quite all right. In those days, when there was no welfare state and no old age pension, one of the objects of marrying was to have children to provide support and care in one's old age. That was a sensible arrangement.
I am not really interested in morality, in the rights of women to have children, or in prevalent sexual mores. I am concerned with the best interests of the children. As the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said, legislation is a question of balancing various
802
interests. It is a question of compromise between private interests and society's interests, which in this case I think means the children's interests.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that we should support the family as it is, but I do not think that we should necessarily always assist it to become as it is. I was surprised to hear of the number of letters she says she has received from various organisations. Most of those organisations are not exactly slow to write to the tabler of an amendment with which they do not agree. I have not had one single angry letter, or not angry letter, from any organisation about my amendments since they were tabled, which was quite a long time ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made an important point about common law marriages. I accept that it is one which needs to be addressed. To the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, I want to say that I do know what in vitro fertilisation involves. I have watched the whole process at the Cromwell Hospital and at Simpson's Memorial Pavilion in Edinburgh. But AID is a simple process which can easily be done at home on a do-it-yourself basis. There is no way to prevent do-it-yourself AID.
I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for clarifying the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about the European Convention on Human Rights. At the end of it all, I come back to the fact that there is here a serious conflict of interest between the woman and the potential child. In view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has suggested that in this instance the Committee will have to make up its own mind, I have decided to ask the Committee to do precisely that.
9.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boardman, L.

Joseph, L.

Braye, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brentford, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Brightman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Caldecote, V.

Long, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Luke, L.

Coleraine, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Margadale, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Melville, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elles, B.

Morris, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Fitt, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gisborough, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Peel, E.

Grantchester, L.

Perth, E.

Haig, E.

Reading, M.

Halsbury, E.[Teller.]

Reay, L.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

803

Romney, E.

Stallard, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Salisbury, M.

Strange, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

[Teller.]

E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Ullswater, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Downshire, M.

Adrian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ampthill, L.

Ennals, L.

Barnett, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Borthwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brain, L.

Falkland, V.

Butterworth, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Grey, E.

Craigavon, V.

Hacking, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hailsham of Saint

David, B.

Marylebone, L.

Denham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

804

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Prys-Davies, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rea, L.

Hylton, L.

Richardson, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kagan, L.

Seear, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Sherfield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Turner of Camden, B.

B.[Teller.]

Tweeddale, M.

Lockwood, B.

Walpole, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

[Teller.]

Warnock, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Westbury, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

White, B.

Monson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

E.

Nicol, B.

Winstanley, L.

Pender, L.

Wynford, L.

Petre, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

10.3 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert —
("or

(e) keeping or using an embryo obtained by lavage.").

The noble Duke said: Some Members of the Committee will be aware that where there is normal sexual intercourse the embryo is in the womb and is engaged in attaching itself to the side of the womb. It is what medical scientists call nidation. We, Pro-Life Group, feel that that is a course of nature, the beginning of human life, and that the baby will eventually fructify in the womb and be born. To wash it out, or lavage, is a bad thing to do. It was done before in vitro fertilisation existed. It is now unnecessary to do it and it should be forbidden. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: This technique of lavage is one which is of great relevance to research in relation to pre-implantation diagnosis. If this amendment were to be agreed it would pre-empt a substantial part of the discussion that we may be having on Clause 11 of the Bill on Thursday. The point of relevance is that if research is to be approved under this Bill when Clause 11 is debated, there will be two techniques that may be possible for studying pre-implantation diagnosis of genetic disease.
The first technique will be to undertake in vitro fertilisation to allow the embryo, or conceptus, to develop to the eight or 16-cell stage and then to carry out a procedure (which will be discussed on Thursday) to identify whether a defective gene is present. One alternative method that is used in certain centres is to allow the normal course of intercourse to take place, for fertilisation to begin within the woman's uterus and at that stage, within about five days, the blastocyst or conceptus is floating free in the uterus and has not yet begun to implant.
Of those blastocysts which are formed by the process of normal intercourse, some 80 per cent. are shed in the course of normal human reproduction. The purpose here is to be able to wash out those blastocysts at three, four or five days after intercourse and to carry out the same kind of studies relating to pre-implantation diagnosis. If this amendment were to be passed, I think it would prejudice our discussion on research on Thursday.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment refers to a technique used in some countries for the treatment of infertility whereby embryros are flushed from a woman's body before they implant in the uterus for subsequent use usually in relation to the technique of embryo donation. Although it is not at present used in this country, it is possible that in the future clinicians may find it helpful in some cases. It would seem therefore not right to accept this amendment which would have the effect of prohibiting it
806
altogether. Nowhere else in the Bill is a particular kind of clinical treatment prohibited, and indeed if lavage were to be used in this country it would be subject to the licensing provisions in the Bill because it would involve subsequent storage and use of the embryo.
Therefore, I should like to suggest to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, that the right way to deal with this matter is as part of the fundamental question that is to be discussed in relation to Clause 11. I think that that is in accord with the advice that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, gave a moment ago. This is just one possible technique that might be used. It seems not right to single it out to prohibit it altogether. The right thing to do is to leave the whole matter to be discussed in principle and the consequence of the principle will affect every form of clinical treatment that might be used to further the result.
The Duke of Norfolk: I much respect what the noble and learned Lord has said, and I fully agree that, once this embryo is created in the uterus and is not yet attached to the womb —nidation, or whatever it is called —nature flushes a lot more out of the womb, and we think that perhaps those should be the ones that are used for tests. We think that it is unfortunate to take a human life that is beginning and remove it from the uterus to inspect it and maybe to experiment on it. However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that we are awaiting the arrival of Clause 11. I should prefer to return to this subject on Report, if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Prohibitions in connection with gametes]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from ("woman") to end of line 34.
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 32, 61 and 69. I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 31, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I shall speak to all those amendments, as they are either consequential or closely related. Amendment No. 31 seeks to amend Clause 4. Clause 4(1)(c) states that no person shall:
"mix gametes with the live gametes of another species of animal, except in pursuance of a licence".
Some Members of the Committee —I must confess I was one of them —did not fully appreciate the meaning of that clause. However, it becomes crystal clear when one looks at paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 2, which lists what may or may not be done under licence. I must quote that list as it is the heart of everything, if I may put it that way. It states:

807
"A licence under this paragraph may authorise fertilisation by mixing human sperm with the egg of another species of animal for the purpose of developing more effective techniques for determining the fertility of human sperm if the resulting embryo is immediately destroyed".
In brief it allows the creation of an embryo, a living thing, which is half human and half animal, even if it may be immediately destroyed. To me such a practice is wholly wrong. We must not allow it. Therefore my amendment seeks to remove the offending lines from the Bill.
As I said on Second Reading, I believe the medical profession has lost its way in using this test, known as the hamster test, for the purpose of fertility. I am sad to say this but I think that the Government have followed the medical profession in this respect. I shall explain what I understand happens in the hamster test. Some 40 eggs of the hamster are taken and mixed with human sperm. After a period of time, say three hours or so, a judgment is made on the percentage of eggs which are fertile and which have been penetrated by the human sperm. On that basis, if the eggs are living at that moment, a judgment is made as to the fertility that has been achieved. It is not always reliable but sometimes it works. The results have to be destroyed immediately, but they have been created. For me and for many others to whom I have spoken that is wholly shocking and wholly repellent.
In relation to an earlier amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the fact that the hamster was unique in its properties and that that would not happen in other cases. We do not know that for certain, particularly with the advance of science. I must point out to the Committee that the clause does not relate only to hamsters. It allows the eggs of other animals to be impregnated with human sperm. That opens the door, horrifically, to I know not what.
I stress that the amendment does not in any way affect the broad principles with which the Committee has been deeply concerned, the experimentation on human embryos which is covered by Clause 11. That is quite separate and the amendment in no way prejudices Clause 11. That being the case, and having heard what I have said, I very much hope that the Committee will feel able to support me. The issue is stark and clear. There is no halfway house, although I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, tries to provide one in the following amendment.
The issue is simple. The creation of embryos which are half human and half animal is unnatural and, I believe, against God. It must not be allowed, now or ever. I hope very much that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: In the context of the amendment I wish to correct a mistake that I made in connection with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I said that the hamster egg was unique in its penetrability. It is not its penetrability; it is the removability of its zona pellucida. It does not have a zona. It is sometimes known as a zona free egg.
Lord Kilbracken: Quite independently of the noble Earl and the noble Duke I reached the conclusion that it was completely wrong that the gametes of humans and animals should be mixed under any circumstances under licence. I too, therefore, put down an identical amendment to Amendment No. 27 and proposed instead the prohibition set out in Amendment No. 31, which, in the case of the noble Earl and the noble Duke, is contained in Amendment No. 32.
The noble Earl has already argued the case so strongly that I do not feel that it is necessary for me to add to it except to say that I believe that it is unthinkable that the mixture of the gametes of humans and animals should be permitted under any circumstances.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I support the principle of the Bill and had not intended to speak at this stage. However, like my noble friend Lord Perth I have been greatly concerned by the proposition that it should be legal in the future to create hybrid embryos produced by the sperm of a man fertilising the egg of a female animal. The noble Earl would like to put a stop to such practices now.
I hope that I have had some comfort from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who suggested that a hamster is the only animal which could in practice be used for such experiments, but I am not now so sure that I got that right. I still find the fact of the use of hamsters repugnant. There must be other and better ways of testing the fertility of an individual donor.
I would rather that my noble friend did not divide the Committee this evening if he feels that he can avoid doing so because we are about to hear, first, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and, secondly, in a fuller Chamber perhaps, a number of noble Lords who have medical knowledge. I shall look forward to hearing their views. Nevertheless, if my noble friend decides to divide the Committee I shall go with him. I hope that there are better ways of doing what the amendment proposes. The practice must be stopped, if not now, in a very short time.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I rise to oppose the amendment proposed by the noble Earl and to offer an alternative amendment, Amendment No. 70, which I have tabled, as I believe that the issue has been clouded by considerable misunderstanding and by a number of serious misconceptions.
The crucial issue is that no embryo is formed by the mixing of the gametes. As is specified in Clause 4(1)(c), no person shall,
"mix gametes with the live gametes of another species of animal, except in pursuance of a licence".
The intention of the clause is to ban the creation of chimeras or hybrids which might in theory, and in theory only, result from cross-fertilisation between gametes of humans on the one hand and animals on the other. I can assure the noble Earl and those who support his amendment that any such prospect would be abhorrent to all responsible scientists.

809
However, the purpose underlying Schedule 2(4), as I trust that my alternative amendment makes clear, is simply to allow scientists to continue to utilise the zona free hamster oocyte penetration test, a simple laboratory procedure which provides important information on the fertilising capacity of human sperms. The test was introduced in the United States in 1976 and has subsequently gained worldwide acceptance as a diagnostic procedure in clinical studies of male fertility. The World Health Organisation warmly commends that standard test which assesses the fertility of human sperms with greater accuracy than any of the more conventional methods. Such studies are urgently required because, although defective sperm function is recognised as the largest defined cause of human infertility, there are few, if any, effective treatments which can correct it at the present time. Without that test, and the improved techniques that are likely to stem from it, clinical research workers will be unable to make any major progress towards the treatment of a condition which affects about one in 16 of the male population.
The test also plays a key role in developing male contraceptive agents, including vaccines, which are now being developed for use. If the test were no longer available, the only alternative method of assessing the fertility of male subjects now participating in clinical trials under the auspices of the World Health Organisation would be for them to have unprotected intercourse with their partners. It is surely preferable to test the efficacy of a male contraceptive agent by using the hamster test rather than to expose couples engaged in the trials to the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. However, there is also growing evidence that research workers are helped by the test to study more effectively than any other technique allows the chromosomal constitution of human sperms. That enables them to study the male contribution to genetic abnormalities in the human embryo and the influence of environmental factors such as radiation.
Here I must confess that there is an important omission in my amendment, which suggests that the test should be used solely for assessment of human fertility. I should have added, "and for assessing the normality of sperms". The test itself simply involves the incubation of human sperms with hamster eggs which have been treated with an enzyme to remove an outer shell or capsule called the zona pellucida. After three hours of incubation the eggs are removed and inspected to see whether the sperm has penetrated the egg. Once that microscopic assessment has been made the cells are easily destroyed by compressing them on a microscopic slide. Indeed that procedure is an essential component of the test itself. In other words, destruction of any such cells shown to have two nuclei, one from the sperm and one from the egg, without fusion is an integral component of the test as well as being an inevitable consequence of its being carried out.
Finally, I would add that there is no prospect whatever of true hybridisation between the human and hamster cells or indeed with the cells derived from any other animal likely to be used for that purpose. Nor is there any prospect at all of forming
810
a viable embryo: first because the genetic situation of human and such animal cells is completely incompatible; secondly, because the incubation period is far too brief; and, thirdly, because even if the period of incubation were extended, the eggs which have been penetrated by sperm will degenerate spontaneously as they have no developmental potential whatever.
Thus, in opposing the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, I should like to suggest the alternative amendment that I have tabled and trust that it will be preferred by the Committee.
Lord Rea: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will put me right. As I read it, if Clause 4(1)(c) were removed, as is called for in this amendment, it would put the mixing of gametes with the live gametes of another species of animal totally outside the control of the licensing authority. In fact it would remove it altogether from the control of this Bill and make it freely available.
Earl Jellicoe: I understand very well the instinctive repugnance expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and my noble friend Lord Home in this matter. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said; namely, that this does not prejudge our decision if we take one, as I hope that we shall, in two days' time on Clause 11. However, in fact it does prejudge it in a rather important way. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, it affects important research in three major areas. One is the study, alleviation and detection of male infertility, which I believe the noble Lord said affects one in 16 of fellow males. Secondly, it affects the development of male contraceptive agents which are under study at the present time. Thirdly, it will stop the study of the chromosomal constitution of sperm and thereby the investigation of the contribution that we mere males make to abnormalities in the human embryo. Those are three extremely important areas of research.
For those reasons and for the other reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who has such experience and knowledge, although I sympathise with the instinctive repugnance expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I very much hope that we do not pursue this amendment and prefer the amendment, perhaps amended again, which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has in mind.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: I hesitate very much before crossing swords with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who is a great expert in this field. However, the mixing of human and animal gametes is repugnant to us all in principle. The argument put forward is simply that the ends justify the means. To my mind that is a bad argument. It may be only a micro-step on a slippery slope. But that slope is very steep. I do not think that it is a slope. We are on the edge of a precipice into a very frightening abyss.
I understand from another expert that if we pass the amendment it would only cause inconvenience in some of the ways that have been explained to us tonight. I very much support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): It is clear that the developments in human fertilisation and embryology that are the subject of this Bill offer the prospect of increasing human happiness, but they also raise some horrifying spectres. One of the most alarming notions that is raised by this group of amendments is the mixing of human and animal gametes to create some kind of hybrid. It is right that the Bill should proscribe such a practice in the strongest possible terms.
It is the Government's view that the Bill does that. It forbids placing any live gametes other than human gametes in a woman. That I think was the purport of the first amendment discussed this afternoon. It prohibits the placing of a human embryo in any other species of animal; and, in general, it prohibits the mixing of human gametes with those of any other species of animal. However, this last prohibition permits of one exception which may appear to weaken the general proscription on mixing species. The purpose of these amendments is to remove that exception.
As the noble Earl explained in proposing his amendment, the exception which the Bill as presently drafted would allow is a test which doctors have used for some time to determine the fertility of human sperm. I understood the hamster test to be the only way of carrying out this process, but I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has added another possibility. I should add that this exception which the Bill provides was clearly mentioned in the White Paper. It is, I understand, extremely unlikely that any resultant embryo could develop beyond two cells, but the important safeguard is that the Bill provides that in any case such an embryo must be destroyed immediately.
While I can fully understand why the test may seem objectionable, even bizarre, to many Members of the Committee, with the science fiction connotations of creating strange hybrids, I believe that I can reassure the Committee that the test is a useful one clinically for which no real alternative exists. It is clearly right that this unique test should be permissible and it is important that the techniques should be looked at to see whether it can be improved in any way.
I recognise the strong feelings that have been voiced in relation to these amendments. But I trust that the proposers of the amendments recognise the importance of the exception, and the ultimate safeguard: that any result of the process must be destroyed immediately.
The Earl of Perth: I am not at all happy. I heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who is far more knowledgeable. He asked that his amendment be pursued and not those which I and other Members have tabled. He did so on the basis that the hamster test has greater accuracy than others. That is no argument for what I and many others believe to be shocking; namely, the mixing of human sperm with that of another animal, thereby creating another living thing. It is no good to say that the embryo will not live. The words are contained in
812
the clause, "if the resulting embryo". Therefore, there is a mistake.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke of chromosomal changes and the importance in research. That is one of my worries. I understand that medical science and the profession are making enormous steps and it is not so fantastic to imagine that over the years they will be able to change the chromosomes. Then all kinds of doors will be open. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, talked about the provision hampering research. Perhaps it will hamper research but I am not afraid of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said that it is clearly right. I am sorry but, as was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, it is clearly morally wrong.
I was most worried by the point made by my noble friend Lord Home. He said that he wished for a fuller Chamber and more ability to hear the medical arguments. I respect that but I do not believe that the matter is purely medical. It is a question of what is basically right or wrong. I believe that during the past 15 years the medical profession has gone astray. I am perfectly sure in my mind, and I have spoken to various scientists who are of the same opinion, that if it were not allowed there is no doubt that with today's skills other methods would be improved to a point where this was no longer necessary — —
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I had exactly the same hope as the noble Earl; that medical opinion would convince us that there were alternatives which could be used and therefore there would be no need to proceed with the hamster test.
The Earl of Perth: I agree and we have heard from the eminent noble Lord, Lord Walton, that there are other methods. I am reluctant to do so but believe that I must test the opinion of the Committee. I beg to move.
10.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brentford, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caldecote, V.[Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Norfolk, D.

De L'Isle, V.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Downshire, M.

Parmoor, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peel, E.

Elles, B.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Petre, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grantchester, L.

Renton, L.

Harvington, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strange, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Swinfen, L.

813

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Adrian, L.

B.

Ampthill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brain, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brightman, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pender, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.[Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Faithfull, B.

Romney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seear, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Sherfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somerset, D.

Hacking, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Halsbury, E.

E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henley, L.

Walpole, L.

Hooper, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Warnock, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Westbury, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Wynford, L.

Lawrence, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.46 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("; or
(d) extract from the ovary of a woman an oocyte for the purpose of replacement elsewhere and fertilisation in vivo,").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I am glad to be joined by my noble friend Lord Walton, who knows a great deal more about this subject than I do. The process described is known by the acronym GIFT—gamete intra-fallopian transfer—and is referred to rather briefly in the Warnock Report. It is an alternative to IVF which is favoured in certain cases.
The position is that the scientific establishments would like GIFT to come under the provisions of the Bill but the national health establishment thinks it will involve too much in the way of administration. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee and make way for my noble friend, who is a great deal more knowledgeable on these matters than I am. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I apologise to the Committee for speaking again but the purpose of this amendment, which I warmly support, tabled by my noble friend Lord Halsbury is to ensure that the technique called gamete intra-fallopian transfer, or GIFT, is not exempted from the requirement to be licensed. GIFT does not at present require such a licence from the Interim Licensing Authority and the number of centres offering the treatment is increasing. The most recent figures available reveal that there are 32 centres in the UK offering GIFT alone and 33 offering GIFT and in vitro fertilisation—IVF.
814
Whereas the usual technique of IVF is, for instance, appropriate in those women who are infertile because of blockage of the fallopian tubes so that the eggs released from the ovaries cannot reach the body of the uterus to be fertilised by the incoming sperm, GIFT is an appropriate technique to be used in the case of those infertile couples where the ova can travel along the fallopian tubes to reach the uterus but where the sperms, for reasons often related to the chemical composition of the mucus plug in the cervix are prevented from reaching the eggs within the body of the uterus.
The GIFT technique involves obtaining a sample of the husband's sperm and obtaining eggs from the female subject using an ultrasonic imaging technique. The sample of sperm and the eggs are then injected together into a fallopian tube so that fertilisation takes place in a normal and natural environment. The technique is significantly less complex and at present in percentage terms more successful in skilled hands than IVF, but it nevertheless requires special expertise and facilities. Like IVF, it can result in a considerable number of multiple pregnancies. Concern has been expressed by the chairman and members of the Interim Licensing Authority that, especially in the private sector, centres without the appropriate medical and scientific skills may begin to offer this form of treatment. For example, they may transfer an excessive number of fertilised eggs in the hope of increasing their success rate, but with the unfortunate consequences of producing an unacceptable number of multiple pregnancies.
I share that view and in supporting the amendment I trust that the Committee will also accept it in order that the centres offering the GIFT technique of treatment as well as those offering IVF, will require a licence.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I intervene only to support the amendment for the reasons given and to which I could not possibly add. If there is one Member of the Committee who is taking part in these debates and who has no need to apologise for speaking frequently, it is the noble Lord, Lord Walton. We listen to him with the utmost respect. We are deeply obliged to him for the guidance that he gives us on these recondite medical matters.
Baroness Hooper: The Government believe that it is not appropriate that this treatment, known as gamete intra-fallopian transfer or GIFT, should, as such, be regulated by the Bill. In considering which treatments to regulate, the Government applied two general tests. The first was whether treatments involved the creation of a human embryo outside the body. The second was whether, in other cases, the treatment involved donated or stored gametes or embryos. In each case, the process raises important questions like disposal, consent and legal status, which need to be addressed as they have many legal consequences. It is for this reason that the four treatments to be regulated by the Bill need statutory control.

815
Thus, where GIFT involves the storage or donation of any gametes used in the technique, it will be subject to the licensing provision of the Bill because it falls within the general tests I have described. But because the embryo does not leave the woman's body and no stored or donated gametes are involved, in other cases, GIFT does not fall within these general tests and so is not covered by the Bill. The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend these necessarily stringent licensing conditions to treatments unless they satisfy one or both of these general tests to which I have referred.
The Government believe that GIFT as such should not be regulated by the Bill but its use should, like other treatments, be a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned as in the case of other kinds of treatment. Therefore, we do not feel able to accept the amendment. While thanking the noble Lords who proposed it in such a knowledgeable way, I hope that nonetheless they will understand the Government's reasons for being unable to accept the amendment.
Baroness White: Can the Minister explain what the Government propose to do about these very difficult multiple pregnancies which cause a great deal of distress?
Baroness Hooper: I believe that comes within the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned, to which I referred before and which is applicable to many other forms of treatment as well.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I am disappointed by this response because of the concerns that I expressed, which I know are shared by the chairman of the Interim Licensing Authority, and because of the belief that unless some kind of statutory control is imposed on the development and extension of this GIFT technique in the growing private sector, there is a serious risk that, even with the kind of clinical judgments —which are issues being considered by members of my profession —to which the noble Baroness has referred, there may be significant problems arising in the future.
I would ask that this issue be considered, even without it being included in the Bill as an amendment as we proposed, which I confess I should have preferred, with a view, by regulation, to bringing this GIFT procedure within the ambit of the statutory licensing authority. It may not be possible but I confess to being disappointed by the Government's response.
Baroness White: Could it not be reconsidered on Report?
Lord Walton of Detchant: I hope that it can be reconsidered at Report stage.
Earl Jellicoe: I apologise to the noble Baroness but I found what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, had to say on this subject extremely persuasive. I have not been altogether persuaded by my noble friend's
816
reply. I add my voice to those I have heard expressing the hope that this will be considered by the Government again between now and Report stage.
Lord Ennals: I should like to add to the plea for the Government to give an assurance that they will consider the matter between now and Report stage. A powerful argument was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I hope it will be responded to.
Baroness Faithfull.: I, too, support the amendment and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will withdraw it with a view to the matter coming up again at Report stage after discussions with the Government.
Baroness Hooper: We shall look at the amendment in the light of the arguments advanced by noble Lords. We shall look at it perhaps particularly in terms of the spirit of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, suggested, and no doubt we shall return to the subject at a future stage.
The Earl of Halsbury: I warned the Committee that the Establishment was against it. But having regard to the assurance given by the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert —
("( ) A licence cannot authorise the use of—

(a) sperm of any one man; or

(b) eggs of any one woman,

in the course of the provision of treatment services for more than such number of women as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to limit the number of women who could receive treatment services using the sperm of any one man or the use of eggs of any one woman in treatment services. At present there is no restriction on how often a man can provide sperm for AID or a woman can provide eggs for donation; nor is that covered in the Bill. The intention of the amendment is to avoid the gametes of one individual anonymously donated being used to create many children. It therefore seeks to reduce the possibility of genetically related individuals either marrying or having sexual relations without knowledge of their common background. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to limit the number of women who could be treated with the eggs of a particular woman or the sperm of a particular man. The Govenment argued in the White Paper that, while it was desirable to have limits on sperm donations, there would be significant practical difficulties in trying to enforce any such limit. Recovery of eggs for a woman is a less easy procedure than the obtaining of sperm. It is in the Government's view unnecessary to legislate on what is again essentially

817
a matter of clinical practice. Nevertheless we feel that it is a matter where it would be right for the authority to provide guidance on good practice and to monitor the situation. That is the safeguard we envisage.
11 p.m.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps I may say that in my view the noble Baroness has got the position absolutely right. It was only proper that the issue should be raised because there is some concern in this connection. However, I do not think that the Secretary of State should have such a power injected into the Bill at this stage. The responsibility must lie with the licensing authority and, obviously, guidelines would be the best way to deal with the matter. I am certain that members of the authority would not wish to see the kind of abuse, to which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson referred, take place.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for the comments they have made. It is possible that we shall return to the matter on Report to see whether this provision should be built into authority's instructions, so to speak. However, with that consideration in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("keeping") and insert ("storing").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 34. As currently drafted, Clause 4(2) provides that, if regulations prohibit the keeping or use of gametes, a licence cannot authorise their keeping or use. Subsection (1)(a) prohibits the storage —that is, preservation by freezing —of gametes except in pursuance of a licence. Subsection (2) should also refer to storage: keeping is a wider term than storage and it is not intended that the Secretary of State should have the power to make regulations prohibiting keeping gametes in any way other than preservation by freezing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 33A not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("keeping") and insert ("storage").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert —
("(4) Not more than three premises shall be licenced for activities specified in subsection 1(c) above.").
The noble Viscount said: As Amendment No. 27 was not carried, the activities authorised by Clause 4(1)(c) can be undertaken subject to a licence. I believe that we would all agree that it is most important, in view of what was said in connection with Amendment No. 27, that such activities should be effectively regulated and that the terms of any licence granted should be rigidly enforced.
The greater the number of licensed premises, the harder it will be to inspect them effectively and enforce the terms of the licences. It seems to me that if three places were licensed to carry out such tests that would be reasonable. It would ensure that there was an adequate number of such places where the testing service could be provided. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: The issue of the value of the hamster test, shortly put, has already been debated. Various concerns were expressed and by a substantial majority of two to one the matter was decided. These tests have been carried out for the past 14 years without —at least, so far as I know—protest from any side of the Chamber, or from elsewhere. I suppose some people may say that part of the horror is the use of animals in research. However, we have recognised that this is a test which has substantial backing, which has a considerable effect and which, if it had been abolished —although, fortunately, the amendment was not carried —would have led to most unfortunate consequences for those people suffering from infertility; namely, one in 16 of the population.
If we recognise the fact that such tests must continue in the interests of good research —properly protected, as we have agreed —then I do not see a case for limiting the number of such centres to three. Access to the test would be readily available only to those living near one of the three centres. It would impose considerable difficulties on those living at a distance. Apart from the cost and inconvenience of travel to one of the three centres, it would add to the cost of the treatment. The transport of the sperm between centres would require the purchase of a special container which would maintain a constant temperature of 37 degrees centigrade. That could prove difficult when long journeys are involved. Why should that be done in any case if it is a recognised and accepted form of test whose value has been proved? No alternative has been found. Why should we limit the number of centres to three? Whom would we benefit by doing that?
Baroness Hooper: We discussed the substance of the amendment when we discussed Amendment No. 27. In the two cases which are permitted by the Bill, as was established, the ultimate safeguard is that the embryo resulting from the process must be destroyed immediately. For those reasons, the Government's view is that it would be inequitable to restrict the number of premises which could be licensed to carry out the activity and therefore I trust that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. The fact that the tests have been carried out for a long time is neither here nor there. Many people were not aware that they were being carried out. I recognise that some inconvenience would be caused if the amendment were carried.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, it is important that the premises should be properly regulated. If 10, 20 or 30 premises are to be licensed it will be difficult in practice to inspect and effectively

819
enforce the terms of the licence. That is my only point. I am not trying to prevent the tests being done. We dealt with that matter when we dealt with Amendment No. 27. If my noble friend thinks that the amendment is unreasonable perhaps we can leave it now and bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Authority: Supplementary Provisions]:
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 23, line 21, after ("informed") insert ("by the views of persons having wide knowledge or experience in the fields of law, social work, philosophy and religion as well as medicine or science and").
The noble Duke said: The amendment will ensure that the licensing authority does not become dominated by scientific and medical interests. That accords with the recommendations of the Warnock Committee which said, with regard to a licensing authority, that the new body would need access to expert scientific and medical advice. We therefore envisage a significant representation of scientific and medical interests among the membership. It will also need to have members experienced in the organisation and provision of services. However, that is not exclusively or even primarily a medical or scientific body. It is concerned essentially with broader matters and with the protection of the public interest.
If the public is to have confidence that the body is independent —that is, is not to be unduly influenced by sectional interests —its membership must be wide-ranging and the lay interest should be well represented. We recommend that there should be a substantial lay representation on the statutory authority to regulate research and infertility services and that the chairman must be a lay person. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I very much understand the reasons which have prompted this amendment. The Government made it clear in the White Paper that the membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority would be likely to include people with wide knowledge and experience in the fields mentioned in the amendment. However, the Government think it would be wrong if these categories were specifically mentioned in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1, as not only would this unduly tie the hands of the Secretary of State in choosing the right balance of membership when he comes to do that, but also there are people who are members of other disciplines which, like nursing and counselling, could make an equal claim to being appointed to the authority.
It would be easy to load this provision with a long list of highly appropriate disciplines and experience, but that would be to run the risk of unduly confining Ministers when they come to make appointments to this important new body. While, therefore, I have
820
every sympathy with what the proposers of this amendment are seeking to achieve, I can assure them that it is to be expected that people with the experience and from the disciplines they mention will find their way on to the authority when it is appointed. It would be unduly restrictive to confine choice in the way the amendment suggests. I trust that the noble Duke will feel able to withdraw his amendment on this basis.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should like to make a particular plea that one category of people who should be considered for appointment are those who have a particular expertise in the field of medical ethics. I ask this because a couple of years ago I was invited to carry out a private review of an interesting and worthwhile body called the Institute of Medical Ethics. During the course of that review I became profoundly convinced that there has been growing up, both in Britain and in other countries, notably America, a considerable corpus of expertise which results from the mixture of disciplines not only medical and legal —which are obviously important —but of moral theology and similar disciplines of that kind.
It so happens that the interim committee includes one such person, Professor the reverend Canon G. R. Dunstan, who is the emeritus professor of moral and social theology at the University of London. I have no doubt that he makes a considerable contribution to the work of the interim committee. I became convinced that, in this growing number of issues, where medical science is confronting the public with a range of new moral issues which have to be resolved, the people who have devoted, in some cases, a lifetime of work to these subjects have a considerable insight to bring.
This can be of great value to those who perhaps come with only one discipline and who find the breadth of vision that these experts can give to be of great value. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to take account of this. It would not be for me remotely to suggest names, but there are quite a number of people from whom the Government choose in making their appointments.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I rise to support this amendment, and to try to correct something that my noble friend the Minister said from the Front Bench. She talked about not confining it to certain kinds of people. The hard fact is —and there will be very few Members on either side of this Committee who will not agree with what I am going to say —that whenever the Government appoint a so-called neutral committee, many of us find that it is always biased in a particular way.
There have been many times when the choice of theologians has leant on the liberal side without a fair balance there, and there are many reasons why this body should be able to draw upon the widest possible variety of disciplines if it is to have public confidence. It is important that that body wins public confidence. I was rather disappointed with what my noble friend the Minister said in her first comment on this amendment. She seemed to be saying that

821
the amendment would somehow confine appointments to a particular category. However, that is not the object. The object of the amendment is to widen the categories to make sure that the body is balanced and wins public confidence.
If the Minister cannot give an undertaking to look at the amendment now, I hope that my noble friend will be willing to bring it back with vigour on Report as it is a serious matter which affects the whole Bill. The whole Bill depends on the licensing authority. Many of the assurances which have been offered hitherto depend on the suitability of that authority and on the fact that it enjoys public confidence. If my noble friend the Minister cannot be more forthcoming now, I hope that my noble friend will not despair and will be willing to come back to this matter with vigour and rally a lot of support for a Division early in the day when we could perhaps carry it.
Lord McGregor of Durris: It should be said that the membership of the present Interim Licensing Authority under the chairmanship of Dame Mary Donaldson covers all the categories of persons mentioned in Amendment No. 36 and includes many more besides. It is important to note that the Interim Licensing Authority has established itself very firmly as a body, having achieved public confidence.
Earl Jellicoe: I wish to endorse everything which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has just said. I find myself very sympathetic to the general approach of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and of my noble friends Lord Lauderdale and Lord Jenkin on this issue. I hope that the Government will ensure that there is the widest possible spectrum of lay representation on the authority.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wish to follow what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said in the confidence that the Secretary of State would do exactly what he has asked for. Therefore, it is not necessary to lay that down in the Bill.
The Duke of Norfolk: I wish to thank the Members of the Committee who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. We feel strongly that there should be a wide representation. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, also mentioned that. I am a little bit unhappy about the idea of the present membership of the licensing authority being taken on completely. I think there should be a new authority which will no doubt include some members from the present one but which would also contain many new people. That would give the country a feeling that this Bill has had an effect in this area. However, having heard the comments of my noble friends, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 23, line 21, at end insert ("and that a reasonable balance is maintained amongst the membership of the Authority between persons in favour of and against the carrying out of activities requiring to be licensed by section 3 of this Act").
The noble Duke said: If Parliament chooses to place a restriction upon the use of the human embryo in IVF and research —and all sections of opinion in the Chamber wish to place some restrictions on those practices —it is necessary that the authority should not be dominated by those who are unequivocally in favour of or against the practices involved. Some scientists have already expressed a desire to experiment beyond 14 days. If the wishes of Parliament are to be respected, it is necessary to ensure a balance on the authority as required by this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I had more sympathy with the previous amendment than I have with this one. Whoever is appointed must administer the law. If someone wanted to go outside the law, namely beyond 14 days, they should not be appointed. To require that there should be a balance and that, for example, half the members should disagree with the legislation is rather like saying that half the members of a health authority should not support the National Health Service or that 50 per cent. of the Church Commissioners should be atheists. If we want the job to be done properly such a limitation, rather than a broad spread of membership as suggested in the previous amendment, would be very unfortunate.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I too should be unhappy if the amendment were carried. I say that on the basis of experience. On one occasion I had to make appointments to a body which was concerned with nuclear power. One of the appointees made it clear that there were certain aspects of the job which because of his views on nuclear power he did not feel that he could properly undertake. That was a very unsatisfactory arrangement. I have a feeling that if one had to look for people who were opposed to the principle of the Bill —supposing that the vote on Clause 11 goes in favour of research —it would pose considerable difficulties of conscience. I had experience of such a situation on the committee which I appointed, and it was not a happy one.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am chairman of an independent self-regulatory body which enforces a code of practice upon all print advertising. Nobody would wish to appoint a group or persons of monolithic unity of view to any such body. However, if it is to work at all there must be a consensus of opinion. In the case that I have in mind there must be a consensus that self-regulation is a method of achieving the task superior to statutory regulation. In any such body if consensus cannot be built among the members, the job which the body exists to undertake simply cannot be performed
Baroness Hooper: The short discussion on the amendment has been useful. I believe that if it were accepted it would prove axiomatic in practice. In appointing the members, as the White Paper indicated, the Secretary of State will wish to ensure that the authority represents a mixed and balanced set of views. That said, I can assure the Committee that it is not the Government's intention to appoint an authority packed with those who are partisan on

823
the issues. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Norfolk: I am glad to have heard what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 23, line 32, at end insert —
("( ) The Secretary of State shall secure that at least half the members of the Authority have not been involved in conducting or securing the conduct of any project of research for which a licence may be granted under this Act.").
The noble Duke said: The amendment would ensure that at least half the members of the authority are not involved in research on embryos should that be allowed. It would not preclude their having been involved in treatment or storage activities. If research on embryos is permitted, that will be necessary for the reasons given in connection with the previous amendments. If those granting licences for research were predominantly the same persons performing the research, it would be unrealistic to expect there to be any effective control.
The amendment is similar to the two previous amendments. The purpose behind the three amendments has been the feeling of the Pro-Life Group that the Secretary of State should be in control and not the authority so that there is day-to-day control by Parliament. We want the authority to report to the Secretary of State. We do not wish to see the whole of the controlling authority dominated by one section of the community. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment. Under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Bill as it at present stands, at least a third but no more than half of the members of the authority, with the exception of the chairman and deputy chairman, shall either be registered medical practitioners or scientists involved in embryology. It is highly unlikely that Ministers would seek to appoint that portion of the membership exclusively from among people who are involved in embryo research, if that should be Parliament's decision. Equally, the White Paper's proposals about the membership of the authority stress that it will need to include a majority of people who are lay. Thus, it is likely that in practice the Bill as at present drafted will secure what the amendment seeks to achieve.
Nonetheless, in view of the concern about the ethics of such research, which in all probability will continue to be held by many people in this country if Parliament decides to approve research involving human embryos in the strictly controlled circumstances provided by the Bill, the Government will consider the debate on this amendment carefully and —it almost goes without saying —without commitment, see whether it is possible for an amendment to be brought forward at a later stage of the Bill which would meet more explicitly the concern expressed in the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to fall in with that position.
The Duke of Norfolk: I thank my noble friend for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Reports to Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("two years") and insert ("twelve months").
The noble Earl said: The amendment which I am moving, which also stands in the names of my noble friend Lady Platt and of the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord McGregor, is simple, straightforward and not in the least controversial. Given those admirable virtues, I trust that it will be acceptable, not least to the Government.
Clause 7 provides that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should report to the Secretary of State on its first year of activities and thereafter at two-yearly intervals. Our amendment is designed to make those reports annual, as is the case with the reports of the Interim Licensing Authority.
My reasons for that are as follows. The first concerns precedent. The ILA, under its admirable, charming and efficient chairman, has reported annually. It has been able to do so with its skimpy resources. I see no reason why the new authority with its far greater resources should not be able to follow suit. Moreover, the ILA's reports have been far from pro forma. They have contained much valuable information on the clinics that it has licensed, on the guidelines under which they operate, on the research projects that it has approved and not least on research projects that it has not approved and the reasons for that, and much else besides.
My second reason is that, if the regular annual reporting has been desirable with the ILA, it is even more so with the powerful new authority with its increased powers which we are at present creating. The whole field of human fertilisation and embroyology is fast-moving. Reports at two-yearly intervals could be far from up-to-date. Moreover, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said in our Second Reading debate that the new authority's decision will be of deep interest to other countries; all the more reason that its reports should be as contemporary and informative as possible.
Above all, I believe that when one is operating in a field as complex, fast moving and controversial as this one, as much openness as possible is highly desirable. I believe that the discipline of annual reports —to government, to Parliament (I emphasise that) and for the benefit of the general public both at home and abroad —is not a bad thing in itself. I observe that there was fairly wide support for that view in this Chamber at Second Reading, and it came not only from those who favour research. Among those who held that opinion at Second Reading and voiced it was my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk.
I was also encouraged then by the response of my noble friend Lady Hooper. Therefore I hope that she will find this simple little amendment acceptable. I beg to move.
1130 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The arguments of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe are very convincing. Indeed he and other members of this Chamber raised the point about annual reports in the course of the Second Reading debate.
The purpose in drafting Clause 7(1)(b), to provide for reports every two years after the first year of the authority's existence, as I explained at Second Reading, was to avoid imposing too heavy an administrative burden on the authority. Nevertheless, after considering the arguments then advanced, we came to the conclusion that the preparation of an annual report would be a useful discipline for the new authority and indeed would provide valuable data. Therefore the Government are happy to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [General functions of the Authority]:
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Harvington Lord Harvington had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 2, after ("about") insert ("the creation of embryos and the keeping or use of").
The noble Lord said: Owing to the lateness of the hour and the fact that the noble Duke's amendment has not been moved this evening, I think that probably the Committee will be glad to know that I do not propose to do anything about the remaining amendments which stand in my name and appear in the Marshalled List before Clause 11. That, I think, leaves the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, by himself.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Licence committees and other committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert —

(b) at least one person who is authorised to carry on or participate in any activity under the authority of a licence; and

(c) persons numbering more than half but not more than two-thirds who neither are or have been medical practitioners (as defined in Schedule 1 (4)(3)(a)); nor are or have been, concerned with keeping or using gametes or embryos outside the body.").

The noble Lord said: I am happy to say that the Lord Henderson is not alone! He has with him the noble Lords, Lord McGregor of Durris and Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I can
826
explain this amendment very briefly. It concerns licence committees.
It has been widely thought that it would give public confidence if the licence committee, as opposed to the authority itself, had on it a majority of lay members. I very much agree with that. I also agreed, though I did not say so at the time, with the noble Duke's amendment, Amendment No. 38. I was very glad that that amendment had a receptive acknowledgment from the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. I hope to receive the same kind of receptivity from her with this amendment.
In my amendment paragraph (c) provides for:
"persons numbering more than half but not more than two-thirds who neither are or have been medical practitioners …nor are or have been, concerned with keeping or using gametes or embryos outside the body".
I hope that that point would have the support of everyone in the Chamber. But I think that paragraph (b) would give some comfort to the medical fraternity in providing:
"at least one person who is authorised to carry on or participate in any activity under the authority of a licence".
There should be someone of that standing on the licence committee. The amendment that I propose is very simple. It provides those two additions to the composition of a licence committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The amendments seeks to define more precisely the balance of membership of licence committees to be set up by the authority. As Clause 9(5) is at present drafted it specifies that at least one member shall be "lay" in the sense of not being someone authorised to participate in an activity to be licenced under the Bill. The amendment would require a majority of non-medical or scientific members or those authorised to carry out licensed activities.
While I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, which in many ways reflects the policy behind Schedule 1 to the Bill, which provides that the chairman and deputy chairman and a majority of the other members must neither be doctors nor embryologists, in practice in the context of licence committees, it could be too restrictive. The Committee will no doubt keep in mind that there are likely to be a number of licence committees operating at the same time and that the authority may need to set up licence committees quickly to deal with emergencies which may lead the committee to suspend or revoke a licence. Without some measure of flexibility it could in practice be difficult to convene a licence committee at short notice. Clause 9(5) provides that the membership of licence committees should be specified in or determined by regulations and the Government will keep very much in mind the points made in proposing the amendment when they come to prepare those regulations.
We are considering also the earlier amendment, No. 38, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has reminded us. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If the noble Baroness is saying that she will very kindly consider not only Amendment No. 38 but also Amendment No. 49, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before midnight.

  PIPER ALPHA PLATFORM
  PIPER ALPHA PLATFORM
  HM SHIPS: RELIGIOUS SERVICES
  HM SHIPS: RELIGIOUS SERVICES
  RAF MOLESWORTH
  RAF MOLESWORTH
  RAF GREENHAM COMMON
  RAF GREENHAM COMMON
  SALMON DEALER LICENSING
  SALMON DEALER LICENSING
  TRADE WITH EASTERN EUROPE
  TRADE WITH EASTERN EUROPE
  FRAUD SQUAD: MANPOWER DATA
  FRAUD SQUAD: MANPOWER DATA
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD: REPORT
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD: REPORT