Sitting of 8 February 1990

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

  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET ) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  To be considered on Monday 19 February at Seven o'clock.

  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 15 February.

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as atnended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 15 February.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Monday 19 February at Seven o'clock.
  Mr. Speaker: As the 16 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  EXMOUTH Doacs BILL (By Order)
  HYFHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
  PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
  SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  VENTNOR HARBOUR BILL (By Order)
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
  MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
  HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 February.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 15 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Farm Animals (Welfare)
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policies he is considering further to improve farm animal welfare practices.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): Yesterday I announced a major initiative, which aims to achieve significant improvements in the welfare of all farm animals in Europe. The important features are to set proper standards for animals in transit and for export, to achieve high standards on farms and at slaughter and to ensure that Community welfare legislation is rigorously enforced.
    Mr. Janman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative. He knows that I have written to him on several occasions about animal welfare. Will he confirm that unless action is taken on a Communitywide basis, we could well be in danger of importing substantial amounts of food from other countries in the Community where the increasingly high standards that we are adopting in the United Kingdom are not being adopted?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. If we do not get Europeanwide standards at least to the level that now applies in Britain, our farmers meeting those higher standards will be undercut by other countries producing foods at standards that we would not tolerate here.
    Mr. Duffy: In introducing his charter last night, the Minister accepted that he had a moral duty to ensure that the highest standards of animal welfare are met. How does he square that with his continued tolerance of ritual slaughter?
    Mr. Gummer: I intend to make a statement about ritual slaughter in the not too-distant-future. The hon. Gentleman's religious position is well known. In a civilised society we have to bring together two imperatives: first, the proper care of animals and secondly, the proper rights of individuals with strong religious views to carry out those views.
    Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind the EC directive on battery hens, in which arguably, standards are set too low, will my right hon. Friend ensure that EC harmonisation on animal welfare does not take place at the lowest common denominator?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The current level of 450 is unacceptable. We fought for a higher level in the original negotiations and discussions in which I took part a couple of years ago. We are now insisting that the Commission brings forward recommendations to raise the level significantly.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that over the past few years there has been no trade in or export from Britain of live horses for slaughter—a practice which British people find particularly abhorrent? In view of that, why in his announcement yesterday did he throw in the
    994
    towel to the EEC and accept the introduction of that unpalatable trade? Why has not the right hon. Gentleman sought a derogation to stop the trade in live horses for slaughter, on the ground that our horses suffer extra distress due to a sea crossing?
    Mr. Gummer: I did not throw in the towel and I would not have dreamt of doing so. I said clearly that we shall fight in the Community to retain the present arrangments to stop the export of horses or for an alternative that meets the same requirements. The hon. Gentleman should read the statements that I make rather than make them up for himself.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the contribution agriculture can make to the efficient use and generation of energy.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): My Department gives grants under the farm and conservation grant scheme to encourage the use of renewable sources of energy, to cut energy loss or to recover energy that would otherwise go to waste.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but will the Ministry do more to encourage the use of farm waste products to generate energy? I noticed in the press that a farm near Eye in Suffolk generates electricity from the methane that chicken manure creates. The slogan for farmers in the 1990s should be not, "Power to the people" but, "Power from the pullets".
    Mr. Curry: The Ministry assists the purchase of equipment for waste recovery. The recovery of methane from waste has generally not proved economic, but should it prove so we should certainly wish to accelerate that process.
    Mr. Key: Now that my hon. Friend has reached the difficult but balanced view that it is necessary to ban straw burning, will he take all possible steps to ensure that farmers are encouraged to use surplus straw in an energy-efficient manner and, furthermore, that the necessary technology is available to them at an economic price?
    Mr. Curry: We offer assistance for equipment to treat straw to make it more digestible and more usable as an energy source. My hon. Friend will be aware of a large-scale project that uses straw, which would be extremely helpful.

    Egg Imports
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incidence of salmonella contamination in imported eggs.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Eight consignments of imported eggs have been found to be contaminated with invasive salmonella since April 1989, and on each occasion we have asked the member state concerned to take remedial action. In addition, my right hon. Friend pressed the European Community at the

    995
    last Agriculture Council speedily to introduce on an EC wide basis measures similar to those adopted by the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Moonie: That sounded a most impressive answer, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that the welcome increase in standards of egg production in Britain has not been matched by a fall in the number of cases of salmonellosis in humans. Will he therefore consider introducing a regulation similar to the one that the Germans are applying to stop imports of our beef?
    Mr. Maclean: We have no justification under EC law to slap a ban on all imported eggs, just as other countries did not slap a ban on our eggs when the salmonella crisis was at its height.
    Mr. Alexander: I accept all that, but if a farm in this country shows the slightest trace of salmonella, is not it the case that its entire flock must he destroyed, yet testing at the ports of entry is minimal and by the time we have decided that there is salmonella in eggs, they have already been distributed?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend points to the absolute necessity of an EC wide regime. That is why we have accepted the advice of the Select Committee on Agriculture and redoubled our efforts in Europe to achieve a system of salmonella testing across the EC.
    Mr. Morley: The Minister well knows that the Germans have used article 36 of the treaty of Rome to stop British beef entering Germany. Why cannot he use the same article to hold imported eggs until they have been proved to be safe? Our producers are suffering from the rightly strict safeguards and assessments while imported eggs are being let off scot-free.
    Mr. Maclean: The one little point that the hon. Gentleman did not mention was that the Germans used the treaty illegally, contrary to the advice of the standing scientific committee and contrary to the view of the European Commission. It is not appropriate for Britain to try to use EC rules illegally to place a totally unjustified ban on eggs.
    Mr. Lord: Nevertheless, when all the explanations are given, does my hon. Friend agree that for too long, we have been playing the game straight? Is it not true that we must either learn to bend the rules in the way that the foreigners are doing, or otherwise—[HON. MEMBERS: Play the game.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Lord: In a nutshell, are not our farmers entitled to feel angry? The bottom line is still that eggs may be imported to compete with our eggs, but our quite acceptable beef is banned from Germany.
    Mr. Maclean: The bottom line is that we should learn from other countries how to market produce. We have all seen the words of the Select Committee that British eggs are safer than imported eggs. We all know that, as the Select Committee pointed out, it is perfectly legitimate for every producer in this country to mark on the pack where the eggs have been produced, whether in Britain, Scotland, England, Wales or any county. That is a marketing initiative that our producers can take.

    Hormones
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions there have been in the United Kingdom for illegal hormone use by United Kingdom livestock farmers.
    Mr. Maclean: In 1989, four prosecution cases were taken and two resulted in convictions. This Ministry will prosecute whenever we have sufficient evidence of law breaking.
    Mr. Wardell: When will the Minister listen to the staff of his Ministry and act with his Home Office colleagues to close the gap in United Kingdom law that allows the illegal implanting of hormones to go unpunished because of the requirement that prosecutions have to be brought within six months of the hormones being implanted?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman does a great disservice to those who are enforcing the regulations in this country and to those who are producing beef. He is right to demand that any who break the law should be brought to justice. We have the most rigid surveillance system on the illegal use of hormones of any country in the European Community. We have found such a tiny sample that the hon. Gentleman should direct his attention to other European Community countries, where there are official reports of 10 per cent. hormone abuse, and not to this country.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister tell the House in rather more detail how the use of illegal hormones in cattle is detected, so that we can see whether the number of prosecutions that have been brought match the amount of testing? As it is easy enough to discover the illegal use of hormones among Welsh weightlifters, we should be able to discover it among cattle.
    Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to reply to the gentleman farmer from Newham. Hormones would usually be administered behind the ear and our veterinary officers are more adept at detecting traces on the surface of the animal if it has suffered from illegal hormone use. One can also pick up such use in the meat at slaughterhouses. We carry out about 40,000 random tests of meat products in this country for many residues and contaminants. Those are the technical details of how it is done. I am convinced that our surveillance system is the most comprehensive. If there is hormone abuse, we are catching it, and at present, we are catching a tiny amount. The hon. Gentleman should look to other countries for hormone abuse.

    Farming Diversification
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards farming diversification.
    Mr. Gummer: Two Government-sponsored reports published recently give, for the first time, a clear picture of farm diversification in the United Kingdom. Those reports show that about one third of the farmers who responded have developed some form of farm-diversified business activity. That result gives a clear demonstration of the success of the Government's policy in this area.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister agree—the flooding of the past few days has confirmed the fact—that in an area

    997
    such as the Scottish Highlands, there are practical problems in diversification because, in much of the agricultural activity, there is simply no alternative? Will he bear in mind, as he pursues the diversification policy, the problems of diversifying in an area such as the Scottish Highlands? Will he also bear in mind the worry that diversification into other sectors elsewhere in Britain, especially the sheep sector, may have a resultant knock-on effect on prices and on the economic basis of agriculture in the north? Will he, therefore, be sympathetic and sensitive to those problems in the years to come?
    Mr. Gummer: That is why I agreed to announce a week or so ago an increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowance payments to the highland areas. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it was a disgrace that a Labour Front-Bench spokesman referred to that statement as "footling", as if the hill areas do not matter. We now know what Labour thinks about the hill areas.
    Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his affirmative nod to me in the debate on Tuesday when I said that although farm diversification was welcome and that he was to be commended for it, it could make only a marginal contribution to farm incomes? Will he warn farmers that this place would simply not be big enough if all of them followed me by diversifying into Parliament?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has diversified extremely effectively. Many farmers find alternative ways of using their capital and land. Clearly, the main business of farming is and will continue to be the production of food. Every farmer who diversifies helps to take the pressure off farmers who are unable so to do.
    Mr. Hardy: Which adjective would the Minister prefer to footling—mischievous, irresponsible or misleading?
    Mr. Gummer: Now it appears that the Opposition think that the hill farmers of Britain are mischievous, irresponsible and misleading, as well as footling.

    Animal Health
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to compensate farmers at 100 per cent. of the market value for beasts which he requires to be slaughtered on animal health grounds.
    Mr. Maclean: Different levels of compensation are payable according to the disease control measure concerned. In some cases, an owner may receive more than the value of the slaughtered animal. I keep all aspects of my compensation policy under constant review.
    Mr. Speller: Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when farm incomes are falling and the green pound is grossly overvalued in Britain, we should at least compensate farmers, if only to avoid the remote possibility of people seeking to evade the law, thus spreading the disease problems that we already have?
    Mr. Maclean: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have great sympathy for farmers whose cows suffer from bovine spongiform encephalopathy, particularly farmers who have more than one animal affected by it. The mechanism for preventing BSE from getting into the food chain is not
    998
    compensation, which is intended to help farmers suffering financial loss. We protect the food chain by the host of other measures that we take, particularly the offals ban.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister extend the compensation scheme to sheep suffering from scrapie? Under the present system a sheep suffering from scrapie is slaughtered, its head is cut off and condemned and the rest of the carcase goes to the butcher. Is it not a fact that BSE has been caused by the scrapie virus?
    Mr. Maclean: No, Sir. Scrapie has been well known and recorded for the past 250 years. It is present in many other countries. There has been no risk to human health whatever. I keep all aspects of my compensation policy under review, but this is not a matter which I am currently considering.
    Mr. Neale: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no evidence that the National Farmers Union has encouraged its members, or the Minister, to avoid public health requirements? Does he accept that in the lead contamination incident, which affects part of the west country, innocent farmers may suffer financial hardship as a result of the blanket application of such precautions? Will he make sure that in future he supplies sufficient resources for such incidents, so that hardship is minimised?
    Mr. Maclean: Of course, we want to minimise hardship to farmers or others who suffer through no fault of their own. The restrictions that my Department put in place in the lead in feed incident in the west country were based on the best scientific advice and were intended to protect the human food chain. Where we had information that feed may have been given to farmers, we applied restrictions. As soon as we had information that human health was not in jeopardy, we removed those restrictions.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Why is the Minister so obstinate in rejecting the demands from hon. Members of all parties for 100 per cent. compensation for BSE? As he knows that it is impossible to find a farmer, a vet or a local authority inspector who will deny that BSE-infected animals are entering the food chain, will he now reconsider his decision? If he introduces 100 per cent. compensation, at least he can start to deal with the problem of clinically infected animals. If he is then prepared to accept the recommendation of the Tyrrell committee to introduce random sampling of all bovine brains, at least the public will have some idea of the extent of the epidemic, or does he simply not want the public to know?
    Mr. Maclean: That last remark is outrageous. The hon. Gentleman is right to advance an argument for farmers receiving more compensation because they have suffered financial loss, but that argument is totally separate from protecting the human food chain. It is not right to suggest that BSE-infected animals are getting into the food chain, because we have taken all preventive measures. The recent record of the British Veterinary Association states:
    "But, there was no evidence that the current compensation level was encouraging farmers to shed off animals for slaughter and inclusion in the food chain."
    I keep my compensation policy under review and I am concerned about financial loss for farmers. However, our compensation policy has nothing to do with protecting the human food chain. We have other measures to do that.
    Mr. Hague: I accept many of my hon. Friend's arguments, but does he at least accept the principle that no farmer should be worse off because of reporting a suspected instance of BSE? Is he confident that 50 per cent. compensation is sufficient to ensure that and will he consider whether a higher percentage many be necessary?
    Mr. Maclean: Of couse, I reaffirm that I keep my compensation policy under review. There is nothing to deter a farmer from reporting a suspected case because, as everyone should know, if we destroy an animal and later discover from veterinary analysis that it does not have BSE, we pay 100 per cent. compensation in any case.

    Loan Interest
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the burden of loan interest which is being carried by the agricultural industry.
    Mr. Curry: We do understand the problems of farmers facing difficulties, but I must point out that the total income from farming increased by 11 per cent. last year, after the effect of interest payments had been take into account. The fight against inflation must remain the major priority for the Government and is very much in the interests of farmers.
    Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has conveniently avoided explaining exactly how much the industry is paying in interest rates at the moment. However, I am grateful to him for confirming in a written reply earlier this week that the industry is paying out as much in interest rates as he is paying into it for market regulation and price guarantees in the current year. Will he acknowledge that the £1,000 million cost of interest to farmers this year is more than five times what it was when the Labour Government left office? How can the industry adjust to its changing priorities and invest for the future after 1992 if the Government continue to maintain the highest interest rates in Europe?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman was highly implausible on the subject of interest rates when he spoke in the debate two days ago and he has got worse since. No farmer listening to those remarks is likely to conclude that a Labour Government would be of any benefit to him. Indeed, once farmers have listened to the remarks that the Leader of the Opposition is likely to make to the National Farmers Union next week, I am sure that they will conclude that they are entirely right to vote Conservative and that they will continue to do so.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend recognise that high interest rates are only one of the burdens that farmers face at present, the others being the overvaluation of the green pound and falling real output prices? Does he further recognise that the improvement in farming incomes to which he alluded was largely the result of good weather last year in both the drilling and the harvesting periods and that, in the nature of things, one cannot count on the weather for ever? When he is next contemplating moves, whether in an environmental context or in relation to straw burning, that would place additional burdens on the farming industry, will he consider very carefully this complex of burdens that the farming industry faces?
    Mr. Curry: It is a fact that high interest rates create problems for all people in the business community. In that regard, farmers are no different from other business people. We are certainly at pains to minimise unnecessary burdens on farmers. That is why we are going to Brussels determined to achieve a green pound devaluation that will represent a substantial boost to the prices received by farmers in this country.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister recognise that high interest rates force people in rural communities to find other means of earning a living and that in many rural areas, particularly in Scotland, a traditional way of ekeing out a living is by catching wild fish, including salmon? Does the Minister realise that many people in Scotland have never accepted, and will never accept, the ludicrous proposition that wild fish that swim the Atlantic become private property the moment they enter a river system? In that spirit, will the Minister accept my congratulations on the Government's humiliating climbdown this week when they finally abandoned the salmon dealing licensing scheme and the absurd idea—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this relate to loan interest?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir.
    Does the Minister accept that having wasted the time of Parliament for two years and the time of civil servants for four years in their attempts, at the bidding of landlord interests, to create this scheme, they have finally admitted defeat and abandoned it?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to congratulate the Government on taking an extremely sensible decision not to erect a vast bureaucratic apparatus which would not work. That is a matter for congratulation, and I accept the hon. Gentleman's congratulations with pleasure.
    Mr. Speaker: I still think that that has nothing to do with loan interest.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is taking to assist the agricultural needs of eastern European countries.
    Mr. Gummer: My Department is actively involved in building closer links with east European countries. As part of this involvement, I recently met the East German Minister of Agriculture in Berlin, and I hope soon to lead a group of business men on visits to Hungary and Poland.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of assisting eastern European agriculture is the kind of joint venture entered into last October by the British Sugar Corporation and the Polish foreign trade organisation on sugar? Such an arrangement increases the amount of capital going into east Europe's industry, increases its expertise, and increases its vital foreign exchange earnings. What action will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that more British firms invest in that sort of venture?
    Mr. Gummer: Several of the business men who will accompany me to those two countries are already engaged in joint ventures, and I hope that the number of such

    1001
    ventures will be increased. I have also got together a number of farming groups, farming co-operatives and farmers who hope to help those countries to re-equip their farms and run them in the efficient way of the capitalist West, as against the Socialist way that they have had up to now.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Although it is wise to help to improve agriculture in eastern Europe and make it more efficient, will the Minister always bear in mind the danger to agriculture in the European Community and the United Kingdom should the eastern European countries reach a position of having surplus agricultural produce?
    Mr. Gummer: It would be wrong for us to rely on the continuation of inefficient Socialism in eastern Europe to prevent surpluses there. That has been done very satisfactorily for 40 years, but now we hope that, with the coming of freedom, east European countries will begin to feed themselves. We must take measures to protect the interests of our industry, one of which will be for industry to take a real part in the development of those countries. We should not deny them that chance. We certainly do not want the opportunities to be taken only by other countries.
    Mr. Dickens: When my right hon. Friend is next in eastern Europe, will he reflect on the fact that Socialist economies never produce enough food even to feed their own people?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is living proof of this country's ability to produce enough food. He is absolutely right: Socialism always produces shortages because it always prevents the excellent from achieving, and pushes the poorest to make them poorer.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that probably the greatest threat to the fledgling democracies in eastern Europe is a shortage of food on shop shelves? Therefore, will he give a pledge to the House that he will do everything he can at the next Council of Ministers to further the proposal to divert food in the short term to eastern Europe? Remembering that we must help those fledgling democracies to feed themselves, will he press the EC to make money available so that they can have long-term development aid, for production and marketing, to help them achieve that objective?
    Mr. Gummer: I did exactly that at the latest Council and I shall continue to do so. I also intend to visit Romania and Bulgaria, as well as Czechoslovakia, to see what we should be doing directly, because we have a responsibility. All that we do must be against the background of ensuring that our producers are not unfairly disadvantaged by the arrangements introduced by the European Community. I believe that British farmers must be treated in the same way as the other farmers in the Community.

    Conservation
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to stimulate conservation by farmers in upland areas.
    Mr. Curry: The environmentally sensitive areas, farm woodlands and farm and conservation grant schemes provide financial help for conservation projects in the uplands and elsewhere.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to look afresh at our policy for upland areas and to devise new policies that recognise that the hill farmer is very much the engine of conservation in upland areas? Does he agree that a new policy such as the North Yorkshire moors national park farm scheme, which I hope he will launch in the spring, has a great deal to recommend it because it will link much-needed financial support to hill farmers with specific conservation measures in the uplands?
    Mr. Curry: I am looking forward to opening the scheme in the North Yorkshire moors in my hon. Friend's constituency. I entirely endorse his view that economic activities and viable agriculture are the best way to conserve the uplands. I have always believed that bolting on all sorts of gadgets, environmental or otherwise, comes a long way behind a sensible cash flow in the uplands for maintaining conservation.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that farmers find it very difficult to pursue any policy because of high interest rates? Will he give a glimmer of hope to farmers that interest rates will be lowered some time this year?
    Mr Curry: Interest rates are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, we are seeking a green pound devaluation to help farmers. Of course, if interest rates were to come down prematurely and the pound were then to decline, it would reopen the green pound gap. The hon. Gentleman should let me deal with what is in my parish—the green pound rate which we hope to devalue—and I shall refer his question about interest rates to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere will be appalled, although not surprised, by the attitude of the Labour party as shown yesterday by the "footling" comment of the Labour social security spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)? Will my hon. Friend speculate on the ability of hill farmers to undertake conservation if their farm buildings and land were to be brought within the rating system, as proposed by the Labour party and, on occasion, by the Liberal party?
    Mr. Curry: It is clear that farmers in the uplands face much natural handicap from the climate. They can do without the unnatural handicap that a Labour Government would impose upon them.

    Veterinary Product Licensing
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy on the fourth criterion in veterinary product licensing.
    Mr. Gummer: Public and animal health are well protected by our licensing system based on a rigorous scientific scrutiny of safety, quality and efficacy. There is no other criterion of equal value and objectivity, and to suggest otherwise is misleading.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister explain to the House why his Department's policy seems to have changed since his

    1003
    predecessor said in March 1989 at the Hannah research institute that he would consider evidence of the need for bovine somatotropin?
    Mr. Gummer: The question is about the fourth criterion. There is no fourth criterion of equal validity. The suggested criterion is merely the assumptions of various individuals' prejudices. That is not objective.

    Irradiation
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response his Department has made to the women's institutes' representations on irradiation.
    Mr. Maclean: Detailed replies have been sent to all the women's institutes that have contacted me. In addition, I and my expert officials, together with a member of one of the independent scientific committees that advise the Government, had a most useful meeting with representatives of the National Federation of Women's Institutes where all their questions were fully discussed.
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend will already have reassured some of the women's institute members who supported the conference resolution about irradiated food not long ago. Is not world scientific opinion almost unanimous about the safety of irradiated food? If there is clear labelling, cannot the consumer choose whether to buy it?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All world expert scientific opinion that has examined irradiation, along with the independent expert committee advising the British Government, has determined that irradiated food is absolutely safe. The crucial point is the consumer's right to choose. We have every bit as much right in this country to select irradiated food as French housewives have.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Although there is no test to show whether food has been irradiated, and much concern that irradiated products may be harmful, the Government are thinking of introducing maximum doses 10 times those used in the United States. Why do not the Government listen to public opinion which is overwhelmingly against irradiation?
    Mr. Maclean: We are taking public opinion into account. The hon. Gentleman's comment about doses 10 times greater than those in the United States is absolutely untrue. The doses recommended are perfectly in line with what the EC Commission has recommended. World scientific opinion states that irradiation is safe. Since only 2 per cent. of the public have the right—for which we fought—to buy green top milk, surely the 66 per cent. who might want to buy irradiated food have a similar right.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend will be aware of the genuine fears and concerns of consumers about irradiated food. Does he agree that stringent labelling will, to a large extent, dissipate those fears, enable the consumer to make an informed choice and provide the marketing opportunity for good, fresh food?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that the crucial factor is our right as consumers to select a product based on informed choice. The
    1004
    Government are determined that any irradiated food should be clearly marked with the words "irradiated" or "treated with ionising radiation"—[Interruption.] Since we are determined that the labelling regime will be enforced and workable—[Interruption.]—consumers' fears are groundless.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to agriculture questions and stop private conversations.

    Nitrate-sensitive Areas
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on nitrate-sensitive areas.
    Mr. Gummer: We are well advanced in determining the agricultural restrictions to apply in the areas concerned, and are currently examining their detailed costs. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister believe that there is more than sufficient evidence to show that nitrate pollution damages the environment and humans? Should not the Government introduce regulations to cut massively the use of nitrates in agriculture? That would also help to deal with the problem of surpluses.
    Mr. Gummer: There is no evidence that the amount of nitrates in the water damages anyone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is no evidence whatsoever. It is because we wish to take extremely tough measures that we have introduced those proposals. The hon. Gentleman should not make statements that have no scientific base.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that East Anglia is one of the most nitrate-sensitive areas in the country, yet is the most healthy? It is much healthier than many parts of Europe and almost certainly healthier than Wales. Will he reject all the humbug and hypochondriac statements that are uttered about this subject?
    Mr. Gummer: In the past few days Labour Members have attacked British apples because they say they are poisonous, and now they say that British water is unsafe. I am surprised that they do not emigrate and eat apples and drink water elsewhere.

    Irradiation
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any research evidence on the consumer demand for irradiated food.
    Mr. Maclean: I have seen the results of several surveys on consumer demand for irradiated foods. A recent study by the Consumers Association found that about two thirds of consumers might wish to purchase some irradiated foods in the future. Our consumers must be allowed freedom of choice to buy any food they know is safe and must not be dictated to.
    Mr. Ashley: Notwithstanding the paeons of praise for irradiation from the Minister some moments ago, may I ask him to confirm that there is great public hostility to rather than demand for irradiation? Will he also confirm that irradiation can expose food to doses of radiation up to 100 million times that of a single chest X-ray and that it can be used to hide contamination in otherwise unsaleable food?
    Mr. Maclean: Irradiation cannot be used to disguise unfit food. It is illegal for unfit food to be sold now and it will be illegal in the future. I confirm that 98 per cent. of the public do not want to buy green top milk. We do not dictate to the other 2 per cent. that they cannot have it. They have a right to have it. The same applies to the 8 per cent. who are keen to buy irradiated food and to the 66 per cent. of us who might want to buy it sometimes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the president-elect of Brazil.
    Mr. Maclennan: In expressing for the whole country our great joy at witnessing the unimaginable leap forward in the Soviet Union towards political pluralism and liberal democracy, may I ask the Prime Minister to give some thought to celebration by taking small steps towards reinvigorating our own democracy, although I do not suggest that she should submit herself for popular election as our president? Will she throw her weight behind greater openness and accountability by introducing a Bill of Rights and a Freedom of Information Act, by the decentralisation of government and by a fair voting system?
    The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at the increasing democracy in the Soviet Union and hope that the decisions taken in the past few days will be speedily implemented. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was a Bill of Rights in this country in about the 17th century.
    As for decentralisation, this Government have done more to decentralise power from central Government to the people than any previous Government whether by reducing taxation, denationalising industries, allowing parents more say in schools or giving people more say in the running of their affairs.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the East German state is close to collapse, that mutinies have been reported in its army, that 3,000 people a day—or 1 million people a year—are leaving for the West and that over half its qualified doctors have left? Is not the only way in which that massive tide can be stemmed the unification of the two Germanys as quickly as possible? Will my right hon. Friend see that we do all we can to encourage the West Germans to assume responsibility for East Germany as quickly as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I read the same reports as my hon. Friend about conditions in East Germany after so many years of Socialist Communism and about how it is near a state of collapse. Elections are due in March. They will probably be very decisive and will probably lead to the unification of Germany. It is absolutely vital that there be a transition stage between that decision in principle and sorting out the full implications for NATO, for the
    1006
    Helsinki accords and for Berlin so that the unification of Germany does not come about at the expense of security and stability in central Europe.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that while she remains in office child benefit will be universally available to all families with children?
    The Prime Minister: I stand by our commitment in the manifesto which I have repeated many times. This Government stand by their commitment about child benefit in the manifesto.
    Mr. Hattersley: As the promise in the manifesto has been broken for the past five years, nobody must expect anything from that answer other than the preparation for abandoning universal child benefit. Is the Prime Minister aware that many low-income families are always penalised by means-tested benefits? Does she realise that many of the family benefits that are now means tested are taken up by only 50 per cent. of those who need and deserve them? Is she aware of those facts and, if so, does she care?
    The Prime Minister: This Government have put more into helping poorer families than have previous Governments. During the past two years, the extra help has been deliberately concentrated on poorer families. Had those on income support or family credit merely had an increase in child benefit, it would not have profited them because it would have come off income support or family credit. By concentrating on increased family credit and increased help for those poorer families, we have done far better by them than have other Governments.
    Mr. Hattersley: As the Prime Minister runs away from answering the question about the take-up of family credit, let me invite her to answer a question not from me but from one of her Back-Bench Members that was put to her last night. How does she reconcile a policy that gives tax concessions for free medical care but holds down child benefit? What does the Prime Minister have to say to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) who said that year by year the manifesto promises of his and her party look increasingly threadbare?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The manifesto stated:
    "Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother."
    That has been upheld, as I said in my answer to the previous question. This year and next year we shall be making available an extra £70 million to the neediest families through income-related benefit. That will especially help the poorest families. Fortunately, because of our tax policies we have had far more to spend on social security than any previous Government. The figure is more than £50 billion a year—more than £1 billion a weelk. We win all ends up.
    Sir Peter Emery: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that budgeted increases in spending of 10, 12 or 15 per cent. for next year, if carried through by local authorities, are bound to be inflationary and are entirely contrary to Government policy?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. They would be inflationary and would lead to enormous increases in rates and to a community charge higher than

    1007
    it need be. The Government have given extra support to local authorities this year of 8·5 per cent. above the similar rate support grant and the business rate last year. That is sufficient for local authorities to plan well and economically.
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The Prime Minister has just welcomed and praised President Gorbachev's extraordinary achievements, but does she agree that those could be swept away by the grim and accelerating deterioration in the Soviet economy? The logic that led us to help Poland and Hungary must make the West face up to the necessity of giving aid to the Soviet Union. Will she discuss that with her EC colleagues, President Bush and President Gorbachev?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the increasing freedom of speech, discussion and movement will be swept away, but I agree that economic improvement is critical and that is much more difficult than securing political improvement, because it requires the full co-operation of people who have never had experience of running free enterprise or of taking responsibility for themselves. Any help that we could give would be only marginal. We are helping with some joint ventures, but the bureaucratic system there creates some difficulties. We are also helping by having people here for management training and by doing everything that we can in that respect. Commercial banks also have a line of credit which is not fully taken up.
    Mr. John Browne: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 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 of all the ideas for raising local government finance, the Socialist idea of a roof tax is the most unfair, uneconomic and unworkable? It will involve constant revaluation, the erosion of local democracy and the eviction of many elderly and council tenants—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear whether the hon. Gentleman's question is in order or not. He must relate his question to the Government's responsibilities.
    Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will not react positively to that proposal, and will she remember that just as the window tax forced people to live in the dark, the roof tax is likely to force them to live in sentry boxes?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not introduce a roof tax, which is based on the capital valuation of houses regardless of whether they are owned or whether a tenant lives in them. It would be grossly unfair to tenants, and in particular to pensioners. Therefore, we shall never introduce it. Moreover, as a Thatcher I object to a roof tax.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister accept that her replies on child benefit this afternoon will come as a great disappointment to 7 million families and 12 million children in Britain? Does she accept that, far from helping the poor, this year the Government's policies have saved £250 million at the expense of £70 million? Since for the past three years the Government have failed to uprate child benefit, will the Prime Minister uprate child benefit in April, taking those lost years into account, or does she intend simply to save up more money for an even more generous Budget for the rich?
    The Prime Minister: As today's family expenditure survey shows, people at all income levels throughout the United Kingdom have benefited from a higher standard of living gained by Britain's increased output under a Conservative Government. The social services have benefited, too. The poorest families would not benefit from an increase in child benefit because it would come off their income support and family credit. We have chosen the best way to help the poorer families and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would prefer that, instead of which he seems to prefer child benefit going to the richest families.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: At my right hon. Friend's meeting with representatives of the New Zealand Government on Tuesday, did she take the opportunity to congratulate them on the lead that they have given to the West in abolishing agricultural subsidy? Does she believe that that excellent Conservative principle has brought benefits to the taxpayer and the consumer? Did she give the New Zealand Government the assurance that British housewives will still be able to buy New Zealand butter if they wish to do so?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I did not exactly put that point to the representatives of the New Zealand Government, but they were very grateful for the stand that we have taken in supporting them in negotiations with the European Community. Subsidies on agricultural produce will have to be negotiated in the GATT, through the European Community and with other countries that pay heavy subsidies, such as the United States and Japan.
    Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lamond: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity of looking at the front page of the CBI News for this month, where she will see a graph of investment intentions for next year which is plummeting even faster than the Tories' support in Mid-Staffordshire? Will she read the article inside by the director-general, who asks the Government to do certain things, including reducing interest rates, improving infrastructure and training and avoiding any more inflationary Government own goals? Is there any possibility of his being satisfied by the Budget?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen that article, but I may point out to the hon. Gentleman, that for the past

    1009
    three years investment has been very high—a record in all industries and a record in manufacturing industry. That is very good. We do not take lectures from the Opposition on training. It was the trade unions who opposed the youth training scheme and the employment training scheme, both of which we have successfully brought in.
    My advice to the CBI would be to keep their industries competitive, their designs good and their marketing sharp.
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy adopted by successive British Governments over a
    1010
    considerable period of ensuring that we have a strong nuclear deterrent have had an influence on what is taking place in eastern Europe? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that, although everyone believes in peace, to ensure peace we need a strong defence in the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. A sure and strong defence, with an essential nuclear deterrent and American nuclear weapons in Europe, has made the Soviet Union realise that it could never win militarily, so it has turned round to negotiate. Had people bowed down before the Soviet Union and not kept up a strong defence, we should not have had the excellent results that we are now seeing in that country.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill.
TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Debate on a motion to take note of the Government's expenditure plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 (Cm 1001–1021).
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (7th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Rail Fares and Services".
THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
FRIDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (8th Allotted Day, 1st part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party on the ambulance dispute.
Motion on the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Dr. Cunningham: Given the gathering momentum of change in the Soviet Union and in other eastern European countries, will the Leader of the House find Government time for a foreign affairs debate on these changes, which are tremendously important for all of us and which are taking place with increasing speed?
Is not the House entitled to an oral statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the report of Her Majesty's inspector of schools published a few days ago? Does not this report illustrate a quite disgraceful and totally unsatisfactory state of affairs in far too many of our schools? Would it not be appropriate for hon. Members in all parts of the House, since we are talking about the state education system, which affects more than 90 per cent. of our children, to have a chance to question his right hon. Friend on what the Government intend to do about this appalling state of affairs?
Has the Leader of the House seen the reports today forecasting increases in water bills of up to 70 per cent. for one in four people in this country? Does he recall that last year many consumers faced increases in their bills for water charges of up to 50 per cent? Does this not confirm everything that we in the Labour party said about the implications for bills of water privatisation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that next week we have a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment explaining to us and our constituents why Government policy has led to these enormous increases, which have effectively doubled people's water costs in less than two years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the whole House will agree about the momentous quality of the changes taking place, not least
1012
in the Soviet Union itself, and join in welcoming what has been happening. I certainly agree that this makes the topic of foreign affairs a legitimate one for me to try to find time to debate as soon as I reasonably can.
With regard to education, the important thing to notice is that the report of Her Majesty's inspector of schools, which is now made available in a fashion which owes a great deal to the Government's initiative, says that the overall picture is of a service in which most of what is done is of reasonable quality or better and that that is a sound basis for improvement and should be recognised as such. The Government's reforms are already bringing about the improvements necessary to raise education standards.
With regard to water charges, once again the Opposition seek to have their cake and eat it. They are very ready to complain about shortcomings in the quality and availability of water services. The charges are necessary to finance the substantial investment programme that will follow privatisation in order to meet the problems of raising water quality, renewing water mains and overcoming water shortage.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted early-day motion 412 standing in the names of 142 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House condemns the unprecedented taking of backbenchers' rare prime debating time by a Front Bench member, namely the presentation of a Ten Minute Rule Bill by the honourable Member for Livingston, Opposition Front Bench Spokesman for Health, thereby usurping a backbencher's customary prerogative; and notes that this was done on an Opposition day, when this subject could have been selected for debate at length by the Opposition.]
Does he appreciate that an Opposition Back Bencher handed over his ten-minute Bill slot to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to propose a Bill from the Opposition Front Bench? Does he realise that this muscling in on Back Benchers' customary prerogatives is unprecedented in over 20 years?
Hon. Members: Reading.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for a debate.
Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer this disgraceful business to the Committee on Procedure?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Opposition must be left to sort out their own problems. It is entirely a matter for them to decide whether they should muscle in upon each other in this way. Government Members can only look on with amazement and astonishment.
Sir David Steel: What are the chances of a debate on early-day motion 448, calling for a wider inquiry into misuse of information by Crown servants?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to set up the fullest possible inquiry into allegations made by Right honourable and honourable Members of this House concerning the misuse of information by Crown servants apparently operating outside the rule of law; believes that the appropriate precedent for such an inquiry is the 1983 Review by a Committee of Privy Councillors into the circumstances leading up to the Falklands War; notes that such a committee in accordance with the Franks precedent

1013
would have full access to persons and papers in the security services, the armed forces, and all Government departments; and urges the Government to replace the narrow Calcutt inquiry by this much wider and deeper review.]
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Defence has told the press that the inquiry by the Select Committee on Defence will be limited in scope? Is he also aware that, moreover, Mr. Colin Wallace has questioned the accuracy of some of the statements made by the Secretary of State for Defence to the House only last week? Will he therefore realise the urgency of this matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is a field in which debates and inquiries seem to have proliferated to a large extent already. An Adjournment debate on the subject was initiated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on 6 February and it has been announced by the Secretary of State for Defence that two inquiries are already taking place and the Defence Committee has indicated its intention of making inquiries. We shall have to wait and see the terms of reference of that inquiry.
Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point): Bearing in mind the growing concern in this country and overseas about what is happening to the global environment, and in particular to the rain forests, highlighted by the remarkable address given by the Prince of Wales at Kew gardens to an audience which included hon. Members from both sides of the House, is it possible to have an early debate on that vastly important matter? It affects us all and it will affect our children and our children's children.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend knows, that subject has concerned the House and the Government for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment took some important messages in respect of it during his visit to Brazil during the summer. We have also had the opportunity to discuss the issue during the visit to this country, yesterday and today of the President-elect of Brazil.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the proposal to establish a new forest in the midlands, to be situated in Leicestershire, which is the second bottom county in the country for its number of trees? If it is established in north-west Leicestershire, it will serve all our constituents in the county. May we please have a debate on this subject as soon as possible?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has demonstrated characteristic ingenuity in drawing attention to this problem in the context of his constituency. I cannot promise to take the matter further at this stage.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the constitutional position of taxes raised in Scotland that differ from the taxes to be levied in England and Wales? In so doing, will he consider carefully the proposals for the roof tax, the effect that it will have on the unified business rates proposals, and the proposal for having regular revaluations done by computer, and all that that will mean for the people of Scotland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that my hon. Friend has already done a service by drawing attention to the
1014
horrendous implications for Scotland of the roof tax proposed by the Opposition. Voters in the rest of the United Kingdom will view with anxiety the implications of that proposal.
Mr. Max Madden: As the threat of war in Kashmir will not wait for a foreign affairs debate, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week outlining what initiatives the British Government may be able to take to bring the Governments of India and Pakistan together to try to resolve the dispute, which has caused great conflict between those two countries for more than 20 years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman refers to a matter which is a cause of continuing anxiety to friends of India and Pakistan. I know that the Government, at every level, have always sought to do everything they can to promote peace rather than conflict in that area, and I am sure they will continue to do so. I cannot promise an early statement.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Would my right hon. and learned Friend allow an early debate on the criteria for setting the community charge by local authorities, bearing in mind the spiteful approach of Labour authorities, such as Southwark and Ealing, which intend to set the charge disgracefully and unacceptably high? In Ealing, the figure that the authority is proposing to set would mean a 300 per cent. increase in rates in four years. Is that not a disgrace?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The shape of the community charge has been frequently debated in recent weeks in the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the most effective response to the matter about which he complains would be a vigorous response by the electors of Ealing to those complaints.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House provide an early debate in Government time on the plight of low-paid workers—for example, the fish processing workers in my constituency who are paid less than £100 for a 40-hour week and now face a zero wage round—that is, no wage increase in the current year? In such a debate, would it be appropriate, in the interest of equity and justice, to compare their position with that of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is coining £100,000 for a two-day week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman attaches that much importance to either of those topics, it is surprising that his party has not chosen them for debate next week.
Mr. John Marshall: When the Hetherington report was published, the Government said that they would listen to the views of the House. As it is nearly eight weeks since the House overwhelmingly endorsed the views of the Hetherington report, when does my right hon. and learned Friend expect that we shall be able to debate the Second Reading of a Bill on the matter? May we at least be promised a Bill this month?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to the matter, as I have already answered questions from him about it. The position remains the same. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering the form that legislation

1015
might take in the light of the views expressed in both Houses. We must now await the announcement from my right hon. Friend that should be forthcoming shortly.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that there will be a debate a week on Monday on the ambulance workers' pay and take into account the fact that there should be a statement before that debate to pay tribute to those ambulance workers who marched 200 miles from Barnsley to London today, calling at places such as Kegworth, where there was a major accident and ambulance workers played a part in rescuing the victims, and King's Cross? Will he also ask the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) to be in his place during that debate so that he and the other 200 Tory Back Benchers who are making money on the side—up to £200,000 on top of their parliamentary pay—can explain why they can march into the Lobby objecting to more than 6·5 per cent. for the ambulance workers while picking up large sums of money on the side?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that the rules of the House permit any Member on either side of the House to accept employment in addition to that as a Back Bencher, provided that it is registered according to the rules of the House. That has been the position for many years. Everyone is always ready to pay tribute to those members of the ambulance service who are performing their normal duties or who respond to the call of duty. The most important call for them to respond to at present is the call to return to normal working on the terms that have been available to them for months.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: A few moments ago my right hon. and learned Friend sounded almost benign in response to a request for a debate on early-day motion 448, standing in my name and calling for the fullest possible inquiry into the Wallace affair. He seemed to be dismissing it simply on the ground that there were other inquiries in progress. Therefore, will he clarify one important aspect of Government policy on this matter? Will the Government fully co-operate with the Defence Select Committee's inquiry, and will that co-operation include granting immunity from prosecution to those Crown servants and former Crown servants who may be called to give evidence?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In regard to my hon. Friend's initial point, the position was made clear in a debate earlier this week in the brief reply from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. In regard to the response to the Defence Select Committee's inquiry, any requests made by that Committee, once it has settled its terms of reference, will be considered in the ordinary way.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate on the newly published Register of Members' Interests, which does not list the lavish outside moonlighting of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)? As the Leader of the House is concerned about the rules, if we had a debate about the Register of Members' Interests and the way in which Tory Members of Parliament earn huge sums outside but vote against ordinary working people getting decent wage increases, we could expose them for their double standards and we might achieve a change in the rules so that people here worked full-time.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Full or part-time membership of the House has been discussed and debated many times. The form of the register is the consequence of decisions taken by the House, and it takes some time for it to record newly adopted occupations.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Reverting to the first question asked this afternoon by the shadow Leader of the House, on a day when the House has welcomed an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation from the Soviet Union that has been involved in remarkably frank and open exchanges with 90 hon. Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend, will he accept the urging from behind him that we should find time to discuss as soon as possible the important change in the international situation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my hon. Friend in recognising the importance of the IPU delegation from the Soviet Union, the leader of which I had the privilege of meeting. That is one reason for attaching importance to the possibility of an early debate on foreign affairs. I shall do my best to keep it in mind.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Has the Leader of the House seen the petition that was presented to the Prime Minister yesterday by the Save British Science group? It was signed by 1,600 scientists who now work abroad because of the lack of Government commitment to science and because of the lack of money and facilities. As the future of Britain depends on science, and as we are not recruiting but losing scientists, may we debate the matter next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate on that topic, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that our ability to retain scientists and other experts has been enhanced substantially by the steady record of economic growth achieved under this Government in the past decade.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many Conservative Members, and certainly many Opposition Members, do not understand the Government's reluctance to hold a wider inquiry into the allegations made by Mr. Wallace and by right hon. and hon. Members? Many hon. Members would like to see those fundamental allegations, which strike at our liberal democracy, exorcised, and we look to the Government to facilitate that. We suggest That a Franks-type inquiry, as used in connection with the Falklands war, would be the best way of exorcising those grave allegations.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's continuing interest in that matter and in the wider context. The fact remains that there have been, and there are now in progress, a series of inquiries into virtually every aspect of this matter.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: May I underline the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and by the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) for an early debate in Government time on eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and what is happening there? Some hon. Members have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting the Soviet delegation, who have been open and frank. I do not

1017
necessarily agree with everything that it said, but we need a debate at the earliest possible moment to discuss eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the future of Europe.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already intimated my sympathy with that proposition. It was a proposition with which I had sympathy in my previous job; my change of job and, more important, the change of circumstances in the Soviet Union add force to the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that last Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) introduced the Interest on Debts Bill, which was talked out? As its purpose was to help small businesses with the late payment of debts, and given the Government's commitment to small businesses, will he say whether the Government have any plans to help small businesses, which are very concerned about the present position?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: A range of Government policies are designed to help small businesses, but I cannot make any specific commitment in relation to that Bill. My hon. Friend will know that there is room for more than one view, even from the small business lobby, about the merits of that Bill.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary whether he has received a report on the recent disturbances in Toxteth? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend whether he will pay a visit to the area, where there have been three disturbances in fewer than eight years'?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in a position to answer for my right hon. and learned Friend, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's points to his attention.
Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the somewhat surprising decision by the Government to allow women to serve in warships and to take part in combat? Does he agree that the idea of women fighting is distasteful and abhorrent?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The topic was vouchsafed to the House only a few days ago, at the beginning of the week. My hon. Friend may not have had an opportunity to raise it in that debate, but I am sure that he will find another opportunity in one of the armed services debates which will be arranged in due course.
Mr. Alan Meale: The Leader of the House is aware that there is concern among hon. Members of all parties about religious cults. Is he also aware that there is far more concern following the knowledge, acquired last week, that many of those organisations, such as the Moonies, will be exempt from paying poll tax, whereas pensioners, the unemployed and the severely disabled will have to pay up to 80 per cent.? Will he or his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment make a statement so that the matter can be discussed in the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the same problem created difficulties and anxieties under the rating system. The definition of the frontier has always been difficult. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point on the community charge to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the escalation of IRA violence in the past few days, including not only attempts on the lives of public representatives and of members of the security forces, but the third breach of security at Short Brothers? Does he realise that, if that continues, it will jeopardise the operation at Shorts, and will bring vast unemployment to east Belfast and to the rest of the Province? Is he aware that the IRA has now said that notice will no longer be given of bombs laid at Shorts? That has caused great anxiety among the work force.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been concerned continuously about threats to human life and safety, and about security more generally in Northern Ireland. I shall take account of the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman has described and I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so that he may take account of them in practice and in the regular reports on terrorist violence that he makes to the House.
Mr. David Clelland: Although the House will welcome the news that there is to be a foreign affairs debate on the implications of improving East-West relations, may we also have a debate on the defence implications? Given the inevitability of reductions in arms procurement, we can then begin to plan a proper product conversion programme so that the skills of those who work in the industry will be preserved and so that the livelihoods of those who work in the industry and of their families will also be preserved.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It may or may not be an important point, but it could have been raised in the Royal Navy debate earlier this week and it can also be raised in subsequent debates on the other services in due course.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: May we have a debate on early-day motion 345?
It was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and has been signed by 123 hon. Members. It is headed, "Concern over media freedom in Romania".
[That this House views with concern reports from Romania that democratic opposition parties in that country are being denied access to the nation's television network; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make the strongest possible representations to the new Romanian Government in support of the right of access to the nation's media by the major opposition parties; and recognises the serious possibility of renewed bloodshed and turmoil if this basic right is not recognised.]
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that today I spoke to John Kennedy, who is an expert on Romania? He made to me a number of disturbing points. First, President Iliescu has personally banned the publication of opposition newspapers. Secondly, a number of opposition politicians and parties, including those supporting the restoration of the monarchy, have been prevented from

1019
appearing on television and on other media. Thirdly, the media have been used to call the population to take to the streets to stop anti-Government demonstrations. Surely any aid or assistance given to Romania should be tied to the condition that there should be free media. May we have a debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House, with its continuing interest in the changes in Romania, will share my hon. Friend's concern, which was also expressed in early-day motion 345. Access to the media, whether printed or broadcast, in Romania should be available to all who seek to take part in the democracy which we hope to see emerge. Assistance undertaken by the European Community to countries such as Romania is related closely to the extent to which they are or are not moving effectively in the direction of democracy.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House on why he is allowing Ministry of Defence police to be removed from Bishopton royal ordnance factory and be replaced by a private security force? Does he realise that it is causing tremendous consternation in my constituency that an unarmed private security force will mount guard in a huge area of my constituency? We are worried about the proposals. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot instantly arrange for a statement by my right hon. Friend. However, I can make sure that the matter is drawn to his attention for his consideration.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about the Wallace case are widely shared on these Benches? In our view, the proposal for an investigation by a committee of Privy Councillors appears to be the most appropriate course of action. Will he also consider widening the terms of reference of the inquiry by my eminent constituent David Calcutt? The matter will not go away, and many of us believe that it will not go away until it is cleared up.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told other hon. Members, a wide range of inquiries have taken place or are taking place. They include the inquiry being undertaken by the master of Magdalene college.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does Parliament have to wait for 11 days to debate the ambulance dispute? Is the Leader of the House aware of the great anxiety throughout the north-west of England in all towns and communities, both in rural areas and inner cities, about this long-standing dispute, which should have been resolved by the Government? Could not the Government, even at this late stage, make some move, particularly as the morale of the ambulance workers is extremely high, as witnessed today by those of us who met them outside the House? Why cannot we have an emergency statement next Monday and some flexibility and movement by the Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: For several reasons. First, the Government have already shown a great deal of flexibility in this dispute. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of
1020
Health Service workers have long since accepted terms consistent with those which have been available to the ambulance men for a long time. The best and only answer is for the ambulance men to recognise the growing reality of the need to return to work on those terms. Thirdly, if the hon. Gentleman had wanted to debate the subject, he could have persuaded his own party to do so on its Supply day next week.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that last year the House took a great deal of time to consider a Government proposal, which was broadly welcomed by both Conservative and Opposition Members, to introduce a complaints procedure, a commissioner and a tribunal for the Security Service. Is he aware that the new Security Service tribunal has declined to accept or consider any complaint against the Security Service relating to events prior to 18 December 1989? Is he also aware that that is a mockery of the Act that was passed last year? Will he undertake to bring the matter to the notice of his colleagues and to arrange a debate in the House at the earliest possible moment? Some of us believe that that abuse is a deliberate attempt to prevent the Security Service commissioner and his tribunal from undertaking the duties set out in the Act.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should hesitate to use the words "abuse" or "mockery" about the construction put on an Act of Parliament by those responsible for complying with it. All I can do is to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
Dr. Kim Howells: In the light of severe flooding during the past two weeks in many parts of Britain, and particularly the problems in my constituency of Pontypridd last night when dozens of my constituents were forced to abandon their homes and suffered damage, will the Leader of the House consider setting aside time to discuss measures to clarify who has responsibility to build defences against floods? My efforts to do so have resulted in the National Rivers Authority saying that it is the responsibility of local authorities, usually the highways authorities, whereas highways authorities say that it is the responsibility of the NRA. Will the Government enable us to clarify the position, because my constituents and thousands of others are sick of the damage that they have to endure every time there is heavy rain?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the damage caused in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, because we must await the detailed reports of the consequences of that outbreak of trouble. However, I shall certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's general point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for further examination.
Mr. Roger King: Although. I welcome next Wednesday's Opposition motion on the railways—when some of us could take the opportunity to highlight the £37 million electrification scheme for the Birmingham cross-city line from mid-Staffordshire to Redditch—will my right hon. and learned Friend nevertheless have a quiet talk with the shadow Leader of the House with a view to changing the subject of that debate and perhaps sending out a search party to find the

1021
hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) so that he could present a debate on the English roof tax and some of us may have an idea of what we are up against?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I suspect that the hunt for the dreadful truth about the dreadful roof tax will leave even the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) with no hiding place from the truth.
Ms. Diane Abbott: In response to earlier questions about the Colin Wallace affair, the Leader of the House kindly informed the House that nearly every aspect of the affair was subject to some kind of inquiry. That is certainly true, but does he agree that one aspect of the affair that is not subject to any kind of inquiry is the existence and the scope of any Clockwork Orange? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the question of setting up an appropriate committee of Privy Councillors?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In response to earlier questions, I have said that many aspects of that matter have already been the subject of investigation and a number of investigations are still taking place. I am not in a position to offer any further inquiry beyond those already in prospect.
Mr John Wilkinson: Since it is from this House alone that the authority and legitimacy of Government derives, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it perfectly plain to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that it would not be acceptable for the Secretary of State for Defence to seek to prevent from attending any Crown servant whom the Select Committee on Defence may summon to give evidence on the Wallace affair?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Recognised rules and conventions govern the resolution of such questions and must take account of the potential danger to human life from certain aspects of the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be complying with those rules and conventions.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware of the extensive public support that has been expressed for my Protection of Badger Setts Bill? Do the Government intend to support the Bill when it comes up for Second Reading? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that hon. Members of all parties receive a considerable amount of correspondence and have various representations made to them by their constituents about all areas of animal conservation, and especially about elephants, the ivory stocks in Hong Kong, whales and porpoises? All hon. Members know that to be true. Please may we have a general full-day debate in Government time on animal conservation so that all hon. Members can give vent to the various concerns that they have been expressing?
May I ask the Leader of the House not to continue to encourage me to put in for an Adjournment debate, because I have done that every week for the past 12 weeks and have got nowhere? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could use some influence.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must commiserate with the hon. Gentleman in that respect, because he will see that one of
1022
his hon. Friends has an Adjournment debate next Friday on Government policy on the ivory trade and the threat to the African elephant. In that sense, he will be shooting one of the hon. Gentleman's foxes. The hon. Gentleman continues to raise many such topics conscientiously in the House, and I shall certainly bear in mind his assiduity and the wider merits of the case.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Bearing in mind the continuing turbulent weather conditions, will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for the House to consider some of the public safety issues that have become apparent during the storms? Is he aware of the dangers of improperly loaded commercial vehicles, badly fitted scaffolding and cladding, and loose metal signs, all of which have become potentially lethal missiles in high winds? They should have been made secure, but were not. Should not this matter receive urgent attention?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It certainly should receive urgent attention—probably more urgent and more widespread attention than this House is likely to be able to give it. People who have property, equipment or vehicles to look after should be taking very careful note of it.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: As the Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting next to the Leader of the House, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to us why, when the severe weather conditions were first experienced in England a couple of weeks ago, the Department of the Environment was able to furnish the House with an immediate oral statement—on the Friday—whereas, today, the Scottish Office, so far as we can see, has made no effort to make an oral statement? Indeed, there will be only a written answer to a question from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about his part of the country. May we have from the Scottish Office an early oral statement about the severe conditions being experienced in many parts of the country, not least the Highlands, with specific reference to the fact that the so-called Bellwin formula for recompensing local authorities fails to take account of the distinctive geographical problems that the Scottish Highlands are experiencing?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I was receiving the hon. Gentleman's question through one ear, I was receiving the answer from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland through the other. The heart of that answer is that the criteria that apply in Scotland are exactly the same as those that apply in the rest of the kingdom, and they will be upheld by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received through the normal channels any representations from the Opposition Front Bench concerning early-day motion 447?
[That this House views with horror the statement of Mr. Kuomba Balogun, Chairman of the Bristol West Labour Party, reported in the Bristol Evening Post of 2nd February, as follows: 'We make a public plea to the IRA to consider ways of strongly giving some assistance to the armed wing of the ANC in the same light as Colonel Gaddaffi sought to assist in the liberation of the people of Ireland'; calls on the Leader of the Opposition to condemn this incitement to

1023
violence in South Africa and its implied support for Libyan and IRA terrorism in the United Kingdom; and calls on him to expel Mr. Balogun from the Labour party forthwith.]
It alleges that, in the Bristol Evening Post, the Bristol, West Labour party has been supporting IRA and Libyan terrorism. I should have thought that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen would like to deny that allegation and to repudiate that constituency party.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to this matter will give the Labour party an opportunity to answer the allegation one way or the other.
Mr. Harry Cohen: With fares rising faster than the rate of inflation, and with the threat of continuing cuts in bus services, including services in my constituency of Leyton, may we have a debate on London Regional Transport? It is now a year since the debate on the LRT levy order. The Government seem to be using the disappearance of the levy order as an excuse not to have a debate, even though it is still reflected in the poll tax that Londoners have to pay. During the passage of the London Regional Transport Act, commitments were given by the Government. I was a member of the Committee that considered that Bill, and I can tell the House that the Government, when they took power away from the GLC, said that there would be accountability to this House. May we have a debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself within the rules of order to enable him to deal with those topics in the debate that is to take place next week.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please avoid wasting the time of the House? Will he avoid over-burdening further an already heavy legislative programme by attempting to implement the recommendations of the Hetherington inquiry? Is he aware that opinion against that inquiry and its recommendations has hardened since the matter came before the two Houses of Parliament? I assure him that if he attempts to get it through this House the opposition will be very strong indeed.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House and me of the strength of his own insight into this matter. It is not to be dismissed; it has to be taken seriously. On the other hand, I have to take seriously the fact that a very large majority in this House voted in favour of the motion that dealt with this matter before Christmas. As I have said already, we must await the announcement that will come shortly from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the two private Bills that are currently blocked—the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Bill? They relate to two of the 60 trust ports whose level of operation is restricted by their legal basis. Those two ports are trying to change that,
1024
following the abolition of the dock labour scheme, in order to meet the challenge of 1992. Do the Government have it in mind to bring forward in the near future legislation to enable ports to convert to the private sector so that they can maximise their expansion plans and have a much better ports industry ready for the challenge of 1992?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance of the general request made by my hon. Friend. On the other hand, as Leader of the House, I have no direct responsibility for private business, which falls within the empire of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He will no doubt take account of his responsibility in the matter.
Ms. Joan Walley: May I remind the Leader of the House that barely a week goes by without a complaint being made about the way in which the Palace of Westminster is run? The last time it was necessary for me to rise during business questions, I spoke about masonry falling off the House of Commons. This week I have been down to the cellars. Will the Leader of the House liaise at the earliest opportunity with the Serjeant at Arms? Will he investigate the toxic paint which is being used on some paintwork in the cellars? Will he investigate the fumes which are going into the kitchens and the conditions in which the House of Commons catering and refreshment staff are working? Will he then allow Government time for a debate on the urgent need to remove Crown immunity from the Palace of Westmister?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously I cannot be expected to deal with all those matters with promptitude, but I share the hon. Lady's concern about many aspects of the management of the Palace of Westminster which, as I have said before, owes a great deal to the long history and limited geography of the place. I shall investigate the matter that she has raised this afternoon.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the six motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Opposition Day
[STATE THE ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Scottish Economy
  4.16 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the failure of the Government's economic policy in Scotland which has resulted in relative economic decline, unacceptable levels of unemployment and inadequate industrial investment, has involved a perverse determination to reduce regional incentives, and has neither protected vital areas of Scottish industry and commerce from the effects of high interest rates, nor properly prepared for the testing challenge that will come with the Single European Market in 1992.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Dewar: The debate has been called for by the Labour party to reflect the widespread concern and anxiety about the state and performance of the Scottish economy. I make that point because I understand from almost every member of the Scottish press to whom I have spoken today that they have been enthusiastically briefed by the Scottish Tory Whip to the effect that the Secretary of State is hellbent on a debate about local government finance. I hope that he will think better of that. The vital issues of investment, jobs and the country's economic performance are the subjects of today's debate.
  The Secretary of State ought also to think of the workers who have been involved over the last two or three months in redundancies or threatened redundancies; many of them have been in contact with hon. Members. I am thinking of what has arisen in Philips of Bishopbriggs, Weir pumps, Lowndes Queensway plc, House of Fraser administration offices, Peterhead Engineering and Redpath Dorman Long. In almost every area there has been bad news as high interest rates bite. We owe it to those people and to their communities to take a serious look at our economic performance.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): If the hon. Gentleman believes that the economy is in crisis and that this is a major debate, can he explain why only 10 of the 49 Scottish Labour Members are in the House?
  Mr. Dewar: There are several places where hon. Members may be legitimately, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Of course, he is very strongly supported by two Scottish Conservatives. I have no doubt that that was a good point in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's new smart-Alick role with which he has been entertaining the Scottish public, but I do not think it does much for the seriousness of the debate.
  If, at some future date, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to have a debate about the poll tax, the division, bitterness and injustice that it has brought in its wake, and how to replace it with a sensible and solid scheme, I should be delighted to have one, and would look forward to it and to coming well out of it.
  1026
  Economic forecasting is always a subjective art. There is a traditional flurry of reports on a quarterly basis. In recent months I have had some amusement from seeing, within a few brief weeks, the Fraser of Allander Institute being attacked with vim and vigour by the Minister and then, almost immediately afterwards, being clutched to him as a shield and buckler because another document happened to suit his brief at that time.
  I accept that, because such forecasting is subjective, one can usually find something to give comfort in almost any of the reports. The one on which I wish to concentrate today comes from a good pedigree and a longer perspective. The report was produced by the industry and enterprise development directorate of the Scottish Development Agency in November 1989. It is an authoritative substantial description and analysis of our economic performance. It was not written with any wish to embarrass the Government. It is written with a degree of objectivity which makes it of particular interest to the House.
  The report flatly contradicts many of the Minister's assumptions about the health of the economy about which we have heard so much in recent months. I shall summarise its main message:
  "While aggregate output has increased, the Scottish economy has experienced a prolonged period of relative decline. There is no evidence that this has been reversed during the 1980s. Indeed, it is not fully participating in the UK's economic recovery and its relative position has further deteriorated during the 1980s. For example, over the period 1983–88, UK output rose by 21 per cent. and employment by 8 per cent.; the equivalent figures for Scotland are 15 per cent. and minus 0·1 per cent. UK growth is heavily concentrated in Southern England. As job opportunities have appeared in the South, so net out-migration from Scotland has increased reaching over 20,000 in 1988."
  The report goes on to comment on the disappointing position of Scotland in a number of the league tables on unemployment and productivity with which we are so familiar. It comments on the fact that the average household income is 86 per cent. of the UK average.
  The following amazing sentence, underlined in my copy, states:
  "Scotland remains locked into the process of relative economic decline compared to the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe."
  I shall give another quote, from near the end of the paper, which also summarises its theme:
  "The paper demonstrates the long-term relative decline of the Scottish economy. It has been unable to generate sufficient new output in employment to match the available labour supply. Consequently, Scotland has experienced high net out-migration, population decline and high unemployment. The contribution of indigenously based industry has been particularly disappointing.
  There is no evidence that Scotland has or is about to break out of this process of relative decline."
  That is put in restrained terms that are sober but contain an unmistakable message: we face major difficulties, there are worrying long-term trends and the Government's policy has failed on a series of vital objectives and issues.
  The Opposition believe that there has to be a partnership between Government, industry and the community. The Government cannot stand back, take a hands-off attitude and leave it to the market. To the credit of the Secretary of State, I believe that he is a reluctant convert to that attitude. However, these days he is surrounded by zealots and has succumbed. In the key parts of the report, the case for concern and for the prosecution is substantial.
  Mr. Rifkind: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the substance of the report, which is by an official within the SDA, was reported in, I think, the Glasgow Herald on 12 December last year? It was riot endorsed by the SDA board, precisely because it disagreed with many of its views. Is he aware that the period of economic decline to which he referred started, according to the report, in 1955, not 1979?
  Mr. Dewar: I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that this is a genuine document that represents research done in the Scottish Development Agency. As the Secretary of State knows, the SDA is an organisation which he and his Ministers often laud as an important part of the Government's machinery. Its expertise is something on which they often rely. I am delighted to know that this represents the position of officials in the SDA, at whom I do not sneer. Naturally, it looks at long-term trends. I do not disguise that; indeed, that is one of its virtues. I said that it had wider perspectives, which gives it a certain objectivity and authority, and I hope that the Minister recognises that.
  The investment figures for Scotland are not good enough. I quote from that document again, and I assume that the Secretary of State, who may have disagreements about the interpretation placed on the facts, will not quarrel with the facts themselves:
  "Despite the recovery since the early 1980s, manufacturing output remains below the 1973 peak. Output has risen dramatically in electronics and instrument engineering, but few other sectors have yet surpassed their 1973 production levels. Some, including metal manufacturing and mechanical engineering, have shown little sign of recovery."
  That is a different interpretation of the facts and figures than we normally get from Ministers and it is cause for concern.
  I was told in a written answer on 31 January that gross domestic fixed capital formation was running, in cash terms, in 1985 at £861 million; in 1986 at £788 million; and in 1987 at £738 million. For reasons that are not clear to me, I was told that it was impossible to apply the inflator and produce the figures in constant prices. But even in cash terms, they are alarming enough.
  We have the extraordinary situation that regional preferential assistance to industry in Scotland—I am now dealing in constant, 1988–89, prices—has more than halved since 1978–79, when it was £349 million. In 1988–89 it was £151·2 million. It is sad to note that, according to the public expenditure White Paper, the intention is that that decline should continue.
  My hon. Friends and I do not see the point of asking industry to do more with less. The problems will mount because in Europe we shall have difficulties, with the new arrangements for objective 1 areas—none of which are in Scotland—creaming off about 80 per cent. of the structural funds. That puts a premium on Government effort, and that effort has not been forthcoming. From the way in which regional incentives have been ruthlessly dismantled, the Government's policy amounts to a dereliction of duty.
  The impact of all that, as hon. Members in all parts of the House know—even some who are comparative strangers to Scottish economic debates—results in our having an unemployment rate which remains persistently 50 per cent. above the British average.
  Another index about which Ministers often talk is wages. The rates for full-time male employees on adult rates, taking weekly wages in Scotland as a percentage of
  1028
  those in the south-east of England, reveal a stark picture. In 1984—I take that base year because I am advised by the Library that before then there was a difference in the basis of compilation, so in fairness 1984 is the best starting point—the Scottish wage was 90·2 per cent. of that in the south-east. In 1989 it was 80·4 per cent., a drop of about 10 per cent.
  Compared with Britain as a whole, the Scottish rate was 99·9 per cent. in 1984—almost certainly due to the impact of oil wages, but at least satisfactory in that it was almost at the British average—but by 1989 it had tumbled to 93·2 per cent. Net migration is also a constant source of worry to all who have the interests of the Scottish economy at heart.
  Mr. Robert Hayward: The hon. Gentleman seems to have left the question of investment without referring to inward investment. In particular, he did not refer to a written answer that he received on 1 February from the Department of Trade and Industry which, in a table, showed under inward investment in 1979 in Scotland new and safeguarded jobs totalling 2,757. I presume that he made no reference to the figures given in that answer because they did not fit his case, for by 1988 the figure of new and safeguarded jobs had reached 7,370.
  Mr. Dewar: I am flattered and delighted that the hon. Gentleman reads my parliamentary questions with such interest. If I were not a man of trusting faith, I could almost have imagined that someone had drawn it to his attention. In case that is so, I draw to his attention the excellent debates in the Standing Committee on the Enterprise and New Towns Bill, when we dealt with that issue at some length. Perhaps he would like to read also the report of the National Audit Office, which strongly criticised the presentation of the figures by the Scottish Office. He might then have a more rounded, balanced view of those matters than one can obtain from reading a slip of paper from the Whips' Office.
  I was about to refer to net migration. The Scottish Development Agency report stated:
  "It is widely expected that in Scotland manufacturing employment will continue to decline, private services will grow more slowly than the UK average and that the economy will underperform UK growth rates. Based on past relative performance within a UK annual growth rate of 2–3 per cent., Scotland would not generate sufficient employment to bring any substantial fall in unemployment. Nevertheless"—
  this is the good news, I suppose—
  "unemployment would fall to somewhere near 7·5 per cent."—
  now the bad news—
  "due to continuing out-migration to Southern England."
  It is a mark of concern that the Registrar General's projections—which I admit are raw statistics—for the population of Scotland in the year 2027, which is not far away, is about 500,000 lower than at present. I accept that many things will distort that projection, but there is no doubt that we are in danger of paying a high price for our failure to hold our own population and to attract the type of industry that gives us a base for future prosperity.
  Mr. Rifkind: We are all concerned about migration, but is the hon. Gentleman unaware that in 1988–89, the last financial year, net migration from Scotland was the lowest of any year since 1975? If the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on migration, should not he refer to that fact as well?
  Mr. Dewar: I am perfectly prepared to accept that correction from the Secretary of State for that one year, if he will accept the general picture that I have recorded. We are in a serious position, and the long-term trend is still of the type that I have described.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also draw to the attention of the House the fact that, during the two periods of Labour Government in the 1960s and the 1970s, net migration—not just to the remainder of the United Kingdom but overseas—totalled 150,000.
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister makes an extremely valid point. The problem has been running for a long time. I object to the fact that we are constantly told by Ministers that we have nothing to worry about and that the corner has been turned. There is a complacency that borders on folly about the way that Ministers deal with those matters. We are right to point to the results of Government policy and high interest rates. Yesterday, the National Farmers Union of Scotland was worrying about investment in its industry—a different but nevertheless important industry, but it could be almost any sector of the Scottish economic scene.
  There is also the problem of geography. That is not a fatal impediment to success in these days of high technology, but it must be overcome with Government help for the infrastructure of the country. We hear a great deal of the challenge of 1992. I sometimes think back to the days when we were campaigning—and I was campaigning for the yes vote—in the referendum on the Common Market. We talked about the challenge and the opportunities. However, what has happened is that the United Kingdom is now running a balance of trade deficit with the other members of the EEC of about £14,000 million. Clearly, if we are to put that right after 1992, we shall have to take a tumble to ourselves.
  There has been reference to a report produced by the university of Louvain for the European Commission. It is of particular interest to Scots because one area that it studied was the Strathclyde region. It makes depressing reading. It talks about technological backwardness, of training not in touch with technical developments and of the dangers of areas such as Strathclyde being marginalised. From the report it was obvious that Britain and Spain were at one end of the scale while France, Germany and Belgium were at the other. That is a great worry for people such as myself, and I hope for Ministers also.
  The SDA report spoke of the shake-up that may come and the fact that we have already had an enormous loss of control over industry and commerce in Scotland. It said:
  "The corporate base and therefore growth capacity has been continuously eroded by the external acquisition of Scottish companies. Between 1983 and 1986"—
  part of the time when the Conservative Government were in power—
  "321 Scottish companies were taken over by non-Scottish companies. They tended to include the faster growing and better performing companies. In total these companies accounted for about 7 per cent. of the Scottish GDP."
  On the basis of those statistics, we have a real problem.
  Nothing that we heard from the Minister in Committee leads us to expect that our problems will be solved by the restructuring and emergence of Scottish Enterprise, particularly a Scottish Enterprise working, apparently, a standstill budget.
  1030
  Under-investment in transport is particularly highlighted in the Louvain university report, and there are the problems of the Channel tunnel. There are obvious worries and no guarantees of the kind of investment that will give us the links we need if we are to get into the European markets efficiently and effectively. If we do not, the long-term trends to which I have been referring will be very worrying indeed
  I put it no higher than to say that I sometimes think we are a little complacent about our export record. The SDA report says:
  "The real value of manufacturing exports remains below the 1978 peak, and outwith whisky and office machinery/data processing equipment Scottish industry remains less export orientated than the UK as a whole."
  We tend to sit back on the basis of some rather superficial figures and to think that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
  In particular, will the Minister turn his attention when he replies to the anxiety about the steel industry? That is not just of symbolic importance; it is part of Britain's core manufacturing industry. Our fear is that the Government have not so much abandoned responsibility—that might be unfair—as that they abandoned their ability to influence events when they privatised the industry.
  I do not doubt for a moment that the Secretary of State is concerned—he has good cause for concern—but it is not so clear that he speaks for his colleagues. There was a now well-known and rather notorious exchange during questions to the Department of Trade and Industry the other day when the Secretary of State made it clear that he believed that the only test that should properly be applied is the commercial interests of British Steel. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will take this opportunity of dissociating himself from that narrow view. We cannot have a Government who assume the role of a curious, even if anxious, spectator to what is happening to such an important industry.
  As we know, there are pressure points in the strip mill at Ravenscraig, the plate mill at Dalziel, tubes at Clydesdale and at Imperial. This would be a good opportunity for the Government to give us a progress report. There is a strong case for the industry. The market in steel will recover and we need that capacity.
  My opinion may not be persuasive on that and on a number of other issues, but let me draw the Secretary of State's attention to the autumn report of Cambridge Econometrics which refers to a net output stagnation in the steel industry during 1990, but suggests that output growth will be strong in 1991 as export markets revive. The long-term forecast talks about output growing steadily.
  There is a good deal of evidence that the United Kingdom, and perhaps even Europe, will need the capacity in the Scottish steel industry in the period that lies ahead. It will be a tragedy if the narrow commercial and perhaps short-term interests of British Steel were the only test to be considered in deciding its fate.
  We remain convinced that there is a need for investment, particularly in the mill at Clydesdale. Great efforts have been made to find new markets and it would be a scandal if we were to go out of tubes, and the North sea were to be supplied not only from outside Scotland but from outside the United Kingdom.
  There are many rumours about a French connection. We should like to know whether the Government are monitoring the situation. Are they involved? Are they

  1031
  pressing for investment, not only in the mill but in the more immediate modest package that has been urged by the plant which would give it a competitive edge and boost morale? Has it been made clear to British Steel that regional incentives would be available for such investment?
  The point—I do not want to go into too long a passage when my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is here—also applies at Ravenscraig, where a proposal for automatic roll change gear and other relatively modest but very important and competitive investments is on the table, and the best that we can get out of British Steel is that it may be considered; this has not been said in as positive a tone as we should like. I very much hope that the Secretary of State is pressing hard for that investment and that he will make that clear during the debate.
  We recognise the importance of the guarantee on steelmaking until 1994 at Ravenscraig, but it would be of little comfort if this were a bridging operation for the convenience of British Steel, leading nowhere. At Dalziel, too, there are concerns. We hear reports of the possibility of a one plate mill strategy, that decisions may well be imminent on that, and that it may be a case not so much of "if" as of "where". We are anxious that the Scottish Office should have a positive input into the argument.
  Much manufacturing industry has changed or contracted. We make no bones about it. We accept that it was bound to happen. It is true to say, however, that we in Scotland have borne an unfair share of the burden. Perhaps I can take as a statistical basis for that assertion the view expressed in the Scottish Development Agency report:
  "While Scotland's manufacturing output was still below its 1975 level in 1987, elsewhere in Europe over this period output had risen substantially (e.g., Germany—28 per cent., Italy—31 per cent., France—15 per cent.). With higher output the relative fall in manufacturing employment was much less than in Scotland."
  That, again, is a mark of our failure. We should not just write off that comparative gap as something about which we can do nothing and say that we must just watch and wait. New industries are important. I do not want to talk just about the steel industry and the old, traditional sector. Electronics has a future, but, again, it is a future bedevilled by lack of investment, research and development, product innovation and long-term economic development. Those points are forcefully put in the SDA report; it concludes its discussion of electronics by saying:
  "the indigenous Scottish industry remains small and embryonic".
  The report is damaging because it undermines many of the Government's assumptions and supports the doubts and worries that are expressed, sometimes to derision or almost to the suggestion from Conservative Members that such doubts are unpatriotic or panic-stricken. It reinforces our fear that complacency has got out of hand and that we are not facing up to the problems that lie ahead.
  Scotland has a great deal to offer, but even in the service sector, where there has been growth, it has tended to be slower than in other parts of the country. The SDA report says:
  "It is in consumer orientated services—reflecting Scotland's falling population—that underperformance is most apparent. While Scotland has been losing jobs in distribution during the 1980s, employment has continued to grow rapidly in the UK. Perhaps more surprising is the performance of tourist related employment, which now
  1032
  accounts for some 130,000 jobs. In contrast to a 33 per cent. growth (1983–1987) in Great Britain, Scotland's growth is only some 12 per cent.; the difference has been most obvious during the 1980s when the Scottish industry contributed few additional jobs".
  That cannot be a reason for satisfaction; it must be a cause for worry and for an anxious re-examination of what the Government have been doing.
  I found the report a deeply depressing and worrying document. The Secretary of State for Scotland has tried to pass it off as the work of an official. The SDA is an official body with expertise, playing a very important part in the economic planning of the Government, as we have always understood it. The Secretary of State tries to brush it off by saying that some of it has already been published. If it has, it was presumably not all that unimportant or meant merely to moulder in a drawer. It seems to me a thoughtful, thought-provoking and, from the Government's point of view, damaging document.
  Scotland has a great deal to offer, and I agree that there are major opportunities, but those opportunities must be taken. We cannot afford a neutral Government who simply hold the ring. That has increasingly been the Government's role, and the Secretary of State must take much of the blame for it. There has been a lack of commitment, imagination and basic will. If it is not put right, the long-term trends and the habit of decline will be entrenched, to our cost. The battle for tomorrow must always be fought today. There is precious little sign that the Government are prepared to accept that responsibility. That is why we tabled the motion and will vote for it.
  4.44 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government on the success of their economic policies in Scotland which have resulted in higher living standards, greatly reduced unemployment, a substantial increase in the workforce in employment, and record levels of manufacturing productivity and output; have promoted the competitiveness of Scottish industry and its readiness to meet the challenge of the Single European Market; have encouraged the growth of investment, of enterprise and small businesses, and have provided a basis for sustained growth and development across the economy as a whole; and notes that unemployment is now falling faster in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole."
  I ought in all politeness to begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) back to the House of Commons after his dramatic flight to Glasgow yesterday for a press conference to try to save the tattered remnants of the roof tax. I assure him that I do not intend to speak on that subject today, and I am delighted that he is anxious to defend his proposals at the first opportunity; I am sure that that is something that we can easily accommodate.
  There is one respect in which what the hon. Gentleman said yesterday is relevant to our debate today and to the Scottish economy. I understand that the hon. Gentleman gave various reasons why the Labour party has decided that a local income tax would be highly undesirable in the interests of the Scottish economy, and I hope that it will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman if I say that I agree with his analysis and conclusions.
  I must add that if the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that the consequence of a local income tax would be to add some several pence, perhaps up to 10p, to the standard rate of income tax in Scotland, and that it would be undesirable

  1033
  for the people of Scotland to face a level of income tax higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we can only express some puzzlement as to why the hon. Gentleman's party has failed to reach a similar conclusion about the consequence of giving a Scottish assembly power to alter the rate of income tax.
  As we have identified before, it is the implications for the Scottish economy of a higher rate of income tax in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom which is one of the prime arguments as to why those proposals would damage Scottish jobs, Scottish employment and Scottish industry. It is therefore appropriate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should at least try to be consistent.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State referred to fiscal powers that many of us would like to see vested in a Scottish parliament. Does he agree that if, in the forthcoming Budget, the Chancellor thought it improper for the United Kingdom as a whole, because of overheating in the south-east, not to reduce corporation tax on small businesses, for example, but felt that it might be an important and useful measure for small businesses in Scotland, he would effectively not be allowed to do so? If we had a Scottish parliament with fiscal powers, such a tax-cutting measure could be undertaken.
  Mr. Rifkind: To listen to the hon. Gentleman, one would not think that he was a member of a party that wishes to see fiscal integration in the European Community. His party's whole wish is to see a harmonisation of taxes throughout the Community. It is therefore a slightly curious way of bringing that about to wish to see fiscal disintegration in one part of the Community. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should try to reconcile that curious anomaly in his position.
  I should like to pay a compliment to Opposition Members, which the hon. Member for Garscadden did not pay, by responding to the terms of the motion. I always think that, where possible, we should allow these debates to concentrate on the motion on the Order paper. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, at least in principle, does not disagree with that observation.
  As I read through the motion, I saw several allegations made against the Government, to which it is appropriate for me to seek to respond. The first is that we are responsible for what the motion refers to as "relative economic decline" in Scotland. The word "relative" is important: "relative economic decline" is Labourspeak for "actual economic growth", and that is precisely what Scotland is experiencing and has experienced for some time.
  It is important that that point be fully registered. It is something that the House should already be aware of, that over the past year Scotland has enjoyed the highest output, including manufacturing output, that it has ever known in its economic history. I recall, as I am sure the House will, that two or three years ago—
  Mr. Thomas Graham rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for a moment.
  1034
  I recall the Government and the House constantly being told by Opposition Members and by various learned commentators that Scotland was experiencing de-industrialisation and that the whole of Scotland, as an industrial economy, was disappearing like snow off a dyke. Yet we find that in the past 12 months manufacturing output not only has been maintained, but has been the highest in our economic history. That does not refer to the service sector only; it includes the manufacturing sector.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is a point that affects a great many of my constituents. On manufacturing output, can the Scottish Office look very carefully—that is all I ask—at the operation now of Mr. Kerry Packer and his associates, after two, if not three, Australian takeovers, of the north British Steel foundry in Bathgate, coupled with the Atlas Steel foundry in Armadale? I know that those are important sectors of any economy. I know that there are problems. I think that the Scottish Office has tried to be helpful. Could this have the attention of both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Minister of State? It is a very complex matter.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall certainly look at the point that he raises.
  Not only is Scotland experiencing the highest manufacturing output of its economic history, but output there is now growing faster than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. For example, in 1988–89, the last year for which we have figures available, the level of growth of industrial production in the United Kingdom was 2·2 per cent. In Scotland it was 4·5 per cent. Faced with those figures and the present record manufacturing output, the reference in the Opposition motion to "relative economic decline" shows a disregard for the facts that is not to the credit of the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that we are suffering from overheating of the Scottish economy? If this has been such an economic miracle, why are we still losing young skilled people, who have to go south to find jobs?
  Mr. Rifkind: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House a few moments ago when I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Garscadden. The question of migration was raised at that time and I was able to inform the House that the net migration figures last year were the lowest of any year since 1975. That is something which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome as much as I do. I am not saying that we do not have economic problems in Scotland, or that the economy in Scotland is overheated. I am saying that the Scottish economy at present is growing faster than that of the United Kingdom as a whole, and not to recognise that is to do a disservice to Scotland's interests.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: As the Secretary of State knows very well, Scotland's largest manufacturing employer is Ferranti. I put it to him, as the Minister with responsibility for the Scottish economy, that we welcome the support that the Government have given to the GEC acquisition of Ferranti Defence Systems in Edinburgh, but to achieve the benefits of that we need to win the radar contract, which will be achieved only if that acquisition is not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  1035
  I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot anticipate the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but, if the acquisition is referred to the MMC, it will jeopardise not only the radar contract but the whole European fighter aircraft project, which involves thousands of jobs. Will he take that on board and ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry fully takes account of Scottish economic interests in this matter?
  Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman says; I am sure that he will acknowledge that recent developments regarding Ferranti have been beneficial to the interests of the thousands of members of its work force in Edinburgh. I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the support he seeks if he will support the maintenance of proper levels of defence expenditure, as without that, Ferranti would have a pretty grim future.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Opposition that the EFA programme depends vitally on a pledge from this Government and any future Government, and that we should be interested to know what Labour's view is on that?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that it works both ways, as I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) will recognise.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: There has already been a reference to the importance of Ravenscraig, which must account for about 5 per cent. of Scottish manufacturing output. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the cuts in output of steel in Scotland, which have not taken place in Wales, must have reduced manufacturing output in Scotland by at least 1 per cent.?
  Mr. Rifkind: This is becoming more like Question Time and less like a debate than I had originally intended. Obviously, we have expressed our concern about recent decisions in that respect. It is encouraging that, since Christmas, Ravenscraig has resumed its output of steel products. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
  The charge of "relative economic decline" is difficult for the Opposition to sustain, certainly when one looks at developments in the Scottish economy over the past year.
  The next charge is of "unacceptable levels of unemployment" and I must ask the hon. Member for Garscadden what he means by that. If he means that unemployment is too high, I agree; that would be true of any time in the past 30 years. There has never been a time when hon. Members on either side of the House have been complacent about the levels of unemployment.
  However, if the hon. Gentleman is trying to discern the current trend of the problem of unemployment, he should at least acknowledge that over the past year unemployment in Scotland has fallen by no less than 50,000, which is the largest fall since records began in 1948. Not only has unemployment fallen by 50,000 in one year, but the rate at which unemployment is falling in Scotland has, over the past few months, been significantly higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  If the hon. Gentleman looks at those matters not from the perspective of unemployment but from the perspective of total employment in Scotland, the situation is equally encouraging. Employment in Scotland increased by no less
  1036
  than 100,000 in 1987, the latest year for which we have figures, and that included the manufacturing sector. That is something of which the hon. Gentleman should be aware. The total number of people in employment is the highest that it has been for 10 years.
  Mr. Dewar: Why, if the record is so good, has the gap in average earnings to which I referred opened as it has? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes back two or three years, he will see that in the league table of unemployment we were in the middle. We are now, on the British mainland, the second highest, behind only the north. It seems to me that our record has been deteriorating quite clearly against the record in other parts of Great Britain over the past two or three years.
  Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept that there is any such trend to which the hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer. He will know that, when we pointed out that Scotland had very high levels of earnings a few years ago, he immediately dismissed that as somehow irrelevant to his argument. Now that there has been a relative change in respect of certain areas of England, he immediately says that this is decisive and conclusive. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind about the importance that he attaches to these matters.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: The House will forgive me; this is a short debate and I have already given way a considerable number of times.
  The next charge made against the Government is on the alleged inadequate levels of industrial investment and the alleged reduction in regional incentives. I happily concede that we should all like to see higher levels of industrial investment. That has been a problem in the United Kingdom as a whole probably for the past 100 years, never mind the past 10 or 30 years. But it is important also to recognise that the level of industrial investment in Scotland matches very well the United Kingdom level as a whole. While we would all wish to see it increased substantially, that is something that is ultimately within the control of industry itself.
  On regional incentives, I accept that we have quite deliberately and consciously abolished the regional development grant. We did so with considerable support from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) because it acknowledged in its study of the matter that automatic grants of that sort did little to encourage investment and that it was far more sensible to concentrate investment and support on companies that would not otherwise wish to invest in Scotland. That is, I believe, a much more logical and sensible basis.
  We are accused in the motion of not having prepared properly for 1992. That is pretty rich from a party that opposed our membership of the European Community until very recently, although I exempt the hon. Member for Garscadden from that charge. However, he cannot allow his own party to be exempt from it, because it was passionately hostile to our membership of the Community until the British electorate persuaded it otherwise.
  As the single most important preparation that we can make for 1992 is to improve our training and business support in Scotland, it is pretty ironic that the Labour party, alone in Scotland, is opposing Scottish Enterprise, and that it cannot even call on the support of the Scottish

  1037
  TUC or Scottish local authorities in its lonely, isolated opposition to the measure. It is pretty rich for Labour to say that we are not preparing for 1992. It is widely recognised by the Confederation of British Industry, by the STUC, by Scottish local authorities and by the whole Scottish economic community that Scottish Enterprise offers an exciting new opportunity, as does its counterpart in the Highlands and Islands. If the Opposition are concerned about those matters, they should tackle their own failure to support this important change.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall not give way at the moment, but perhaps later on.
  On the charge that we have failed to protect Scotland from high interest rates, the hon. Member for Garscadden clearly has not examined recent trends in the Scottish economy. Several recent reports and studies acknowledged that Scotland was faring much better than any other part of the United Kingdom with regard to high interest rates.
  Mr. Dewar: Not true.
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall respond to that allegation. The forecast of growth for the United Kingdom for 1990 is 1·25 per cent. The report by Cambridge Econometrics to which the hon. Gentleman referred projects that growth in Scotland will be not 1·2 per cent., but 1·6 per cent. Fraser of Allander is projecting growth of 1·9 per cent. and is even more optimistic, and Business Strategies, in its recent reports, said that Scotland can expect to be second only to East Anglia in economic growth levels in the early 1990s.
  The studies of the CBI in Scotland present a more optimistic picture than that painted by the CBI in the United Kingdom as a whole. In its surveys, the Scottish CBI shows that output in Scotland is growing faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole. Manufacturers are less pessimistic, exports are increasing faster and employment is growing, although it fell elsewhere in the United Kingdom in the last quarter of 1989.
  Those are the views of outside spokesmen, including the Fraser of Allander Institute, which is a body that has never been hesitant to criticise the Government in the past when it thought it appropriate.
  Mr. Dewar: As a corrective to those remarks, does the Minister remember the National Westminster bank report of 20 December 1989, which said:
  "After a brief interlude next year, when Scotland will suffer less from a slowdown than the more prosperous parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland will again grow more slowly than the UK as a whole for the following five years."?
  I shall also quote the chairman of the CBI's economic committee in Scotland, Mr. Wrigglesworth, who said in October—so this is two or three months old—that:
  "The outlook has deteriorated since summer, with orders and employment falling and output at a standstill."
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman can easily see from the overall economic situation that Scotland is coping far better than the United Kingdom as a whole at present.
  For example, let us consider the construction industry in Scotland—73 per cent. of those who responded to the survey by the Scottish Building Employers Federation say
  1038
  that they are expecting increased orders in the next year. That is the highest response of that kind in the United Kingdom.
  We know that the Scottish economy has been less affected by high interest rates, it is more export-oriented and the oil industry in Scotland is booming at present, with an increase in employment of no less than 11 per cent. over the past year. We should warmly welcome that.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State was telling the House—and it was received with some incredulity—that the Scottish construction industry is undergoing a boom. I am looking at the index of industrial production, from which the Secretary of State quoted a few moments ago. It says that, since 1985, the Scotish construction industry has grown by 2·5 per cent., and in the same period the construction industry in the United Kingdom as a whole has grown by 23·5 per cent. Where is the boom?
  Mr. Rifkind: The whole point that I am making, if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to listen, is that in the past couple of years Scotland has overtaken the United Kingdom position, which has fallen back. The Building Employers Confederation's recent survey shows that 73 per cent. of Scottish firms expect an increase in their work load in the coming year. In no other part of the United Kingdom do firms expect anything like that. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
  The hon. Gentleman is right in that, between 1985 and a year or so ago, the balance was the other way round. I have not sought to suggest otherwise, but in the past couple of years the situation has been reversed.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall continue because many hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
  Finally, I wish to refer to non-domestic rates, which are of equal importance to the Scottish economy and to the prospects of Scottish industry and employment. Opposition Members will be as anxious as I am to ensure that that important area of taxation, which has a material effect on commerce and industry in Scotland, should be properly protected. The hon. Member for Garscadden acknowledged that fact.
  The Government have shown their commitment to achieve a level playing field—a harmonisation of business rates—and have taken early steps to move in that direction. For example, one of our first measures in the past few years was the indexation of non-domestic rates. That has already been of substantial benefit to Scottish industry and commerce. It has been estimated that, if we had not indexed non-domestic rates to the rate of inflation, Scottish industry and commerce would have paid £50 million more in business rates during the past few years. That support would disappear immediately if the Labour party's proposal came into effect.
  I have been examining the Labour party's proposals, and they are revealing and interesting. The document published last week on non-domestic rates is rather coy. It says only that Labour's provisional plans were laid out in its consultation document published in 1989. I thought that I had better refer to the original holy writ on the subject, so I turned to that document, which says that Labour

  1039
  "would abolish the restrictions limiting increases to the retail price index. Businesses should shoulder a fair burden of the cost of local services."
  I have no doubt that Opposition Members are proud of that proposal, but they should be under no illusion about what its consequences would be. If that had been Government policy in the past couple of years, businesses would already have paid £50 million more than they have paid, or are due to pay in the forthcoming year. That is the first consequence, and it would be damaging to the Scottish economy and to employment in Scotland.
  But it is even more serious than that, because we know that local authorities—[Interruption.] No, let me continue. Local authorities have just been fixing the community charge, and we know that, if there had not been indexation, judging by the experience of previous years, the business rate would go up next year by the same amount as the community charge. For example, in Strathclyde, which covers half of Scotland, the increase in business rate would not have been limited to the rate of inflation, but would have been 12 per cent. In Stirling, the district business rate would be going up by 18 per cent., and in Edinburgh by 24 per cent.
  I do not wish to debate who is responsible for that increase at the moment.[Laughter.] No, I am happy to do so on another occasion, and Opposition Members will not distract me from the point that I am making.
  If this was a matter for local authority discretion, no matter whose fault it was, local authorities would be increasing the business rate for commerce and industry in Strathclyde by 12 per cent., and in Edinburgh by 24 per cent. Opposition Members should realise that that would be a consequence of the policies that they wish to pursue.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way in a few moments.
  The position is far worse than I have so far described. Not only is the Labour party opposed to the indexation of business rates, but the inevitable consequence of what I understand to be Labour's policy is that there would be no prospect, either now or in the future, of the harmonisation of business rates north and south of the border. That is an even more serious point. As the House knows, harmonisation has been welcomed by virtually everyone in Scotland and there has been widespread recognition that the Scottish economy and Scottish industry have suffered for years because of the high business rates there compared to rates in England and Wales. For the purpose of today's discussion, let us not argue as to whose fault that was.
  Business rates have been far higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, and everyone, apart from the Labour party, seems to agree that that should end as quickly as possible. But to achieve that, two things must happen; there must be a harmonisation of valuation law and a common rates poundage. If local authorities are left to decide those matters, quite properly they will use their discretion in different ways. and on the experience of the past 40 years, business rates in Scotland will remain significantly higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  In the very first year we have reduced the gap by £80 million. That £80 million, together with the £50 million by which industry has benefited from indexation, means that already our policy has saved industry and commerce in
  1040
  Scotland—that means the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs—no less than £130 million. All that would be wiped away if it became a matter of local authority discretion.
  It is literally impossible to have a common business rate and local council discretion. If the Labour party chooses the latter, it will consciously damage the Scottish economy and Scottish employment. The situation goes from bad to worse. The Labour party document seems to acknowledge that differential rates burdens could be damaging to some sectors of industry. The document states that it
  "will need to ensure that any proposals do not put Scottish small businesses at a serious disadvantage in comparison to small businesses elsewhere in the country."
  That sounds splendid, but why is it necessary to protect only small businesses from different and heavier rate burdens, but not big businesses or industry? Why protect small businesses, but give no protection to Ravenscraig, Yarrow, IBM or Ferranti?
  I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East why his party is guaranteeing or seeking to suggest that it would protect small businesses from differential rates burdens caused by giving local authorities discretion, but would offer no protection to the larger industries that employ most people. Has the hon. Member for Garscadden thought it out? Is it a conscious policy or is it simply a mess?
  I suspect that it is a mess. I cannot conceive that the Labour party consciously wishes to put Ravenscraig, of all places, in a position where its rates burden would he consciously and deliberately higher than that of the steel industry elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As Opposition Members know, the steel industry in Scotland, along with every other industry there, has paid higher rates burdens than any industry in England and Wales. The Government's policy will eliminate that over a period. According to the document, the Opposition's policy would offer no such protection.
  I have to ask the hon. Member for Garscadden—I shall happily give way to him—whether he and his party believe in and support the objectives of harmonising the rates burden of Scottish industry compared with industry south of the border. If he does, does he accept that that cannot be achieved without a common rates poundage? If he does not accept that, can he explain how giving local authorities discretion to determine the level of non-domestic rates is compatible with achieving a level playing field for Scottish industry compared with the rest of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Dewar: Obviously, I shall read with some care what the Secretary of State has said, but there are several ways in which we can help Scottish industry. Industrial derating was the simplest and best known way of doing that. I certainly do not accept that what he is doing, which is preserving the differences by conserving the present system, does what he has claimed.
  The Secretary of State is indulging in sleight of hand. If he is assuming that the industrial rate will go up by the same extent as the poll tax, he forgets that that will produce a great deal more income that will bring both down towards a medium position. That is one example. I shall not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is cheating, as that would be an offensive thing to say and I would not wish to be offensive, but in a fabric of words, he is misrepresenting the position. We do not wish to place an unreasonable burden on Scottish industry, and we have no intention of doing so.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has shown himself totally confused. I notice that he did not answer the question. The question was quite simple: does he believe in harmonisation—that means identical business rates for industry north and south of the border? If he does, how can he reconcile that with giving local authorities discretion as to the level of business rates? The hon. Gentleman knows that we have had industrial derating for years, and that has not produced a level playing field; that is not the answer. If the hon. Gentleman would like to clarify that, I shall happily give way to him again.
  Mr. Dewar: I do not think that local authority discretion is necessarily the disaster that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. In the past, local authority discretion has been a forced discretion, largely because cuts in central Government support meant that the system was bearing a burden for which it was never designed. If we consider who must bear the responsibility for that, I would not suggest the Secretary of State alone—I presume that his colleagues in the Treasury and his predecessors would take some responsibility. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a mess and confusion and unreasonable burdens, but he should look at the record over the years of the Government whom he supports, in terms of the rate support grant, the revenue support grant and, of course, the poll tax.
  Mr. Rifkind: The House and Scotland will note that the hon. Gentleman has not thought this one out. He is obviously embarrassed. He knows that in principle he is in favour of harmonisation. He knows that that is in Scotland's interests, but he obviously did not realise until today that that was incompatible with the policy that he is putting forward.
  From the party that brought us the roof tax, we now have the jobs tax. The perpetuation of a heavier rates burden on Scottish industry and commerce would be damaging to heavy industry, to Ravenscraig, to Yarrow and to every business, big or small, wherever it may be in Scotland. If this debate is about the interests of the Scottish economy, I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends of deliberately wishing to do down the Scottish economy; I accuse them of a much more serious offence—of total and utter confusion and incompetence.
  Hon. Members: Is that it?
  5.17 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: It is little wonder that my hon. Friends are asking the Secretary of State for Scotland, "Is that it?" Rarely have I seen a less competent performance by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He showed complete and callous indifference to the state of the Scottish economy, and instead tried to turn the debate into an attack on Labour's policy on local government finance, purely to try to push the Tory party's chances in the forthcoming regional council elections in May.
  The Secretary of State said that the House and Scotland would note what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said. The people of Scotland will judge my hon. Friend's contribution to debates over the past 10 years, and that of the Secretary of State, when they go to the polls in the next general election. I have every confidence that they will give resounding support to the Labour party, and that the policies that it has espoused for many years will be put into practice when
  1042
  Labour wins the next general election and forms a Government for the United Kingdom and sets up a Scottish Parliament.
  The Secretary of State referred to the document that the Labour party produced on local government. He referred to the phrase that stated that the Labour party will look to business to shoulder a fair share of local government taxation. The Secretary of State seemed to imply that it is terrible to envisage that business should carry a fair share of the burden. That implies that the Government's policy is that poll tax payers should carry an unfair share of the burden. If business does not carry its fair share, the burden will be put on the poll tax payers. If that is the official Government policy on which the Tories will fight the next regional council elections, and the next general election, I look forward to that contest, as I am confident of its outcome.
  At the end of last year, the Standing Commission on the Scottish Economy produced its final report. I feel it is necessary to remind the Secretary of State that throughout the three years in which the standing commission studied the Scottish economy, it was studiously ignored by Ministers, as was its final report. Ministers may argue that it is another cross-party political body, but it is nothing of the sort; if it was, the Scottish National party would have walked out by now.
  The Secretary of State must recognise that the standing commission is composed of distinguished Scottish academics, industrialists and economists. Its final report was based on 30 different reports from Scottish analyists, and it took in a wealth of evidence from overseas. The conclusion of its report is that we require Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.
  In the preface to the report, the chairman of the standing commission, Professor Sir Kenneth Alexander, said:
  "Some of the policy proposals are so specifically Scottish in their purpose that we consider it unlikely that they would be legislated by a Westminster Parliament. This leads us to conclude that the adoption of such policy initiatives requires a more decentralised political and administrative structure with a Parliament in Scotland having key economic and social powers."
  That is not a party political conclusion but the conclusion of industrialists and business men. They have determined that Scotland's economic problems will be solved only by a Scottish Parliament with key economic powers.
  It is imperative that the Secretary of State begins to take that message on board, because if he does not he will fail to understand the real problems that are facing the Scottish economy. He must accept that we have a pan-United Kingdom institution in charge of the Scottish economy—the Westminster Parliament. I shall not argue whether, by definition, that is good or bad. In control of that Westminster Parliament is a party whose power base is almost exclusively in the midlands and south of England. It will secure its control of Parliament as long as it retains its power base in the south. It does not require the voters of Wales, Scotland or the north to return it to office. As long as the voters of the midlands and south of England vote for it, it will retain control of this country.
  The Conservative party is interested only in ensuring that everything is done to secure the economic interests of the south of England. It does not care whether that is bad for Wales, Scotland or the north, because it does not need voters in those areas to return it to office.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the description that he is giving rather fits the Labour party's position in Scotland, where it represents only one seat north of the Tay?
  Mr. Robert Hughes: What about Aberdeen?
  Mr. McAllion: As my hon. Friend points out, Aberdeen is north of the Tay. Sometimes, Dundee is also considered to be north of the Tay.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. McAllion: If that is to he the quality of the hon. Gentleman's interventions, I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has convinced me that it is unwise to give way to him.
  Mr. John McFall: Was the intervention made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) deliberate disinformation in the guise of his position as Scottish Defence Minister, or was it complete ignorance on his part?
  Mr. McAllion: As my hon. Friend knows, it was complete ignorance.
  The solution to the economy overheating in the south is to apply high interest rates not only in the south but in Scotland, Wales and the north, regardless of whether the economies of those areas need it. The mass unemployment, slow growth and under-utilisation of capacity in Scotland represent a complete negation and condemnation of the Government policy.
  Mr. Hayward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McAllion: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman is an English Member.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that he will not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) because he is an English Member. Will you remind Scottish Members that all hon. Members are eligible to take part in debates on all parts of the United Kingdom? Many of us have much interest in the welfare of Scotland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member who has the Floor decides to whom he will give way.
  Mr. McAllion: I would have been more impressed by that point of order if the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) had been present throughout the debate.
  Mr. Hayward rose—
  Mr. McAllion: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; this is a short debate.
  May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the research carried out for the standing commission by Alastair Lonie and David Power at Dundee university, and the evidence given by Professor David Vines and David Bell of Glasgow? They concluded that the policy of high interest rates had disproportionately disadvantaged Scotland and had taken £630 million from the local economy—more than the annual budget for the Scottish Development Agency and regional assistance in Scotland.
  The Government have deliberately taken £630 million from an economy which is suffering from unemployment
  1044
  and under-utilisation of capacity and tried to pass that off as a serious economic policy that will benefit the people of Scotland.
  It is not so much that the Government have the wrong diagnosis for Scotland as that they have no diagnosis and do not care whether they have such a diagnosis because they do not need the voters of Scotland in order to be re-elected.
  Mr. Hayward rose—
  Mr. McAllion: I have only a short time available, so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  We know that the Secretary of State has abolished regional development grants in favour of selective assistance, which he says will more effectively target Government money where it is required. That was considered in some detail by the standing commission. It carried out a survey of regional financial assistance in Scotland between 1981 and 1988. It concluded that fewer firms are being helped now than in 1981.
  The standing commission then considered the take-up of selective assistance, but what it found was very different from the picture that the Government paint. Taking into account the new and revised offers made by the Government, it found that in 1988–89 only £49·4 million had been provided in selective assistance to firms in Scotland—£9 million less than the previous year, and £17 million less than in 1984–85. The Scottish economy is desperately in need of state support and investment, yet it is being starved of both by the Government.
  The standing commission concluded that, although that policy helped to reduce the Exchequer's outlay£and no doubt the public sector borrowing requirement£it was proving a real cost to the Scottish economy and was effectively negating the Government's policy of regional assistance.
  There is evidence of that everywhere in Scotland. The headline in the Glasgow Herald of last November said, "Docklands aid dwarfs Scotland's". Alf Young, its economic correspondent, wrote of
  "the most dramatic demonstration of regional policy in reverse yet mounted by the Thatcher Government"
  and the massive spending by the Government on London docklands. Docklands boasts an enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. Quite why an enterprise zone was necessary to move the City of London a few miles down the river has always been beyond me. The article says that the Government are increasing assistance for the docklands development from £228 million to £332 million in 1990–91. Between 1989 and 1992, the Government will make a staggering investment of £813 million in the docklands development.
  In addition, the extension of the Jubilee line to Canary wharf will cost £1,000 million, £600 million of which will be direct state subsidy. When I raised with Ministers and ScotRail the electrification of the line north of Edinburgh. I was told that it was too expensive at £100 million, yet £1,000 million is being spent on a short extension of the Underground to docklands. However, they cannot afford to electrify the north-east railway line north of Edinburgh, which is a disgrace.
  If one compares the budgets for the Scottish Development Agency and for the new Scottish Enterprise, on present trends and over the same period to which I referred when I spoke about the docklands, one sees that no more than £330 million will be allocated to Scotland.

  1045
  How does that compare with the £1,000 million for the Underground development and with the £813 million for the London docklands development? Inevitably, the people who pay the price for those problems—
  Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McAllion: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was not here at the beginning of the debate.
  The people who pay the price for the Government's policies are those whom the Opposition represent and who live in Scotland, in the north of England and in Wales. The Secretary of State referred to the tremendous falls in unemployment. In my constituency, the figures of the Secretary of State suggested that 4,791 people were out of work last November. He would no doubt argue that that represents tremendous progress compared to the figures in 1982, but it represents progress only if one is taken in by the Government's own fiddled figures for unemployment.
  Since 1982, there have been no fewer than 30 changes in the way in which the Government count the unemployed. Only one increased the number of unemployed; the other 29 reduced the number of those who were officially counted as unemployed. That was done in many ways. The Government based the figures, for example, on the claimant count rather than on those who were out of work and seeking work. They also discounted unemployed school leavers and denied income support to 16 and 17-year-olds. Those were all ways of bringing down the unemployment figure without bringing down unemployment.
  Mr. Lang: The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development labour force survey assesses unemployment in the United Kingdom as being lower than the figures that we assess from our own unemployment benefit count. Is not the hon. Gentleman's case therefore nonsense?
  Mr. McAllion: My case is not nonsense. The figures have been made available to me by the Unemployment Unit, which examines the Government's fiddled statistics carefully. It provided figures that show a different picture. Instead of there being 4,791 unemployed in Dundee, East, there are 7,011 unemployed in that constituency. In other words, 2,200 unemployed people have disappeared from the statistics not because they found work and so were no longer unemployed, but because they were removed by the Government's administrative diktat. They are still there and still unemployed, but they have become invisible to those in the Department of Employment who count the unemployed.
  Dundee, East now has a real unemployment level of 17·5 per cent. more than 10 years after the Government took responsibility for the Scottish economy. Of 633 constituencies, only 48 have higher unemployment and almost all are in Scotland, in the north of England and in Wales.
  Mr. Hayward rose—
  Mr. McAllion: None of those constituencies is in the south-east, yet the hon. Members who represent constituencies there get up on their hind legs and boast
  1046
  about unemployment being defeated once and for all. They should tell that to the people in Scotland, in Wales and in the north of England.
  Mr. Hayward rose—
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman will have the chance to make his own speech later.
  What is worse is that, among the unemployed in Dundee, East, almost one in three have been out of work for at least a year. Does the Secretary of State wish to boast about such a record at the Dispatch Box? I hope not. I am conscious of the time and I may have spoken for too long already. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased that the Minister says, "Hear, hear." I am obviously having some effect.
  Other hon. Members have referred to moving away from the old smokestack industries into new sectors, such as electronics, which is a central theme of the Government's defence of its handling of the Scottish economy. They always boast about the work of Locate in Scotland in attracting inward investment to Scotland. That argument is beginning to wear thin with the Opposition.
  The Government must understand that we live in a world where competition for inward investment is becoming ever fiercer. In four inward investment cases, Scotland has lost out. The Mitsubishi Electrics £180 million semiconductor plant did not go to Scotland, but to West Germany. The Fujitsu £400 million microchip plant went to the north-east of England and Texas Instruments, with 1,000 jobs, went to Italy. The Intel Corporation from California, with up to 2,400 jobs, went to the Republic of Ireland.
  Increasingly, that will become the pattern. We shall be competing not only with the countries and areas that I have mentioned, but with eastern Europe. I heard on the radio this morning that workers in factories in East Berlin, for example, earn the equivalent of £25 a week. With such low-wage economies, where will international capital go to build its new semiconductor plants and its factories? It will go to eastern Europe, not to countries such as Scotland, England and Wales.
  Mr. Lang: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House why the Ford Motor Company did not come to Dundee?
  Mr. McAllion: That is easy. Ford did not come to Dundee because Ford can play one country off against another. The hon. Gentleman should remind himself of the real issue. Ford claimed that it refused to come to Dundee because it could not obtain a single-union agreement there. What happened? Ford went to Spain. It did not obtain a single-union agreement there, but a multi-union agreement. It went to Spain because the Spanish Government provided more incentives.
  Does the Minister remember Wang in Stirling and Caterpillar in Uddingston? Those were multinational companies which came here, picked the flesh off the bones of the Scottish economy and then took off when it suited them. Increasingly, that will be the pattern, as the Minister must realise. He cannot base his whole strategy on attracting inward investment. That is not realistic nowadays.
  If we are to move forward, we must have a strategy that focuses on the local people and on the local area, with indigenous enterprise. That strategy was developed first in

  1047
  Scotland by the Labour administration in Tayside region in 1986. We went to the people with the policy of establishing an enterprise board which would give assistance, soft loans and grants to small and medium-sized companies in Tayside to encourage them to grow.
  That was a successful policy, but it was fought tooth and nail first by central Government, because to them it smacked too much of the Greater London council from which the idea was borrowed, and then by the local Tories, who thought that it involved interference in the free market. Now it has been heralded as a great success. The Minister of State, Scottish Office came up to Dundee to help launch the Tayside enterprise board and to try to claim some credit for it, although his party had fought it tooth and nail all along.
  If we are to have the policies that will boost local industry and the local economy, they will come only from control being decentralised from Westminster. They will come only from a powerful Scottish parliament with key economic powers and key powers over the infrastructure. There is no future for Scotland otherwise. That is the conclusion of the standing commission report and, increasingly, of people across the country. It should be the conclusion of the debate, although unfortunately it will not be, because this debate has no effect on the Scottish economy or on Government policy. The Secretary of State is not Scotland's man in the Cabinet, but the Cabinet's man in Scotland and there is a wealth of difference in that distinction.
  Several hon. Members: rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless speeches are much briefer, I am afraid that a number of hon. Members will be disappointed.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) does not, of course, like to be reminded about Ford, so I shall remind him of something else. I shall remind him of the time when Dundee was competing for the headquarters of an international oil company. When the decision was about to be made, Dundee district council told its employees to go out on strike in support of what was obviously a politically motivated activity. That did nothing to persuade the oil company that Dundee was the place to establish its headquarters. With such leadership, companies will not come. I shall return to the problems of Dundee later, because my constituency is adjacent to Dundee.
  Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walker: I have only just started my speech, but very well.
  Mr. Maxton: I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would correct the misinformation that he gave the House earlier. Will he point out to the House that the Labour party has five seats north of the Tay, whereas the Tories have two and a half?
  Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands where north is in Scottish geography. If he said that the Labour party had four seats including those
  1048
  in Dundee and Aberdeen—and I imagine that he is also including the Western Isles—he would not be right about what was pure north. I should not expect him to understand that. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the Highlands, the Labour party is not considered to be the party that understands its problems—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Tories aren't."] The Labour party claims that it speaks for all the people of Scotland. I have never claimed to speak for all the people of Scotland. I speak for the people of north Tayside.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Conservatives were going to make this a debate about the roof tax. We are not. I find it interesting that the Labour party wishes to have a tax for Scotland which is different from that for England and Wales. I imagine that on this occasion Scotland is to be Labour's guinea pig. As I understand its proposals, councils will set their own levels of expenditure and the level of roof tax. Once again, under Labour, the elderly will pay a tax based on the size and present-day value of their home, regardless of the price that they paid for it.
  The Labour party proposes to introduce computerised revaluations. What a lovely way to revalue. Labour would return Scotland to the evils of the old rating system and of revaluations. The uniform business rate will vanish and, once more, Scotland's shopkeepers and business men will find that department stores in Sauchiehall street pay more in local authority tax than similar stores in Regent street in London. There would be no harmonisation under Labour, and we know why. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, there would be a 24 per cent-plus increase in the business rate this year. Of course, the £130 million saving made under our policy last year and this year would not be made under Labour's policies.
  I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement today on flood and storm damage in my constituency and other Scottish constituencies. That statement will be welcomed by all who have suffered in the flooding. That is true of my constituency where there has been extensive flooding.
  The output of Scottish manufacturing industry in the second quarter of 1989 reached record levels. The Opposition do not like to be told that. Industry surpassed the previous peak recorded in the second quarter of 1974. Output was 3·8 per cent. up on the previous quarter. In 1988, manufacturing output in Scotland grew by about 8 per cent. At the same time, seasonally adjusted unemployment stood at 8·5 per cent. in December last year—the lowest since 1980.
  Self-employment has increased by 50 per cent. since 1981. Between June 1981 and June 1988, self-employment rose by 66,000. When one compares that with the three decades to 1981—in which there was no change—one can see what a remarkable change has taken place in Scotland.
  The October Confederation of British Industry survey confirmed the August Scottish chambers of commerce's business survey which showed that export markets, on which we depend so vitally, remain healthy. The 1989 annual survey of the top 200 Scottish firms carried out by Scottish Business Insider shows that turnover rose by 25 per cent. on the year before. That is a massive increase. Profits were up by 14 per cent. Both turnover and profits are up, yet all that we hear from Opposition Members is doom and gloom.
  Some 132 of the top 200 companies are Scottish-owned. So much for the nonsense about Scotland's industry being

  1049
  owned and run by other people. All those facts show that the growth in the Scottish economy in 1988 was the strongest since 1973.
  The growth in Scottish manufacturing productivity since 1979 has been faster than any of the major industrial economies. Between 1 January 1980 and 1 January 1989, the number of companies registered in Scotland rose by just under 20,000 or more than one half. The most recent survey by the Fraser of Allander Institute forecast that the growth of the Scottish economy is set to outstrip that of the United Kingdom over the next five years.
  It is interesting to note the dramatic change in the places to which Scottish firms export. For example, 23 per cent. of our exports in 1973 were to north America. Today only 17 per cent. of our exports are to north America, so there has been a reduction. Let us see what has happened within the EEC. In 1973, 23 per cent. of our exports were to the EEC. That has now jumped to a massive 53 per cent. We are exporting much more to Europe. The benefits of the European market are beginning to be felt, and not before time, particularly when one considers some of the non-tariff barriers that kept our exports out for so long. Strangely enough, the biggest single export earner is the manufacture of office and data processing machinery.
  I make no apology for mentioning the whisky industry. As a teetotaller, I am proud of what the Scotch whisky industry does for Scotland. It provides £1 billion-worth of exports, or 20 per cent. of our manufacturing exports. That is important for Scotland and we must continue to remind those who do not realise its value to Scotland that the Government's sensible tax regime over recent years has done much to help the Scotch whisky industry.
  We also must not forget British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and Ferranti. Aviation and avionics are the industries of tomorrow, among which we must include electronics. IBM, Motorola, Digital Equipment, NEC, National Semiconductor, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, NCR and Unisys are all the industries of today and tomorrow. They produce 16 per cent. of Scotland's gross domestic product and employ 12 per cent. of the work force. The output of the industry last year was three and a half times higher than in mid-1979. That shows what the Government's policies have done to make Scottish industry more competitive.
  In 1989, the oil industry recorded the second highest level of drilling activity ever, with 328 offshore wells started. So much for the doom and gloom that we heard about the oil industry running down and out.
  The service sector provides 68 per cent. of Scotland's employment, with over 1·3 million jobs. There was an overall increase of 112,000 in service sector employment from 1979 to December 1988. The service sector also helps Scotland's economic growth. The financial services and business services sector, with 179,000 jobs—50,000 more than in 1979—also contributes massively to Scotland's well-being.
  Some £100 billion of funds is managed from Scotland. That is over 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom unit trust market and 20 per cent. of the life assurance market. The industry depends on doing business outside Scotland, as does the Scotch whisky industry and all the other
  1050
  companies that I listed. So much for the narrow nationalist attitudes of those who say that we should do things only in Scotland.
  Tourism is another important industry in Scotland. It must be discouraging for visitors to Scotland to see messages written on stone telling them to go home. Yet that is what one gets from the Socialist nationalists. Tourism had a turnover of £1,594 million in 1988. The number of overseas tourists was up by 27 per cent. on 1984. Scotland's penetration of the north American market is higher than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Again, Scotland is performing well. I make no apology for speaking about tourism. It is the largest employer in north Tayside.
  I welcome the introduction of Scottish Enterprise. Recently in Brechin we had the launch of the north Angus initiative. The Labour administration of Tayside regional council was noticeable by its absence at that launch. It seems that the hon. Member for Dundee, East thinks that such great initiatives are fine in Dundee but not much good in Brechin, Kirriemuir or Forfar. The district councillor, the convener of industry—a gentleman known by the name of Forsyth of that ilk, who is an SNP councillor—made an attack on the regional council when he launched the initiative. He did so because of the council's absence. It is interesting that, since then, Councillor Sheana Welsh has publicly criticised me for agreeing with Forsyth. That Forsyth is the SNP district councillor, not my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
  But what else can we expect when as Councillor Flora Isles said when she resigned from the SNP:
  "We have different policies in different parts of the country and different policies or no policies to meet changing circumstances"?
  Indeed, that is why she resigned from the Scottish National party. Councillor Sheana Welsh, running true to SNP form, has a different policy and makes different public utterances from her industry convener—the famous Forsyth. Perhaps she was embarrassed by the "Absent Andrew", her husband, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who, like the Labour party, failed to attend the north Angus launch. Perhaps his failure to attend brought about yet another division in the SNP.
  In connection with regional grants, I commend Don Brothers, who recently opened a large factory in my constituency despite the fact that no grants are available and he was given no assistance under any funny schemes run by the Labour administration in Tayside. I understand that Don Brothers gave up grants amounting to about £500,000, which he could have had if he had gone to Dundee, which he was asked to do. He declined to do that and stayed in Forfar because its work force and environment are so much better and more conducive to productivity and to exports than those in Dundee.
  That is an example of why regional aid had, properly, to be changed. That is why I welcome the changes that the Government are making. I advise Ministers that the economic successes of our policies in Scotland are there for anyone who wants to see them. They can be seen in our supermarkets, stores and shops and in the bustle in the high streets—[Interruption]—even in Dundee. Opposition Members should go to Taybridge station and watch the people going on holiday and doing things that were not available to them 10 or 20 years ago. They are able to do

  1051
  those things now because of our economic success. Because they have more money in their pockets, people can enjoy more things today.
  The quality of life in Scotland is superior to that in any other part of the United Kingdom and that, linked to our economic success, makes it the best part of the United Kingdom in which to live and the best place in the world to be part of.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House of my earlier appeal for brief speeches.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I shall do my utmost to follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to be brief.
  The debate has gone up or down according to one's expectations. One need only read the Order Paper, the substantive motion and amendment in the name of the Prime Minister to note the diametrically opposed views on the Scottish economy. Indeed, I wonder whether they referred to the same thing. We have, of course, had selective statistics to support either case, especially from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in two particulars. He was the first hon. Member to refer to tourism, which is an important and growing industry in the rural areas of Scotland, and he referred to the whisky industry which, as in his constituency, is important in mine.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North referred to the Scottish chambers' "Business Survey". It is important to note that its most recent survey is its most pessimistic since its surveys began in 1984. That pessimism has been echoed in the "Industrial Trends Survey" of the Confederation of British Industry, which shows that manufacturing optimism is at its lowest for seven years.
  Hon. Members of all parties have accepted that in recent years the Scottish economy has been going through a period of fundamental change as the old smoke stack industries have declined and we have looked to the development of new industries. As electronics has been around for some time, I am not sure whether we can still classify it as a new industry, but it has a potential for growth. Reference has also been made to the oil and gas industry and to the financial services sector. As the older industries decline, it is important that we do not forget the economic consequences. If the Scottish steel industry were to decline even further, it would have severe implications for the rail network in Scotland and knock-on effects on the electricity industry. Such factors cannot be overlooked.
  There are other warning signs because much of the growth in jobs in recent years has been in the service sector, and, as last week's report "Economic Outlook" from the Royal Bank of Scotland suggested, the current downturn will squeeze the service sector, especially the retail sector, more than the last recession in the early part of the 1980s. Therefore, the outlook in that sector is not encouraging.
  The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) referred to Locate in Scotland. None of my hon. Friends would criticise or object to jobs coming to Scotland as a result of foreign companies investing here. However, we should be concerned to ensure that we do not become
  1052
  dependent solely on jobs which, in many respects, are production jobs and that we try to create as many jobs as possible that are high-quality, high-tech jobs. We should ensure that we are designers as well as putters-together, if I may put it that way.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to a report that the Secretary of State attributed to an official of the Scottish Development Agency. It contained the sombre warning that the contribution of indigenously based industries is particularly disappointing. The loss of Scottish ownership of Scottish enterprises has already been mentioned. It has been estimated that fewer than 100 clearly definable Scottish companies are now listed on the stock exchange. Between 1983 and 1986, 321 Scottish companies were taken over by outside companies. Some of the names are well known, including Anderson of Strathclyde, Collins, Clydesdale bank, Bells and Distillers.
  While that has been happening and Scotland has been losing some of its big companies, as Alf Young pointed out in a recent article in the Glasgow Herald, things on not too happy a note have been stirring at a lower level in the economy. He wrote:
  "If many of the biggest trees in the Scottish corporate forest fell to the chainsaws wielded by Guinness, Vantona Viyella, BP, Charter Consolidated and many others over the past 10 years, the paucity of seedling companies springing up from the forest floor to take their place simply compounds the problem."
  That is a cause for concern.
  If one takes the number of new small businesses that are being set up, by reference to net VAT registrations, one sees that the growth in Scotland has been significantly below that in the United Kingdom as a whole. The article then states that a number of our smaller and medium-sized companies have been selling out, although they may not have made the headlines as much as the bigger companies, and that fewer of those smaller and medium-sized companies then grow into big companies. Consequently, there will be fewer opportunities in Scotland for our graduates to take jobs in promotable posts and fewer opportunities for our managers to reach the top in commercial enterprise.
  As has been said, there has been emigration over many years, but the quality as well as the quantity of that emigration causes concern. Many of our best people and our graduates are going south. The introduction of the student loans scheme may affect the number of graduates in Scotland because of our four-year courses. If Scottish graduates have that debt around their necks as they leave university, how many of them will be attractive propositions to banks if they then wish to set up a small business on their own? I believe that for many years to come we shall reap an adverse whirlwind from the student loans plan.
  Enterprise in Scotland needs encouraging. In the White Paper that foreshadowed the Employment Bill, the Government identified the importance of training. They have admitted that the private sector has never been a good trainer in Scotland, yet they are passing responsibility for training to the private sector. If that is to happen, it is important that it works, and that it works well.
  I took some encouragement from the reply that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) gave me at Scottish Question Time last week, when he seemed to suggest that there would be scope for the

  1053
  local enterprise companies to develop training over and above the national training schemes of employment training and the youth training scheme. Perhaps he will say more about that when he replies to the debate and state whether more money will be available for training or whether the only money that is being made available for training with the LECs will be the money that is available for funding ET and YTS.
  In addition, there is a need for venture capital. There has been a lack of venture capital going into Scottish companies, particularly for start-up. One often finds a willingness to lend £1 million or £100,000, but in some cases what is needed is £10,000. In fact, 80 per cent. of applications to the Highlands and Islands Development Board are for grants up to £15,000. Such grants have been very important to people, particularly in the highlands and islands, starting small businesses. As the board's last annual report shows, the cost per job, in grant-equivalent terms, has been just over £6,000.
  That seems to me to be money very well spent. Government Members and their kin in the City often criticise Scotland for having, in some ways, developed a dependency culture, but without the HIDB and the SDA our economic position would be far worse. The £22 million that the HIDB spent on grant assistance in 1988 produced £69 million from private sources. That seems to me a very good form of pump priming, and I hope that that valuable work will continue as we move over to the new system.
  In addition to venture capital and training, we need a Scottish Parliament. No doubt Government members will tell us happily about the statistics, about the polls carried out among Scottish business men, showing that a Scottish Parliament is not tops among the things that those people would like to see. Within the last two or three weeks, Scotland on Sunday carried an article, written anonymously by a Scottish business man, putting the case for a Scottish Parliament. It says something about the climate of Scottish business that somebody putting his head above the parapet to support a Scottish Parliament feels that he has to do so anonymously. This is the bunker mentality.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I agree that people should be prepared to put their names to things in which they believe. Why did the Social and Liberal Democrats fail to table an amendment to this motion?
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the matter was discussed last night at a parliamentary party meeting, and it was decided that the motion in the name of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends was one that we could support.
  I believe that a Scottish Parliament would be much more in touch with the continuing development needs of Scottish industry. I have already mentioned how it could target its tax-cutting powers; how it could look into the possibility of lower interest rates and the setting up of an industrial credit bank. Consider the situation in West Germany, where power is diffuse, where there is a federal structure. One often finds businesses being set up in centres of power. In many ways, centres of power attract new business. I believe that a Scottish Parliament could be a catalyst and could add some dynamism to the Scottish economy.
  1054
  As one looks forward to 1992, one is conscious of the need for an improved transport infrastructure. The hon. Member for Tayside, North, who has left the Chamber, referred to the importance of Scotland's export industries. He mentioned whisky and office equipment. Clearly, in the case of an economy that is so dependent on exports, access to markets is important. I remember going to the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) when the Portobello Freightliner terminal was being closed. At the time, that seemed to be a very short-sighted move, and experience has shown just how short-sighted. Our European competitors are improving their infrastructure, particularly in the case of railways, while the Government here seem to baulk at extending electrification north of Edinburgh.
  Take the question of air transport. Currently, and quite properly, there is a debate on the future of Prestwick. In this regard, I think that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) will find that my views do not differ much from his. This is the focus of Scottish debate at a time when, for example, the Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris is being integrated with the whole transport network—linking it to the city and to the rest of the country. While these imaginative things are being done by our European competitors, little imagination is being used here. I certainly do not count a toll bridge to Skye as one of the imaginative projects that we need if we are to compete on equal terms.
  Finally, I want to refer briefly to the fishing industry, which is so important to many communities round our coast. When the Government failed to embark on a decommissioning scheme, they missed an opportunity. It was a big mistake. Of course it would not have been the whole answer, but I cannot see a better way of ensuring that the capacity of the fleet is more in line with the catching opportunities. If the fishing opportunities of the industry are to be reduced, it must be given some financial compensation. One wonders what kind of fleet the Government expect to see at the end of this year if they allow pure market forces to take their course.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has made a number of points to which I want to refer later. He referred to the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) from the Chamber. I should point out that my hon. Friend is attending a Committee meeting upstairs.
  I apologise to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches for my absence during the opening few minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I was having a personal meeting with the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was about the Armitage Shanks Tubal works in Barrhead. I want to thank the Minister of State and a large number of Opposition Members for their support in that regard. It is an issue of great importance to my constituency.
  Mr. William McKelvey rose—
  Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman has signed my early-day motion, I will certainly give way to him.
  Mr. McKelvey: I wish the hon. Gentleman every success when he meets the Prime Minister. I hope that she will be able to do something about Armitage Shanks. When I

  1055
  went to see her about the Armitage Shanks closure in Kilmarnock, she said that she would do her best. Unfortunately, however, the closure took place. I accepted the hon. Gentleman's support at that time, and respected him for giving it. Indeed, I received support from other hon. Members. I cautioned the hon. Gentleman not to put too much faith in the Prime Minister's ability to do anything against a multinational that is determined to move elsewhere.
  Mr. Stewart: The purpose of my meeting was to look to the future in Barrhead. Armitage Shanks has, indeed, confirmed its decision to close the Tubal works. When I went with a letter from the Prime Minister to discuss the situation I was prevented from passing the factory gate. That is an indication of the company's management.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, rightly, to the importance of transport policy. As he said, we await the decision on Scottish lowlands airports policy. My hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot possibly be expected, in this debate, to announce a decision; that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. However, anything that he can tell the House about the timing of the announcement would be helpful to hon. Members in respect of the positions that they may take.
  While I am on that point, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord King on his excellent announcement about the Scottish headquarters for British Airways and the intention to provide a service from Glasgow to New York, starting on 3 August, if the Secretary of State for Transport takes the correct decision on airports policy.
  I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the importance of the imaginative set of proposals for the development of the corridor. These will turn on Glasgow's getting transatlantic status. There is immense potential for new growth in that area of west central Scotland—and that is not just my opinion; it is an opinion shared by others, such as the Labour group in Renfrew district council.
  More generally, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North have put forward very clearly and comprehensively the basic figures on the Scottish economy. Manufacturing output is now the highest in Scotland's economic history. One has only to look at the CBI's figures on output and employment.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who is also attending a Standing Committee meeting, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland both referred to the need for indigenous growth in the Scottish economy. That is a very important point. The self-employment figures have increased by about 50 per cent. since 1981, compared with no change at all in the previous three decades. Many of these people will in future need small, medium-sized and large firms in Scotland. The other most encouraging indicator for the future is that manufacturing productivity in Scotland in recent years has been as high as in any other industrialised country and higher than most.
  When I saw the motion on the Order Paper, I wondered why the Opposition had chosen to debate the Scottish economy today. I hoped that we would hear concrete proposals from the Labour party about how it would tackle the problems, as it sees them, of the Scottish economy. We have had some proposals. The hon. Member
  1056
  for Dundee, East talked in ringing terms about the importance of a Scottish Parliament, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
  We know of the enthusiasm of the Opposition Benches for that important body. No doubt if I took a show of hands, most Opposition Members would put up their hands. I see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvy) putting up his hand. If such a body were set up, no doubt Opposition Members would give up their seats in this place to serve in it. May we have a show of hands to see which hon. Members agree with that? I see that Opposition Members are about 50:50. If there is ever a Scottish assembly, we look forward to by-elections in Scotland.
  The Labour party proposes that the new body would have economic and industrial responsibilities. We are also told that the new powerhouse of Scottish Socialism would have responsibility for inward investment. No doubt hoardings would go up from Massachusetts to Mississippi and from Los Angeles to Long Island saying, "Come to sunny Scotland. We can offer you what no other European country can—Socialism." But there would need to be a footnote—"except Albania." Only in Albania and on the Benches occupied by Scottish Labour Members is there any following left for Socialism in Europe.
  Mr. Wallace: Does not the hon. Gentleman presuppose that that would be a Scottish Parliament elected without proportional representation? Would he change his mind if there was proportional representation?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman please keep to the motion on the Order Paper?
  Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland thinks that the Labour party will go for proportional representation, he will have a sad awakening.
  The second proposal from the Opposition was on business rates. The important progress towards a unified business rate, which the entire business community, large and small, has underlined as of crucial importance to the future of Scottish business and industry, would be thrown away by the Labour party. There would be huge increases in the burden of rates.
  Of course, local authorities have a tendency to increase the burden on non-domestic ratepayers, because businesses do not have votes. The burden of the increase on businesses is often passed on to consumers who live outside the area. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) replies to the debate, he may confirm his belief, which I have heard in the past, that rates have no effect on jobs. That is not the view of any business man to whom I have talked on the subject.
  We also heard a proposal from some Opposition Members for a roof tax. That was well analysed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North. It is interesting to note the rumours that the Labour party in England would not go ahead with that proposal. No doubt, in the next 24 hours or so, we will hear another authorised version from the Opposition.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State may have been slightly unfair to the roof tax in his general criticisms. The roof tax would be good news for some parts of the Scottish economy. It would be good news for that admirable body of people, double glazing salesmen, and for central heating engineers, because their products are to be exempt from the general increase in taxation which

  1057
  would follow other house improvements. But it would be bad news for precisely the people upon whom the future of the Scottish economy most depends—those who are trying to improve themselves as workers, managers and entrepreneurs, who are upwardly mobile and who wish to move, naturally and properly into better housing for themselves and their families. They are classically the people, as well as the elderly, who would be hit by the absurd proposal.
  We have heard from the Opposition the usual parroting of doom and gloom. We have heard complaints not solutions, and problems not answers. Yet again, the Labour party has confirmed that it has nothing new to offer. It has forgotten nothing and learnt nothing from its period of power.
  I compliment my right hon. and hon. Friends on their common-sense policies, which are steadily turning the Scottish economy round. I wish them every success in continuing with those policies.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: As my old granny would have said, February is always a dull month. That speech fairly shortened the winter, but that is about all it did. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) started off not too badly, but he drifted into his usual rambling. If the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was that of a teetotaller, he should try taking a dram now and again.
  I want to put on record my thanks to BP, with which I have not always enjoyed the best relationship, for its massive investment in the petrochemical industry at Grangemouth in my constituency. The investment will provide some new jobs, but it will certainly secure existing jobs. I understand the annoyance of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) with BP because of its involvement with Britoil. In my defence, I warned the House, on the day of the announcement that BP was being given Britoil, what would happen. The takeover of Britoil has had precisely the outcome I expected. However, on a constituency basis, I record my thanks for that massive investment.
  I also want to thank the Secretary of State for Energy. As the House knows, I have been campaigning, sometimes alone, against the application by Shell Exxon to construct a pipeline from Grangemouth to Manchester to pipe all the ethylene manufactured at the most northern plant down to England. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for refusing the application; he has informed me that he has ordered a public inquiry.
  I hope that all the parties will examine carefully the proposal to construct a pipeline. As I have said often, the future of downstream industries in west central Scotland depends on the retention of ethylene. A pipeline from Grangemouth to Manchester would leave only one gap in the ethylene grid. If companies could move ethylene about as if jobs did not matter, they would do so to the detriment of almost every area where petrochemicals are based. Therefore, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Energy for ordering a public inquiry.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood sounded hollow when he talked about the industry's rates and business rates and general rates on people. I live with the abiding memory of
  1058
  when he was a Minister in the Scottish Office. The then Government introduced legislation to derate the plant and machinery outside buildings, which cost Central regional council £8 million of rateable value.
  I took a deputation from Central regional council to see the Minister in his ivory tower at Dover house to ask the Government to make good the shortfall that his legislation had caused in rate income for Central regional and Falkirk district councils. The Minister said, "Your rates in Central region are below the national average per head of the population, so I shall not give you any money. The increase in rates for Falkirk district council of 6p in the pound and for Central region of 4p in the pound will only bring you up to the national average." Now the hon. Gentleman has the gall to criticise local authorities for increasing rates.
  I wanted to make that point before the Tories in Scotland started an attack on local authorities about rates in the run-up to the regional elections. The hon. Gentleman's expressions of concern about rate levels sounded hollow when set against the background of the Labour party's proposals on what has been described as the roof tax.
  Last night I made an offer to the hon. Member for Tayside, North that I extend to any Scottish Conservative Member. It will not take me long to go round the Scottish Conservative constituencies. I am not contesting the next election and as we run up to it I shall have time on my hands, so I offer to come to any Conservative seat, providing the sitting Member of Parliament makes the arrangements and debate the merits of the poll tax against the Labour party's proposals. That offer is on the table.
  I shall take up two points made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North, possibly the only two serious points in his speech. The first concerns the export of whisky. One decision that has been taken in relation to the construction of the Channel tunnel is that whisky in bulk form—this should be a warning to all of us who enjoy a glass now and then—is so volatile that it will not be allowed to go through the Channel Tunnel. Three commodities will not be allowed through the tunnel: liquid petroleum gas, liquid chemicals, and whisky. Therefore, it is fairly obvious that all the exports of Scottish whisky will have to go by sea. What is the Scottish Office doing to ensure that the exports go through Scottish ports? What is now happening is absolute madness.
  The second serious point made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North involved general exports from Scotland. During the past 10 years—and, I admit, just a wee bit longer than that—the volume of exports of manufactured goods originating in Scotland, going out through Scottish ports, has dropped from 75 per cent. to about 18 per cent. That is an absolute disgrace.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) talked about the closure of the terminal at Leith. It was closed because the shipowners introduced the grid system. Whisky that is manufactured in Perth is taken by road—at no cost to the exporter and manufacturer because it is paid for by the ship owner—to the non-scheme port of Felixstowe, from where it is exported. Of course, they are all non-scheme ports now. That is done on the basis that it is cheaper to take the goods by road than to steam the vessel up to Grangemouth or Glasgow.
  That policy is all right until all the Scottish ports are closed down, and we are heading that way. We shall then

  1059
  see what happens to the grid system. It will be abolished overnight. The whisky industry is important and the Government should consider those two aspects of it.
  The Scottish economy is fragile, and the Minister would mislead the House if he sought to pretend otherwise. All the surveys to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred prove the validity of that point. Anyone who is complacent about the future of the Scottish economy will have to answer to the people who will lose their jobs as a result of an upturn in unemployment.
  Like other hon. Members, I speak to industrialists. None of them says that he is confident about the next 18 months or two to three years. They are all looking ahead to difficult times. I was horrified when, over Christmas and the new year, I saw a Minister on Scottish television arguing that high interest rates were good for the Scottish economy because they made us work harder and become more efficient. The Secretary of State hinted at that, too. I have never heard such rubbish in my life.
  The Minister should acknowledge that, far from being good, high interest rates are damaging. We need to keep a careful watch on the development of our economy. I look forward to the day, not too far distant, when the responsibility for running the economy is in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and his colleagues.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I was going to open my speech by saying that I thought that Labour and Tory Members had a psychological problem when debating the Scottish economy. After listening to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), perhaps I should say that they have a geographical problem as well.
  Labour and Tory Members suffer from the delusion that Scotland is a poor dependent economy that will always rely on the good will of the Westminster Government. I want to make the opposite case in terms of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. Scotland is an exceptionally rich country, but its economy is being mismanaged and its assets are being pillaged.
  No one, including the present Chancellor, the past Chancellor, and even the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who was in charge of the Scottish economy, would prescribe the present level of interest rates, given the level of demand in the Scottish economy. I have an impeccable source for this view—no other than the vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative party, Mr. Bill Hughes, who, with engaging candour, said on 29 June last year on Radio 4:
  "we have to periodically endure the higher interest rates because that is for the better end of the total United Kingdom economy. I think that this is a very fair trade off."
  I suspect that Scottish manufacturing industry, which, because of the at least 5 per cent. surcharge in interest rates in the Scottish economy, is facing additional borrowings—that is, taxation—of £200 million, might think differently. Scottish farmers who face additional borrowings of £50 million and the hard-pressed Scottish fishing industry that faces additional borrowings of up to £10 million might also think differently.
  Earlier the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Scottish economy was not overheating. He did not go on to explain why we should have a level of interest rates that
  1060
  was appropriate only, if at all, for an economy that was overheating. Will Tory Ministers accept that, whatever the present level of activity in the Scottish economy, it would be higher if we had a level of interest rates appropriate to Scottish economic conditions.
  When we debate the Scottish economy, the Secretary of State for Scotland always clutches at straws. Last year in the Scottish Grand Committee he clutched at the straw of a Fraser of Allander Institute report that he found sympathetic to his case. However, when we read the report in detail we found that it warned of the damage that would be done to an investment/export economy such as Scotland by higher interest rates.
  During Scottish questions in December, the Secretary of State quoted, in glowing terms, a Royal Bank of Scotland report that argued that Scottish growth this year might be marginally higher than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. I took the trouble to examine that economic analysis in detail. The relevant passage reads:
  "Demand is, consequently, marginally stronger in relative terms and may well result in a better Scottish growth performance in 1990 (perhaps 2 per cent.—2·5 per cent.) than in the UK as a whole—little comfort given that the demand-dampening policies in force just now were aimed at cooling the overheated south-east and will still leave Scottish employment and output levels lagging well behind the national average."
  The Secretary of State cited that report favourably. If he cites the forecast favourably, does he accept the analysis that accompanied that report?
  There are two reasons why the Secretary of State would be unwise to rely on favourable short-term forecasts for the Scottish economy. The first is obvious. Earlier tonight, the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the industrial production figures and said that they showed that the Scottish economy was doing particularly well. However, the index of industrial production, minus class 13—investment in oil and gas—shows a different picture. Minus class 13, the latest figures for industrial production for Scotland show a 10 per cent. Increase since 1985. The comparable figures for the United Kingdom show a 19 per cent. increase.
  The evidence is clear. There is not a general economic recovery in Scotland, relative even to the modest improvement in the United Kingdom economy. There is an investment surge in the North sea now because of strengthening oil prices, but I doubt whether even the Secretary of State wants to take credit for that.
  There is a more serious reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be unwise to rely on short-term forecasts. No economic forecast can cope with the impact of a major industrial collapse, but the Scottish economy now faces at least two clear dangers of collapse in core industries.
  The first is the steel industry. From the position of jobs related immediately to steel—that is, people working directly in the steel industry and for the suppliers of steel—it is clear that at least 25,000 jobs are at stake. Taking a broader picture, and including industries which are dependent on the supply of steel—and are therefore dependent on the pricing and source pricing of steel—that figure could be expanded to well over 100,000.
  The second is the fishing industry, on which 30,000 jobs in Scotland depend. The Secretary of State said yesterday that the fishermen were rich and did not need any Government help. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have no compassion for family businesses

  1061
  which are caught in a cost-revenue squeeze? A constituent of mine has had his boat sold by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. He got for it one third of the price at which it was valued a few months ago. As a result, he is in danger of losing not only his job, his boat and his livelihood but his home and everything else.
  Has the Secretary of State no compassion for fish processing workers earning less than £100 a week who are being offered by their employers a zero per cent. wage round—no increase whatever in their pay? Will the Government not dip into their pocket and provide for the Scottish fishing industry even the same level of support that is available to every other European fishing industry?
  I took part in a BBC television programme shortly after the turn of the new year, in which people were asked to comment on Scotland's economic prospects in the 1990s. I was struck by the remarks of David Murray, who the Government will undoubtedly say is a model Scottish business man, and he deserves that title. He did not in that programme speak of some major industrial renaissance for Scotland. He spoke of his real concerns about the level of external ownership in the Scottish economy and about the damage being done to his and other business by high interest rates.
  Even more disturbing than the present situation is the total lack of vision in Government economic policy to meet the challenges of this decade and those of the next century. The only strategy that this Government have ever had for the Scottish economy has been the attraction of mobile international investment. Yet it is clear that international investment will become tougher to attract because of competition not simply from Ireland and southern Europe but also from eastern Europe. That strategy has only limited potential in the present decade.
  We should be moving to a natural resource-based economic policy instead of either demand-managed economy or policies based on attracting international investment. We have not done well so far. In the last decade, £87 billion of oil revenues went straight to the London Exchequer. That represented £17,000 a head for every man, woman and child in Scotland. We should remember that when the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—the Under-Secretary—and his fan club of Sudeten Scots who disrupt Scottish Question Time tell us how lucky Scots are to experience the munificence of the Westminster Exchequer. It would not be so bad if we did not have the knowledge that it is Scottish assets which have bankrolled the Thatcher economic experiment for the past 10 years.
  Announcements in recent days show that the great gas robbery planned for the 1990s will be even worse than the great oil robbery of the 1980s. At least the oil was landed in Scotland and we received some direct jobs impact. The gas from the central North sea that Amoco is taking to Teesside will not even touch Scotland.
  The implications of that are severe. First and obviously, the petrochemical and downstream jobs will go to the north-east of England. They are severe, secondly, because of the plan to construct a 1,750 MW power station at Welton, near Redcar. Perhaps when he replies to the debate the Minister will say how he intends to sell Scottish electricity, generated by coal or nuclear power, twice or, in
  1062
  the case of nuclear, perhaps five times as expensively as gas power over the border when faced with competition from a power station of that magnitude.
  There are even more serious implications. What energy intensive industry will locate in central Scotland when it can get more favourable electricity prices by locating in the north-east of England? Labour Members should be able to think of at least one major energy-intensive industry in central Scotland which is currently making the choice between a Scottish and a north-east of England location.
  I have no doubt that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, remembering that the Labour party initiated this debate, will wish to say whether they intend to oppose the plan to send North sea gas from the central North sea to Teesside rather than to a Scottish landfall point.
  We in Scotland face a basic choice: either we use our immense resources quite literally to power an efficient competitive Scottish economy in Europe, or we continue with a situation, under any Westminster Government, by which our economy is mismanaged, our resources pillaged, our industry decimated and our nation humiliated. If we are prepared to put up with that, we will be what Carlyle once called the English—"a nation of fools."
  Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am anxious to raise a point with you now so that the Minister is able to respond when he replies to the debate.
  In his opening speech, the Secretary of State for Scotland seriously misled the House by claiming that a document to which the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), referred extensively had been reported in the Glasgow Herald on 12 December. Clearly, that was intended to mislead the House and the Press Gallery. I have with me—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a Minister deliberately misled the House. He knows that that would be out of order.
  Mr. Wilson: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he must have done so inadvertently, although the consequence is the same. In advance of the Minister of State replying to the debate, I shall be happy to give him a copy of the newspaper in question so that he may quote the source, because it would be an intolerable abuse of the House if that tactic were used to mislead.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order for the Chair.
  6.38 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: We must remember when we talk about the Scottish economy that it is made up of a conglomeration of local economies. The Minister of State will agree that the retention of profitable firms is as important an object as the creation of jobs.
  That being so, I ask the hon. Gentleman to use his good offices to intervene in the dispute between Suter Estates of London and the Drummond Packaging Company of Greenock. Many jobs are at stake. The London company is seeking to remove Drummond Packaging from its premises in Greenock. It would be disastrous if that

  1063
  happened. The Minister is aware of the severity of the unemployment problems of Inverclyde. Will his officials intervene in the matter?
  The French parent company of Drummond Packaging offered Suter Estates, which owns the land, £1·4 million. That was rejected, and Drummonds entered into discussions with the Inverclyde district council to purchase land on which to build customised premises. The buildings should be completed at the end of November this year, but Suter Estates, the London-based property company, is telling Drummonds to quit by mid-summer. If that happens, several score of my constituents will be put out of work. I hope that the Minister will intervene in that important matter.
  I said that I would be brief and I shall be. However, I should like to speak for two minutes on that once magnificent industry, which is now but a remnant of its former glory—the shipbuildng and marine engineering industry.
  What recent discussions have the Minister or his officials had with their colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry about the European Community directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund? That is an important form of aid to shipyards. Will the Minister say how many Scottish shipyards have access to that form of European Community subsidy? I make a plea on behalf of Scott Lithgow—a company which, until now, has been denied access to that form of subsidy—that it be given sympathetic consideration because what we are seeing Europewide, and it is a welcome development, is a full capacity of berths in shipyards.
  Some experts estimate that, within the next two or three years, European yards will be short of between 35 and 50 berths to build vessels. I know of European shipping lines that are now seeking tenders from British shipyards, but in some cases those shipyards—and Scott Lithgow is one of them—have had to turn away those notifications of interest because they do not have access to that type of subsidy. That is a disgrace if there is a European Communitywide subsidy for the shipbuilding industry. Firms such as Scott Lithgow and Fergussons are denied the opportunity of recruiting, selecting and employing highly skilled adult males. There are too many such men on the dole in my constituency.
  I understand that Caledonian MacBrayne will have to replace up to four major and four minor passenger ferry vessels over the next five years. That figure was given to me in an answer by the Under-Secretary some days ago. I make a plea for those orders to go to Scottish yards. It does not embarras me to say that some of those orders should come to Fergussons in Port Glasgow. It is a first-class, small ship, specialist yard. Some of the Scottish orders that the Secretary of State now signs because, in essence, he is Mr. Caledonian MacBrayne should be built in Aberdeen and in Port Glasgow.
  Kvaerner of Govan, Yarrow, Hall Russell, Fergussons and Kincaids are the remnants of this once great industry. The shipbuilding industry uses modern electronics and employs highly skilled labour. Over the next two years, the Government should seek to defend the interests of those employed in that industry or who could find employment in it.
  6.44 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill): Anyone listening to the speech of the Secretary of State could be forgiven for thinking that the production of candy floss was a major growth industry in the Scottish office—it was bright and cheerful but when you bite into it you find it lacks substance and nourishment. Anyone sitting at home watching this debate on television, who used to work a Caterpillar, at Linwood, at one of the shipyards, or anywhere else that has lost jobs, and who is eking out his unemployment benefit, must be sick to the back teeth by what we have heard from Scottish Office Ministers today.
  It is not good enough to respond to this serious matter by bandying statistics about the 1960s and 1970s and who was responsible for what and when. The truth is that there has been a long-term decline in Scottish industry for more than a century, as other industrial nations have equalled and surpassed our output and brought in orders in sectors where we have formerly had an unrivalled lead. There is no point in ignoring that fact—it is the future that matters, so let us concentrate on that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to the unpublished reports written by the university of Louvain, which forecast a sharp decline in Britain's industrial areas and a massive increase in job losses as a result of the introduction of the European single market. The report specifically mentions Strathclyde as one of the areas for which it forecasts dire results. It pointed out that coal and steel-producing areas would suffer from competition.
  The Government have asked what answers the Opposition have. The Louvain report came up with some of the answers, but we have heard nothing about that from the Government today. The report says that the problems are related to insufficient investment in railways, to widespread dereliction, to the dearth of investment and to a shortage of professional expertise—the report calls it an "exodus of grey matter" to the south-east, where clearly jobs and promotions exist.
  Business men and local authorities are pessimistic about the single market because they fear that American and Japanese companies will move to the continent, with a consequent loss of orders for suppliers and a loss of customers for small businesses in the surrounding areas.
  The absence of regional government in Britain is an extremely important aspect of the debate, and Louvain also mentioned it as something which has hindered progress in Scotland. In North Rhine Westphalia the Government provide up to 10 times as much money for research and development in industry as the Department of Trade and Industry does in England. Whatever the figures may be for Scotland, it is certainly not as good as 10 times that of England.
  Firms in my constituency have expressed anxiety about the future. Some of the construction firms are steady at present, but they are faced with Europewide competition for orders of quite modest value. How can that contribute to forward planning and job security for the work forces?
  A clothing manufacturer in Maryhill sees the dangers of competition from Germany; West German manufacturers have already obtained supplies from East German sources at a lower cost than can be obtained here. The textile industry has already had a series of redundancies in the Borders and elsewhere as a result of decreased orders and falling sales.

  1065
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for standing back and allowing me to speak. His attitude is a contrast to that of the Secretary of State, who has the habit of constantly referring to "hon. Gentlemen opposite". He does not seem to notice that Scotland has three women Members of Parliament. We are sitting here, but we seem to be invisible. I have often seen reports that refer to women as an under-used resource. Women are also described as an invisible resource. I thought that that was an exaggerated description until I entered the House a couple of years ago and observed the conduct of Conservative Members such as the Secretary of State, who do not even recognise our existence.
  Although female unemployment is approximately one third of male unemployment, far too many women are in low-paid or part-time jobs with no prospects or training opportunities. Women need not only training schemes but time off to take part in them, and we need far more child care provision. If Britain could provide child care on the scale that it did during the second world war, when we were fighting an enemy for our very existence, surely we can provide child care when we are fighting for our economic existence.
  6.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in his excellent speech asked why the Labour party had chosen to have this debate on the Scottish economy. Having listened to it, I share his curiosity, because nothing that has emerged has in any way advanced its cause one bit.
  With policy documents falling thick and fast from the Labour party, rather like leaves in autumn and with roughly the same life expectancy, it occurred to me that, when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to a genuine and authoritative document, he was referring to the industry policy document that the Labour party published this week entitled "Fulfilling our future: Industry 2000". But when I looked through it and found almost nothing of policy but rather a lot of wind and verbiage, I realised that he could not have that in mind.
  I am not surprised that such a vacuous document has been presented this week. The Labour party may want to conceal the fact that its industrial policy in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change", which was published last year and ratified by the 1989 Labour party conference, contains such policies as a payroll tax on all Scottish business based on turnover, or a commitment to renationalise British Telecom, British Gas and the water and electricity industries, or the plan to legalise secondary picketing and to allow unions to call strikes before a ballot has been called. No wonder it is not keen to draw attention to that. Perhaps the next policy document will be called "Back to the Drawing Board".
  After the Labour party's drubbing over its proposals for a roof tax from every commentator throughout Scotland, after the revelation of its jobs tax, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State drew attention in his opening speech, whereby already an extra £130 million would have been taken out of Scottish businesses, after its earlier commitment to a payroll tax,
  1066
  after the revelation in its local government finance document of its intention to put the Scottish Enterprise initiative into the hands of the local authorities, and after its already well-known plans to introduce a tax-raising assembly in Scotland, it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Garscadden should fall back on selective quotations from a discussion paper of no status whatever, the substance of which was reported in an article by Alastair Balfour in the Glasgow Herald in December. [HON. MEMBERS: "What date?"] I think that it was 30 December—at the end of last year.
  I would prefer to rely on some of the surveys that have been coming out from responsible and recognised bodies such as the Fraser of Allander survey which referred to growth continuing over the next five years, a survey which prompted The Scotsman to headline an article
  "Outlook brightens for Scots economy in 1990s"
  Who am I to argue with The Scotsman?
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, since he has not spoken.
  Mr. Kirkwood: As the Minister is busy talking about surveys, has he undertaken any surveys of the state of the Scottish fishing industry? Is he aware that earlier this week 130 jobs were lost in Holmac Seafoods in my constituency? If he undertook such a survey, he would get some fairly dire results.
  Mr. Lang: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to develop his point in due course, but I want to reply to the points that were raised in the debate.
  The survey by Cambridge Econometrics suggested that the Scottish economy grew more rapidly than that of the United Kingdom last year and will do so this year. The CBI survey suggested that output would rise faster in the United Kingdom, and there was more optimism about exports and employment increasing in Scotland in the year ahead while it is falling in the United Kingdom. There was similar optimism in the business strategy survey and the Building Employers Confederation survey.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) recounted the successful growth of most of Scotland's major industrial companies. No wonder the Labour party is forced to talk about relative decline when there has been so much growth and increased prosperity, with the average income of Scots rising by a third over the past decade, compared with absolute decline under the previous Labour Government.
  It is interesting to reflect that, between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, manufacturing industry declined more steeply in the United Kingdom than in Scotland. Today, Scottish manufacturing output and GDP are at their highest ever levels. The latest figures show GDP per head in Scotland to be some 3 per cent. above the United Kingdom average, excluding the south-east. That is hardly symptomatic of an economy in relative decline.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the Louvain report, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). It was originally prepared in French and it may have lost something in translation, but the hon. Gentleman seems to have accorded the opposite view of the state of Strathclyde, as summarised in the report, to the

  1067
  reality. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a translation. Referring to Strathclyde and its technological position, the report said:
  "Strathclyde is, in fact distinguished from all other regions studied by a distinctly weaker presence of traditional sectors … and in comparison with other regions of Europe which are characterised with traditional industries has a better representation of advanced technology activities in its territories."
  That is the opposite of the point that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to make.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), referred to expenditure in docklands and sought to compare that adversely with—
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House was misled earlier and I have drawn attention to that. The Secretary of State, having looked for a reference to cancel out my point, came back with another reference to the article. In doing so, he sought, for the benefit of the press, to devalue the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred. I have now found the article which the Secretary of State claimed establishes his case, but it made no reference to the report. Let me quote the last paragraph.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty in finding a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point for debate, not a point of order. What is the point of order for me?
  Mr. Wilson: I shall come to the point of order and to do so I shall quote the last paragraph of the article by Alastair Balfour in the Glasgow Herald. It says:
  "The State of our Nation in this last decade of the century is poor, and getting worse. The pity is that so few recognise it and fewer still are ready to address it."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point for debate, not a point of order.
  Mr. Wilson: The House has been misled twice in order to disinform the press.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Lang: The article in question was wrong and so the paragraph in it is wrong.
  Mr. Dewar: I have not had time to study the article, but I want to be clear what the Minister of State is saying. Is he telling me that the article of 30 December by Alastair Balfour specifically referred to the document from which I was quoting and deals with its contents?
  Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that the substance of the article—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may check that in Hansard. But as the substance of the report is incorrect, and as it was not accepted by the Scottish Development Agency-—[Interruption.]
  Sir Hector Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you not going to reprimand the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for throwing a newspaper across the Dispatch Box?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) regrets the action that he has just taken and I hope that he will feel it appropriate to apologise to the House.
  Mr. Wilson: I overestimated my strength, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The second copy of the newspaper was meant to land alongside the first. I apologise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North has apologised and that is the end of the matter.
  Mr. Ewing rose—
  Mr. Lang: The relative comparison is not with the United Kingdom's economy—
  Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Misleading the House used to be a very serious matter. It is now taken as a matter of course.
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie rose in his
  place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed
  to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 275.

  Division No. 70]

  [7' pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald

  Darling, Alistair

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blair, Tony

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foulkes, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Callaghan, Jim

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clay, Bob

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cohen, Harry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Coleman, Donald

  Hardy, Peter

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cryer, Bob

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  1069

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Geraint

  Parry, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Redmond, Martin

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Richardson, Jo

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lambie, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lamond, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Salmond, Alex

  Leighton, Ron

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Litherland, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Livingstone, Ken

  Short, Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sillars, Jim

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAllion, John

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

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Snape, Peter

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Spearing, Nigel

  McKelvey, William

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McLeish, Henry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Vaz, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Wall, Pat

  Maxton, John

  Wallace, James

  Meacher, Michael

  Walley, Joan

  Meale, Alan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michael, Alun

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow,C)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Wray, Jimmy

  Murphy, Paul

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, William

  Mr.Frank Haynes and

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. KenEastham.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Allason, Rupert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Amos, Alan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bowis, John

  Ashby, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baldry, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

  Bellingham, Henry

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Burns, Simon

  1070

  Burt, Alistair

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Butler, Chris

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Irvine, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jackson, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jessel, Toby

  Chapman, Sydney

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Key, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Kilfedder, James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Couchman, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Cran, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Curry, David

  Knowles, Michael

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

  Knox, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Day, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Devlin, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dover, Den

  Lilley, Peter

  Dunn, Bob

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Durant, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Evennett, David

  Maclean, David

  Fallon, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forman, Nigel

  Mans, Keith

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Franks, Cecil

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Freeman, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gale, Roger

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gardiner, George

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mellor, David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Roger

  Gorst, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gow, Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Morris, M (N'hamptonS)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Grist, Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grylls, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hague, William

  Needham, Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Talton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Harris, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayward, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hind, Kenneth

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Holt, Richard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Price, Sir David

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rathbone, Tim

  1071

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Riddick, Graham

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thorne, Neil

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rost, Peter

  Tracey, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Walden, George

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waller, Gary

  Shersby, Michael

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Sims, Roger

  Ward, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watts, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Speller, Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Squire, Robin

  Wilshire, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Harts N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stokes, Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mr.David Lightbown and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. TomSackville.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put
  forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on the success of their economic policies in Scotland which have resulted in higher living standards, greatly reduced unemployment, a substantial increase in the workforce in employment, and record levels of manufacturing productivity and output; have promoted the competitiveness of Scottish industry and its readiness to meet the challenge of the Single European Market; have encouraged the growth of investment of enterprise and small businesses, and have provided a basis for sustained growth and development across the economy as a whole; and notes that unemployment is now falling faster in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.

King's Cross Railways Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 121 (Quorum of committee on opposed bill), leave be given for the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill to proceed with a quorum of two.—[The Chairman of Was and Means.]
7.12 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am most grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for facilitating this debate. I thought that I might have to begin by introducing myself to right hon. and hon. Members, because I have been so long detained outside the Chamber that hon. Members may have forgotten who I am. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never".] Indeed, since 27 June last year—
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: May I say that my hon. Friend will always be remembered a s a shining wit?
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend has merely stolen one of my spoonerisms.
Since 27 June last year I have had the honour and privilege of chairing the Committee considering the King's Cross Railways Bill, which, while not exactly the greatest show on earth, has added to the gaiety of nations and augmented the public stock of harmless pleasure from the Grand Committee Room off Westminster Hall. We have sat in public on 33 days since, and we have had one private session and also one site visit.
I have emerged this evening blinking into the sudden glare and sunlight of the Chamber and hope that hon. Members will vote for the motion, which is brought before the House at the request of all the members of the Committee: my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that the honour of sitting on the Committee was not one that we actively sought, but we are doing our duty as it was imposed upon us by the House and intend, even if the motion is passed this evening, to continue to do so.
The Committee has now been sitting for a long time and my colleagues and I feel that we have now exhausted time and are beginning to encroach upon eternity. It is producing some significant problems for those on the Committee in carrying out their other parliamentary duties from time to time.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wonder whether, having gone this far through the experience, the hon. Gentleman now feels that private Bills should be encouraged or discouraged as a process. Does he not now have much sympathy with the special Select Committee that looked at this, seeking a way to reform the whole process?
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman implies that I did not have any sympathy with that proposition before I became Chairman of the Committee. I should disabuse him of that idea, because I feel that there is much to be said for many of the recommendations in the Joint Committee report and I hope that the Leader of the House will take on board that Committee's recommendations. I am sure that they are in line with the views of many hon. Members who have come here this evening to debate not merely

1073
whether the quorum on the Committee should in this circumstance be reduced, but the wider points that have been adverted to by the hon. Gentleman.
It is a serious request that we are making to the House and it is not made lightly. It is not one to which, in other circumstances, I should be very sympathetic. I believe it to be of some importance, therefore, to establish the justification for what is being proposed.
I have said already that we have sat in public for 33 days. It is only this week that we have begun to hear evidence on behalf of the petitioners against the Bill. Therefore, the Bill is likely to continue in Committee for a very long time to come
I have also said that, notwithstanding the request that we are making this evening, it will be incumbent upon hon. Members to attend diligently to their duties as often as is possible and necessary. I give an assurance to the House that they will do so.
Mr. Tony Banks: I sympathise with the situation of the members of the hon. Gentleman's Committee. I have sat on and chaired, I think, five private Bill Committees and I understand his position, even though I shall be opposing what he proposes. He has just mentioned that the petitioners are about to start making their case. Does he think that they will be disadvantaged by this move, because the promoter, British Rail, has had the opportunity of a quorum of three, whereas now the petitioners will have a quorum of only two?
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that it is not necessarily an advantage to those making speeches that they be heard; in some cases it may be the opposite. However, I take the point that he has raised and assure him that, in our opinion, the petitioners will not be disadvantaged by the proposal. If we believed that they would be, I should not be standing here now advocating that the motion be passed.
A full record of the proceedings is taken every day and the transcript is available the following morning. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been assiduous throughout the proceedings on the Bill in testing with some vigour the assertions of British Rail. I do not think that the representatives of British Rail would say that every day has been an agreeable experience, as they have been subjected to the penetrating glares and cross-examination of the members of the committee.
Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham): If it is not a disadvantage to any party for the quorum to be reduced from three to two, and my hon. Friend advanced the case that a good transcript was available to other hon. Members, why not reduce the quorum to one?
Mr. Hamilton: I appreciate that my hon. Friend thinks that autocracy is the best system of government, and I am sure that many hon. Members have sympathy with that. However, it is a question of degree. From time to time, it is necessary to adjourn the Committee, merely for a few moments, for an hon. Member to make a telephone call, or to perform some other function that it would be too indecorous to mention. For that reason we tabled the motion, and we also recognise that hon. Members have other duties in the House and outside, and it is our opinion
1074
that, on balance, this one exception to the general rule ought to be allowed, on the ground of the length of time that the Committee has been sitting.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I can sympathise with the dilemma of the Committee, because I have been a Chairman of a Select Committee, although it did not have to sit as long as the hon. Gentleman's Committee. Does he agree that the problem that the Committee faces and that the House is considering tonight—I believe the problem has applied to other Bills in the past—is that Bills of this description come to the House without being preceded by other procedures? This type of private Bill deals indirectly with matters of public concern that it was not initially meant to deal with. There is a deep-seated difficulty over the nature of the promoter's objectives rather than any shortcoming in the procedures of the House.
Mr. Hamilton: I believe that procedural alterations could be made to shorten the time for which Committees sit. I believe that, if there were a procedure such as a summons for directions in cases before the High Court, to examine which witnesses and the nature of the evidence to be called and other such relevant questions, that might shorten the length of time for which the Committee sits without disadvantage to the promoters or the petitioners on the Bill. There are other options that one could mention.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I know that he is a distinguished Chairman of a Committee, as is the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
This request is not without precedent, although precedents are not apposite to cover the case of the Committee on which I sit.
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
Mr. Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend permit me to make a little more progress with my speech? I hope that the debate will not last as long as the Committee has been sitting, and I want to allow other hon. Members to speak. I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient and perhaps intervene later.
Motions to reduce a quorum on Committees on private Bills have been put before. For example, in 1965 in the Committee examining the Covent Garden Market Bill, one of the hon. Members was taken seriously ill early in the proceedings and the quorum was reduced. In 1986, during the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) refused to serve and no other Opposition Member could be found to take her place, so the quorum was also reduced then.
There are not many precedents for what we are asking the House to do. I am fully sensible of the enormity of what is being proposed, and I do not think that it should become a general precedent. The rules and procedures on private Bills are not to be substantially changed, but I believe that when a Committee lasts for an exceptionally long time, such as the length of time that we have endured, it is right that hon. Members should be permitted to be absent for short periods, from time to time, without causing the Committee to adjourn.
The previous record for length of sitting of a private Bill Committee is held by the Associated British Ports (No. 2)

1075
Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, which sat for 26 days. The Leicester (Crematorium) Bill also lasted for 26 days in the 1982–83 Session.
The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill Committee, which sat for 25 days, met for 86 hours in Committee over five months. The King's Cross Railways Bill has already sat for more than 115 hours on 33 days, over eight months, and as I have said, it is possible that it will last for another 15 or 20 days. We shall be well into the lead by the time that we conclude our proceedings.
Looking to the future, that time is probably as nothing compared to what will be endured when, and if, British Rail comes forward in November, as it has said that it intends to do, with its high-speed link Bill to put the rail line through Kent to King's Cross. Therefore, I hope that I carry with me tonight supporters from Kent who sit on the Benches behind me.
I hope that I am making a case based on the length of time that the Committee has served. The average number of sitting days per Committee during the past 20 years is 4·8, so the vast majority of private Bills sit for only a few days, and the total number of hours when the Bill is considered is very small.
Mr Jeremy Corbyn: What is the average now?
Mr. Hamilton: I accept the hon. Gentleman's sedentary comment—we are certainly pushing up the average, but I do not think that that is the greatest of my achievements in my short period in the House.
A number of Select Committees on hybrid Bills have sat for lengthy periods, but hybrid Bill Committees are not strictly comparable with private Bill Committees, because they contain a greater number of hon. Members and a smaller quorum in relation to the overall size of the Committee. That is the point that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure had in mind when it turned its attention to quorums and made its recommendations.
The two most notable hybrid Bill Committees were the Channel Tunnel Bill—on which I also had the privilege of sitting—which sat for 39 days in 1985–86 and 1986–87 and the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, which sat for 22 days in 1987–88, when there were seven members and the quorum was three.
I have some experience of these matters, and it is on the basis of that that I make this request this evening. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) should have some sympathy with my request, as he sat on the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. In paragraph 118 of its proceedings, that Committee says:
"it is now unrealistic to expect members of an opposed bill committee in the Commons to abandon all their other duties in order to attend the whole of the committee's proceedings, it seems desirable slightly to relax the requirement for a quorum."
I am delighted to adopt the view of my hon. Friend the Member of Faversham, whom I am pleased to see here to support me.
I hasten to assure hon. Members that the purpose of moving the motion is not to enable hon. Members to take days off regular. I have had one morning and one afternoon off to perform other duties in the House and in my constituency during the 33 days that the Committee has sat; otherwise, I have sat in the Committee Room
1076
almost without exception, with just a few minutes outside. Other hon. Members have had other reasons to be away from the Committee for short periods.
The motion is to facilitate two hon. Members being away from Committee, without having to disrupt proceedings and to adjourn and so cause counsel and witnesses to have a break in proceedings. That causes inconvenience to petitioners, who are disadvantaged when the timetable of the Bill is unexpectedly altered, rather than to promoters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has been chosen for special treatment by the Tory Whips to serve on the Committee. Before he proposed the motion, I wonder whether he had a good look around to see whether someone else was available to fill the bill and whether he could make a change and substitute someone else. That would require a new procedure. One or two Tories seem to have a lot of time on their hands. Off the top of my head, I am thinking about the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is prepared to do a couple of days for Barclays for £100,000 a year. Does the hon. Gentleman have that sort of money?
Mr. Hamilton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the four hon. Members on the Committee are painfully aware that we are dedicated public servants, unpaid for the extra responsibility on our shoulders, while in front of us sit a suave collection of silks, juniors, agents and others, who are deriving no doubt well-deserved fees for the work that they perform. I should hate the hon. Gentleman to think that there was the slightest tinge of envy in our minds when we look at them.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend is a saint.
Mr. Hamilton: I was not aware that canonisation was in the gift of the Chief Whip, but it may be my reward for all my hard work in Committee.
I speak for all hon. Members on the Committee when I say that it is not our intention to use the latitude that the motion would give us to be away from the Committee in contravention of our duties to the House. We take very seriously paragraph 119 of the Joint Committee report, which states:
"The Committee wish to emphasise that despite the relaxation of these formal requirements, Members of Parliament should still regard themselves as obliged to attend committees on opposed bills assiduously and attentively."
It will be my intention to continue to sit on the Committee every day, in so far as it is possible for me to do so, and we shall attend assiduously to our duties.
Therefore, I commend the motion to the House. I hope that it will not be taken as a generalised exception, but will be treated as the exceptional case that it is. I hope for the support of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members.
7.32 pm
Mr. George Galloway: I, too, had the privilege of sitting selflessly on the Committee considering the King's Cross Railways Bill. Somebody up there in the Whips' Office likes me, too. I sat on the Committee considering the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, to which the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) referred. That Bill dealt with a bridge from one place to another place where I had never been and which I had never heard of. I never crossed the bridge, and probably

1077
never shall, but it was a bridge too far for me. I sat on the Committee for all those 22 days under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman).
Mr. Skinner: He was not all that distinguished then.
Mr. Galloway: He was a very distinguished Chairman. He did not leave his place very often, either. I see that he has his reward in heaven, his canonisation by the Chief Whip and now sits on the Treasury Bench, so perhaps the hon. Member for Tatton has something to look forward to after all.
Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten the House about a rumour that is going around that the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill may have to return to the House because of the height of the bridge. In those circumstances, presumably my hon. Friend would be more than happy to serve once again on that Committee.
Mr. Galloway: If it is proper to say so, I had always thought the measure a dubious one. After those 22 days, the Committee made a fairly strong recommendation which I understand the House later overturned. It may be that our wisdom has been vindicated and the measure will return.
Having served my 22 days on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, clearly I transgressed again, because I was given the chalice of a place under the equally distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Tatton—the Spectator's parliamentary wit of the year. Before the Committee started, I thought that epithet only half right. As each day progressed—and, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there have been many days—my admiration for him has grown and his wit and wisdom is being amply demonstrated in the Chair of that Committee.
I hope that no one will imply that one of the reasons for the tremendously slow progress of the measure is somehow any shortcomings in the chairmanship of the Committee, for the hon. Member for Tatton has acted assiduously, wisely and with a good deal of humor, often finding pearls of humour where none could have imagined it possible in the tedium.
No fault can be laid at the door of the Chair of the Committee, or the Members of the Committee or the highly remunerated silks and others, some of whom are in the Gallery—I realise that I was not supposed to mention them. I have been so long in that Committee that I am losing touch with parliamentary procedure. Some of them are doing well and they have all had their moments. Like Wagner's operas, they have all had their moments and their terrible half hours. Some of them have been Rocky Marciano, others have been Don Cockell; sometimes the roles have been reversed. It has been a long time.
I wanted to give one example to my hon. Friends, most of whom I suspect are ranged against the motion, although I am sure for other reasons than wanting to see me locked up in the Grand Committee Room for any longer than necessary. Last Tuesday, as the House will know, was the day of action called by the Trades Union Congress in connection with the ambulance dispute. I was privileged to be invited by the ambulance workers' trade unions and the
1078
Scottish Trades Union Congress to address the rally at George square in Glasgow. It was a very significant occasion.
I could not turn down the invitation, and the Chairman of the Committee, although no doubt his views are different from mine, was willing to release me for that purpose. However, that reduced the available membership of the Committee to three.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) the other Labour Member on the Committee wanted to attend a meeting in the House on the ambulance dispute, and again the Chairman was willing to release him. That meant the collapse of the Committee. The proceedings stopped, causing inconvenience particularly to the petitioners. The promoters have broad backs and their counsel and other legal representatives were not terribly distraught about the break, but those petitioners who were appearing for themselves or had fine legal representation which I understand was working virtually for nothing, were particularly disadvantaged.
It is clearly ridiculous, when a Bill has been considered for 150 hours—and, despite what the Chairman of the Committee said, I suspect that it will be 150 hours more yet—to expect a quorum of three out of four Members of Parliament to devote so much time to the Committee or to feel terribly guilty about answering a telephone call, a call of nature or anything else. When I was at the rally in Glasgow, I was aware of the responsibility with which I had left my three colleagues trapped in the Committee.
Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman explained that there is always a clash of priorities when one is serving on a private Bill Committee, because circumstances such as the ambulance dispute arise. Does he agree that such circumstances would arise whether it was a short or long Bill? If it were a short Bill and the same pressure had arisen, he would have felt similarly obliged to go elsewhere and similarly guilty about leaving his colleagues behind.
Mr. Galloway: By definition, the longer a Bill goes on, the more such clashes of responsibility are likely to occur and to prove problematic. I have much sympathy with my hon. Friends who criticise the private Bill procedure, but that issue is different from the motion that we are discussing.
As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I must be in my constituency on Friday and often have constituency business on Monday. That effectively means that almost all my time in the House is spent in Committee. I cannot attend Prime Minister's Question Time—I have forgotten what the Prime Minister looks like—or questions on foreign and commonwealth affairs, and this week I could not attend Scottish questions. That is becoming intolerable.
I accepted the mantle thrust on me by the Whips of serving on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill and now on the King's Cross Railways Bill. I trust that they are polishing another Bill for me to serve on when this one is finished. The Opposition's deputy Chief Whip is present, and I am sure that he can hear what I am saying.
I hope that the House will pass the motion because it will make life much easier for the four members of the Committee. It will not disadvantage the petitioners—I understand people being anxious about the dangers of disadvantaging them—and no one who has read the transcripts of the Committee's proceedings, which I

1079
commend to hon. Members, could claim that the Committee has been a pushover for British Rail. On the contrary, BR has been mauled repeatedly during our proceedings.
I hope that, in all the circumstances, the House will pass the motion.
7.43 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The motion is strictly procedural, but sometimes it is helpful for the House to hear the Government's attitude to such matters.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and the other two hon. Members serving on the Committee on their excellent service. They have displayed selfless public service and commitment to duty.
On Second Reading last year, I said that the Government gave consent for British Rail to seek the powers in the Bill. In principle, the Government believe that the Bill's proposals are sensible and that they are a further step in British Rail's plans to create a modern railway to carry traffic to and through London.
Consistent with that approach, the Government support the motion, which is supported by all the members of the Committee and would enable it to complete consideration of the Bill in a sensible way. I am therefore happy to record the Government's attitude to the motion.
7.44 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: As I said earlier in an intervention, I sympathise with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and the other two hon. Members serving on the Committee.
I chaired four or five private Bill Committees. Sometimes a streak of malevolence goes through the heart of even the kindest Whip when he is deciding which hon. Member should be given a task that is onerous, unrewarded and unobserved. One of the worst things that can happen to any hon. Member is to be totally unobserved for such a long period. Hon. Members who sit not only on private Bill Committees but on public Bill Committees and Select Committees are the workhorses of this place, and they deserve recognition for that.
The Committee stage of a public Bill used to be rather like dropping into a legislative black hole. There was plenty of action, but they sat only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We now have the advantage of Committees being televised. I am a member of the Committee considering the Broadcasting Bill. It is important for all politicians to know that they have a platform. Therefore, the Committee stage of public Bills has become much more relevant and interesting than it was in the past.
The Committee stage of a private Bill is different; it is like being fossilised in amber. It may appear very grand—the members serving on the King's Cross Railway Bill look very grand and decorous, I am sure—but, rather as with insects fossilised in amber, there is little movement.
I must underline the fact that I am exceedingly sympathetic to the motion, but for several reasons I shall vote against it.
The hon. Member for Tatton and my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead mentioned Queen's counsel, who seem to be paid by the word. They seem to assume that
1080
members of the Committee are incapable of reading. After one has sat in such a Committee for a few hours, one is almost incapable of doing anything, but one can usually summon up the ability to read a sentence. However, they continue to read interminably. I hope that the hon. Member for Tatton has reminded learned counsel that members of the Committee are capable of reading the papers that are put before them and that there is no need to go through them word by word, at great expense to the promoters and petitioners.
Knowing the circumstances that prevail on private Bill Committees, I believe that it is little wonder that hon. Members are so reluctant to serve on them. I volunteered to do so because I thought that I would learn something. I think that I learned a few things. I certainly learned about the defects of the private Bill procedure, with which I shall deal later. A number of hon. Members, confronted with the possibility of serving on a private Bill Committee, have fleetingly considered taking the Chiltern Hundreds. One or two would have preferred to disembowel themselves rather than serve on a private Bill Committee.
When we were considering how to get hon. Members to serve on private Bill Committees, the Select Committee on Procedure suggested—this was a serious suggestion—the possibility of knighthoods being given. That would not have enticed Labour Members, but Conservative Members might have been enticed by gongs being handed round.
The difference between the Committee stage of a private Bill and that of a public Bill is that, as the hon. Member for Tatton said, the private Bill Committee meets perhaps not for more hours but for more days and at times which are crucial in the House, such as Question Time. The Committee meets on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
The other distinction is that on a public Bill Committee, it is possible for hon. Members to disappear, to come down here and to make speeches. I do not know whether the Broadcasting Bill Committee is still sitting. I should be there, but no one will drag me down here and complain on the Floor of the House that I was not serving on the Committee. Yet that is what can happen to an hon. Member who does not turn up at a private Bill Committee. It is not permissive but mandatory for an hon. Member to serve on that Committee. If an hon. Member refuses to serve on such a Committee or does not turn up, it is incumbent on the Chairman of the private Bill Committee to report the absence to the House. That is the difference, which we must examine.
I suggest to the Minister and to hon. Members who have gone through this rather daunting experience for so many hours that hon. Members of all parties should insist that the report from the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which was presented to the House in July 1988, should be debated properly on the Floor of the House. We should have the opportunity to vote on its various recommendations.
It is a substantial report, and I do not intend to take hon. Members all the way through it. However, it is worth reminding the House of a few of the recommendations so that hon. Members know what the report contains.
Mr. Spearing: Before my hon. Friend discusses these important factors, will he permit me to attempt a reconciliation between himself and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)? Does he agree that one of the

1081
recommendations which was not in the report, although it was good, was the installation of a filter—perhaps a joint Committee of both Houses—to determine whether a private Bill was suitable for consideration by either House? Would that proposal deal with many of these matters?
Mr. Banks: I must point out to my hon. Friend that that is the first recommendation of the Committee. The report says:
"Promoters of a private bill should be required to prove before the committee on the bill that private legislation is necessary to secure the primary purpose of the bill."
The report continues:
"Where the primary purpose may be authorised through other means, the committee on the bill should insist that those means be pursued first, and that the approval of Parliament be limited only to the specific components which require its authority."
That would undoubtedly foreshorten many of the proceedings that are now being endured by members of the Committee.
The other principal recommendation that I want to draw to the attention of the House is recommendation 5, which says:
"In cases where planning considerations are dominant"—
which is clearly the case in the King's Cross Railways Bill—
"all works proposals for which private bill approval is presently required should instead be authorised through non-parliamentary procedures involving the holding, where necessary, of a public local inquiry into objections."
There are many objections to the King's Cross Railways Bill on local planning and national strategic planning grounds.
As I have said to the Minister and many other hon. Members, the proposal should never have had to go through the private Bill procedure. It should have been considered in other ways, and there should have been a full public inquiry.
Mr. Moate: I agree on that point, although that is not why I intervened. To correct what the hon. Gentleman said, does he recall that we had an extensive and full debate on the recommendations? We are waiting now not for a debate but for Government moves to implement the recommendations.
Mr. Banks: Yes, but the debate that I seek would be an executive debate so that we could take a decision at the end. We had a take-note debate. I remember the present Secretary of State for Energy when he was Leader of the House putting off the debate for ages, although many hon. Members were asking for one. The then Leader of the House kept saying that the Government were digesting the report. When we came to the debate, it was merely a take-note debate.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) shared this belief, but many Opposition Members thought that the then Leader of the House would make recommendations. However, when they were explained to the Prime Minister, he backed off quickly because the Prime Minister had said previously in Question Time that she thought that the private Bill procedures were perfectly adequate for such matters. I realise that the Prime Minister's word is law all the way through, but it is about time that hon. Members began to
1082
insist that cases such as the one that we are hearing tonight should never be repeated. That issue could unite hon. Members of all parties in demanding that action be taken.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to a couple of other major recommendations. There is a danger of the report being forgotten. It took a long time for the Table Office to find a copy, and we shall be told next that the report has gone out of print so we cannot discuss it. We shall then be told that all the drafts have been lost as well. I am suspicious about that, and I must insist that we have a proper debate in which we can take decisions. Recommendation 13 says:
"Each House should incorporate environmental impact assessment into private bill procedures by making new Standing Orders."
My God, we need an environmental impact assessment on the proposals for King's Cross. I am sure that, if hon. Members were to seek that, British Rail's proposals would be cursorily and summarily thrown out.
The report also recommends:
"Opposed bill committees should comprise five Members and the quorum should be three."
If even the four or five recommendations that I have read out had been incorporated, the hon. Member for Tatton and my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead would not have been in their present position.
There is a difference between this proposal and the two precedents that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Tatton: the Covent Garden Bill of 1965 and the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill of 1986. In the case of the Covent Garden Bill, one hon. Member had a lengthy illness and another suddenly felt a bit dicky, which was not surprising given the problems associated with the private Bill procedure.
In the case of the Felixstowe Docks and Railway Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) refused to serve. There were effective reasons for her not serving. It is not easy merely to appoint another Member because proceedings are already under way. An hon. Member cannot be brought in at a later stage, because that would be grossly unfair to the promoters and to the petitioners. There were specific reasons in 1965 and 1986 why a proposal to reduce the quorum should have been received favourably—as it was. The position here is different.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is true that the reasons for the quorum were different for those two Bills, but the hon. Gentleman's argument seems odd. The quorum was reduced in the 1986 Committee because the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd), with whom I have the greatest sympathy, refused to undertake the duty imposed on her by the House. In this case, hon. Members are performing those duties, yet they are not to have the advantage of such a move.
Mr. Banks: There is another difference. The matter was brought to a head because my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley refused to serve. We are obliged to her for refusing because, as a result, the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure was set up. If, after my hon. Friend rendered us that service, we had had a chance to decide on the matter, the hon. Member for Tatton would not have been in his present position.
All hon. Members are taking an honourable approach. People outside and our constituents must understand. Now that the House is televised, I should not be surprised

1083
if each of the hon. Members who is serving on the Committee was accosted by their constituents saying, "I've been watching the television and I have never seen you at Prime Minister's Question Time or in Scottish Question Time. Where were you? What have you been doing?" Since the private Bill Committees are not televised, hon. Members should have the opportunity to ensure that everyone inside and, more importantly, outside the House knows what goes on. That is why, if for no other reason, this debate is useful.
I object to the reduction of the quorum. The promoter, British Rail, is the real problem maker and has got us into this mess. British Rail's arrogance and high-handed attitude have not been at all helpful. It is about time that we visited on the heads of those who make the decisions at British Rail a just penalty for the way in which they are prepared to use this procedure.
Mr. Skinner: Put them on the Committee.
Mr. Banks: Unfortunately, they would make all the wrong decisions. British Rail and other promoters seem able to use this place in a way which I consider to be wholly unacceptable.
British Rail had the advantage of a quorum of three, with four hon. Members usually in attendance. The petitioners are beginning to present their case. Camden and Islington borough councils are presenting their case, part of which will be to show why the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel should be located in my constituency and the London borough of Newham, rather than at King's Cross. Petitioners will make that case, but the same quorum of hon. Members will not be present to hear them.
I want to know from the hon. Member for Tatton whether the reduction in the quorum will mean that, on average, there will still be four hon. Members on the Committee. I am worried about why he wishes to reduce the quorum now. It may be because of pressures in the past or intimations that there will be pressures in the future. In other words, an hon. Member may wish to make the odd visit abroad or there may be a reselection crisis in the air. If there will not be the same regular attendance to hear petitioners as there was to hear the promoters, the petitioners will be at a disadvantage.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: There is no sinister motive underlying the request of the Members of the Committee. It would be an unjustifiable slur on his hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) if the hon. Gentleman were to suggest that we intend to do something which would disadvantage the petitioners. It has been our duty all along to bend over backwards to assist the petitioners, particularly those who are not represented by counsel or specialist parliamentary agents. We have done our best to accommodate them in all their difficulties, given the disparity of resources between private individuals and enormous corporations such as British Rail.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the only reason why we come now with this request is that we have sat for 33 days, which is seven days more than the previous record. I did not feel that it was open to us to make this request until the exceptional nature of the Committee became evident for all to see.
Mr. Galloway: Two of the members of the Committee have been reselected.
Mr. Banks: I am relieved to hear that at least two of them have been reselected. I did not mean to imply that there was any intentional disservice to the petitioners. I merely wish to know that the petitioners' case is heard to the maximum effect and by the full membership of the Committee. Ultimately, all four members will vote, whether or not they all heard the cases put by the various petitioners.
We are in this mess because Private Bill procedures have been tested to destruction. Clearly they are completely inappropriate for a measure as important as the King's Cross Railways Bill and the location of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel and associated infrastructure, which is the largest capital investment in transportation this century in this country—
Mr. Cormack: The largest ever.
Mr. Banks: That is even longer than this century. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who is so precise on these matters.
The private Bill procedure is not the way to deal with a Bill such as this. The Government have walked away from a major strategic decision. I have been to see the Minister and he has been courtesy itself, but he has never accepted that the decision is so important that it should be taken by the Government and not left to four members of a Committee who have had the decision inflicted upon them. They will have to listen to hours and hours of petitions. This is a strategic decision, and the responsibility should be taken by the Government.
The Government are to blame as well as British Rail, but they are doubly to blame because they have allowed private Bill procedures to be used by British Rail on such a significant development and because they have refused to bring the report on private Bill procedure to the House so that we can vote on it.
I could make the case that we should have the terminal at Stratford where there is no opposition to it, unlike at King's Cross. We are waiting to greet the construction.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
Mr. Banks: I know that that goes somewhat beyond the terms of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am coming to my peroration, my last sentence.
The hon. Member for Tatton knows our motives for opposing the motion. This debate and the pressures that have been put on the Committee have reminded us yet again that the private Bill procedure is inappropriate and overstretched. If we obtain a debate on it, the Committee members will have served us well, as they have done in the Committee. I repeat that I shall oppose the recommendation tonight.
8.6 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I begin by applauding the Committee for both its assiduity and its integrity. Those of us who are anxious about British Rail's proposals, both in this Bill and in the others that it proposes to bring forward, are extremely grateful to the Committee for the way in which it has forced British Rail to address some of the questions that, in its usual slovenly

1085
way, it would have preferred to slide past the Committee in the miasma that is characteristic of its normal proceedings. I pay a grateful tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and his colleagues on the Committee.
I served on a Committee on a private Bill under the scrupulous and assiduous chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). He has said that he understands what is involved, and from my personal experience I know that that is true. He said that hon. Members, or at least most of them, can read, so it could be argued that all that is needed is a transcript. Why should we bother to have a Committee of Members of Parliament when it would be cheaper for professionals to argue out the matter and to make a decision based on the transcript of those discussions?
That argument under-estimates the importance of cross-examination by members of the Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, one could ask: if the quorum is to be reduced by one, why not reduce it again? If it was reduced again by a third, one would obtain a recurring decimal—except, in this case, it would not be a recurring decimal, but a spasmodic decimal. The effect of reducing the quorum would be that people would not come so often.
I am surprised that the members of the Committee want relief. The proceedings have almost all the ingredients that one could possibly wish for in the life of a Member of Parliament. First, they are complex. We have heard how many days the board of British Rail took to present its evidence. The numbers of days was greatly increased by the need for British Rail to re-present and in some cases re-re-present evidence. The matter is immensely complex and we probably need to have a balance of hon. Members to scrutinise it thoroughly.
The Bill deals with matters of major importance. Often in this place we find ourselves working hard on matters which, sub specie aeternitatis, are of no importance whatever. British Rail is seeking to override carefully constituted protection for the heritage and the environment. Scheduled buildings are not only of major importance in the context of King's Cross but of fundamental importance to the protection of the British environment from John o' Groats to Land's End. If a private undertaking can use the private Bill procedure to demolish the protection of scheduled buildings, there is no safety for any of our landmarks. We may find that the Dean and his bus affiliation in Salisbury would use the private Bill procedure to demolish the cathedral to allow more parking.
The Bill has also provided all sorts of surprises, and it is always rather nice in an otherwise drab routine to have surprises. I am sure that every member of the Committee must have had a frisson of surprise when British Rail told the Committee that, in its brand new 21st-century station, the platforms would not be long enough to accommodate its brand new 21st-century trains and, so that the passengers are not prevented from getting off the trains, the driver will have to get off in the tunnel and walk back down the track.
It has all been immensely entertaining. What could be more fun than to discern, for example, that British Rail wants a new station when it cannot give the Committee
1086
any firm assurance that it will have a line to get to the station? These are matters of burlesque amusement from which, when hon. Members reflect upon them, I am sure that they will not wish to be released.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has made it abundantly clear that this is an outdated way of handling such major matters. Indeed, the debate is really about the clear and unmistakable evidence that major private Bills such as this can no longer be run in this way and that the promoters can no longer expect Members of Parliament to participate.
Before we get the essential changes that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has previsaged, perhaps we should suggest one or two improvements. I wonder whether this motion would be before us if the timing of the Committee's sittings were to be changed. Why is the timing of the Committee primarily for the convenience of the legal profession? Why does the Committee not sit at times that would suit Members of Parliament, so that hon. Members could come to Question Time and take part in some of the more lively parts of the parliamentary day?
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend some suggestions. It is, of course, open to the Committee to set its own normal sitting hours. One of the problems that we have faced during our proceedings when we have wished to sit later in the afternoon is a shortage of shorthand writers. If there is nobody to transcribe what is said, the Committee is unable to sit. That is something else to which the House should turn its attention.
Mr. Rowe: I am both grateful for and appalled by that intervention. That seems a further example of the extraordinarily incompetent way in which we run our own affairs if we cannot so structure our organisation that we can arrange the timetable to make it possible to run the proceedings of our House as they should be run.
It would considerably benefit peititioners if they could meet the Committee at a time that is not during their normal working hours. I suspect that many petitioners have to take time off work and often even have to accept loss of earnings simply to come here to give evidence. What is more, because it is almost impossible for the Committee to predict exactly how long any sitting will last, no doubt the petitioners come and—like out-patients at some of our hospitals—go away disappointed, not having seen the doctor. If we were to suggest altering the procedures of the House so that such a Committee could sit at times that suit Members of Parliament, perhaps we might have less difficulty with the Committee.
The procedure that we are discussing was designed in the 19th century to assist relatively weak private railway companies to override the spoiling tactics and the enormous power of the large landowners. It is no longer an appropriate vehicle for a huge state monopoly that is seeking to override the weakness of individual housholders or, in the case of this British Rail Bill, to override the law of the land. It is wholly inappropriate.
I am not concerned only about the Bill; I am concerned about the future. There is alleged to be coming—I do not really believe it because we have heard it all before—or there is the faint possibility that at some stage British Rail will bring before the House a Bill to connect the Channel tunnel to either London, Swanley, Ashford or somewhere. There is a faint chance that British Rail might devise some

1087
way of getting its trains from the Channel tunnel portal to—I can see that I am in trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Rowe: If that were to happen, we would be faced with a Bill of such length and such complexity, affecting so many thousands of people and covering tens of miles from Dover to King's Cross or—more realistically—to Stratford, that I believe that it would prove impossible to find hon. Members prepared to serve on such a Committee. As a high proportion of that Bill's content would relate to planning matters, the time is long overdue for the House to turn the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure into regulations before we get—if we ever get—the Channel tunnel link Bill.
8.16 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I speak because of the procedural matters involved, and also as an Islington Member of Parliament. My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) cannot be here tonight, but they are interested in the fate of King's Cross and, therefore, in the fate of this proposal.
Although I understand that the motion deals with the quorum of the private Bill Committee, other issues emanate from that, which are of great importance to the House. Other hon. Members have touched on the procedure of the private Bill Committee and on the public's right to know what is going on. I have been following this from a distance. Now that the Whips have left the Chamber, I can reveal to the House that I have never served on a private Bill Committee— [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is informing me that he is an agency— [Interruption.] No, I beg his pardon, he is now a full Whip. Nevertheless, although I have never served on such a Committee, I have observed them from afar.
I have been concerned that, so far, the Committee has sat for 33 days, and I have every sympathy for the hon. Members concerned. If I had to serve on a private Bill Committee that was dealing with a part of the country that was far away from London and of no direct concern to my constituents, and had to spend that amount of time on matters of no direct relevance to my area, I can understand that people in my constituency would say, "What on earth are you doing obsessing yourself with the Inverness Harbour Bill?"—or whatever.
I can understand both that and the frustrations of the hon. Members concerned. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with them and the House should have some sympathy with their problems, that is not to say that I shall vote for the motion, so they will have to suffer for a bit longer. Nevertheless, I hope that the House has listened carefully to what has been said and will consider the procedures involved.
In the past, I served as a local councillor. Indeed, I was the chair of a planning committee on a borough council. No borough councillor would get involved in such detail on a planning application or a planning procedure, because that is not the way in which local government works, so why should we expect Members of Parliament to go into the most enormous detail on planning matters?
1088
This abuse of the private Bill procedure is growing. The procedure was introduced as a form of planning control for major harbour and railway developments. It was the only form of planning control that existed at that time. There was no local government framework capable of dealing with planning, and Parliament deemed this an appropriate form of control.
There would be no point in going into how the railways were built and into the procedures that had to be followed. However, one has to ask whether, in this age, it is appropriate that an enormously important decision in respect of King's Cross, with ramifications far beyond King's Cross—indeed far beyond the railway network of this country: international ramifications—should be thrust upon four Members of this House, who are forced to give up virtually all other parliamentary and political activity to pursue the matter. The House must address itself to that problem, and I hope that it will. I hope that it will recognise that there is something fundamentally wrong with the existing procedures.
I have been involved in road inquiries in the past, and I expect that, if the Department of Transport's plans for my borough go forward, I shall be involved in such inquiries again. There is nothing particularly democratic about the public inquiry system, either. However, the advantage is that the applicant has to put all his cards on the table in advance.
One contrasts that with the case of the King's Cross Railways Bill, in which British Rail seems to make up the evidence as it goes along. Every day, it seems to come up with a new set of papers and a new set of plans, even if it cannot measure the length of a train and compare that with the length of a tunnel.
In the case of a public inquiry on a road or a major building, for example, the inspector reports to the Secretary of State, who makes the decision. The Secretary of State is not accountable for the decision, except to the extent that, theoretically, as Secretary of State he could be the subject of a motion of censure. There is something fundamentally wrong with decision-making as a whole.
There are also, of course, the feelings in the community. I represent—Islington, North, which is slightly beyond King's Cross. Actually, the main line from King's Cross runs through it. The Department of Transport, through its consultants, has just put forward a proposal for the creation of a major road through Islington, down to King's Cross, and a road beyond that.
I realise that that matter goes slightly beyond the scope of our debate, but I make the point to underline the concern of the community about the passage of the King's Cross Railways Bill. Many people in Islington are genuinely very worried. They are worried about the size of the proposed development north of King's Cross, and they are worried about the procedures being adopted in respect of the Bill itself.
The Bill has been under consideration for, I think, 33 days—my hon. Friends may correct me if I am wrong—most of which time has been taken up by British Rail. As I said, British Rail has altered its course many times throughout the procedure, and it has not yet come up with a firm proposal for a line leading into King's Cross. It is discussing the provision of a station served by some very outdated tracks.
Indeed, at the moment trains could not get into the new King's Cross international terminal. There is no tunnel that could take them. So a station is being discussed

1089
virtually in isolation from a rail system that coud cope with the trains. That was pointed out earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). For 33 days, British Rail has had very expensive representation—silks and all the rest—and goodness knows what the cost is. At the end of the day, we shall all have to pay the bill.
The procedure involves Members of Parliament being taken away from the political activities for daytime sittings of the Committee. The local community, most of whom have other things to worry about, are unable to be represented, other than through local authorities or by community associations. Some people are making enormous sacrifices to represent them.
The Camden and Islington local authorities are now starting to present their views and their evidence. That evidence is very much out in the open, unlike the case presented by British Rail. Now we are told that it is an appropriate time to reduce the Committee quorum. I understand why the motion has been moved, but what message is to be given to the people of the borough that I represent? How are they to be told that the quorum is being changed, now that the applicants have completed their submission?
I know that it is not the intention of the hon. Members concerned, but one cannot escape the fact that the impression being given to the people in the community is that the views of the two local authorities, both of which are elected—the board of British Rail is not elected—of the local community association, of the King's Cross Railway Lands Group, and of all the other groups concerned are such that they can be dealt with by a smaller Committee. The message is inescapable: that they are less important than the British Rail evidence. I hope that the House will recognise that, if the quorum motion is passed, it will be very difficult to persuade people in the boroughs of Camden and Islington that their views and the views of others—many people are affected—are being taken seriously.
It is not appropriate to go halfway through a Bill procedure and then change the quorum. If, when the Committee started, the quorum was three out of four, it should stay at that figure. In the light of all this, the Select Committee on Procedure may well bring forward a procedural proposal. That would be the appropriate time to make such a change. It would be appropriate to consider also the representation of the public at Committee meetings, the sitting times and other procedures. It is not appropriate to chop and change in the middle, because that is seen as unfair to the less well-financed people who are trying to put forward their views.
In future, we shall have to look much more seriously at the major questions arising from these matters. It seems to me that it is fundamentally wrong that a major planning decision such as this should be taken by a Committee of four hon. Members. The local authorities have a sort of walk-on part. They can collect evidence and put it forward. Local communities can collect evidence and put it forward. But a Committee of the House will decide one way or the other. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, this procedure rides roughshod over many other things. The implications of the decision are enormous.
1090
As a separate matter, there is the enormous office development proposal north of King's Cross. In reality, of course, it is linked to the fate of the King's Cross station development itself; one cannot separate the two. Nor can one escape the effects on south London constituencies and on Kent as a whole. If this major station complex is not approved, the railway line route south of London will have to be different; if it is approved, the general direction of the railway line will be more or less set. One way or the other, the effect will be considerable.
I realise that the terms of the motion are quite narrow. However, as in the case of most things that are narrow, the deeper one goes, the wider one wishes they were.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Not in my case. The more I go into this, the more I realise that the hon. Member is straying. It has been a very good-humoured debate, but I wish that he would come back to the motion that was moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Corbyn: I can only beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not attempting to deviate one iota; I was merely trying to explain the depth of feeling in Islington. People in every pub on the Caledonian road talk of little else than the King's Cross Railways Bill Committee. Indeed, the verbatim reports are passed from house to house. They are read as widely as the Islington Gazette.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: And in Dulwich.
Mr. Corbyn: Yes, in Dulwich as well. One report that I have here is very boring, but some are very interesting and are widely read.
I hope that, when the House makes its decision tonight, it will vote the motion down for the reason that I have given: that it is unsustainable, midway through a Committee, despite all the frustrations, which I understand, to change the rules. One cannot move the goal posts halfway through the game. The message that the House will give the people of Camden, Islington, the south London boroughs and Kent, which will all be affected, is that somehow there is one rule for British Rail and a different rule for everybody else. That is not good enough. It is not acceptable, and it will not be understood by people outside the House.
Another message from the debate is that there must be a serious examination of the private Bill procedure. It was never intended that planning decisions of international importance, in this case the biggest construction project that the country has ever seen, should be decided by four hon. Members, all of whom have other pressures on their time. I do not say that they have better things to do, but they have other things to do as Members of Parliament. Their experience on the Committee must have given them food for thought. I am always reminded that people who have served on juries for a long time during a major trial are given absolution by the judge at the end; he says that they will never have to do jury service again. I hope that the four hon. Members on the Committee will be given absolution from serving on other private Bill committees. I hope that the Whips will read that in Hansard.
The issues are complex. A point of principle is involved. I hope that the House will reject the proposal before it and show that it intends to keep faith with the original procedure. That would give confidence to the people, community groups and local authorities now preparing to

1091
appear before the Committee that they will be subject to exactly the same rules as British Rail, rather than inferior terms of representation
8.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and his colleagues for their service on the Committee. The whole House owes them a debt for their assiduous attendance and the conscientious way in which they have pursued their duties. In sympathising with their predicament, I fear that I cannot support the motion. It gives me no pleasure to say that, but the motion raises a constitutional point, a broad general point of policy and a particular point in this case before us.
On the general policy point, it would be wrong, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, to change the rules of the game during play, or to move the goal posts while the players are on the field. It would suggest that the party that had had the opportunity of presenting its case before a full Committee of four, or a quorum of three, was in a stronger, better and more prestigious position than those who present their case later to a lesser quorum. That would be wrong in law and in equity.
It is an important principle that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. Although I have no doubt that the two hon. Members who would constitute the new quorum would discharge their duties with absolute integrity and objectivity, nevertheless it would appear that the petitioners were being short-changed. It is wrong to try to tamper with, or to make minor repairs to, the mechanism while the vehicle is still in motion. For that reason, if for no other, the motion should be rejected.
The motion illustrates the problems of piecemeal change. The House has had before it for some years a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. We have had an opportunity to take note, to digest and to debate it. I regret that that opportunity was missed by the powers that be in suggesting the changes that could be made to accommodate the real shortcomings in the procedure. The shortcomings are before us this evening, but the motion also highlights the misuse and abuse of private Bill procedure by sponsors such as British Rail, which is promoting the Bill under discussion.
It is absurd that a Bill can be brought forward to develop a terminal in central London without any mention being made of the route or path to that destination. The Bill is so constricted and constrained that, should someone dare mention the route to the destination, he might well be called to order and would certainly not have the opportunity to appear before the Committee. To be able to make such a great development by the salami process of slicing off first King's Cross and then pieces through south-east London and Kent to the Channel tunnel terminal is wrong. If nothing more, the procedure and progress on the Bill show the inadequacy and shortcomings, and demonstrate that change is necessary.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, before other Bills on rail development are promoted by British Rail, it should be forced to produce a detailed plan of the entire route programme and destinations for trains from the Channel tunnel, so that we may have an idea of
1092
the effect on Kent constituencies, the hon. Gentleman's constituency, my constituency and many others between London and the north of England?
Mr. Bowden: I welcome that intervention. It is a rare and happy occasion when the hon. Gentleman and I can agree so wholeheartedly.
It is tragic that 33 days have been spent by the Committee listening to argument—who knows, the Committee may spend another 33 days listening to further argument—and at the end of it the proposal of British Rail for the route may be turned down by the House, or an alternative proposal may run parallel to it. At the end, all the work of the Committee might be rendered redundant and obsolete because the proposal for the development of King's Cross did not fit in with the chosen route.
That shows the utter waste of public and private money in following a procedure which does nothing to help the country at large but does everything to facilitate British Rail in trying to develop, in an inefficient and secretive way, a Channel tunnel rail link to connect the whole of the United Kingdom with continental Europe.
Mr. Corbyn: I promise that this will be the last intervention. Of course, there is a fear that the Bill will be entirely abortive. That is possible. I understand that we are debating only the quorum of the Committee. In that respect, the quorum would then be dealing with a Bill that was about to be aborted. In the meantime, many people would have lost much money on property deals in the area.
Mr. Bowden: I am concerned about the waste of public money. I do not have quite the same concern about the speculation of private money. At the same time, I am concerned about the blight on so many properties, families and communities. The stress and anxiety that the uncertainty has caused are to be deprecated. That demonstrates more than anything else the need to change the private Bill procedure which is being so misused and abused.
I recognise the difficulties that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members on the Committee are experiencing in neglecting by necessity the needs of their constituents and their own parliamentary duties in the House, and I have no wish personally to prolong their agony. However, it is essential that, if we are pursuing the proposal to develop King's Cross, it should be done on an equal footing for all parties. On that basis, I cannot support the motion.
8.39 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I am opposed to the private Bill procedure, for many of the reasons mentioned by hon. Members from both sides of the House in relation to its general operation. Traditionally, Parliament dealt with private Bills, and public Bills only later came in on a more general and wider basis. We should now have moved on from private Bills, because society has changed so much.
A provision that was right for small traders, the establishment of charters and other provisions seems entirely inappropriate in the modern age. Something that was used by the forces of the petty bourgeois and is now used by the big bourgeois and large corporations, will inevitably be abused. The procedures that were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in terms of the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure should be seriously considered

1093
and responded to. Measures for the provision of transport such as the one before us should be matters for the public Bill procedure.
Mr.William Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that matters that fall within private Bill procedure should be dealt with by statutory instrument? If so, will he acknowledge that that would deprive legitimate objecters of the opportunity to put forward issues in Parliament, before a parliamentary Committee, that are of relevance to them in their ordinary daily lives?
Mr. Barnes: An interesting discussion has been taking place. Earlier, hon. Members outlined some of the items contained in the Joint Committee's report that try to handle some of these problems. Although I generally find a great deal in the private Bill procedure obnoxious, I do not deny that there might be specific and limited provisions for which the procedure might be appropriate, if some of the checks and balances suggested in the Committee's report were brought forward.
Mr. Cash: In other words, the hon. Gentleman agrees that the private Bill procedure, with modifications, has his support.
Mr. Barnes: Basically, the major items that have been brought forward as private Bills are an abuse of the House, although they might be in line with the tradition of private Bills that came before 1800. They might have some scope for use if they are carefully checked and controlled. However, our major concern is the abuse of such procedures by strong outside organisations when alternative avenues are available such as the public Bill and planning agreements.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if a railway network is planned which is to cover the whole of the United Kingdom and open up every region of that kingdom to continental Europe, it goes above the normal scope and confines of private Bill procedure and should be dealt with in something wider?
Mr. Barnes: I agree with that. Essentially, the private Bill procedure is increasingly used for matters that it was not developed to handle. The case in which the planning agreements should have been used was briefly mentioned; it involved the two Humber port Bills. The investigation, questioning and public inquiries that they involved should have taken place in the Humber area, not the House.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) that we are not in the business of attempting a minor, piecemeal adjustment to an unfair system. We should be worried about the suggestion to reduce the quorum, because that would allow us to bumble on with the measure, rather than face up to the transformation that is required.
Other proposals could be put in front of us to deal with a crisis that might occur in the Committee, and they would not produce the same piecemeal adjustment that leads to this sort of system going on and on, as it has. For example, if Committee Members come under too much pressure and experience mental fatigue because of the time involved—I agree that they bear a terrible burden—the House could
1094
swop the membership of the Committee. I know that that is not entirely desirable and problems will arise from it. However, it happens elsewhere.
I have been on a Select Committee that has been preparing a report that is shortly to be published. I came to the Committee relatively near the end of procedures, when a great deal of work had already been done. I was not involved in any voting because we reached unanimous decisions. I was able, at least towards the end of the Committee, to make a contribution and assist in reaching those unanimous decisions. It is possible, at the halfway stage, for someone else to be drafted in if there is a specific problem. It has been said that hon. Members can read and do not always need counsel to give them detailed information. They can also read the past reports and details of the Committee so that they can make a significant contribution, together with the three other members, to the Committee's final decision.
It would be possible to have a reform in line with the provisions contained in the Committee report that could be seen as an advancement. If there is a massive problem for the Committee to sustain its quorum of three, it could be extended to a Committee of five Members.
I have served on only one such Committee. It lasted for about eight days and dealt with the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill concerning the road race in that district. If a problem arose over the provision we are discussing, some hon. Members here tonight who have revealed that they have never been involved in such procedure could offer to take up the fifth position if we decide that that is a viable alternative.
8.48 pm
Mr. Roger Moate: On the face of it, the proposition to reduce a quorum from three to two is the narrowest of procedural points, and I am sure that I would be brought to order if I sought too stray to far from it. However, tonight's debate has shown beyond doubt that that small procedural matter arises only because of some major principles—a confusion of principles—stemming largely from Ministers.
We would not be in this position if we had thought out clearly the strategy we were adopting on railway policy, particularly with regard to the Channel tunnel rail link. If we had clearly thought out our approach to major planning matters, particularly in the light of the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, we should not be in this position.
Inevitably, when our principles become confused and our hypotheses muddled, we get into trouble, as we are now. If my right hon. and hon. Friends do not heed the problem we are facing, they should think of the problems that we are likely to face when we come to the further legislation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). He spoke of the next major Bill directly relevant to this proposition—that dealing with the high-speed rail link.
If hon. Members on the private Bill Committee are finding themselves in difficulty, imagine the problems that the House will face when we come to a Bill of such immensity and complexity that it will make the King's Cross Railways Bill seem the most modest of propositions. If we do not get this right, how shall we face further proposals of this kind? It is a muddle and the House

1095
should not try to resolve it by passing a motion in an attempt to put a plaster on what I would call a gaping wound.
I come to the fundamental problem about planning. It is preposterous—the absurdity of it has been made clear tonight—that a planning matter of this magnitude should be determined by a Committee of four Members. It is even more absurd to suggest that that number should be reduced on occasions to two. Because it is an absurd proposition, the House should not accept it.
The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure tackled the proposition head on and concluded that major planning matters of this kind were inappropriate to be dealt with by this method. The House has had that report for some time, and its conclusions commanded general support from the Front Benches. Its proposals were probably torpedoed in Whitehall by the large number of parliamentary draftsmen who have great skills in handling this procedure. I do not think that politically there were any arguments against what was proposed. If we are to deal sensibly with major planning matters of great concern to the British people, we must get the procedures right, and they are not right at present.
Even if we accepted the Select Committee's report on private Bill procedure, it would not necessarily help us with Bills of this kind. It would still be a matter to be determined by the Government whether the King's Cross proposals—or, indeed, a high-speed rail link proposal—should be dealt with by the planning procedures outside the House, by the hybrid Bill procedure in the House or by a special development order. Those are still political decisions, but it is clear that the present procedure is totally inappropriate for a matter of this magnitude.
Hence, our first mistake has been not to face up to the planning matters. We also have it wrong in terms of the railways, because it is fundamentally ridiculous that a small Committee of four Members—reduced to two on certain occasions—should have almost the power of life and death over something that the Government regard as critical—the hub of the ultimate high-speed rail link linking the Channel tunnel and the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is a wrong proposition. It is a matter of public policy, and the Government should have determined at a much earlier stage that it was a matter of public policy, that the Government were involved and that it should have been a hybrid Bill. A hybrid Bill would have allowed us to avoid the sort of problems that we are now facing, for we would have had a larger Committee, the problems of a quorum would have been avoided and there would have been no difficulty over attendance. The Channel Tunnel Bill is evidence of that.
There are disadvantages and advantages in all procedures, but we would not be in the position in which we find ourselves today if the Government had faced up to that responsibility. They will have to face up to it when we come to further legislation, in relation particularly to the high-speed link. So again we have a muddle, and it has produced the problem that, we face.
I had the privilege—if that is the word—of serving on a similar Committee, through it was not quite so long. I was Chairman of the Committee that dealt with the Ginns and Gutteridge Crematorium Bill, and deliberated for 26 days. I learned a lot about the burning of bodies, about smells and many other things, and, while it probably did not contribute much to my political knowledge, it has
1096
resulted in my being sympathetic to those who serve on the Committee with which we are now concerned. One appreciates the difficulties that they face.
I also had the privilege of serving on the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, and, because of that, I reached a different conclusion from that reached by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who selected a quotation from the report emphasising why it was difficult for four Members to stay permanently on a Committee. The conclusion that that Select Committee reached was contrary to the proposition that we are facing today.
Our proposal—I gather that most people are in favour of the conclusions of the report—was not that we should allow the quorum ever to be reduced to two: it was that the Committee should be increased to five and that the quorum should stay at three, which is the quorum that we have now. If we are minded to implement the Select Committee's report, we must not reduce the quorum to two. The proposition was clearly that it should remain at three, but that the size of the Committee be increased to five.
A further important recommendation was that the members of such private Bill Committees should be drawn from a large panel of Members who would, in effect, be volunteers at the beginning of a Session to serve on such Committees. They would volunteer because they felt that they could spare the time or give priority to such Committees or because they enjoyed them. Many hon. Members enjoy private Bill Committee work, and I do not think that there would be a problem in having such a panel. It must be better to have volunteers rather than pressed men.
I am proud to have served on that Select Committee, and its report, in my view, is one of the best documents the House has produced. It added up to a valuable package. It would have allowed the House to avoid many of the problems that we face today. It would have resulted in better decisions and given greater justice to petitioners and others. Therefore, it would be wrong tonight to deal with the small problem that has arisen in this case and ignore the recommendations of the Select Committee. We should implement the report as a whole.
I agree with those who say that it is wrong in the middle of proceedings suddenly to change the rules. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton—he was out of the Chamber when I expressed my admiration for the service that he has given—to say that the petitioners will not lose. He has not explained why they would not lose by the Committee being reduced from four to two. Is he saying that at no time is the quality of decision-making by four superior to that of two? If so, we should always have had a quorum of two. I cannot understand his argument.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am not making the case that a decision made by two is as good as a decision made by four, and in this case the decision will be made by four after an exhaustive examination of all the evidence put before us, including that which has been put before other members of the Committee when one has been out of the room in the proceedings on the Bill hitherto. So unless my hon. Friend is saying that the quorum of a Committee of four should always be four, I do not understand the logic of his argument.
Mr. Moate: I remind my hon. Friend that, although the quorum is three, there is a strict injunction on all Members that they should be in attendance at all times and that the reduction to three should be exercised very sparingly indeed. The Chairman has the power to report to the House—I do not think that the power is exercised any longer—any Member who is absent for quite a short time, so the quorum is very much a fallback.
If the general rule is that four hon. Members should be present, and three on occasions, that rule should apply throughout the proceedings. Otherwise, petitioners who lose their case might feel aggrieved that for much of the proceedings, when they were putting their case, only half the Committee members were present.
The House should not pass the motion. We should follow the recommendations of the Select Committee and not reduce the quorum to two. That was specifically rejected in the report. A Committee of two is an absurdity.
8.59 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: Like the Government, the Opposition do not have any official view on this motion, as it is a House of Commons matter and it is for all hon. Members to make up their minds accordingly. Having served on one or two of the private Bill Committees to which the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)—who spoke to this proposal in his usual able and amusing way—referred, I have great sympathy for him and his Committee members.
I served on the two Channel tunnel Committees, in 1975 and in 1985, the latter of which spilled over into 1986. They were hybrid Bills. I am talking about longevity rather than procedure. They were long-drawn-out affairs. I do not claim the same affinity with my Whips' office that the hon. Gentleman obviously has with his, but I was rewarded on the last occasion by being put on to the Standing Committee that followed the Second Reading of that Bill. I have some experience of long-running Committees and the disruption that they cause to the daily lives of hon. Members. For that reason, I shall be voting for the motion.
The Committee is unanimous in its view; that fact should make some impression on hon. Members. The fact that, if we pass this motion, we will be accepting a quorum of two should not concern us too much. If the Committee consists of only four hon. Members, and three hon. Members form a quorum, as the hon. Member for Tatton rightly said in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), it is not that two people are taking the decision—the whole Committee is taking the decision—but that some of the evidence will be heard by a smaller number than makes up the Committee. That is not unusual. I point out to the hon. Member for Faversham and some of my hon. Friends that, if the quorum for debates on the Floor of the House was 75 per cent. of hon. Members, the House would be a much quieter place.
Every hon. Member who has participated in the debate agrees on the inappropriate nature of our proceedings for schemes of that magnitude. The hybrid Bill on the Channel tunnel was not an effective way of agreeing, debating or discussing what could be said to be the major civil engineering project of this century. For a Committee of that size to be responsible for a decision of that magnitude is not a sensible way for the House to proceed.
1098
As all hon. Members know, one of the problems with the railways is that, traditionally, any alteration to a railwaay building or to the existing railway system must be done in this laborious way. That is something that we should examine. For the Channel tunnel, the King's Cross terminal and the link from the Channel tunnel that will join it with King's Cross—indeed, the railway links with the rest of the country—to be decided in that way is nonsense to say the least and brings the proceedings of the House into disrepute.
Mr. Corbyn: I accept and understand my hon. Friend's point about major railway developments, but does he accept that the private Bill procedure protects some smaller railway developments or railways that might have been closed?
Mr. Snape: I cannot say that my memory goes back that far. I am sure that, in the last century, there were good reasons for the procedures that we still have today, but they have been somewhat outworn by the passage of time.
Another point that most hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned, and one with which I agree, is that normal planning procedures are circumvented by our procedures in the House. Again, that is an understandable matter of concern for those who live in and around the King's Cross area, such as the constituents of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and others who participate regularly in debates such as this. People cannot generally understand how schemes of this magnitude can be debated and decided in this place by a handful of hon. Members using archaic procedures left over from the last century.
I hope that those in the Government responsible for these matters have listened to the debate, that those who have not listened will read the report of the proceedings, and that the House of Commons will do something to reform those procedures which bring all of us into disrepute. However, I repeat that I was impressed by the case made by the hon. Member for Tatton and the other distinguished members of the Committee, and for that reason, if it becomes necessary, I shall be joining them in the Division Lobby tonight.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 24.

Division No. 71]

[9.08 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Ashby, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Atkinson, David

Cormack, Patrick

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Dewar, Donald

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dickens, Geoffrey

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Durant, Tony

Boswell, Tim

Fearn, Ronald

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fookes, Dame Janet

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Forman, Nigel

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

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Foster, Derek

Buck, Sir Antony

Freeman, Roger

Burns, Simon

George, Bruce

Canavan, Dennis

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Graham, Thomas

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carrington, Matthew

Gregory, Conal

Cash, William

Grist, Ian

Chapman, Sydney

Grylls, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Hanley, Jeremy

1099

Harris, David

Patnick, Irvine

Hawkins, Christopher

Portillo, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hinchliffe, David

Riddick, Graham

Home Robertson, John

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hordern, Sir Peter

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hunter, Andrew

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Irvine, Michael

Sims, Roger

Janman, Tim

Snape, Peter

Kennedy, Charles

Speed, Keith

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Speller, Tony

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Stevens, Lewis

Kirkhope, Timothy

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Knapman, Roger

Sumberg, David

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lang, Ian

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Thurnham, Peter

Lightbown, David

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Lilley, Peter

Waller, Gary

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Lord, Michael

Watts, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Mans, Keith

Widdecombe, Ann

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Wiggin, Jerry

Mitchell, Sir David

Wilshire, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Wood, Timothy

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Nicholls, Patrick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Mr. George Galloway and

Page, Richard

Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Paice, James

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Moate, Roger

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Nellist, Dave

Bermingham, Gerald

Pike, Peter L.

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Rowe, Andrew

Cartwright, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Skinner, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

Spearing, Nigel

Harman, Ms Harriet

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Hayes, Jerry

Vaz, Keith

Haynes, Frank

Leighton, Ron

Tellers for the Noes:

Lewis, Terry

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 121 (Quorum of committee on opposed bill), leave be given for the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill to proceed with a quorum of two.

European Community (Right of Residence)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Before I call the Minister, I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment, but Members may raise points on the amendment during the debate.
9.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7706/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 8th January 1990 relating to rights of residence; and supports the objective of facilitating the free movement of European Community nationals.
This debate is an opportunity for the House to note the progress of the right of residence directives and their likely impact on the United Kingdom should they be adopted.
For some 10 years, the proposal that Community nationals should enjoy a general right of residence in other member states has been under discussion in Europe. Finally, recognising that deadlock had long been reached, the European Commission, in May last year, withdrew its earlier proposal and later submitted three new draft directives in its place. It is these new draft directives that are under discussion tonight.
Hon. Members may have with them tonight Commission document 4234/90, which was deposited in the House on 30 January. It may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of what it contains. It incorporates some of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament on 13 December. It does not include the latest text of the proposals upon which political agreement was reached at the last Internal Market Council and I will mention tills again a little later. It is a purely formal document issued by the Commission in response to the first opinion of the European Parliament on the original text of the proposals. However, the supplementary explanatory memorandum, which we submitted to the House on 8 January, is an accurate reflection of the latest text of the proposals.
These new measures are designed to provide a right of residence throughout the Community for categories of Community national who do not already have such a right under the free-movement provisions of the EC treaty. Their purpose is to promote the free movement of EC nationals within the Community—a principle to which the Government have long been committed. We have therefore sought to respond throughout the discussions in Europe in the most positive manner possible.
Since July, rapid progress—in the light of the earlier discussions unexpectedly rapid progress—has been made towards agreement among member states. There have been intensive discussions and at the last Internal Market Council, on 21 December, the presidency noted that political agreement on the substance of the directives had been achieved.
The important matter of treaty base, however, remains unsettled. and adoption of the directives cannot take place until the European Assembly's further opinion has been made available and considered by the Council. It may therefore be that formal adoption of these proposals will not be possible at the next meeting of the IMC, on 22 February. If this is the case, the next opportunity for their adoption will arise at the IMC scheduled for 3 April.

1101
I would like to stress at this point that the Government are extremely conscious of the importance of the arrangements which enable Parliament to play a full and effective part in the scrutiny of Community legislation. However, we believed that the situation which arose suddenly in December, when there seemed a strong possibility of agreement to the directives at the IMC meeting, met the exceptional criteria laid down for adoption before a debate. In the event, however, the contingency which we foresaw did not materialise, and I am very glad indeed that the House has this opportunity to consider the draft directives before the question of adoption arises.
There are, as I have said, three draft directives to be considered. They are aimed at students, pensioners, and other non-economically active persons respectively. It may be helpful to the House if I outline in brief the basic provisions of each.
First, the directive on students will apply to any EC national enrolled on a vocational or professional training course at a recognised educational establishment. The spouse and dependent children of the EC national will also benefit, but right of residence will be conditional on possession of sufficient resources to prevent the beneficiaries becoming a financial burden on the host member state. Sickness insurance will also be required where relevant—for example, in countries which operate a medical insurance system rather than a health service as in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, EC nationals who have been employed or self-employed will benefit from the directive on pensioners. They must be in receipt of an invalidity or early retirement pension, or old age benefits, or a pension in respect of an industrial accident or disease. Along with their spouse and dependent relatives, such EC nationals will be accorded a right of residence provided there are sufficient resources to prevent them from becoming a financial burden on the host member state. Sickness insurance will also be required where relevant.
Thirdly, any other EC national will benefit from the Directive on other non-economically active people provided there are sufficient resources to ensure they, and members of their family admitted with them, will not become a financial burden on the host member state. Again, there is a requirement for sickness insurance, if necessary.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Has any attempt been made to quantify the sort of resources that would be needed, concerning the definition of "dependent relatives", and the length and breadth of that expression?
Mr. Lloyd: The length and breadth of the expression is detailed in the draft directives, and is there to be seen. The mimimum amount of resources will be social security payments, whichever form they take, in the relevant country. Resources must be at least at that level.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Am I right in inferring that those people from Hong Kong to whom the Government are to give the right of abode—I totally support the Government in that—will also benefit from these directives?
Mr. Lloyd: Yes—like any other British national, they will be able to take advantage of the directives, under the migratory workers provisions of the treaty, to live in any part of the Community as long as they have the resources to do so.
Although there are three separate directives, there are common threads running through them all, not least the requirement that beneficiaries of each directive should not become a financial burden on the host member state. Member states have agreed that, if the right of residence is to be available on such a wide scale, there must be some protection for their social assistance systems.
Consequently, the directives have been drafted in such a way as to prevent the possibility of EC nationals going from one state to another from becoming a charge on social security funds in each, or even moving solely to maximise their entitlement to social security assistance payments.
In calculating the adequacy of the resources available to applicants, account will be taken of the personal circumstances of those involved. That will avoid the situation of a pensioner in receipt of a small pension, but with substantial personal resources, failing to qualify. Adequate resources are deemed to be resources higher than the level at which social assistance is paid within the relevant member state, as I just told my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It is the Government's view that the provisions of the directives contain adequate safeguards to ensure that their implementation would not result in any drain on our social security system.
Each directive also makes provision for family members. In the case of students it will be limited to the spouse and dependant. Pensioners and "others" will be able to have with them their spouse and any dependent relative in the ascending and descending line. Specific provision is also made in each directive to enable the spouse and dependent children of the main beneficiary to work in the host member state. Similar provisions have been in place for a number of years in the case of migrant workers, so for most people the provisions do not add to what is already available.
The provisions about resources being sufficient to prevent claims for social security benefits apply to those dependants in the same way as to the applicant.
Each directive contains an important provision ensuring that the right of residence will exist only so long as the persons concerned continue to meet the criteria that I have just outlined.
In common with other measures relating to free movement, derogation from the provisions of the directives will be possible only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These are the basic provisions of the directives as they now stand. Member states have reached agreement thus far, but such an achievement is the result of considerable effort.
Amendments to the original proposals have had to be made. For example, a scheme to reimburse the host member state for social security claims made by students has been replaced with the requirement to show adequate resources. Similarly, on pensioners it was agreed that simply having a pension was insufficient.
In order properly to assess the resources of pensioners and "others" it has been agreed that the personal circumstances of the applicant, and where appropriate those admitted with him, will be taken into account; and it has been agreed that the necessary amendment will be

1103
made. Another amendment has been agreed in recognition of the concerns of member states about the definition of family members. Initially, those family members who were to benefit from the pensioners and "others" directives were defined by reference to article 10 of regulation 1612/68 EEC.
Several member states noted the outstanding proposals to amend that particular provision in such a way as to widen considerably the definition of family members. Such a degree of relaxation was regarded as an unwelcome development by member states, at least in respect of the right of residence directives, and as a result the directives will now specify precisely to which family members they apply.
We understand that a statement for the Council minutes will be included to the effect that the given definition of family members may be reviewed in the light of any changes to article 10 of the regulation.
It is the Government's view that, if the treaty base for all three directives is changed to article 235—I will mention this again a little later—they represent proposals which should be acceptable to the United Kingdom. Improvements have been made to the original texts, and we believe that it is in the United Kingdom's interests to signal agreement to the proposals.
Acceptance of the proposals will facilitate the free movement of EC nationals within the Community. Naturally, that will work to the benefit of British citizens who will, provided they can meet the requirements of the directives, be free to live elsewhere in the Community should they choose to do so.
We are satisfied that the directives are framed, as far as possible, in such a way as to prevent abuse, and we believe that the overall effect on the United Kingdom and its citizens will be beneficial. The Government do not consider that the number of people who might take advantage of the directive, if made, will significantly increase the numbers of persons entering the United Kingdom.
More people will be able to come here to spend their retirement years, to study or simply to live in the United Kingdom. Equally, British citizens will have the freedom to choose another country of residence if they so wish. British students will be able to move easily to study in another member state. Residence cards will be issued to those exercising rights under the provisions of the directives in much the same way as they are already issued to EC nationals exercising rights of free movement under the aspects of the treaty covering migrant workers.
No new bureaucracy need be created, and in administrative terms the directives will require a minimum of change to our current measures for dealing with EC nationals. Consequently, it is the Government's view that implementation of the proposals would create no significant costs to this country.
One important feature of our consideration of the directives has been the need for the Government to examine the question of Community competence, in particular as it relates to EC nationals who are not workers or otherwise economically active.
We have looked carefully at the development of Community law and we have concluded that the free movement of all Community nationals, whether they are economically active or not, is an objective of the treaty. The right of residence directives therefore fall within the competence of the Community.
1104
Earlier, I mentioned that the important issue of the legal base of the directives, which governs the majority which must be obtained for adoption, remains unsettled. The original Commission proposals were to base the directives on article 7 for students—qualified majority voting; articles 48 and 54 for pensioners—qualified majority voting; and article 100 for "others"—unanimous voting.
Those treaty bases are unacceptable. The United Kingdom has made it clear throughout that we consider that article 235, which requires unanimous voting, is the only appropriate legal base for all three directives, and that view is shared by several other member states. At the last Internal Market Council in December, the Commission undertook to give further consideration to the issue of legal base.
We fully expect, in the light of the discussions to date, that any revised proposal which the Commission may make will reflect the concerns expressed by us and the other member states.
The Government consider that acceptance of the right of residence directives, provided that the legal bases are changed, is the proper course of action. Measures of this kind, which reduce unnecessary obstacles to the freedom of EC nationals to choose where they will live in the Community, is a good example of what the Single European Act means when it speaks of the establishment of an area without internal frontiers in accordance with the treaty. They have no effect on our right and determination to combat the evils of terrorism, drug trafficking and international crime, or to control immigration from third countries.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that we in the United Kingdom have nothing to fear from these proposals but much to gain. We have been presented with an opportunity to further the principle of free movement in terms which the Government consider acceptable to the United Kingdom. I therefore commend the proposals to the House.
9.32 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: The directives once again point up the flaws and unfairness of the United Kingdom's immigration rules. Unless the European Community's proposals, welcome though they are, are accompanied by corresponding changes in our rules, they will place some British citizens at a disadvantage compared with EC nationals. British citizens will have less right to family unity, which is at the heart of these rules, than other EC citizens coming to this country.
Europe could give us the opportunity to treat our citizens equally and fairly, which simply is not happening at present. A paragraph of the declaration signed last December by Immigration Ministers says:
"There is a growing aspiration, particularly on our continent, that people should be able to move about freely beyond State frontiers: we believe that EC Member States should be all the more diligent in reinforcing their co-operation in that it provides an incentive for others, in other parts of Europe and the world at large, to develop this freedom too."
Those brave words were uttered when western and eastern Europe were beginning to change. As I shall show, some British citizens—potentially, all of us—are not as free as that grand declaration envisages. With freedom of movement, and with the move to harmonisation of the rules of the EC, we should take the opportunity to remove

1105
some of the restrictive rules that cause hardship and, in some cases, are quite blatantly discriminatory against British citizens. If we are to create a people's Europe, we need to go far further than the proposals allow.
We have heard a great deal recently about Hong Kong; the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has already intervened on the subject. This evening, we have the chance to remind ourselves about the rights and limitations of rights that are placed on people living in this country.
There are three proposals before us. The first relates to students. At present, a male student can be joined by his wife, but a female student cannot be joined by her husband as of right. When I raised that question with the Minister's predecessor, who is now the Patronage Secretary, he replied in a written answer that he did not propose to change that rule and that there were sound reasons for not doing so. It is good that only six months later, the Government have become more accommodating. Now, not only can students be joined by their spouses, but, according to the directive, they can also be joined by their families, should they so wish.
The second proposal is more far-reaching. Retired people from the European Community can come to this country and be joined by their families, as can people of independent means who have come to this country to stay for either a short or a long time. No matter how welcome that new proposal may be and no matter what its justification, it brings into sharp focus the difficulties that are faced by people in this country who want to enjoy the same rights. The proposal of family unity points up the disadvantages that British European Community nationals face and will continue to face.
The concept of family unity should be the cornerstone of our policies in this aspect of immigration law. The Minister has been at pains to point out that, even with the new rights, the spouses of people coming to this country and their families will not be a burden on people living in this country. I can see why he made that point, but as I listened, it occurred to me that he was at pains to stress that they would never become a burden on people in this country. What machinery is he proposing is to ensure a continuous assessment of people so that they do not reach a point where they might want to rely on resources from this country?
If family unity is the principle on which the rules are based, that unity must be just as important for rich people as for poor. There may come a time when someone living in this country will, for one reason or another, want to take advantage of some benefit. That seems to argue for examining the rationalising of benefits and public support provisions throughout Europe. I appreciate that that is not the Minister's responsibility, but we should consider that point.
I come to the heart of my criticism of the proposals. I do not oppose them on their merits, but I believe that they point up the difficulties for many in this country. At present, a Frenchman can marry a woman from Pakistan, for example, and can enter the United Kingdom if he is a worker within the meaning of European legislation. He could also be joined by his children under 21 and by his parents because they all come within the European Community's definition of "family".
1106
A British citizen living in England, for example, does not have that automatic right. To marry a non-European Community national, he has first to satisfy the primary purpose rule—rule 50—in the immigration rules. He has to prove that the primary purpose of the marriage is not for his spouse to gain admission to this country. There are other tests that have to be passed. If he wishes his family to join him, there are even greater and more formidable hurdles. They have to satisfy the immigration authorities that they will have adequate accommodation and that they will not be a burden or otherwise come to rely on public funds.
Furthermore, some British citizens have to satisfy the authorities that they are related to their children. Last summer, there was a great deal of controversy about the Government's proposals to impose DNA testing on people who wanted to prove that they were related to their children. Under these rules, the Frenchman to whom I referred does not have to bother with any of that. It is sufficient for him to arrive at Dover or at Heathrow and to say, "This is my wife, these are my children and these are my mother and father. I'm coming in here."
Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of the immigration rules, which, as he has rightly pointed out, are discriminatory, but of the use of delays in the operations of the Home Office? Such delays have now become an accepted part of the way in which immigration is conducted in this country. Administrative delays are used as a means of immigration control. It is not just a question of satisfying the tests that my hon. Friend has outlined, but of having to wait in Bombay, New Delhi or Islamabad for many months before an interview is granted and of then having to wait while the information is passed from the Foreign Office to the Home Office. There are then delays at Lunar house, which are still quite prevalent. Does my hon. Friend agree that those delays, which are not part of the rules, exist and cause much hardship and anxiety?
Mr. Darling: I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that point. I know that he has a great deal of experience in these matters. Both the Foreign Office and the Home Office use the weapon of delay as an instrument of control. I am dealing with the case of a constituent who hopes to be joined by his wife. A great deal of delay arose because we had to discover whether the Home Office or the Foreign Office should answer our correspondence, and indeed, whether a Minister or something called the correspondence unit should answer my letters. The delays are inordinate. No one will tell me what they are trying to find out.
The declaration to which I referred at the beginning of my speech talks about free movement and a free people's Europe. Some British citizens living in this country do not enjoy the freedom that will be conferred on European nationals under the regulations. It is wrong that the Frenchman to whom I referred is placed at a great advantage compared with an English, Scots or Welshman who wants to do exactly the same thing as the Frenchman. It is ironic that an EEC national of another country should have more rights than a Briton. The Government will have to address that problem.
The same problem arises with children. Under the EEC regulations, young people under the age of 21 are counted as children. Under the United Kingdom immigration

1107
rules, a child is counted as a child only if it is under the age of 18. I suspect that all hon. Members consider that if they have children they will always be the parents of those children. Nothing magical happens at 18 or 21 to stop them being their children. Under the EEC regulations, the definition of family does not have a cut-off point.
The regulations are welcome, but they point up the difficulties faced by immigrants. The Government are not prepared to tackle those problems. The Minister should tell us whether, in the people's Europe that we are now entering, he is prepared to consider the plight of many people resident in this country who find it increasingly difficult to be joined by their families—to whom they are closely attached—or to marry the person of their choice. I suspect that the Minister will reply in the negative.
It is ironic that the European convention on human rights provides that everyone of marriageable age should be free to marry. In theory, we are all free to marry, but not if we choose to marry someone, for example, from the Indian sub-continent. Although in theory the primary purpose rule applies to everyone, in practice it is applied only to spouses from certain parts of the world.
If everyone in the House is in favour of family unity, we should give it some substance and not simply use the words as a slogan to collect votes at election time. I fear that many hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, say one thing to their constituents and vote the other way when given the opportunity.
Europe gives us an opportunity to harmonise rules. We are not talking about primary immigration. We are discussing the need to treat our citizens equally. If the regulations are put into effect, the extraordinary result will be that people living in continental Europe will have greater rights to live with their wife, mother, father or children than people who live in Britain. People in Britain will wonder how that can he the case.
It will be open to a British citizen to go to Paris or Germany and become a worker in the sense of the EEC regulations and then come back to Britain to get round the British regulations. We should avoid that ridiculous position.
I wish to deal with three further points. I understand that the regulations are at a preliminary stage and that the Government will come back with definite proposals. As I understood it, the Minister welcomed this opportunity of a preliminary debate on the substance of the directives. No matter: I shall make the points anyway, because they have some substance—
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I commended the draft directives to the House and said that, although the Government were determined to see that the legal base was changed, we believe that the political agreement that has already been reached is sensible and satisfactory and we hope that the House will agree with us on that.
Mr. Darling: I obviously misunderstood the Minister. However, the point that I am about to make still stands because the issues will arise time and again.
First, I refer to harmonisation—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on this point, about which we should be absolutely clear. It is my understanding that there will not be an opportunity to discuss the regulations again, providing that the understanding to which the Minister referred materialises and that the regulations
1108
obtain a two-thirds majority at the Council of Ministers, possibly at the end of next month. If my hon. Friend thinks that there may be an opportunity to exercise other matters at large, that is one thing, but I believe that there will be an opportunity in respect of these regulations also.
Mr. Darling: I fear that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall now preface my three points with the obvious remark that these issues arise now and will arise again and again and again, because they do not directly fall within the scope of the directives. My hon. Friend has made a good point about the directives, because the discussions are between Ministers, and the House will not get an opportunity to discuss them further, despite the fact that the constituents of many hon. Members will be concerned, not only with the directives and the subject matter that they cover, but with the matters that they could have covered but do not.
At long last, I reach the three other points that I have wanted to mention and on which I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments. First, what is happening about the Schengen agreement? No debate on immigration rules would be complete without a reference to it. We are not a party to the treaty, which is between the Benelux countries, France and West Germany, but we send observers. Completely against the odds, the Schengen agreement was not signed last December because of objections mainly from European non-governmental organisations that were concerned about the ramshackle bureaucracy that it would create, together with the potential for discriminatory practices in the control of movement.
I should be grateful if the Minister could let us know the Government's view on the current state of the Schengen agreement, because it has some bearing on this country. There is no doubt that it is the blueprint for the regime that will prevail after 1992 and it is referred to when the Trevi group of Ministers meet from time to time.
My second point is entirely connnected with the directives. Undoubtedly, as we move towards more harmonisation and common rules throughout the EEC, we shall need safeguards and an appeals system. The Minister has talked about the test of whether someone will become a burden on the public purse. There are always two or three interpretations of individual circumstances. The need for an appeals system in this matter, just as with every other immigration rule, is growing greater by the day. As the decisions of immigration officers often cannot be questioned and hon. Members' rights to intervene have been severely curtailed, the quality of the decision-making is deteriorating. That is not in the interests of any view of justice or of the good workings of Europe. The time for an independent watchdog to supervise such matters is long overdue, but I dare say that we shall return to that matter on many occasions.
Thirdly, our system for dealing with emergency applications to enter this country leaves much to be desired. The directives are about the right of families to come to this country. I need hardly remind the Minister that, only two weeks ago, we had the appalling spectacle of a family trying to come to their father's or their uncle's funeral in this country and being cross-examined by an immigration officer about the number of water buffalo that one of their relatives had owned when he lived in Pakistan.
That sort of thing is thoroughly distasteful, and we really ought to avoid it. What we need is an efficient and speedy system of resolving these problems.
Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock): The hon. Gentleman talks about an efficient and speedy system. Surely the system will be far more efficient and speedy if it is simply a matter of rules laid down by the House being interpreted honestly and with integrity—as they are—by the professionals concerned, rather than those professionals having to put up with the interference of Members of Parliament, who are concerned not so much with whether the rules are being properly applied as, for obvious reasons, with getting votes in their constituencies.
Mr. Darling: That is a fatuous point. I am aware of the hon. Member's views on these matters, but it would not be particularly useful to go into them. Most hon. Members will know that, with the best will in the world, officials interpreting any rules, whether about immigration or any other matter, make mistakes. It seems to me that there is a great deal of merit in having an appeal system. My experience is that, if one knows that one's decision may be questioned or queried, it tends to be of a higher quality than it is if one knows that it will never be looked at again.
Lastly, I should like the Minister to talk about what is happening generally about the imposition of a common visa regime in respect of third countries. Quite clearly, that has a major bearing on the way in which these directives will work. It seems to me that, as Europe grows larger, in the political sense—perhaps by the day—there will be more movement. It will be a Europe in which people move across the old borders. There will be increasing demands from those who wish to marry or to form relationships with people outside Europe, and those demands will have to be considered and accommodated.
I hope that we shall be able to avoid having a web of rules. I hope that we shall be able to avoid an extension of bureacracy—an extension which I fear we could get. If, at some future time, the Government come forward with proposals to remove the obvious difficulties that we have created by conferring rights on EEC nationals while ignoring the plight of a large number of our own citizens, many people in this country will be profoundly grateful. At long last they will begin to think that all British citizens are treated equally, rather than that some getting treatment at the expense of others.
9.52 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has done the House a service by drawing attention, in the main part of his speech, to the fact that the document highlights a new dimension of inconsistency between immigration rules under British law and immigration rules under EC law. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no doubt whatever that much greater rights are now being given to EC nationals than are available to our own citizens. That matter should be the subject of a proper, and perhaps detailed, debate in the House.
Before turning to the kernel of that argument, let me begin, as so often on these nocturnal occasions, with a ritual protest about the inadequate way in which the House continues to scrutinise EC legislation. Rarely have we seen a more shameful example of our weak powers and unsatisfactory procedures in that regard. It is a matter of record, in Hansard recently, that during the past 12 months the European Commission sent to the House 765 directives or documents, consisting of well over 10,000 pages. A great many of them have become, or are in the
1110
process of becoming, law applicable to our subjects. Those documents, if they are scrutinised at all before being rubber-stamped, are scrutinised in late-night debates lasting only one and a half hours. They come to us in indigestible lumps. The situation is totally unsatisfactory, and this directive is a classic example of the need for better scrutiny.
Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a very good idea if, once every two weeks, we were to devote a day to these matters? Does he agree that that would have the added advantage of helping the Government in their legislative desires and ambitions?
Mr. Aitken: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I would be in favour of the extra day and of curbing some of the legislative excesses. I have a suspicion, perhaps an unworthy one, that tonight in particular my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have indulged in skilful stage management by putting on the debate as late as possible, when the House is as empty as possible, with the Minister making as technical a speech as possible, thereby luring us all into such a comatose state that we do not notice what is happening.
A radical change is being instituted in our immigration laws. We are right to draw attention to it. Let us begin by reminding ourselves of the status quo on immigration law. This is a highly populated island. Successive Governments for over a quarter of a century have exercised a policy of strict and, on the whole, fair immigration control. The basis of that control is a mixture of laws and immigration rules, which are carefully worded, which have been lengthily debated and which on the whole are precise.
The EC directive drives not merely a coach and horses through our immigration laws but, in effect, a whole succession of European juggernauts, which will completely change much of the basis of our immigration laws. For example, the directive extends the right of residence in Britain not merely to all 280 million EC nationals but to their families and relatives, many of whom will not even have to be EC nationals themselves. It may not add up to the River Tiber—
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend's argument, but he seems to be developing the line that the directive is making a huge change. It is not. The big change came with the signing of the treaty, which enabled those who are economically active to move freely about the Community. The directive will add a few much smaller groups. It defines them and makes it possible for them to move under the treaty. It is not the vast change that my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Aitken: I was not born yesterday. I have read the document. Of course it is true that hitherto workers have had the right to move freely around the Community, but this is a big extension and not a trivial add-on, as the Minister suggests. I shall come to the precise definitions, woolly and vague as they are. They include not merely pensioners but a category of non-economically active persons and, most interestingly, a massive extension of the dependant category. We shall consider that closely.
I do not wish to over-dramatise the position. Before the Minister interrupted me, I was about to say that I do not think that the changes in the immigration rules will amount to the Tiber foaming with much blood, but it will be a case of the immigration headquarters at Croydon

1111
bulging at the seams with new applications. We should recognise that there will be a significant and substantial extension.
One asks the question: have the British people been consulted about the changes? Can even the Minister understand the implications of the changes that he is pushing through? The reason I ask that follows the Minister's intervention. I am not sure that he can have satisfactorily read the directive; certainly I shall be fascinated if he can satisfactorily explain the definitions of families who will be able to come in.
I shall read to the House two or three lines from the Government's explanatory memorandum. The paragraph headed "Policy implications" deals with the rights of dependants of EC nationals to exercise their right of residence in this country. It says:
"The new wording specifies that the family members who may benefit from the provisions of the Right of Residence Directives are those currently covered by Regulation 1612/68."
That is the change to which the Minister referred as not very great. The paragraph continues:
"It is, however, proposed to include in the Council minutes a statement as to the possibility of a review of the given definition of members of family in the light of the outcome of proceedings on the proposal for a Regulation amending Article 10 of Regulation 1612/68."
What does all that Euro-jargon mean? It means that no one has a clue what the definition of dependant, families or relatives of EC nationals who will have the right of residence in this country will be. If ever there was a foggy, inadequate, vague definition of dependant, this is it. The Government's explanatory memorandum, which is a polite title for the verbiage that I have just read, shows how extraordinarily vague the category of dependant will be.
As the category of dependant cannot be satisfactorily defined, will the Minister give a definition of the phrase "non-economically active persons"? We are giving right of residence in this country to pensioners and other non-economically active persons. I am anxious about that phrase, because I suspect that it will mean the unemployed, the unemployable, the underclass and the "don't want to work" class.
I say this with some feeling, because I represent a constituency that was much troubled by what was known as the "dole-on-sea" phenomenon a year or two ago. As a result of boarding house keepers placing advertisements in the poorer districts because they could not fill their rooms, they were able to recruit large numbers of people who could not find work or, as we more often thought, people who did not want to work, to the south coast by a sort of magnet approach. All sorts of social problems flowed from that migration. I do not like the notion that we shall have a dole-on-sea syndrome with people from, not just the north of England, but the whole of Europe being attracted into a district. That is wrong and we need a much more precise definition than anything given in the explanatory memorandum.
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud): Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that, in the light of the greenhouse effect that some people are forecasting, the legislation could have the opposite intention?
Mr. Aitken: I presume that my hon. Friend means that my constituency is likely to become the riveria of Europe.
1112
That would no doubt be agreeable but, once again, the immigration consequence of the document needs to be considered.
Hong Kong has been referred to tonight. In this House, certainly on the Government Benches, we are contemplating a battle royal on the subject of Hong Kong. The heavy artillery of the Foreign Secretary and the big guns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) will shortly be locked in combat. We shall hear a great deal about the flow of Hong Kong immigration and whether we should give 50,000 passports.
If we look closely at the document and consider its implications because of the new rights given to EC nationals, residents and their families, we see that there is a huge, not just loophole, but bolthole, in the EC rules for Hong Kong residents and many others. The House may not be aware, but the easiest place in the European Community to get a passport today is Portugal. All one has to do is buy a modest residence, keep it for three years—one does not have to live there—and having done so, one can get a Portuguese passport and thus become an EC citizen and resident.
Therefore, any Hong Kong nationals who are denied passports and entry into Britain simply have to club together, so that somebody buys a small villa in Portugal at a low cost. Within three years, under these extremely vague rules, they can bring in their entire family, dependants, and presumably many other relatives, without any of the checks and balances that exist under our immigration rules. If the British public want this, and it is intended by Parliament, so be it. However, such immigration by stealth, round the back door, through those EC methods, is not what this Parliament has yet accepted as right.
Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham): Will my hon. Friend consider that a Hong Kong resident would not have to go to Portugal to buy a villa, but would be able to go to Macau, just across the water from Hong Kong? All Macau residents will be able to move to Portugal at any time they wish.
Mr. Cormack: When my hon. Friend answers the point raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), will he consider that residents from Hong Kong, from wherever they come, are perhaps more likely to enjoy living in the climate of the south of France, than Bolton or Bootle? Therefore, the argument can be turned to good effect by those of us who feel that the Hong Kong people may come here, but many of them may choose to live not in Great Britain but in other parts of the Community.
Mr. Aitken: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is a case of special pleading and seems to be a question of hope over experience, because all evidence suggests that this country is still a mecca for people from all over the world. they come for language and many other reasons, and the flow of Hong Kong nationals within the Community, from wherever they come, is more likely to be to here than from here to other outlying parts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) raises a significant point. It is correct—I omitted it—that the loophole is even wider than that which I illustrated when I spoke of people buying Portuguese villas. Hong Kong nationals can easily go to Macau, get

1113
European residence by that route, and then, as EC nationals, they can, with the extensive rights and privileges granted to them, have full right of residence in this country.
I am simply arguing that, instead of turning up at a late hour and nodding these big changes through, we should be aware that they have profound implications, which deserve the full parliamentary attention that was originally requested by the Select Committee.
Ms. Diane Abbott: I am listening with care to the hon. Gentleman's xenophobic ramblings. Given the weather in this country, the relatively low social security benefits and the general decline in the quality of life that has accompanied 10 years of Tory misrule, is he really saying that people from the four corners of the world are panting to come to Ramsgate?
Mr. Aitken: The hon. Lady's eloquence on behalf of Ramsgate means that, if she were to lose her seat, there might be a job for her as the tourist promotion officer there. At the end of the day, these significant changes in the rules are valuable to European nationals. They are not available yet to British citizens. I suspect that the hon. Lady handles as many immigration cases as any hon. Member. She must recognise, as the whole House should—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central recognises—that whether one is for looser or tighter immigration, there is something intrinsically wrong with being offered, on the one hand, a set of British immigration rules that say one thing, and now suddenly, in a midnight debate in the House—[Interruption.] It is not quite midnight, although it feels like it; it has been a long day. On the other hand, we now have a different set of immigration rules offered to us by Europe.
Mr. Ron Leighton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the House should debate such matters in a better way. Would the people who are economically inactive, of whom he spoke, who might come to Ramsgate or wherever, automatically qualify for British social security benefits, pensions and so on by coming here?
Mr. Aitken: No. I gather that the Government assure us that, by a mechanism not yet devised—when it is devised it will almost certainly not be large enough to operate, or be quick enough to be operated, in a satisfactory way—somehow there will be no financial loss to Britain because those social security benefits will be transferable across frontiers.
I am not arguing on an economic basis, but pointing out that we are now getting, as a result of the directive, two different sets of immigration rules and two standards. With such double standards, whether one favours one or the other, it is unacceptable that it should happen in this way, in a late-night debate, via a European directive.
The Government, whose relations with the Select Committee on European Legislation are normally good, have not behaved courteously or correctly in this episode, because the Select Committee demanded a debate on the subject, recognising that it was of considerable political importance, but has been denied one. We are now debating it, in effect, after the horse has bolted. The
1114
Government seem to have made every decision and made every concession except one—that is, whether unanimity is required or whether it can be done by majority voting. Other hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee on European Legislation may develop that theme, because the Government have not behaved in a constitutionally correct way towards the Committee. The House should recognise that the changes in the immigration rules are being carried out in a wrong parliamentary way.
10.11 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) finished on a note that I wish to take up. There are two themes to tonight's debate—the substance of the matter and the merits that have already exercised the minds of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and the hon. Member for Thanet, South. However, the underlying theme is that of the constitution and parliamentary procedure, and it is to the latter that I wish to direct the attention of the House. While I agree with the hon. Member for Thanet, South in his reference to the relationship between the Government and the Select Committee—which is not good on that matter, although I hasten to add that there is a good understanding on most matters—the damage is not to the Committee but to the House and to parliamentary procedure.
The issues before us are of considerable constitutional significance because they show that we do not deal properly with advising the House on what is afoot in the European Community in respect of institutions and developments. The Committee that I have the honour to chair cannot do that, because the House has not provided it with adequate terms of reference, a matter that we hope will soon be addressed by the Government. The current arrangements could work better. They have broken down in spirit, if not in letter, on this occasion. Therefore, if I appear to be tedious in reading some of the verbatim reports of the Committee and the correspondence that has passed between the Minister and myself on behalf of that Committee, I apologise. However, it is important to have these matters on record because, irrespective of whatever of the substance of the matter may come back to haunt us in the future, the procedural matters relating to this debate may do so, although I hope not.
The treaty base was referred to by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. The Single European Act changed the whole outlook in respect of decision-making in the Community. No longer was it possible for a single member to delay or to hold up decision-making; indeed, the purpose of parts of the Single European Act, as the Leader of the House told us when he was Foreign Secretary, was to streamline and speed up decision-making. Vast areas of decision-making were transferred from, in effect, unanimity to qualified majority voting.
There are 76 votes on the Council of Ministers, 54 of which are required to pass a matter requiring a qualified majority, and 23 to block. The United Kingdom has 10 votes. I shall not go through the other member states as it would take too long. The important question is whether the Commission promulgates a regulation under an article of the treaty that requires qualified majority voting, simple majority voting or unanimity. It is those three choices. If it promulgates it under unanimity, the powers of the

1115
Government and the influence of the House—because that is what these debates are supposed to be about—is much the greater.
The articles that have been quoted in respect of these regulations are 7, 8A, 49, and 54. As the Minister said in his opening speech, they require qualified majority voting. Articles 100 and 235 require unanimity.
The difference of opinion that the Government have with the Commission, probably rightly, is on whether freedom of movement and residence of economically non-active persons can properly come under the first four articles that I read out. There has been some discussion and, as we heard from the Minister and as we shall hear later, there is probably an expectation—I put it no higher than that—that ultimately these regulations will be retabled or withdrawn or the Council could agree unanimously to translate them into articles 100 and 235, but on condition that we agree to the matters in hand. That was part of the deal.
Let me deal now with our scrutiny procedure. For the record, because it is relatively unknown I want to read out the resolution of the House of 30 October 1980. It says:
"Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European Legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c., for consideration by the House before the House has given it that consideration unless—

(a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not he withheld, or

(b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld; and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House."—[Official Report, 30 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 843–4.]

That matter was recommended by the Williams committee, which sat between 1976 and 1978, and was put through the House under the leadership of the noble Lord St. John of Fawsley, now a well-known Member of the other place.
The proposals before us have a long history. They were first promulgated in 1974 in a different form and subsequently withdrawn. They were retabled by the Commission as recently as 29 June 1989. On 20 October, the Government then published, as is their wont, the memorandum, from which the hon. Member for Thanet, South quoted, and on 25 October the Select Committee, in its 35th report, HCI5, XXXV, said:
"The explanatory memorandum recalls that the United Kingdom has reserved its position on these proposals but, if they were agreed, this wider definition of family members would also apply in the case of persons covered by the draft Directive on pensioners and other non-economically active people. This would have the effect of further increasing the number of third-country nationals with the right of entry to the United Kingdom under Community law."
All that is well known to the House—it has been rehearsed in debates already—but I want to put on record the exchanges between ourselves, the Minister and the House in that respect.
The next thing that happened was that the Select Committee received a letter from the Minister on 19 December 1989. It is fairly long, but it is right that I should quote it in full. It says:
"At its meeting on 25 October the Scrutiny Committee understandably concluded that in view of their legal and political importance these documents should be debated. We have recently been seeking to arrange a debate, but it has not proved possible to re-arrange business in the short time
1116
available before the House rises and I thought you ought to know that there is a possibility of agreement being reached in the Community before a debate can be held.
This is because progress in the discussions (after, as you know, a very long period of deadlock) has recently quickened markedly. At a meeting of the Internal Market Council on 23 November, a settlement was reached which adequately deals with the concerns which we and a number of other Member States had to ensure that non-economically active EC nationals who take up residence in another country would not become a burden on that country's public funds. In the light of this settlement the French Presidency has been pressing hard for the adoption of the Directives, and the European Council on 8–9 December referred to them as 'an important measure which is scheduled for adoption by the end of the year'. At the same time, the Government has looked again at the question of Community competence and has concluded that our longstanding reserve can now be lifted, provided cur earlier concerns about the legal base can be resolved.
The matter will come up again at the meeting of the Internal Market Council on 21–22 December, at which the Presidency will be pressing for a final decision on all three Directives. As the drafts currently stand, we will have a difference with the Commission and with some other Member States over the proposed legal bases. Given the Presidency's eagerness for a decision there is, however, now a chance that we can secure the legal bases we want provided that we and other Member States can agree to accept the Directives at this meeting."
That was the meeting of 21–22 December.
"In these circumstances, in order to secure negotiating advantage, we would like to hold open the possibility of agreeing to the Directives, without putting on a scrutiny reserve, notwithstanding that it has not yet proved possible to arrange a debate on the legal bases which we consider more satisfactory.
It is of course conceivable that matters will not go quite this way and that it will after all be possible to have a debate before final conclusions are reached. Needless to say, that would normally be our strong preference. We shall in any event be submitting a further Explanatory Memorandum and seeking to arrange debate as soon as possible in the New Year. After anxious consideration, however, we are satisfied that, given the extra momentum which the proposals have gathered since the end of November, it would be wrong to pass up the chance of a satisfactory outcome on the grounds that it has not so far been possible to arrange a debate."
Happily, there was no final agreement on the date. I ought to say here and now that the members of the Committee and I are obliged to the Minister for that letter: it was full and frank, and it told us the exact position. To be fair, any of us in the position of the Minister sitting in that chair might well have done the same thing.
I ought to add that the matters that I am now rehearsing represent the unanimous view of the Committee which understands the Minister's position; but it means that, by the end of the year, the following position has emerged. After nearly 10 years, we have a proposal, albeit a modified one. We recommended a debate many years ago on this topic, but we have a debate recommended on the proposals but there is a possibility that the Government will agree to them in substance prior to debate and—here I quote from our memorandum of 20 December—
"agree to adoption of these proposals prior to a debate being held. In essence, the Minister anticipates that it may be possible to trade willingness to agree at the Internal Market Council on 21–22 December for the Government's preferred choice of Treaty base."
That was a new element that the Committee espied in these matters: in our view, there was a very big jump between package bargaining over a fairly wide area, which we well understand must take place, and the fact that, in order to change the treaty base, one must agree to the substance of the proposal.

1117
The Minister kindly wrote to me again on 9 January and I will put what he said on the record. He has dealt with us scrupulously on this matter, and I want to emphasise that. He said:
"At the IMC on 21 December it was noted that neither Danish nor United Kingdom Parliamentary scrutiny procedures had been completed; there was further discussion, but no final agreement, on the question of legal base; and a number of other, minor, issues remained unsettled. As a result, no vote was taken on any of the Directives. The Presidency recorded, however, that political agreement on the substance of the texts had been reached, subject to the completion of Danish and United Kingdom Parliamentary procedures, and suggested that the IMC should give further consideration to the draft Directives at its next meeting on 22 February."
In his opening remarks, the Minister told us that that expectation was to come—the expectation that the treaty base will be changed—but of course that does not really alter the fact that at an earlier stage the Government were willing to go ahead—perhaps justifiably, perhaps not—before a debate in the House, and that the issue of trading—these are the words we used—treaty base in substance has in our judgment probably occurred.
Therefore, the Committee issued another report, which I hope hon. Members have been able to get from the Vote Office, on 17 January, HC II-VII of this Session, which says:
"The Committee was therefore surprised to learn that political agreement was reached on the substance of the proposals at the Internal Market Council on 21–22 December, subject to United Kingdom and Danish scrutiny reserves, and that the only remaining issues for consideration are the appropriate legal bases for the Directives and a number of minor matters. In effect, the Government appeared to have agreed to the substance of the proposal, albeit with a Parliamentary scrutiny reserve, without securing agreement on its preferred choice of legal base."
I interpolate here a reference to what the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, which was that that was expected, and of course it could well be part of the political agreement to which he referred.
The report continues:
"The Department's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the Government now accepts that it is reasonable to interpret Treaty provisions on freedom of movement for persons as applying to non-economically active as well as to economically active Community nationals. It is also content that amendments to the proposal have strengthened the understanding that beneficiaries should not become a burden on host Member States. The Committee notes the Government's view that the draft Directives do not pose any major or unacceptable policy implications for the United Kingdom, and its position on the relevance of Article 235 as the appropriate Treaty base in each case. Nevertheless, the Committee maintains its recommendation for the early consideration of these proposals.
The Committee remains disappointed that the Government has not found it possible to afford the House the opportunity to consider these proposals in the decade since the original recommendation until after substantive decisions on their content had been taken. It also reiterates its concern that the Government should have regarded, in this or any similar circumstances, the choice of Treaty base as being negotiable in a similar fashion to the substance of a Commission proposal, given the possible legal implications of adopting Community legislation on inappropriate treaty bases.
In view of the intrinsic importance of the draft Directives, and the circumstances which led to political agreement being reached at the Internal Market Council, the Committee
1118
considers the debate which it has recommended should be held on the Floor of the House, and not in a Standing Committee on European Community Documents."
There was a motion down for this batch of documents to be sent to a Standing Committee, but representations were made and that is why we are here now. I place that on the record for the judgment of hon. Members as to the relative importance of this matter—whether it be of substance or procedural, and whether it should have been debated on the Floor of the House or in committee.
The amendment put down by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is entirely on the matter of procedure. Whatever his own views may be on substance, and he has not told us them—not that I necessarily expect him to be here—his amendment reflects absolutely the view of the Select Committee. It has not been selected, and I make no complaint about that, but I wish to put it on record that the unanimous view of the Select Committee is in line with the sentiments expressed in that amendment.
The womb of law in the United Kingdom has been until fairly recently this Chamber and that of the other place. We are now, of course, in a completely different situation; and the linkage between what Ministers do in the Council of Ministers and the influence that we can bring to bear on them before they go to the Council—the extent, to use an in phrase of the moment, of pre-legislative glasnost—is very important. I can only hope that the rather lengthy and perhaps tedious quotations that I have had to put on the record this evening will assist in improving visibility in these matters in the future.
10.29 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud): I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for setting out so clearly and carefully the full effect of the draft directives in relatively few minutes, and I shall try to be brief.
I appreciate the full importance of the EC as a trading bloc, and its necessity to our future prosperity, but I should like to make a few comments on these fairly wide-ranging measures—especially wide-ranging for a Thursday night.
I understand the three draft directives to some extent. I certainly understand the first, which concerns students, and the second, which concerns employees and self-employed pensioners. However, the third directive causes me some concern. It involves the rights of residence for nationals of member states who do not enjoy this right under other provisions of Community law, and members of their families. I thought that my hon. Friend mentioned that this amounted to only a few groups of people, in which case, I must be, as usual, totally naive, because I looked at the directive again and again and I have come to the conclusion that it could apply to everybody.
As the directive concerns only a few groups, can my hon. Friend say whether he has any idea of the potential numbers of people involved, particularly in view of paragraph 23 of the explanatory memorandum, headed "Financial Implications", which says:
"there should be no direct increase in costs as a result of these proposals."
If that is so, presumably no great numbers of people will be involved. Once we know the number, perhaps we will be able to say what effect it might have on the housing situation, because in this country we have a greater

1119
population in a smaller number of square miles than many other member countries, and therefore that is of particular importance to us.
Can my hon. Friend say what will be the position of the citizens of East Germany if Germany reunites? Will they automatically have the right of abode here?
The third point I would put to my hon. Friend—and I appreciate that this involves some detail—is that I have always understood that citizens of the French overseas territories have rights of abode, and presumably that will apply in Britain, but it seems unfortunate that some of our own dependencies and protectorates do not have the same privileges. Could my hon. Friend comment on that?
I am not—I say this almost thankfully—a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but I read the note that the Committee
"was surprised to learn that political agreement was reached on the substance of the proposals of the Internal Market Council on 21 December."
That seems to be very strong meat.
The criteria used to determine sufficient resources in this case seem to be pretty basic—nothing like the Hong Kong £150,000. How do we determine whether there are sufficient resources? Is some form of means test involved, and how will it be brought about in practical terms?
I also have a copy of the supplementary explanatory memorandum on European Community legislation which I see is somewhat ominously entitled "final" on the front page. Turning to what I guess is the main issue, I see that paragraph 14 suggests:
"the legal base for all three draft Directives remains under discussion pending final agreement."
I wonder, therefore, whether my hon. Friend believes that this is the most suitable time to debate this matter. There seem to be several fairly profound legal and political implications.
Indeed, paragraph 15 describes the full operational procedures, and I am afraid that I must read it out in full. It says:
"Proposals based on Article 7 or Article 49, among others, attract the Co-operation procedure. If, however, the Commission were to revise their proposals by substituting Article 235, as the legal base for each Directive, the Co-operation procedure would not apply. Until there is agreement on the question of legal base it is not possible to be certain whether the co-operation procedure is relevant."
That seems to me to be of paramount importance.
Mr. Spearing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I made a long speech. He has raised an important point—the bifurcation of a second reading by the European Parliament. He may be under a certain misapprehension about the timing of debates. There has always been a feeling in the House and the Committee that debate at an earlier stage rather than when the final document is ready is more likely to influence the Minister in the Council of Ministers, particularly prior to the common position being taken if the matter is debated a second time. Therefore, rather than having a debate too early, the feeling has been that, for the reasons that I have outlined, it is rather too late.
Mr. Knapman: Perhaps I should have said that we should be careful about drawing conclusions at this stage. Perhaps that would be more acceptable.
Should we be applying to the European Court of Justice to determine these matters, or should we be insisting on article 235? At what stage will my hon. Friend consider whether a veto should be used to force the matter?
1120
Paragraph 16 states:
"Similarly, until the legal base is settled it is not possible to say what the voting procedure will be. However, in the event of Article 235 being chosen, each draft Directive will require unanimity."
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is vital to know whether majority voting or unanimity is applicable? Unless we know, we are taking something of a leap in the dark.
If national frontiers are to become things of the past—that is not putting it too strongly—we must be certain that the frontiers of Europe assume even greater significance.
10.36 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd: A great many points have been raised. The House would not take it kindly if I tried to address each of them, so I shall comment on what I consider to be the crucial and essential points. I apologise in advance if I leave out any items that hon. Members consider important. If they draw my attention to them during or after the debate, I shall reply to them in a letter, which I hope will be as full and frank as the one that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) commended for its content if not for its conclusion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said little about the directives, so I presume that he was not too unhappy with them. He wanted us to harmonise the rules that we in the United Kingdom operate for the immigration of dependants from third countries with the European rules governing the movement of dependants between EC countries. We have the rules that best suit our circumstances and we should take decisions on them in the light of our particular national needs.
However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in changing them in certain directions. The EC rules for the movement of those who are economically active predate our entry into the Community. We had no hand in formulating them; they existed during the Labour party's last period in government. The Labour Government did not seek to bring them in line and I quite understand why.
If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central feels able to tell us now, would he change the rule for dependants so that the maximum age for child dependency is not 18, as it is in our immigration rules for third countries, but 21? The House would be interested to know, and so would I.
He asked about Schengen. We are not associated with Schengen. We do not have observer status there. We are extremely interested in what eventually emerges. No treaty has yet been signed. If it is, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assumption of what our attitude would be. We do not regard it as a blueprint or model for the rules and arrangements in the wider Community.
Mr. Darling: I am surprised by that, because I had always understood from official and unofficial sources that, first, the Government are kept informed by a civil servant at Schengen and that, secondly, as everyone in Schengen is a member of Trevi, in which the Government are represented, it would be inconceivable for the Benelux countries, France and West Germany to adopt the Schengen rules but seek to do something entirely different by Trevi. If I am wrong, I should welcome a Government statement on that. The previous Home Secretary made a

1121
helpful statement—I am not suggesting that he made an admission—saying that the general thrust of what I am saying is right.
Will the Minister explain why a Frenchman and his wife and family are allowed to enter this country, whereas a British citizen and his wife cannot automatically do the same? That shows the inconsistency in the definition of the "family".
Mr. Lloyd: The French are responsible for those who enter France from third countries. That is not regulated by Community law; nor are our immigration rules. Movement of people from one Community country to another is regulated by Community law. Community nationals are of primary significance and their dependants derive their rights from the EC national. That is why a distinction is made, but it is a smaller problem than the hon. Gentleman thinks.
We are not part of the Schengen discussions. We know only what we are told, what we learn and what we read. Obviously, we are kept in touch, but not in the detail that the hon. Gentleman believes. I have made it pretty clear that what we believe may have been the objective of those discussions, but which has not emerged yet, ought to act as a blueprint for the rest of the Community.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked about the common visa. Again, that has little to do with the directives or with immigration. Discussions are being held to see whether we can agree similar rules for visas for short-term visitors to the Community—not people who wish to settle, but holidaymakers or people who are visiting for a limited period—so that each member country does not have to issue a new visa if a visitor wants to visit several countries and to make it easier for visitors to move between countries. That bears no relation to the directives that we are discussing or to long-term immigration for settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that the directives drive a coach and horses through our immigration controls, but they do not. They extend the rights of movement and residence in the Community, but the reality of those rights exist already for the economically active, who are most likely to move and who represent the greatest numbers. They are not completely insignificant, because pensioners may decide to move to another country if they have the resources to do so. Well-resourced pensioners from the south of France or the Mediterranean may move to the midlands because they like the weather, but I suspect that the movement will tend to be in the opposite direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South also thought that the category of "dependant" was extremely unclear. In fact, it has been clear since before we joined the European Community, because it is set out in regulation 1612/68. We are writing in the category in detail and we especially wanted to insist on that because there were proposals in the European Community that the rules should be expanded. We wanted to be certain that no expansion appeared in the new directives as a result of changes to which we might agree elsewhere or which might have taken place without our agreement, so we wanted to insist on that detail. What my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South found most confusing was really a recognition that there was discussion over regulation
1122
1612/68 which at present governs this area, but which may not if it changes. However, there is no doubt that the definition is there to be read and is easily understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) also asked about non-economically active people. They comprise everybody who does not come under some other category and who has sufficient resources to maintain himself at or above the social security levels in whichever European Community country he determines to settle. There is no question about such a person becoming a cost, because he will not be eligible for benefits or social security payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud thought that there must be a cost somewhere. To the country, there must be a movement in of resources because people must bring with them the resources with which they will maintain themselves and any dependants whom they might bring with them.
Mr. Janman: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying about the cost effect if such immigration were to occur. However, immigration is a subject about which the people of this country feel very strongly, not only in terms of the possible costs to the taxpayer, but as a result of the other concerns, about which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware and about which I do not need to go into detail. If one used his logic about the weather and the direction of immigration and emigration, clearly we should have had massive emigration from Britain to the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent as opposed to immigration into Britain from those places.
If one takes the matter in the context of the European Community, there is a danger of fairly substantial immigration from the countries within the Community that have a lower gross domestic product per head than we do, such as countries in the more southern part of the Community. The concerns about which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has hinted are very real.
Mr. Lloyd: If there is any such danger—and I do not want to go down that track with my hon. Friend now, as the clock is ticking on—it already exists because of the treaty and because of the movement of the economically active, which has nothing to do with the directives. If there is a movement upwards, it will be as a result of the freedom to migrate that people have. There certainly is a movement towards the Mediterranean, which is manifest in the number of British pensioners who are currently resident in Spain. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) may have a point, but it is related not to the directives, but to the treaty itself and to the freedom of movement of those who are economically active.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is not here at present, but I want to respond to his point. He suggested quite unwarrantably that queues are used as a weapon and he seemed to be thinking especially of the Indian sub-continent. The queues that were very long there have been reduced sharply in recent years and they are far shorter than they were when we came to office. We have increased the number of officers there in an attempt to make the queues shorter, and we have succeeded in that.
The points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation and was speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, were most important. I

1123
understand his concern that there was a suggestion that there would be full agreement on the issues without a debate. He is right to press the point and I understand why he does. He spent some time going into the background, about which I wish to say a few words.
We were advised only a few days before the meeting on 21 December to which the hon. Gentleman referred that the presidency appeared to be determined to bring the matter to a conclusion before the end of its presidency. The base for two of the directives—I refer again to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—was a qualified majority. It was extremely likely that not only the substance of the directives but a legal base that we did not think right or justified could have been imposed on us.
The hon. Member for Newham, South is frank and honest. He said that he understood that, if he had been in my right hon. and learned Friend's position, he might have made the same decision. We came to the conclusion that, because the directives were to be decided by qualified majority voting, we had to use our best endeavours to ensure that the legal base was changed. We judged that the best way was to agree to the substance and the changes made in the few weeks beforehand, which we were basically in agreement with, but stated that we were not satisfied with the legal base.
I disagreed strongly with the hon. Gentleman when he suggested that the legal base was negotiable. It was not negotiable by us. We have always been prefectly clear that there is only one proper base—article 235. We have stuck to that. The whole purpose of agreeing to the substance of the directives was to give us more leverage to ensure that we secure the proper base. It now looks as if we may be successful. We have had this debate before a final agreement has been made. I am happy on both those points. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes some satisfaction from that.
Mr. Spearing: I am not sure that I can. It is for the members of the Committee to read the report of the debate. I understand from the Minister—perhaps we have not given adequate weight to this—that the changes in the proposals were conterminous with speeding up the
1124
timetable. I concede that the Minister was placed in a difficult position with the presidency, but apparently that is how it works. We regret that there was no opportunity for a debate. There should have been one before Christmas and perhaps one fairly soon afterwards.
Mr. Lloyd: We regret that there was no opportunity for a debate. We should have regretted it even more if we had been lumbered with the directives on the wrong legal base. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee agree with that.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher): The main principles of the measures will be widely welcomed by the people affected by them. Although the treaty base is regularly discussed by the British Government and the Commission and may ultimately be referred to the European Court of Justice, the thrust of the measures is welcome. Will my hon. Friend confirm that they do not affect the British interest because under the treaty of Rome, Britain still has powers to protect the national interest from drugs and other dangers?
Mr. Lloyd: That is absolutely right. We retain those rights both at our frontier and under the fairly narrow but real public policy limitation to remove EC nationals whom it is against the public interest to have here.
I emphasise that, under the treaty of Rome, EC nationals already have freedom of movement and residence to take employment or become self-employed in any other member country. All that the directive does is extend the rights that are implicit in the treaty in defined terms to the other groups that I mentioned. In the process, we wish to make sure that people do not become an expense to our Exchequer or those of other member countries. I commend the proposals to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7706/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 8th January 1990 relating to rights of residence; and supports the objective of facilitating the free movement of European Community nationals.

Oil Seed Rape (Allergy)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
10.54 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: My purpose in drawing this subject to the attention of the House is to air an issue that is important to the health of the many sufferers who blame flowering oil seed rape for their allergies and to meet the needs of those involved in agriculture, for whom this crop is an important source of income. Both the public and farmers have a right to seek action from the Government in producing a solution to a proven problem.
Oil seed rape is a relatively new crop, appearing in the mid and late 1960s in England and Wales and from 1981 in Scotland. Its popularity, encouraged by Common Market subsidy, has seen a 25-fold increase in its planting in Europe, a 47-fold increase over 21 years in the United Kingdom, and a spectacular rise in Scotland from 0 per cent. to 14 per cent. of the United Kingdom total in only nine years. There has been an estimated 25 per cent. rise in the planting of the crop this year alone.
To clarify the extent of the situation, perhaps the Minister will inform the House, if he can, of the acreage of oil seed rape and of spring-sown oil seed rape that will be grown in 1990 as a percentage of previous years. What are the Government's figures for the acreage of brassica compestris or turnip rape that is to be grown in 1990 and its percentage change? I ask that because I should like to know whether the Minister is aware of the extent to which those forms of rape will extend the flowering period of the rape crop and thus the period during which complaints may occur. If he does not have those figures to hand, perhaps he will respond in writing at a later date, because far from going away, the problem is here to stay and is increasing rather than decreasing.
Oil seed rape is a popular and lucrative cash crop, which is very much suited to Scottish conditions. It is a major agricultural income-earner and has seen a massive and rapid expansion in its planting and thus in the exposure of the public to its effects on health. That creates problems for the general public, agricultural workers and livestock. The Minister may be aware of reports suggesting that oil seed rape may cause disease in animals, especially horses and dogs. I should be grateful if the Minister could make it clear whether he believes that the problem requires urgent investigation.
Other factors such as spring sowing, mild winters and new varieties are extending the oil seed rape flowering season and are adding to the problems. Quite simply, this is a situation on the move. Changes in varieties are occurring, especially from single to double low breeds, and in species, with the introduction of brassica compestris rape as well as of spring-grown brassica napus rape with its extended flowering period. All those changes in agricultural techniques will increase and influence allergic responses among the general public and agricultural workers.
Has the Minister any information to hand about the effect of the introduction of double low varieties of oil seed rape on allergic responses? Can he provide any facts about the effect on human health of sulphur-containing
1126
matabolites in cruciferous crops? On what exactly is the present policy of non-intervention based? There is now solid evidence pointing to oil seed rape as a source of health problems. Stories of harmful effects of the crop on health were at first anecdotal, with patients who reported to general practitioners' surgeries showing a wide range of symptoms during the oil seed rape flowering season. Doctors in Angus have consistently drawn that to my attention over many years.
Oil seed rape, with its bright yellow flower and heavy scent, is in some ways a very obvious and easy target at which to direct blame for a range of allergy symptoms, such as eczema, hay fever, coughing, sneezing, headaches, asthma and simple general debilitation. The question is: is it the culprit? Now, thanks to the Angus district council and Dundee university joint research project, there can be no doubt that there is a definite link between oil seed rape and allergic responses. Nor can there be any doubt that the problem is widespread, posing the real possibility of a public health nuisance and of a specific health hazard to agricultural workers.
During the 1989 flowering season, an epidemiological study was carried out in the village of Bowriefauld near Letham, in Angus. Angus district council, to its great credit, funded that study in response to allegations of public health nuisance. Eighty-five adults and 40 children were studied, and medical information obtained before, during and after the flowering season—using questionnaires, diary cards and standard skin and blood tests, along with the monitoring of pollen counts, wind-speed direction, temperatures and pollen collected by the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Invergowrie.
The results were both startling and clear: 46 per cent. of the study population reported symptoms at the time when oil seed rape pollen counts were high and when no other pollens were present. The culprit is clear. Half of those individuals confirmed positive allergy tests. Allergy skin testing revealed that reactivity increased from 5 per cent. before the flowering season to 38 per cent. after the season. That is a massive rise compared to the 20 per cent. sensitivity normally shown for most allergic substances.
Many previously non-allergic persons became reactive—suggesting that oil seed rape is a very potent inducer of allergy. Individuals sensitised to oil seed rape were very likely to become sensitised to other substances also, such as grass pollen, animal danders, and house dust mites. All that suggests that oil seed rape might well be triggering off allergic reactions to other substances. That must be a cause for concern.
As almost half the study group had symptoms that were due to oil seed rape, does the Minister agree that it is reasonable to infer that half the population in areas where oil seed rape is grown may equally be affected by these problems? Do the Government not regard it as alarming that oil seed rape may contribute to the development of other allergies and that it may seriously disturb the immunity of people in contact with the crop? If that is not a spur to action, what would be?
The study gives rise to major doubts about oil seed rape and should have been the stimulus for further detailed research to discover the exact nature of the problem and its solution. But, so far, Government funding has not been forthcoming. Previous experience at the Scottish Crop Research Institute reinforces the evidence and has revealed similar problems for staff working with brassicas as well as other related plants. The problems range from rashes and

1127
blisters, especially on the face and hands, but occasionally more widespread—for example, for staff wearing shorts or short-sleeved shirts—all the way to asthma and hay fever. For some staff the problems have become so severe that they have had to discontinue work with brassica crops. For others there has been a need to avoid contact with those crops, most usually at the time of flowering, either by not entering the glasshouses or seed production tunnels where the plants are in flower, or by wearing gloves or using barrier creams.
There has always been some doubt as to whether pollen alone is involved. Some staff complain of discomfort from breathing what they describe as acrid vapour given off by flowering brassicas. Others are aware of a strong smell, often as far as half a mile from the flowering crop, but suffer no ill effects. Yet others cannot smell the crop but suffer ill effects, which disappear as soon as they are no longer in close proximity to the crop. The men and women working with the crop know and confirm the views of the wider population.
The Minister will know that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has funded research into the harmful effects on deer of ingestion of oil seed rape. That shows an odd sense of priority, given the human suffering. The Minister disagrees, but, as far as I am aware, money was made available for research on animals but none has so far been provided for research on human beings. That is the point of raising the matter.
The Government denied any link between ill health and oil seed rape when I first raised it. I note that in his reply to me of 29 June 1988 the Minister, Lord Skelmersdale, admitted:
"Oil seed rape pollen may be allergenic and affect the upper respiratory tract causing allergic rhinitis and the airways causing asthma."
The Angus district study confirms that. Deeper and more detailed probing is required.
The scale of scientific investigation has to be expanded to ensure that the high responses observed initially are maintained in a larger study, and to relate more closely the symptoms observed to specific events in the growth and flowering of oil seed rape. We need to ascertain whether the problem relates purely to pollen release or involves chemicals released by the plant, some of which are mustard oils, which are known from other work to cause acute irritation to skin and mucous membranes.
Given the economic importance of oil seed rape to the Scottish economy, the problem should be resolved by modification of the crop's characteristics and not by its elimination or its restricted growth in unpopulated areas. The required research is such that funding from Government agencies is essential. That is my plea to the Government.
In view of the fact that in Tayside there is an established research group, drawn from several institutions, with the necessary expertise to research the problem, and that two and a half years of experience is already credited to the group, can the Minister explain why it has not been funded, and why funding has not been made available for studies during the 1990 flowering season? Again, is the Minister aware that medical, immunological, agricultural and environmental expertise have been co-ordinated through the environmental health department of Angus district, the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Invergowrie and the medical school of the university of Dundee?
1128
The ability to tackle the problem exists already. Is the Minister aware of any other research group with such expertise? If so, has the problem been studied in depth over a period? I am anxious that those with expertise should tackle the problem and produce solutions. The means of solving the remaining parts of the medical jigsaw puzzle are there. Is the Minister aware that the problem has been investigated in Tayside for two and a half years? Will he not use the existing expertise and knowledge urgently? I ask him to introduce immediately a two-pronged attack on the problem, with the funding of research into new, non-allergic strains of oil seed rape which would ensure that agriculture will not awaken in a few years to find the health risk totally proven and a major financial crisis on its hands. That can be avoided by action now to investigate and eliminate the problem. Failure to do so will represent serious neglect by the Government.
The second line of attack must be to discover through medical research the exact nature and cause of the allergies which would lead to their elimination and to the end of the suffering of large numbers of people whose only crime is to live near or pass by fields of flowering oil seed rape.
I pay tribute to Les Cameron, the director of environmental health, to the convener of the committee, who happens to be my wife, Councillor Sheena Welsh, and to the councillors of Angus district who have supported the work done by Dr. Parratt of Ninewells hospital and Bill McFarlane Smith of the Scottish Crop Reserach Institute, all of whom have done a public service in providing scientific evidence to track down the source and cause of this major health problem. We do not know the exact nature of the problem, although the symptoms and the human misery attached to it are clear and obvious.
The Angus district study shows that 40 per cent. of persons living in one rural environment become sensitive to the pollen of oil seed rape during the flowering season and many have hay fever symptoms as a result. Conventional grass fever affects at most, only 15 per cent. of the population. Oil seed rape is a major environmental hazard during the months of April to July. That period may well be extended because of the extra growth in the new types of crops.
The position deserves closer attention to seek out the truth and remedy the problems. The Government must act now, rather than awakening later, in a year's time or so, to find a major crisis in one of the nation's leading crops. If oil seed rape is poisoning the general population. we must find out why and cure the problem. Inaction will only inflict greater misery on the population and unnecessarily endanger the livelihoods of farmers. The Government should act now.
11.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on securing an Adjournment debate on a matter of considerable concern. It was first drawn to my attention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I know that the hon. Member for Angus, East has been active on the matter. I join with him in passing on congratulations to his wife and others who have spent some time in considering the issue.
Many people have been worried that oil seed rape has increased the severity of hay fever attacks or has affected

1129
people not previously prone to hay fever. The Government are aware of those concerns and, through various research agencies, are promoting investigations into those links.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about the acreages of various types of oil seed rape under cultivation. I am happy to write to him, but it would be best if he put down written questions to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is present, because I know that there is wider interest in the issue.
It is true that we currently produce around 1 million tonnes of oil seed rape a year. Production of rape seed oil is encouraged under the EC oilseeds regime, under which subsidies are paid to processors of Community seed. Oil seed rape is grown for the production of rape seed oil and meal, which are extracted from the seed by oil seed processors. The oil is used mainly by the food industry, as a cooking oil or in the manufacture of such products as margarine, shortenings and confectionery.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it is an important alternative crop to cereals for United Kingdom producers. Unlike cereals, which are in surplus in both the Community and the United Kingdom, we are not self-sufficient in seed oils and meals. Rape seed is thus a valuable crop for United Kingdom farmers and makes an important contribution to both our food industry and our balance of payments.
The question of allergenic responses to oil seed rape has to be seen against that general background. The growing of oil seed rape does seem to be associated with an increase in the number of those suffering from allergic reaction. Those reactions may be severe; they may cause headaches, cold or "flu-like symptoms", sneezing, coughing, sore throats and even asthma.
Of course, some people are likely to be sensitive to the pollen of oil seed rape, just as others are sensitive to the pollens of other plants, grasses, trees and various natural substances. Oil seed rape pollens may well cause respiratory symptoms, as do other pollens in those that are sensitive to them. Oil seed rape pollen is heavy and, unlike other pollens, is not widely disseminated by the wind. It is therefore usually localised in its distribution. While these allergic conditions are generally not life-threatening, they are obviously upsetting for the individuals concerned.
The hon. Gentleman argued for research to find out the nature of the problem, but throughout his speech he appeared to have identified the nature of the problem. Contrary to what he implied, there is no conclusive proof of any link between the growing of oil seed rape and any increase in numbers of allergy, hay fever and asthma sufferers.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: The reason I am sure of my facts in the matter is that the study conducted in Angus, which was almost pioneering work, showed a definite link and, though on a small scale, it showed enough of the open window to require more study to be conducted. That additional study may lead us to the exact route and nature of the problem. The Angus study showed a definite link. The important point is to find out what it is—whether it is the pollen or some associated chemical—and I am pleading for funds to ensure that a wider study takes place to pin down the exact nature of the problem.
Mr. Forsyth: I am, of course, aware of the studies to wich the hon. Gentleman is referring. Mr. Leslie Cameron, to whom he referred—the director of environmental health for Angus district council—has published has findings from a study which was based largely on anecdotal evidence of people living in villages surrounded by oil seed rape. About 45 per cent. claimed that their health had been affected by the crop.
That was interesting, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it was not necessarily conclusive. Indeed, I understand that a separate, and as yet unpublished, study undertaken in Oxfordshire is likely to contradict those findings. I understand that those results will be subject to professional peer review before publication.
The Medical Research Council is the main agency for the disbursement of public funds on medical research, including research into allergy and oil seed rape. It has ready access to the best scientific advice on the selection of projects and has great experience in the selection of soundly based and promising research proposals. The MRC currently funds £1 million of research into allergies. So the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government are not providing resources in this area was a little unfair.
I am able to offer something to the hon. Gentleman in response to his criticism that there is no research in this specific area. I am pleased to say that my right hon. and learned Friend recently offered financial support for a project based at Aberdeen university. The grant of some £63,000 has been awarded to the department of environmental and occupational medicine for a three-year period.
That important project will involve a cross-sectional epidemiological study of 2,000 adults in three north-east Scottish general practices with the aim of measuring the prevalence of seasonal allergic symptoms in oil seed rape and non-oil seed rape-growing areas. People with seasonal symptoms will be selected as cases for case-control studies, with particular reference on allergy to oil seed rape and fungi associated with oil seed rape and exposure to volative chemicals associated with oil seed rape plants.
At the same time, the pollen levels in the air in the study areas will be measured and chemical analyses of volatiles, especially dimethyl sulphides, about which the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned, arising from oil seed rape fields will be made. The results of this research should identify the size of any health effects of oil seed rape cultivation and point towards possible causes.
I have mentioned the grant for the work at Aberdeen university and I have described the study. There is also the question of agricultural research. The Scottish Crop Research Institute, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has considerable expertise in the characterisation of crops, varieties, pollens and volatiles as part of its programme of research and development on brassica crops, commissioned by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. To listen to the hon. Gentleman, one might think that the Government were doing nothing in the matter.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Not enough.
Mr. Forsyth: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but we are clearly doing more than he was aware of when he rose to speak in the debate. The expertise developed by the institute through that programme would be available to medical researchers.

1131
DAFS officials have already had discussions with the institute director about the possibility of more detailed research on oilseed rape, such as research aimed at eliminating or altering in a breeding programme the substance thought to induce the allergic reaction.
The director is currently arranging a meeting of interested parties, the main aims of which would be to review the evidence for and against sensitisation by, and allergic reaction to, oilseed rape, for which the hon. Gentleman was asking; to review the need for further research and development, which meets the hon. Gentleman's point; and to consider the requirements for, and targets of, such research and development.
The meeting, which is to take place at the Scottish Crop Research Institute in the near future, will be attended by representatives of the institute itself; Angus district council; the department of medical microbiology, Ninewells hospital, Dundee; the department of environmental and occupational health medicine, Aberdeen university; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and DAFS. Following the meeting, the institute
1132
director will make a further report to DAFS. Obviously, in matters of this sort questions of research priorities must be addressed, and it is important to be clear about the true causes of the allergic reaction before proceeding further with a breeding programme, but it should be clear from what I have said that the Department has the matter under active review. The report, and any recommendations it contains, will be given very careful consideration.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Angus, East for raising this matter. I hope that what I have said will serve to reassure the House that my Department and the other Departments involved take this matter seriously and that work is currently being undertaken to establish the role of oil seed rape in allergy. The support that the Department is giving to the research project at Aberdeen university should lead to a greater knowledge about the real, or perceived, effects of oil seed rape.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil Legal Aid
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the numbers of those who in 1989 and each of the preceding four years(a) applied for civil legal aid, (b) had their application for civil legal aid refused because they did not have a reasonable case, (c) had their application for civil legal aid refused because they did not meet the financial requirements and (d) were successful in securing civil legal aid on appeal against not having a reasonable case.

  £million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry

  1·473

  1·561

  1·725

  1·829

  1·906

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  10·220

  11·006

  12·302

  12·258

  12·852

  Tate Gallery (Liverpool)

  0·700

  0·800

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = figures not available.

  I understand that for local museums and galleries, the north-west museum and art gallery service grant-in-aid assistance, and funding of conservation and design services, amounted to £326,602 in 1987–88 and £348,374 in 1988–89. I also understand that the Museums and Galleries Commission has provided capital grants of £89,499 in 1987–88 and £95,900 in 1988–89 to north-west museums and art galleries.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tobacco
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual income to the Exchequer from tobacco-related taxes and duties.

  Mr. Ryder
  In 1988–89 excise duty revenue from tobacco taxation was £4,990 million; value added tax of around £1,050 million would also have accrued.

  European Commission
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last had discussions with the president of the European Commission; and what was discused.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last met Mr. Delors at the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers on 18 December last year, as I reported to the House on 20 December,Official Report , Vol. 166, c. 244.
  714
  The Attorney-General
  An analysis of applications for legal aid, which includes the number of applications made and the number refused on legal and financial grounds, is set out at appendix 2B(1)(a) of the Law Society's annual reports.

  Statistics relating to appeals are set out in appendix 2F of the reports for 1987–88 and 1988–89. Information on appeals for earlier years is not available.

  Figures for 1989 are currently available only to 31 March of that year.

THE ARTS

  Arts Funding (North-west)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minster for the Arts if he will make a statement on funding of art galleries and museums in the north-west.

  Mr. Luce
  Grants to centrally funded museums and galleries in the north-west are as follows:

  Self-employment
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how, for tax purposes, the Inland Revenue defines self-employed.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue applies case law laid down by the courts to the facts of particular cases. The essential question is, "Are you in business on your own account?"

  A joint Inland Revenue—Department of Social Security leaflet provides guidance to those who are unsure about their employment status. Copies of the leaflet (IR56/NI39), available from any local tax office or DSS office, are held in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Angola
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total outstanding debt owed to Her Majesty's Government by the MF'LA Government; what arrangements have been made for repayments and if he will make a statement; how much MPLA debt to this country is guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government for repayment; if he will place in the Library a copy of an agreed debt cut between Her Majesty's Government and the MPLA Government; and if he will estimate the amount of private sector debt owed to companies in the United Kingdom by the MF'LA Government.
  715
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of any debt list agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Angola.

  Mr. Maude
  Angola's outstanding debt to Her Majesty's Government is all owed to ECGD. For commercial reasons, ECGD does not reveal detailed figures for debt that it is owed by individual countries, or for its outstanding guarantees. A copy of the United Kingdom-Angola debt agreement No. 1 (1987) which rescheduled some of Angola's debt payments to ECGD is available in the Library of the House. A second rescheduling was negotiated last year and an agreement will be signed shortly. Lists of debt covered by the rescheduling are not published. As for private sector debt, figures for debts to United Kingdom banks are given in table 15 of the Bank of England'sQuarterly Bulletin , a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Figures for debts to other private sector institutions are not available.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met members or officials of the Government of Bangladesh; what issues are outstanding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs looks forward to making his first contacts with Bangladeshi Ministers when opportunity arises. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is visiting Bangladesh at the moment and plans to call on President Ershad today. We have excellent relations with Bangladesh, and are not aware of any major outstanding issues between us.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Maude
  A revision of the inventory of valuable items in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in train and should be completed shortly.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Maude
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office employs no specialist loss prevention staff, but we employ our own cadres of security officers, at home and overseas, to supervise security arrangements in buildings for which we are responsible. They receive training in all aspects of their duties, which include loss prevention.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Hong Kong Government have made provision for war service to be included in the calculation of pensions for their expatriate staff.
  716
  Mr. Maude
  The Hong Kong Government are still considering whether to include war service in the calculation of pensions for expatriate staff. At the turn of the year they sought, and were given, further information about the British Government's war service credit scheme for colonial pensioners. I will inform my hon. Friend when a decision has been made.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to improve the living and sanitation conditions at detention camps for Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 12 January, c.791–92.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of Vietnamese boat people who have tried to commit suicide in detainment camps in Hong Kong in 1990.

  Mr. Maude
  Since 1 January 1990, seven people have inflicted injuries upon themselves in Hong Kong's detention centres. None of the injuries has been serious.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to give assistance to improve the environmental health conditions and housing in the Kwun Tong public housing area in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  As part of a comprehensive redevelopment programme to renew the urban environment, over 58,000 old public housing flats will be demolished, and about 55,000 new flats will be constructed between 1990 and 2001 in the Kwun Tong area, partly to provide replacement accommodation and partly to provide new housing for those in need. Planned environmental health improvements include the closure of a local refuse dump, restrictions on the sulphur content of industrial fuel oil, and the introduction of vehicle emission controls.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 5 February.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 5 February. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and I represented the United Kingdom.

  Following our informal discussions in Dublin on 20 January, Ministers had a preliminary discussion of the prospects for extending the Community's relations with, and assistance to, the countries of eastern Europe. Preliminary suggestions from the Commission closely reflect United Kingdom ideas, which we put to partners before the Strasbourg European Council. The Commission also presented its proposals for OK creation of a European training foundation and a mobility scheme for students (TEMPUS). These fulfil the mandate from the Strasbourg European Council to extend training assistance to the countries of eastern Europe. The Council separately agreed on the importance of the forthcoming CSCE economic conference in Bonn as an opportunity to monitor and encourage the development of market

  717
  economies in eastern Europe, and considered a Commission proposal for a draft concluding document of the conference.

  Ministers issued a statement welcoming the reforms announced by President de Klerk of South Africa on 2 February. We looked forward to their early implementation, and hoped for further measures leading to the complete abolition of apartheid. Our statement noted that, to the degree that dialogue is instituted in South Africa, the Twelve will be prepared to reconsider their position in respect of sanctions in accordance with the European Council declaration at Strasbourg on 9 December. We agreed to discuss developments in South Africa on this basis at the next meeting on European political co-operation issues, which will be in Dublin on 20 February.

  The Council discussed the future regime for imports of Japanese cars, and will revert to the issue in March. The Council expressed its support for the Commission's opinion on Turkey's EC membership application and asked the Commission to draw up detailed proposals for strengthening EC-Turkey relations within the context of the association agreement.

  The Council discussed a Commission outline paper on a new Mediterranean policy and asked the Commission to produce detailed proposals taking into account the full range of views expressed at the meeting. The United Kingdom argued for a differentiated approach to individual Mediterranean countries, and in favour of measures to promote trade.

  The Council noted with approval the EC's acceptance at the January GATT Council of the GATT panel report on the EC's oilseeds regime. Ministers discussed possible solutions to the hormones dispute and invited the Commission to put forward further proposals for discussion at official level

  The Council took note of the Commission's proposals for assistance to Colombia's special co-operation programme and agreed on the importance of supporting the Government of Colombia in their courageous efforts to combat the drugs problem.

  Ministers reviewed preparations for the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Goverment are taking to encourage a negotiated long-term solution to the war in northern Ethiopia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Negotiations between the parties to the conflict in Ethiopia offer the only hope of a lasting solution. We have therefore been active in encouraging the parties, both directly and through others who have influence, to pursue seriously the peace talks initiated last autumn.

  Middle East
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of people killed by terrorist action in the middle east in each of the last three years, setting out in each case the numbers killed by(a) Israelis and (b) Arabs.
  718
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We do not keep statistics in the form requested.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to make any changes in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running cost limits for 1989–90.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to the reply 29 January 1990, c. 16] : On changes to this Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running cost limits for 1989–90, the details in the second paragraph refer to class II vote 2 (Other External Relations).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is undertaking to obtain a dependable estimate of the number of(a) spouses and (b) children who are currently awaiting entry clearance from Bangladesh.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Such estimates are available for all three countries in the Indian sub-continent; 1,700 spouses and 2,300 children in Bangladesh were awaiting a decision on their application for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom at 30 November 1989. Aggregate information for (i) wives, children and persons applying for entry clearance for immediate settlement, and (ii) husbands and male fiances are published in tables 6 and 11 respectively of the annual Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom" (most recently, for 1988, in Cm. 726), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arriving from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Waddington
  The extent of such loss in the Home Office is believed to be very small. Where losses do occur, appropriate measures are taken to minimise the risk of recurrence, including the recovery of moneys obtained by fraud.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Waddington
  Staff employed by the Home Office have professional qualifications in several relevant disciplines, such as accountancy, auditing, fire prevention and health and safety. It would require a disproportionate use of resources to list them and their qualifications.

  All-seater Stadiums
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a timetable for the possible all-seater status of stadiums included under schedules in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975; and if he will make a statement.
  719
  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on 29 January, at column 19, and to the schedule placed in the Library on the same date responding to recommendations 1 to 4 of the final report of the Hillsborough inquiry which set out the timetable for admitting spectators to seated accommodation only.

  Deer
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will send to the hon. Member for Mansfield a copy of the Nature Conservancy Council report by V. P. W. Lowe on wild and feral deer in Great Britain, reference number NCC NERC Contract H F3/05/43.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No spare copies of this interim report, which was produced in 1979, are held by either the Home Office or the Nature Conservancy Council. However I will arrange for a photocopy to be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible and for another to be placed in the Library.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is undertaking to obtain a dependable estimate of the number of(a) spouses and (b) children who are currently awaiting entry clearance other than in the Indian sub-continent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None is planned. The collection of data on persons outside the Indian sub-continent applying for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom was terminated at the end of 1979 because it was considered that its usefulness did not justify the resources required to undertake it. Information continues to be collected on persons applying in the sub-continent because of the large number of applications there. Some information on applications for entry clearance by persons in Hong Kong has been collected since the end of 1984; this information includes the numbers of spouses and children awaiting first interview but not the total numbers awaiting a decision on their application.

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

  Mr. Waddington
  A wide range of steps have been and are being taken to ensure the security of my Department's computer systems: it would not be sensible to make details public. The measures needed to maintain adequate security are kept under review, and take due account of guidance issued centrally.

  Abortion Clinics
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 7 December,Official Report , column 256 ,what information is available about arrests in the vicinity of abortion clinics and the reasons for those arrests.

  Mr. John Patten
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 6 December 1989 at column 256.

  John McGranaghan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the reason for the transfer into segregation of John McGranaghan on 17 October 1989; what is the reason for keeping him in segregation since that time; what is the reason for the delay in informing him of the reason for his segregation; and when he will be informed of the detailed reasons.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the terms of prison rule 43(1), Mr. McGranaghan was removed from normal association on 17 October 1989 for the maintenance of good order or discipline. He returned to an ordinary location though in a different establishment on 14 November but from 22 November until 15 January 1990 he was again removed from normal association for similar reasons. These were explained to him by prison staff on both occasions.

  Metropolitan Police Officers
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the cost to public funds of(a) training a Metropolitan police officer and (b) the estimated cost of wastage during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, arising from resignations, early retirement and transfers of officers to other forces.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cost of the initial training provided for Metropolitan police officers is estimated at about £12,000 per officer. Continuing training is provided throughout an officer's service. Figures for the numbers of officers leaving the Metropolitan police are given in table 13(iii) of volume 2 of the report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for 1988. Information on the cost of this wastage is not available.

  Prisoners' Complaints
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from what sources he receives complaints from prisoners regarding conditions or treatment; and approximately what proportion of these complaints would come under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

  Mr. Mellor
  The majority of prisoners' complaints are received directly as petitions to the Secretary of State or indirectly through Members of Parliament, prisoners' friends, relatives or legal advisers. It is not possible to make any reliable estimate of the number which might fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints he has received from prisoners or from organisations concerned with prisons that hon. Members have not passed on prisoners' complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no record of having received such a complaint in an individual case.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to appoint a prison ombudsman; and if he will make a statement.
  721
  Mr. Mellor
  We are considering the comments made on this matter in response to the report of the working group on an improved system of grievance procedures for prisoners' complaints and requests.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the proportion of 17 to 20-year-olds being given a prison sentence for criminal damage by area of the country where the case is heard.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the table. Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

  Percentage of persons aged 17 to 20 sentenced for criminal damage offences who received immediate custody by police force area and type of court—1988

  England and Wales

  Percentage of total persons sentenced

  Police force area

  Magistrates'courts

  Crown Court

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  2—

  Bedfordshire

  217

  238

  Cambridgeshire

  4

  267

  Cheshire

  7

  264

  Cleveland

  7

  263

  Cumbria

  7

  2100

  Derbyshire

  4

  265

  Devon and Cornwall

  7

  240

  Dorset

  —

  243

  Durham

  2—

  246

  Essex

  4

  275

  Gloucestershire

  —

  210

  Greater Manchester

  3

  39

  Hampshire

  2

  224

  Hertfordshire

  2—

  214

  Humberside

  5

  273

  Kent

  4

  242

  Lancashire

  8

  265

  Leicestershire

  3

  245

  Lincolnshire

  3

  240

  Merseyside

  —

  26

  Metropolitan Police District1

  2

  26

  Norfolk

  213

  250

  Northamptonshire

  6

  250

  Northumbria

  6

  32

  North Yorkshire

  10

  233

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  267

  South Yorkshire

  7

  46

  Staffordshire

  8

  248

  Suffolk

  4

  256

  Surrey

  3

  231

  Sussex

  7

  250

  Thames Valley

  1

  42

  Warwickshire

  —

  240

  West Mercia

  2

  250

  West Midlands

  9

  56

  West Yorkshire

  2

  35

  Wiltshire

  2

  2100

  England

  4

  43

  Dyfed-Powys

  2

  240

  Gwent

  8

  267

  North Wales

  3

  267

  South Wales

  3

  267

  Wales

  4

  63

  England and Wales

  4

  44

  1 Includes City of London.

  2 Denotes fewer than 25 persons sentenced in this age group.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to establish limits on the 722
  variation in the probability of an offender being given a custodial sentence in different areas of the country for similar offences.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our proposals for a more coherent statutory framework to achieve greater consistency in sentencing are set out in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" (Cm 965), published on 6 February.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which individuals and organisations he has discussed the issue of an agreed national sentencing framework; and what advice he received.

  Mr. John Patten
  A wide variety of organisations and individuals have contributed to the public debate about criminal justice which preceded publication of our White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" (Cm 965) on 6 February.

  Ambulance Duties
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call upon the chief constables of Hertfordshire, Lincolnshire, Bedfordshire, Derbyshire, South Yorkshire, Hereford and Worcester and Dorset for a report as to the cost per policeman hour of deploying the police on ambulance duties within their police districts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constables of Lincolnshire, Bedfordshire, West Mercia and Dorset that they are charging the relevant regional health authorities an average of £8·48, £8·95, £7·91 and £9·75 respectively per police constable per hour for assisting ambulance services. This basic charge does not include pensions and national insurance contributions, and rent allowance, which will be charged separately.

  In Hertfordshire, Derbyshire and South Yorkshire, I understand that the charge is about £20·55, £20·55 and £19·90 respectively per police constable per hour, but that this does include pensions and national insurance contributions and rent allowance.

  Charges will also be made for vehicle conversion and running costs, meal and subsistence allowances. civilian costs, and other sundry items.

  Firearms
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants in the Greater Manchester area have handed in firearms for compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988; and how many claims have been(a) allowed and (b) refused.

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

  Private Remand Centres
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the results of the consultancy study by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells into the practical feasibility of involving the private sector in the operation of remand centres.

  Mr. Mellor
  The report by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, "Practicality of Private Sector Involvement in the Remand
  723
  System", was made public on 1 March 1989. A copy was placed in the Library. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) announced in his statement on that date at columns 277–78, further studies were needed before final decisions could be taken, and we are now considering the results of those studies.

  Mr. Mohammed Azem
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision will be taken on a request made by the representative of Mr. Mohammed Azem, Ref. OVS/41524/88, for refusal to allow him to enter the United Kingdom from Hong Kong to be reconsidered.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The grounds of appeal submitted by Bradford law centre on behalf of Mr. Mohammed Azem in its letter of 16 June 1989 were carefully considered but it was decided to maintain the original refusal decision. An explanatory statement setting out the facts and the reasons for the decision was submitted to the appellate authorities on 9 January.

  Mr. Sodagar Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the post in Islamabad explaining why Mr. Sodagar Hussain, who was born on 21 July 1959, has been refused entry to join his wife in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The post in Islamabad refused the application on Home Office instructions on the ground that we were not satisfied that it was not the primary purpose of the marriage to obtain Mr. Hussain's admission to the United Kingdom. Mr. Hussain has appealed against that decision and the Home Office will shortly be sending an explanatory statement setting out the facts and reasons for the decision to the independent appellate authorities.

ENERGY

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Assessments are carried out on a regular basis and include reviews of physical security measures and internal financial and non-financial control systems.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department's policy is that staff in its internal audit branch are professionally qualified. Currently there are five fully qualified Members of the Institute of Internal Auditors (MIIA) and five under training.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether electricity supplied to English boards from Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro Electric will qualify as part of the non-fossil fuel obligation of the respective English companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The interconnectors between England and Scotland are used for electricity trading in both directions. Because of this, electricity supplied through the interconnectors will not qualify for inclusion in the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a table showing how prices for petrol and diesel have changed during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Prices of petrol and diesel (derv) from 1972 are published in table 66 of the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1989". The latest monthly prices are published in "Energy Trends" (table 21).

PRIME MINISTER

  Sovereignty
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has ever raised the sovereignty of the Parliaments of the member states of the European Community with the other Heads of Government.

  The Prime Minister
  The final work on EC decisions lies with member states in the Council of Ministers, who remain accountable to national Parliaments. The European Council in Strasbourg in December 1989 emphasised the need to ensure the proper observances of democratic control in each of the member states.

  Hungary
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy towards the European Community decision to provide a loan of 1 billion ecu to Hungary to help overcome structural adjustment problems; and whether any conditions have been imposed in terms of democratisation of political institutions in that country.

  The Prime Minister
  In the communiqué issued at our meeting in Strasbourg on 8 and 9 December, I and fellow EC Heads of Government referred to Hungary's need for an adjustment loan of $1 billion. EC Governments are now negotiating its terms and conditions. The United Kingdom would welcome additional contributions by non-Community countries. The loan will be conditional on a firm IMF programme of economic reform and adjustment. A central principle of all our assistance to eastern Europe is the encouragement of democracy and economic reform.

  Culture
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on the projection of British culture overseas.
  725
  The Prime Minister
  The British Council is doing a splendid job projecting our culture overseas. I have received no particular representations recently, but the demands placed on the council are increasing, especially now from east European countries, and I am glad that the Government have been able to increase their grant substantially for the second successive year.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the ground rules that Ministers must observe in their use of local and regional newspaper articles when referring to the community charge; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministerial articles on Government policy, when issued through Government Departments, are subject to the Cabinet Office guidance and conventions on Government publicity. When written in a party political capacity they are not. A copy of the guidance and conventions is in the Library of the House.

  Mexico
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if during her recent meeting with the President of Mexico she discussed(a) the forthcoming fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and (h) the policies being developed by Mexico as part of the Non-Aligned Group of 77 towards nuclear non-proliferation and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps her office has taken to investigate the allegations by Mr. Colin Wallace concerning the Kincora boys' hostel.

  The Prime Minister
  Allegations from a variety of sources concerning the Kincora Boys' hostel have been thoroughly investigated by successive inquiries conducted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, by Sir George Terry and by Judge Hughes. Attempts were made to persuade Mr. Wallace to co-operate with these injuries, but without success. If Mr. Wallace has allegations that he wishes to press about criminal activity or other wrongdoing in Northern Ireland, the best way for him to deal with this is to give any information in his possession to the RUC in the first instance. If this information is classified, he should first consult the Director of Army Security.

  Engagements
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Thursday 8 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Thursday 8 February.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Thursday 8 February.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Thursday 8 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Thursday 8 February.
  726
  Mr. French
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Thursday 8 February.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farming Diversification
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received since taking office on the extent and scope of farm diversification schemes.

  Mr. Gummer
  Two Government-sponsored reports published recently give, for the first time, a clear picture of farm diversification in the United Kingdom. These reports show that about one third of the farmers who responded have developed some form of farm diversified business activity. This result gives a clear demonstration of the success of the Government's policy in this area.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry.

  Mr. Curry
  I will discuss any issues of current commercial interest to the industry.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the level of compensation to farmers for the slaughter of cattle infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  I keep all aspects of my policy to deal with this disease under continuous reveiw.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received recently concerning mad cow disease; whether he is contemplating any further action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a variety of representations about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The Government have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to tackle the disease and to eliminate the remote risk to public health.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress of research into the vertical transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  A research programme, costing about £5 million, is in hand to determine whether maternal
  727
  transmission of BSE occurs. However, because of the long incubation period, results may not be available for several years.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about bovine spongiform encephalopathy containment measures and associated compensation arrangements.

  Mr. Maclean
  The probable cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy was through the feeding of ruminant-derived protein. This practice was banned from July 1988. In addition, from August 1988 all cattle suspected of having BSE have been compulsorily slaughtered and their carcases burned or buried. The owners are compensated for the loss of animals at 50 per cent. of the value for cases confirmed on post mortem as BSE-infected and at 100 per cent. of the value where BSE is not confirmed.

  However, the compensation element is not the mechanism designed to contain BSE or to prevent it becoming a risk to human health. The slaughter policy and removal of specific offals from all bovine animals does that.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to increase research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 9 January at columns 572–73.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cows have died or been destroyed as a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  From the introduction of the compulsory slaughter policy on 8 August 1988 to 31 December 1989, a total of 9,884 suspected cases of BSE were slaughtered in Great Britain.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any further plans to discuss with agricultural interests the subject of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I and my officials have frequent discussions on a variety of subjects, including BSE, with groups representing agricultural and food interests.

  Sheepmeat Regime
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the arrangements for hill farmers under the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. Gummer
  The reformed sheepmeat regime offers excellent opportunities to the United Kingdom sheep sector, including hill producers many of whom will also benefit from the increased HLCA payments I announced last week.

  Farming Diversification
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total amount of land in England that has been put into set-aside.
  728
  Mr. Curry
  About 87,000 hectares of land in England have so far been entered for the set-aside scheme.

  Veterinary Service
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the duties of veterinaries employed by his Ministry.

  Mr. Maclean
  The state veterinary service has a wide range of duties including the control of animal disease of economic and public health significance, animal welfare and the import and export of live animals and their products.

  They are also involved in food safety on the farm and in the slaughterhouse.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinarians he employs within the state veterinary service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The state veterinary service currently employs 427 veterinary surgeons. It is likely that this number will increase particularly for food safety work including meat hygiene. This was recognised in the recent review of veterinary manpower under the chairmanship of Dr. Ewan Page.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the operation of the state veterinary service.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since its inception in 1865 the state veterinary service has dealt successfully with many outbreaks of farm animal disease of both economic and public health significance. It continues to do so today. In addition, its responsibilities include animal welfare and the import and export of live animals and their products. It also undertakes important research and development work.

  Milk Deliveries
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pints of milk have been hand delivered in(a) the latest available year and (b) 10 years previously.

  Mr. Curry
  In the United Kingdom approximately 7 billion pints of milk were delivered to the doorstep in 1989, as opposed to 10 billion pints in 1979.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his review of pesticides.

  Mr. Maclean
  All pesticides approved prior to 1981 are to be reviewed. Approval holders are providing information relative to their products and will be required to submit full data packages covering safety for the operator, the consumer and for the environment. Where data packages are not provided within an agreed period approvals will be withdrawn. Reviews will be undertaken in an order to be determined by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  Intellectual Property
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to exploit the intellectual property of his Department to provide additional resources for research.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to exploit the intellectual property of his Department to provide additional resources for research.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to exploit fully his Ministry's intellectual property.

  Mr. Gummer
  An intellectual property liaison unit has been established within my Department. Its task is to facilitate the identification, legal protection, marketing and sale of intellectual property and usage of returns therefrom.

  North Sea Fish
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the conservation of North sea fish stocks.

  Mr. Curry
  Conservation of fish stocks in the North sea is a high priority. At the December Fisheries Council we took tough decisions to have a much lower total allowable catches (TACs) in 1990 by key stocks. We have sent the Commission a paper setting out possible further technical conservation measures. We will participate strongly in the high-level working group called by the Council to intensify discussions on conservation measures in the North sea. Success has been achieved. The herring stock has recovered from the low levels of 10 years ago and exceptional measures taken by the European Community in 1989 to protect the 1987 year class of sole has meant that a considerably higher TAC is possible this year.

  Dogs
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to which countries dogs were exported for experimental purposes in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dogs were imported for experimental purposes each year in each of the last five years.

  Mr Gummer
  A total of 647 dogs were imported for research purposes during 1989. Details for earlier years are not available.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from which countries dogs were imported for experimental purposes in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  Dogs were imported for research purposes only from the United States of America during 1989. Details are not available for earlier years.

  Contaminated Feed
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current position regarding the lead-contaminated animal feed problem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  A total of 1,512 farms in England, and a further 156 in Wales remain subject to Livestock restrictions. The Government are doing everything possible to scale down the restrictions as quickly as possible consistent with the need to ensure that the food chain remains fully protected.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce an indemnity scheme for farmers suffering financial loss as a result of lead contamination in animal feed.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to compensate farmers in full for losses resulting from the supply of lead-contaminated feeding stuffs.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the need for financial help for farmers affected by lead in feed contamination.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no such plans. There is no statutory provision for Government compensation in such cases. Liability is a matter for the courts to decide in the light of the contractual obligations of feed suppliers, or others, towards individual farmers. I understand that the National Farmers Union has established a co-ordinated procedure which it hopes will assist farmers wishing to pursue claims. The Milk Marketing Board has made loans available to affected milk producers pending a resolution of the issues of liability and costs of disposal. In addition I met senior representatives of the major banks towards the end of last year to explain the situation and to urge them to take a sympathetic view where farmers find themselves with immediate cash flow problems.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to remove restrictions on movements of sheep as a result of the lead contaminated feed episode.

  Mr. Curry
  Under livestock release scheme II, groups of sheep which did not receive contaminated feed could be cleared from restrictions following confirmatory blood tests.

  Until recently, the conditions applying to the release of animals for slaughter under livestock release scheme III had the practical effect of preventing sheep which received contaminated feed from being sold for slaughter. However, as I announced on 1 February, the results of our monitoring and research programme have enabled us to ease significantly the restrictions applying under scheme III. As a result, sheep can now be released for slaughter subject to conditions designed to ensure that liver and kidney do not go for human consumption.

  We have also reintroduced scheme II which may allow the further release of groups of sheep which did not receive contaminated feed.

  Our monitoring and research programme is continuing and the remaining restrictions will be removed as soon as it is safe to do so.
  731
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making towards introducing a scientific programme on contaminated animals to test lead levels in offal and bones, with a view to releasing animals still under restrictions; what investigations he has made of Dutch practices in testing and with what result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  A monitoring and research programme was begun as soon as the seriousness of the feed contamination incident became apparent in early November. The results obtained so far, which I published on 1 February, have enabled restrictions to be lifted on bone and all offal except kidney and liver. Scientific work is continuing and as soon as results show that it is safe to do so I shall remove all remaining restrictions. Close touch has been maintained with the Dutch authorities throughout this incident and information has been exchanged on a regular basis.

  Exotic Animals
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take in response to the representations he has received on the import of parrots and other exotic animals.

  Mr. Gummer
  Measures were announced in a reply given to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 20 December 1989, at column 350 .My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has since written to airlines stressing the need for proper care in transporting birds, and officials have met conservation and welfare organisations. Visits by veterinary staff to major exporting countries and further meetings are being arranged. The review of post-import quarantine arrangements is continuing.

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

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

  Agriculture Industry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had on the present state of the agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have frequent discussions with a range of organisations on the state of the agricultural industry. Most recently, I met representatives of the National Farmers Union, the Scottish National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers Union on 30 January to discuss the state of the industry and the European Commission's price proposals.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which agriculture industry leaders he has met in the last six months; and what matters were discussed.
  732
  Mr. Gummer
  I meet leaders of the agriculture industry frequently to discuss a wide range of issues. Most recently I met representatives of the National Farmers Union, the Scottish National Farmers Union, and the Ulster Farmers Union on 30 January to discuss the state of the industry and the European Commission's price proposals.

  Irradiation
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the reports he has received from independent scientific committees on the safety of food irradiation.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the reports he has received from independent scientific committees on the safety of food irradiation.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government received advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods (ACINF) in its report entitled "Safety and Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods" published in 1986. Annexed to this report were reports on specific aspects of food irradiation from the National Radiological Protection Board, the standing panel on hazards from microbial contamination of food, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, the panel on novel foods and the Food Advisory Committee.

  The Government received a second report from the ACINF in 1987 in which the committee assessed scientific comment received on matters raised in its first report.

  I am also aware of a number of reports from national and international scientific bodies, among which I would particularly mention: the 1977 and 1980 reports of the joint expert committee of food irradiation, convened by the World Health Organisation and the other international bodies; the 1982 report of the board of the International Committee of Food Microbiology and Hygiene of the International Union of Microbiological Societies; the 1986 report of the European Community scientific committee for food; and a number of reports from the United States Food and Drug Administration published in the Federal Register.

  Berlin
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last visited Berlin; what matters he discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I visited Berlin from 25 to 27 January. In the course of my visit I had meetings with the Ministers of Agriculture for the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. Among other matters I discussed developments in eastern Europe and, with the West German Minister, German restrictions on imports of British beef imposed in connection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current value of the green pound.
  733
  Mr. Gummer
  The current level of the real monetary gaps, which represent the difference between green and market exchange rates of the pound, range from—9·566 for pigmeat to— 17·990 for sheepmeat.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to remove any discrepancy in the value of the green pound.

  Mr. Gummer
  As I have made clear to the House, I am seeking a substantial devaluation of the green pound in the current negotiations on the Commission's 1990 price proposals.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in the light of the changing situation in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, he will review the food export policies of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  Part of the EC's response to the remarkable changes in eastern Europe has been to agree, with commendable speed and generosity, to a very considerable package of food aid and other measures. There are at present no plans to alter in addition the existing export policies of the common agricultural policy. The best way to assist countries in eastern Europe is, of course, to encourage the development in those countries of their own economics, and in particular their own agricultural sectors. We would certainly want to avoid any action which hindered this process. The Community, together with other major exporters, will continue to monitor the situation as the consequences of the recent changes unfold.

  Organic Food
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to stimulate the development of organic food production.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department is giving to the development of organic methods of cultivation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is for those who produce, process or market organic produce to respond to the growing demand for organic foods and to lessen our dependence on imported supplies. However, my Department has already taken a number of steps to encourage this process while additional proposals are currently under consideration.

  Of particular significance has been the setting up of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) which in May 1989 launched production and processing standards for organic produce and an independent certification and inspection system. We understand that the UKROFS board has now reached an advanced stage in its discussions on registration with the organic sector bodies through which it is expected the large majority of registrations will be effected. Once the board has satisfied itself on the inspection and certification arrangements to be operated by these bodies consumers will be able with confidence to purchase British organic produce backed by the UKROFS standards and monitoring provisions.
  734
  Other steps being taken, or under consideration, by the Government include the funding of a comprehensive economic survey of organic farming; the provision of R and D and of specialised ADAS advice; the help for conversion available through the fallow option of the set-aside scheme; and the benefits available through the farm and conservation grant scheme and from assistance towards establishing co-operatives. In addition, we are proposing shortly to issue a consultation document on an organic conversion option under the EC extensification scheme.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Organic Farmers Association regarding organic extensification.

  Mr. Gummer
  I intend to consult interested parties on this subject shortly.

  Horses and Ponies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his EEC counterparts about the retention of minimum values on the export of horses and ponies after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Discussions on EC proposals on animals' welfare during transport are at an early stage. We will seek to maintain the minimum value controls or measures having similar effect.

  Consumer Panel
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the appointees to his consumer panel.

  Mr. Maclean
  I hope to announce the membership of the consumer panel in the near future.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects his consumer panel will meet for the first time.

  Mr. Maclean
  I hope to hold the first meeting in the next few weeks.

  Yorkshire Dales
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to visit the Yorkshire Dales.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have at present no plans to visit the Yorkshire Dales.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have regular meetings with the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss a wide variety of agricultural issues.

  Nitrate-sensitive Areas
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the nitrate-sensitive areas scheme.
  735
  Mr. Gummer
  I have received representations from a wide range of interests as a result of our national and local consultations on the nitrate scheme. In general, our proposals have been welcomed.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the contribution agriculture can make to the efficient use and generation of energy.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce).

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be in a position to announce the future location of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 25 January 1990 at columns 823–24.

  Hill Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the level of hill sheep farmers' income in(a) the last five years and (b) the next five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  As with all types of farm, the incomes of sheep farmers in the hill areas are influenced by a wide range of factors, including the weather, market conditions, size of enterprise and the skills of individual farmers. As a result, there have been fluctuations in income levels over the last five years, and there will no doubt be further fluctuations over the next five years. However, the outcome of the reform of the sheepmeat regime was highly satisfactory in providing increased opportunities for our sheep industry as a whole, including producers in hill areas. Producers in the high hills will also benefit from the proposed increase in the rate of hill livestock compensatory allowance for hardy breed ewes, which I announced in my statement to the House on 30 January.

  Surplus Food (Fraud)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions were brought during the last four years and how many are pending in regard to fraudulent or other criminal practice on the management or storage of surplus food; and in how many cases conviction was secured.

  Mr. Curry
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the storage and management of intervention stocks. In this area one prosecution was brought during the last four years, and this resulted in a conviction. One further case is under investigation.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next proposes to discuss the conservation of fish stocks with the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Curry
  On 27 June when the next Fisheries Council meets it should have the report it requested from the high 736
  level working party on improving conservation measures. The Commission is to submit appropriate proposals by 31 July 1990 which the Council will then need to discuss. In the meantime the prudent total allowable catches agreed in December in the interests of the conservation of fish stocks and existing technical conservation measures will be in full operation.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the environmentally sensitive areas policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  There are 19 environmentally sensitive areas designated in the United Kingdom covering almost 800,000 hectares of agricultural land. The concept has been widely welcomed by farmers and conservation interests and the number of management agreements is well up to expectations. Comprehensive monitoring and assessment of the schemes is in hand and will guide my decisions on future arrangements when I review the policy next year.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the financial resources available for food safety for 1990–91 in his Ministry.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following a reorganisation of the Ministry headquarters, resources have been transferred to strengthen the newly created food safety directorate. Details of the Ministry's expenditure plans for 1990–91, including those for food safety, are covered in chapter 3 (Cm. 1003) of the 1990 public expenditure White Paper which was published on 30 January. A more detailed analysis of the Ministry's expenditure plans for 1990–91 will be published in March in class III of the 1990–91 supply estimates.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what publications he has made available to the general public on the subject of chemical safety of food.

  Mr. Maclean
  Several publications are available, free of charge, in our "Food Sense" series including booklets on food additives, pesticides and food and food surveillance. The latter also lists the 26 individual food surveillance papers available from HMSO. A 27th entitled "Lead in Food: Progress Report" was published recently. Various reports from the Food Advisory Committee, the Veterinary Products Committee and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides are also available from HMSO.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the operation of his food safety directorate.

  Mr. Maclean
  The food safety directorate brings together the divisions in the Department with the main responsibility for matters relating to the safe production and handling of foodstuffs and other consumer protection matters concerned with food. The directorate will report to me as Minister of food.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he has taken to improve food safety in the past three months.
  737
  Mr. Maclean
  The major initiatives on food safety during the last three months have been the introduction of the Food Safety Bill and the establishment of a food safety directorate within my Department. In addition, work has continued on a large number of initiatives aimed at effective and comprehensive food safety controls.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the European Community has awarded any contracts to the Institute of Food Research for work in the field of food safety and quality.

  Mr. Gummer
  The European Commission has selected the six shared-cost projects listed in the table, involving the Institute of Food Research for contract negotiation in the field of food safety and quality:

  1. Application of oxidoreductases for food preservation.

  2. New technologies and raw materials for nutritious and attractive cereal products.

  3.Investigation of the minimum level of sulphur dioxide required for optimum red wine quality.

  4. Mechanisms of food intolerance: relationship between gut mucosal integrity, allergy and adverse reactions.

  5. Development of computer-aided process design procedures to improve quality and safety of products with a limited shelf life.

  6. Study of production and utilisation of fibres with functional qualities and beneficial nutritional properties.

  Cereals
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what benefits will accrue to the cereals sector from the current year's grants from the European Community for the improvement of marketing and processing facilities.

  Mr. Maclean
  Awards made by the Commission under EC regulation 355/77 to projects aimed at improving the marketing and processing of agricultural products are announced in June and December each year. The first awards for 1990 will be announced in June. For 1989, the Commission announced awards totalling £1,714,160 to seven projects in the cereals sector in the United Kingdom.

  Food Industry
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which food industry leaders he has met in the last six months; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Curry
  During the past six months the Minister has met many leading representatives from the food industry under a variety of circumstances, both formal and informal, when discussions have covered a wide range of topics of mutual concern.

  Livestock (Slaughter)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live cattle and sheep were exported from Britain for slaughter elsewhere in the European Community in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1989, a total of 358 cattle and 216,886 sheep were exported from Britain to the European Community for immediate slaughter.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on live export for slaughter of United Kingdom livestock.
  738
  Mr. Gummer
  Such a trade is acceptable provided exporters and hauliers comply with proper welfare standards. We will be pressing for the best possible welfare controls in negotiations on the Commission proposals for measures on protection of animals in transit.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the benefits which will accrue to the horticultural sector from the current year's grants from the European Community for the improvement of marketing and processing facilities for agricultural commodities.

  Mr. Maclean
  Awards made by the Commission under EC regulation 355/77 to projects aimed at improving the marketing and processing of agricultural products are announced in June and December each year. The first awards for 1990 will be announced in June. For 1989 the Commission announced awards totaling £2,625,897 to 15 projects in the horticulture sector in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government funding of horticultural research.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are funding a substantial programme of horticultural R and D, including basic and strategic research, as well as work in the public interest.

  Beef and Livestock Farmers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has recently received from representatives of beef and livestock farmers.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am in regular contact with beef and livestock farmers' representatives. Issues that they have recently raised include BSE, lead contamination of animal feedingstuffs, support of livestock in the less-favoured areas and the Commission's proposals for the CAP price fixing.

  Meat and Bone Meal
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has had any discussions with other European Community member-states about the export of meat and bone meal from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials have had detailed discussions in the European Community's standing veterinary committee.

  Fishing
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what benefits he assesses will accrue to the fishing industry from the current year's grant from the European Community for the improvement of marketing and processing facilities.

  Mr. Maclean
  Awards made by the Commission under EC regulation 355/77 to projects aimed at improving the marketing and processing of agricultural and fisheries products are announced in June and December each year. The first awards for 1990 will be announced in June. For
  739
  1989, the Commission announced awards totalling £2,538,668 to 22 projects in the fisheries sector in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  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 these meetings.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 6 February 1990 to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) at column 571.

  Hormones
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on illegal hormone use by United Kingdom livestock farmers.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell).

  Poultry
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants are to be made in the current year to the poultry industry from the EC for the improvement of marketing and processing facilities.

  Mr. Maclean
  Awards made by the Commission under EC regulation 355/77 to projects aimed at improving the marketing and processing of agricultural products are announced in June and December each year. The first awards for 1990 will be announced in June. For 1989, the Commission announced awards totalling £1,911,009 to six projects in the eggs and poultry sector in the United Kingdom.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much Government grant has been allocated to Bournemouth borough council for coastal protection and beach replenishment work since 1979.

  Mr. Curry
  Our records show that grant aid paid to Bournemouth borough council since 1 April 1979 in respect of all types of coast protection work amounts to £4·6 million.

  Haddock
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with fishing industry representatives regarding his commitment to reduce fishing effort for haddock by 30 per cent.

  Mr. Curry
  We issued a consultation document on 23 January and it was discussed at a meeting with industry representatives in Edinburgh on 29 January. We are considering the industry's reactions to our proposals and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Pet Food
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the quality and safety of cat and dog food supplies.
  740
  Mr. Maclean
  The safety and quality of pet food are protected by the detailed provisions of the Agriculture Act 1970 and the Feedingstuffs Regulations 1988. Manufacturers' performance in meeting these provisions is closely monitored by local trading standards officers.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the area of oilseed rape that will be grown in 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  Latest estimates suggest that between 350,000 and 360,000 hectares of oilseed rape will be grown in the United Kingdom in 1990.

  Wildlife Habitats
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to improve the quality of wildlife habitats.

  Mr. Curry
  While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has primary responsibility for the preservation and mangement of wildlife habitats, the environmentally sensitive areas, farm woodlands and farm and conservation grant schemes also contribute to improvements in their quality.

  Third World
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what aspects of United Kingdom agricultural and food policy are designed to assist Third world countries.

  Mr. Gummer
  The effect on Third world countries is one of the factors I take into account in assessment of all relevant United Kingdom agricultural and food policies. Developing countries benefit from a range of concessions on their agricultural and food exports to the United Kingdom, such as the generalised scheme of preferences and measures under the Lomé convention. I have adopted the Oxfam request that all relevant submissions to Ministers should specifically consider the effect on developing countries of the proposals being made.

  Food Labelling
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he is taking to promote British food via the use of labelling.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government support Food from Britain whose promotional activities include quality assurance schemes for a range of quality British products. Under these schemes, which are monitored by FFB's quality council, companies which meet the standards set may display an appropriate symbol. The latest of the quality council schemes to be launched concerns British extra fresh eggs. I am pleased to see that as a result of this and other Food from Britain initiatives there is a move by producers and retailers alike to make clear their British origin so that consumers can make an informed choice.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government assistance to hill farmers in less-favoured areas.
  741
  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House on 30 January 1990 (Official Report columns 159–70).

  Food Marketing
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution his Department is making to improve the marketing of British-produced food in 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  Food From Britain was set up in 1983 by my Department to improve the marketing of British food and drink both at home and abroad. In each of 1989–90 and 1990–91 the Government will provide FFB with £3·5 million for its establishment costs plus up to a further £1 million dependent on the level of industry funding. In addition agricultural and horticultural marketing cooperatives may be eligible for grant under the agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme.

  Cereal Sector
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the cereal sector.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1989 cereals harvest in the United Kingdom was 22·4 million tonnes, the fourth largest on record. About 5 million tonnes of this is surplus to domestic demand: I expect that this will find an export market elsewhere in the Community or be exported with Community export refunds to third countries. There is a good supply of milling wheat on the home market, and imports are likely to contribute no more than about 15 per cent. of United Kingdom millers' requirements. Intervention stocks are at lower levels than in recent years. Prices of cereals are generally above last season's levels, except for breadmaking wheat, on which premiums have narrowed. The Commission's proposals for the 1990 price fixing provide for further devaluation of the green pound. We shall be pressing for a devaluation which keeps us on course for the elimination of all monetary gaps by the end of 1992. Information on farm incomes from cereals is to be found on pages 66 and 68 of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom: 1989", which was published on 6 February.

  Rain Forest Species
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions he has taken on the international trade in rain forest birds and reptiles since the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), answered the Consolidated Fund debate of the hon. Member for Linlithgow,Official Report , 20 December 1989, column 267.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on 29 January—Official Report , column 75. Officials from my Ministry and the Department of the Environment met conservation and welfare organisations on 30 January.

  Nuclear Attack
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he currently gives to farmers to protect their cattle in the event of a nuclear attack.
  742
  Mr. Maclean
  The booklet, "Civil Defence and the Farmer", which was published in 1985, and is available in the Library of the House, contains advice on measures farmers might take to protect themselves and their livestock in the event of a nuclear attack.

  School Milk
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he expects changes in the milk co-responsibility levy to affect the provision of milk in schools.

  Mr. Curry
  The school milk subsidy is provided for in EC regulations and is wholly financed by the Community. The EC Commission allocates part of the receipts from the milk co-responsibility levy to offset the cost of this and a number of other subsidies in the milk sector. I understand that the Commission intends to use co-responsibility levy receipts to offset the cost of the school milk subsidy by 117 mecu in 1990–91—the same amount as in 1989–90. It would be for the Commission and the Council of Ministers to determine whether any future reductions in milk co-responsibility levy receipts should be reflected in the arrangements for the school milk subsidy.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Stephens Inquiry (Fire)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the progress of the inquiry into the cause of the fire at the Stephens inquiry team office.

  Mr. Cope
  I understand that the forensic scientists have now concluded their investigation and have reported that the most probable cause of the fire was an accident.

  Coleraine, Ballymoney and Moyle Acute Hospital
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the latest option appraisal for the acute hospital for Coleraine, Ballymoney and Moyle district will be the final one; if he will accept the findings of the option appraisal and proceed immediately to build on the basis of its conclusion; whether the currently available £20 million will be available to start building and at what date; and what will be the target for completion.

  Mr. Needham
  The option appraisal is being undertaken by the Northern health and social services board. Provided that it is carried out to the standards required under the Government's guidelines, the appraisal should lead to a final decision on the future provision of acute hospital services in the Coleraine, Ballymoney and Moyle area. It is not possible to give a definitive timescale for implementing the preferred option. The board has been informed that funds have been reserved provisionally for a phased redevelopment of the Coleraine hospital site starting in 1993. The substantial but so far unquantified additional resources required for a completely new hospital are unlikely to be available before 1997 at the earliest.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many firearms, listed by the category under which they are identified by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, are believed to have been stolen by terrorist organisations from(a) civilians, (b) Royal Ulster Constabulary, (c) Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve (d) the Ulster Defence Regiment, (e) the regular Army and (f) prison officers in each of the last five years for which figures are available;

  Legally held firearms stolen in Northern Ireland

  Bullet firing

  Shotguns

  Air weapons/miscellaneous

  1989

  Civilians

  15

  41

  4

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  10

  —

  —

  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve

  Ulster Defence Regiment

  6

  —

  —

  Regular Army

  3

  —

  —

  1988

  Civilians

  16

  54

  13

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  9

  —

  —

  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve

  Ulster Defence Regiment

  1

  —

  —

  Regular Army

  4

  —

  —

  1987

  Civilians

  34

  91

  13

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  10

  —

  —

  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve

  Ulster Defence Regiment

  179

  —

  —

  Regular Army

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  Civilians

  13

  96

  20

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  11

  —

  1

  Royal Ulster Constabluary Reserve

  Ulster Defence Regiment

  1

  —

  —

  Regular Army

  2

  —

  —

  1985

  Civilians

  19

  79

  9

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  6

  —

  —

  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve

  Ulster Defence Regiment

  9

  —

  —

  Regular Army

  —

  —

  Note:

  Prison Officers are included in civilian category.

  During 1989, a total of 246 firearms were found in Northern Ireland. Of these, 40 were recorded as having been stolen in Northern Ireland in previous years. Of these 40 stolen firearms, 25 were bullet firing and 15 were shotguns. Further information and details of weapons stolen by terrorist organisations are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Lough Mann (Development)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Down of 11 December 1989,Official Report , column 450, what action was taken by the Department of Environment town and country planning service to stop the development at the Shorts site at Lough Mann situated on the Downpatrick-Ballynahinch Road following the inspections which took place in May and September 1989.
  744
  (2) how many firearms, listed by the category under which they are identified by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, have been stolen from (a) civilians, (b) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, (c) the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, (d) Ulster Defence Regiment, (e) the regular Army and (f) prison officers in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many such firearms, and of which category were later recovered, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 9 January 1990]Readily available information is as follows:

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 6 February 1990]None. On 15 January 1990, Down district council was consulted by the Department of the Environment (NI) with an opinion to approve the planning application referred to in my written reply. The council agreed with the Department's opinion.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show (a) the number of employees of the Fair Employment Commission, (b) the number in each grade, Department and category and their religious affiliation, (c) the catchment area of the employees, (d) the religious composition by percentage of (i) the total population and (ii) the population of working age in the catchment area, (e) the number of employees born outside the United Kingdom and (f) the number of employees born in Great Britain.
  745
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 6 February 1990]At 2 February 1990, the Fair Employment Commission had 35 employees, including the chairman. Under the control of the chief executive, staff are distributed as follows:—

  Fair Employment Commission (FEC) Departments

  NICS Grade Equivalents

  Administration

  Advice and Information

  Complaints

  General Operations

  Principal

  Solicitor and Secretary to FEC (1)

  Director (1)

  Director (1)

  Director (1)

  Deputy Principal

  —

  Manager (1) Press Officer (1)

  Senior Complaints Officer (2)

  Manager (2)Computer Systems Manager (1)

  Staff Officer

  Finance and Admin Officer (1)

  Advice and Information Officers(4)

  Complaints Officers(4)

  General Operations Officers (3)

  Executive Officer (Grade 1)

  Office Supervisor (1)

  Adertising Officer (1)

  —

  Assistant General Operations Officer (1)

  Executive Officer (Grade 2)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Admin Officer

  Admin Officer (6)

  —

  Admin Officer (1)

  —

  Total

  9

  8

  8

  8

  The commission is currently in the process of recruiting employees and will be submitting a monitoring return in accordance with section 27 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. Once the final staffing complement has been reached the commission intends to publish detailed information on the religious composition of its staff and the progress of its affirmative action programme as a follow-up to the information published on 22 February 1989.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to investigate the files of the Northern Ireland Office in Northern Ireland and in London to discover whether information about the activities engaged in by Mr. Colin Wallace and his section is recorded in those files.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 6 February 1990]A detailed study has recently been made of all relevant Northern Ireland Office files.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Agriculture Colleges
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students were attending full-time courses in agricultural colleges in 1989; and what was the comparable figure for 1984.

  Mr. Jackson
  Available figures for full-time students attending agricultural colleges in England which were local education authority maintained or assisted or in receipt of direct grant from the Department of Education and Science are as follows:

  Number

  November 1984

  8,700

  November 19881

  8,200

  1 Provisional

  Statistics for colleges in other parts of the United Kingdom are the responsibility of the respective Secretaries of State.

  Further Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds staying on in full-time education in(a) school and (b) further education colleges in 1988–89; and the target numbers for 1992–93 in (i) school and (ii) further education colleges.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is as follows:

  16 to 18-year-olds in, full-time education

  England (000s)

  1988–89

  1992–93

  (provisional)

  (projected)

  Schools

  389

  343

  Further education

  261

  227

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the numbers of 16-year olds in full-time education in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There were 336,000 full-time students in England attending schools and colleges of further education in 1987–88 and the same number in 1988–89.

  Primary School Teachers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy that all primary school teachers enjoy a minimum of 10 per cent. non-contract time during their working day.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The organisation of the school day and the duties to be undertaken by teachers in their 1,265 hours of directed time are matters for head teachers.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on teachers' pay.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  1 refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 1 February,Official Report columns 287–89.

  Goldsmiths Youth Orchestra
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received seeking funding for the Goldsmiths youth orchestra; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received no representation about this matter which is for Goldsmiths college to decide.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all shire counties in England in rank order of expenditure per secondary pupil

  Secondary schools in shire counties in England: Net institutional expenditure per pupil and examination achievements at GCSE1

  Net expenditure per pupil (£cash)23

  Numbers of leavers with five or more GCSE results at grades A to C45

  As a per cent. of all school leavers

  Rank

  Shire County

  Leicestershire

  1,565

  23·4

  30

  Oxfordshire

  1,560

  26·2

  21

  Cleveland

  1,545

  27·1

  16

  Nottinghamshire

  1,540

  21·6

  36

  Derbyshire

  1,530

  22·5

  35

  Cumbria

  1,510

  26·9

  17

  Buckinghamshire

  1,505

  33·4

  2

  Hertfordshire

  1,490

  30·3

  5

  Shropshire

  1,470

  27·7

  11

  Humberside

  1,460

  21·5

  37

  Bedfordshire

  1,455

  26·0

  24

  Lancashire

  1,450

  25·7

  25

  Avon

  1,435

  26·1

  22

  Essex

  1,420

  26·3

  20

  Staffordshire

  1,420

  23·4

  31

  Surrey

  1,415

  36·4

  1

  Durham

  1,405

  21·0

  38

  Hampshire

  1,405

  27·7

  12

  Warwickshire

  1,400

  26·6

  18

  Cheshire

  1,390

  28·3

  10

  Northumberland

  1,390

  29·8

  6

  East Sussex

  1,385

  27·4

  13

  Gloucestershire

  1,385

  29·1

  8

  Norfolk

  1,385

  22·8

  32

  Devon

  1,380

  24·4

  28

  North Yorkshire

  1,375

  32·8

  3

  Northamptonshire

  1,375

  22·7

  34

  West Sussex

  1,360

  32·6

  4

  Somerset

  1,355

  24·5

  27

  Isle of Wight

  1,350

  17·0

  39

  Wiltshire

  1,350

  24·0

  29

  Cornwall and Scilly Isles

  1,350

  27·3

  14

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,330

  28·5

  9

  Dorset

  1,320

  27·2

  15

  Cambridgeshire

  1,315

  26·1

  23

  Suffolk

  1,305

  22·7

  33

  Kent

  1,290

  26·5

  19

  Lincolnshire

  1,280

  25·3

  26

  Berkshire

  n/a

  29·4

  7

  1 The figures in the table have not been adjusted to take account of variations in LEA's socio-economic circumstances

  2 Net institutional expenditure includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises, and certain supplies and services; It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay

  3 The unit spending figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment for the financial year 1987–88, and pupil number returns to DES

  4 The examination data are aggregated from the results of a sample survey for the academic years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88. The survey is based on a 10 per cent. sample of pupils in maintained and independent schools (excluding special schools) who have reached the minimum school leaving age. The percentages quoted do not reflect the achievements of pupils at 0-level, CSE or GCSE after leaving school; nor their attainments in examinations leading to vocational or other qualifications at school or elsewhere.

  5 Includes grades A-C at 0-level and CSE grade 1.

  748
  per year, starting with the highest spending authority, together with their position in the table of examination results for school leavers achieving grades A to C at GCSE in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The table gives the net institutional expenditure per secondary school pupil in shire counties in England in the financial year 1987–88, and averaged examination results for the three years 1985–86 to 1987–88. The purpose of averaging is to reduce sampling error within the derived percentages.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students have been enrolled in higher education in the current academic year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table sets out the relevant figures with a comparison with those for 1988–89:—

  Thousands of students

  1988–89 Final actual

  1989–90 Provisional estimate

  1. Home full-time and sandwich courses

  (a) Initial entrants(excluding postgraduates)

  Universities (GB)

  76

  82

  Polytechnics and colleges funding council (PCFC) sector

  85

  95

  Other

  3

  3

  (b) Total(including postgraduates)

  Universities (GB)

  1271

  283

  PCFC funding sector

  1239

  261

  Other

  6

  6

  2. Overseas full-time and sandwich courses

  63

  66

  3. Part-time (including Open University)

  344

  358

  4. Total full-time and part-time (FTE)

  700

  741

  5. Age participation index (GB)

  15·2

  16·8

  Name

  Kingshurst

  Tyneside

  Bradford

  Dartford

  Britschool

  Djanogly

  Macmillan College

  Site

  Kingshurst School site

  St. John Fisher School site

  Newby Square, Bradford

  Downs School site

  Site of Selhurst Tertiary Centre

  Sherwood Rise, Nottingham

  St. Michael RC School, Middlesbrough

  LEA

  Solihull

  Gateshead

  Bradford

  Kent

  Croydon

  Nottinghamshire

  Cleveland

  Planned number of pupils pupils

  1,000

  900

  980

  1,250

  720

  990

  1,050

  Total capital cost1

  £9·65 million

  £7·8 million

  £8·2 million

  £8·3 million

  To be determined

  £9·05 million

  £7·5 million

  Exchequer contribution

  £7·55 million

  £6·24 million

  £6·56 million

  £6·64 million

  To be determined

  £7·80 million

  £5·625 million

  Sponsors' contribution

  (i)Committed2

  £1·93 million

  £1·54 million

  £1·64 million

  £1·66 million

  To be determined

  £1·25 million

  To be determined

  (ii) Confirmed

  £2·5 million

  £1·5 million

  £2·8 million

  £1·2 million

  £1·1 million

  £1·7 million

  £1·4 million

  Principal sponsors

  Hanson Trust

  Peter Vardy

  Dixons plc, Mr. Hakim Wong

  Mr. G. Leigh

  The British Record Industry Trust

  Mr. Harry Djanogly

  BAT Industries

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  Building contract Laings Northern

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  School closure involved

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Has a ballot of parents been held and with what result

  No

  No

  No

  No3

  No

  No

  No

  Notes:

  1 In addition the Exchequer bears revenue costs on a basis comparable to those of maintained schools in similar areas.

  2 Sponsors' contribution to date. Fund raising continues in each project. This includes contributions in kind which are as yet uncosted

  3 Public consultations were held by Kent on its proposals to close the Downs School. One statutory objection containing 62 signatures was made
  750
  1 These figures have been adjusted to include students. at Bulmershe College in the universities figure so as to allow direct comparison with the 1989–80 figures following the College's merger with the University of Reading.

  Note:

  The number of home full-time and sandwich course students entering universities and the PCFC sector increased this academic year by 8 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively. I congratulate universities, polytechnics and colleges for promoting their courses and for their readiness to respond to the increase in demand. This welcome expansion reflects the success of the Government's policies in schools as well as in further and higher education. One in six of all young people now enter higher education compared with one in eight in 1979–80. This will bring benefits both for individual students and for the nation's prosperity.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the table given in answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report , 29 June 1989, columns 533–36, giving the latest available information in respect of each city technology college or proposed or planned city technology college.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 6 February 1990]The table covers the agreed and announced CTCs in England.
  751
  to the section 12 proposal subsequently published.

  4 A further £13 million is promised but not committed to agreed and announced projects.

  5 At December 1989.

  6 Includes estimated value of premises.

  Name

  Harris

  Bacon's

  Haberdashers'

  Brighton

  Derby

  Corby

  Site

  Sylvan School site, Croydon

  Bacon's School site, Southwark

  Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham School site

  Fitzherbert School site, Brighton

  Wood Street

  Greenfield site at Great Oakley, Corby

  LEA

  Croydon

  Southwark

  Lewisham

  East Sussex

  Derbyshire

  Northants

  Planned number of pupils

  1,100

  1,100

  750

  900

  1,075

  Total Capital Cost1

  £7·981 million

  £13·1 million

  To be determined

  £9 million

  To be determined

  £9·39 million

  Exchequer contribution

  £6·385 million

  £10 million

  To be determined

  £7·2 million

  To be determined

  To be determined

  Sponsors' contribution

  (i) Committed

  £1·596 million

  £3·1 million

  To be determined

  £1·8 million

  To be determined

  To be determined

  (ii) Confirmed4·5

  £1·5 million

  £2·5 million

  £5 million6

  £1·1 million

  £1·2 million

  £1·9 million

  Principal sponsors

  Philip and Pauline Harris Trust

  Philip and Pauline Harris Trust

  Haberdashers' Aske's Charity

  Greenleaf Planters

  The Landau Foundation

  Mr. Hugh de Capell Brooke

  Contracts awarded to sponsers

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  School closure involved

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Has a ballot of parents been held and with what result

  Yes Majority against

  No

  Yes Majority in favour

  No

  No

  No

  Notes:

  1 In addition the Exchequer bears revenue costs on a basis comparable to those of maintained schools in similar areas.

  2 Sponsors' contribution to date. Fund raising continues in each project. This includes contributions in kind which are as yet uncosted.

  3 Public consultations were held by Kent on its proposals to close the Downs School. One statutory objection containing 62 signatures was made to the section 12 proposal subsequently published.

  4 A further £13 million is promised but not committed to agreed and announced projects.

  5 At December 1989.

  6 Includes estimated value of premises.

  Euro-Science
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was his assessment of the validity of the European Commission's calculation that Euro-Science needs at least 7·7 billion ecu over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  I represent Her Majesty's Government at the Council of Ministers (Research). Having given full consideration to the European Commission's proposal, the Research Council agreed on 15 December to a total budget of 5·7 becu (£4·2 billion) for a new framework programme for research and technological development, from 1990 to 1994 (I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave on 17 January, Hansard column 318 and 24 January, Hansard column 699).

  As I said in my answer of 17 January, we consider that this was a very satisfactory outcome.

WALES

  Radon
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those towns and villages in Wales in which there may be significant effects on houses arising from radon; and if he will issue guidance as to what step householders in these locations should take to minimise any dangers.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office commissioned survey and that carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board to date have not revealed any towns and villages in which here may be significant effect on houses arising from radon. The surveys have demonstrated levels of radon above the action levels in very few houses but these have been included in the second phase of the NRPB survey where measurements are being taken over a period of 12 months. It is not possible to anticipate the findings of the second part of the survey the result of which should be available towards the end of the year.

  Two free advice booklets "Radon in Houses" and "The Householder's Guide to Radon" have been distributed to homeowners in the surveys and are available on request.

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

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Department follows CCTA guidance which covers all aspects of information technology security, and keeps its application of this advice under continuous review.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to increase the hill livestock compensatory allowance for cattle.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the farmers' unions in Wales to discuss their call for an increase in allowances for cows and ewes, other than those classified as hardy.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The views and priorities of the farmers' unions in Wales were fully taken into account in the recent autumn review of hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase the hardy ewes allowance on the higher hills in line with inflation since 1986; what would be the cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. Hill livestock compensatory allowances are set annually after all economic conditions affecting upland farmers' incomes have been taken into account.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the measures he has taken since 1979, and the initiatives he intends to take, to assist dyslexic children in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Education Act 1981 imposes duties on all local education authorities to identify, assess and make appropriate provision for all children with special educational needs, including dyslexics. Under the Education Reform Act 1988 all children, including those with special educational needs, will follow the national curriculum as far as is practicable.

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the subsidiary legislation having effect in Wales that is planned subsequent to the passage of the Local Government Act 1989, and if he will indicate(a) when he hopes to publish each item of subsidiary legislation and (b) when he intends that each should take effect.

  Mr. Grist
  The following regulations have so far been made under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989:The Charging Authorities (Population for Precepts) (Wales) Regulations (SI 1989/12268)
  The Charging Authorities (Notification of Precept Population) (Wales) Regulations (SI 1989/12305)
  The Local Government (Politically Restricted Posts) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/42)
  754
  Further secondary legislation will be introduced as required to ensure the progressive implementation of the Act. The Government's policy will be to ensure, whenever possible, that all interested parties will have an opportunity to comment.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to ensure that adequate time is given between publication of subordinate legislation relative to Wales subsequent to the passing of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the implementation of the Act.

  Mr. Grist
  The Government will continue to give as much time as practicable.

  Community Care
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has offered to local authorities in Wales on the contribution he expects them to make towards the provision of suitable homes for(a) disabled people and (b) elderly and very elderly people as part of the implementation of community care policies outlined in his recent White Paper.

  Mr. Grist
  I fully recognise the importance of housing in relation to community care. This has been clearly reflected both in the Welsh chapter of the recently published White Paper, and in the draft planning guidance on the development of social care plans for the relevant client groups in Wales, which issued for consultation on 26 January. This covered the involvement of housing associations and local authorities. I await the result of the consultation exercise with interest.

  Companies (Local Authority Interests)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is now his proposed implementation date for the parts of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 relating to companies in which local authorities have an interest.

  Mr. Grist
  The proposed implementation date is 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish a revised version of his draft circular regarding companies in which local authorities have interests dated 27 October 1989 in the light of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  The revised circular will be published when the provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 regulating local authority companies come into force. I will provide local authority associations in Wales with an advance draft of the order bringing into effect the regulations on companies, for comment.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many civil servants in his Department, and at what cost, have been involved in production and dissemination of articles for newspapers in Wales concerning the revenue support grant and the community charge, and if he will make a statement;
  755
  (2) what is the individual and total cost of his articles in each of the local and regional newspapers of Wales concerning the revenue support grant for Wales and the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Articles published under my right hon. Friend's name may or may not be based on a corpus of information provided in the normal way by civil servants. It is not possible to attribute to the Department the cost of such information. Articles disseminated by the Department are given free of charge to newspapers and the costs incurred are de minimis.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department made any payment to the Chester Chronicle in relation to the publication of his article on the revenue support grant for Wales and the community charge in the Chester Chronicle, Deeside edition of 2 February.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Waste Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a survey in Wales of waste sites which might pollute water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  A survey of contaminated land in Wales which included abandoned waste disposal sites was undertaken in Wales in 1982 and updated in 1988. The results of the survey have been widely publicised and a copy of the survey has been placed on the Library of the House. Current sites are licensed by district councils in Wales who are under a duty to ensure that waste disposal sites do not cause pollution of water.

  Stroke Victims (Therapy)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he intends to introduce to help stroke victims in need of(a) physiotherapy and (b) speech therapy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The level of provision of physiotherapy and speech therapy services for stroke victims is a matter for district health authorities in the light of their assessment of local need and competing demands for resources. From April 1991 we shall expect the social care needs of such patients to be included in the joint social care plans prepared by social services authorities in co-operation with health authorities and others.

  Radioactive Waste Incinerator (Trawsfynydd)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the proposal to build a new radioactive waste incinerator at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for Nuclear Electric. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

ENVIRONMENT

  Contaminated Land
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce a grant regime to provide financial assistance specifically for contaminated land.

  Mr. Trippier
  There is already extensive grant aid for dealing with contaminated derelict land. The Government are currently considering the report of the Environment Select Committee on contaminated land which recommends that existing grant systems should give greater priority to sites which are contaminated or polluting and that separate financial support should be given for demonstration projects for cleaning up contaminated land.

  Private Tenants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what redress is available to private tenants who at present pay combined rates and rent and who find that their landlords are not taking account of the abolition of domestic rates in April 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  Redress available to private tenants who at present pay combined rent and rates depends on the type and terms of the tenancy agreement they have. A substantial majority are covered by the Rent Act 1977 and can have a fair rent registered which will be exclusive of rates. Many new assured tenants under the Housing Act 1988 will have covered the issue in their tenancy agreements. Assured shorthold tenants, who make up a significant proportion of new tenants, have the right to apply to the rent assessment committee for a rates exclusive market rent to be registered during the initial fixed term of their tenancies. The Department will shortly be issuing a leaflet explaining the position.

  Search Fees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to collect information on the varying levels of local authority search fees and issue guidance on standardisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Lord Chancellor sets a standard fee for statutory searches of local land charges registers. In addition, local authorities supply answers to supplementary inquiries, under a voluntary agreement between the local authority associations and the Law Society. It is for authorities themselves to decide what fees to charge for this service. Information about the fees charged for processing supplementary inquiries is available from the Law Society, which publishes details from time to time in its gazette.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the inquiries made by his Department into the decrease in the amounts of radioactive material being sent for disposal to the official low-level waste site at Drigg, Cumbria.
  757
  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is making no such inquiries, but I am advised that the radioactive waste management advisory committee is reviewing the general question of low-level waste disposal.

  Trees, Leicestershire
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of tree coverage in Leicestershire; and what plans he has to improve this aspect of the environment in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The census of woodlands and trees carried out by the Forestry Commission in 1980 revealed that there were nearly 8,000 hectares of woodland in Leicestershire—some 3 per cent. of the total area of the county—and, in addition, more than 1 million other trees. Currently sites in Leicestershire are among a number that the Countryside Commission is considering as a possible location for its proposed new national forest in the Midlands: a consultation paper issued by the Commission in November gave further details and carried a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Government are also promoting planting of trees through their existing schemes of aid, and the Forestry Commission is co-operating with the county council in planning further planting on reclaimed mineral workings.

  Lead Pollution
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when pollution report No. 28 on lead will be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  Pollution report No. 28, "UK Blood Lead Monitoring Programme 1984–1987: Results for 1987" will he published in the spring. Summary results from the 1987 survey were published in "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics No. 11" last year and detailed tables for 1987 will be published as additional tables to digest No. 12.

  Arpley Meadows
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the provenance of the low-level radioactive wastes to be disposed of at the Arpley Meadows site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The wastes originate at the Royal Liverpool hospital and Liverpool university.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of radioactive dosage would be received per year by local residents consequent upon the dumping of solid radioactive wastes at Arpley Meadows domestic landfill site.

  Mr. Trippier
  The radiological impact of the proposed disposals will be less than one thousandth of the average radiation dose received from natural background radiation.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what notification he has received as to the cubic volume of low-level solid radioactive wastes to be dumped at the Arpley Meadows domestic landfill site.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is proposed that some 12 to 24 cu m of clinical and laboratory waste will be disposed of at Walton Arpley.

  Housing, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West of 19 January,Official Report , column 443, when he expects to announce his decisions on city grant and estate action grant applications in respect of new homes to rent and for sale on the Lower Grange estate in Bradford.

  Mr. Chope
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities hopes to be in a position to make final decisions on Lower Grange shortly.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning proposals to establish a certificate of competence for waste handlers and carriers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Environmental Protection Bill includes a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe qualifications and experience for applicants for waste management licences to demonstrate that they are fit and proper persons to hold a licence. Of the few representations received on this proposal, none opposed it in principle. A certificate of competence is now being devised by the recently formed waste management industry training and advisory board. When this certificate is available it is intended that it should be suitable for prescription by regulations under the Bill as evidence of technical competence.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was raised by domestic rates in 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what is the amount that should be raised if councils spend at SSA levels, and the amount he anticipates that councils will charge.

  Mr. Chope
  I estimate from local authority budgets that the following amounts were raised by domestic rates in 1988–89 and 1989–90:

  Before rate rebates £ million

  After rate rebates £ million

  1988–89

  8,847

  7,674

  1989–90

  9,754

  8,499

  If local authority spending in 1990–91 is equal to total standard spending, £9·7 billion will be raised from charge payers before benefits and £7·55 billion after community charge benefit and income support. I expect local authorities to make every effort to keep their spending within the Government's assumptions. Figures are not directly comparable between years because of changes in local authority functions

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

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]: Taking account of community charge benefit (including income

  759
  support) and transitional relief, I estimate that if local authorities in England spend at the level of total standard spending in 1990–91, 23 per cent. of that expenditure will be met by community charge payers.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend poll tax regulations to extend exemption to those single persons serving short custodial sentences and defendants remanded in custody, in order that local authorities will not consider them eligible for payment for unoccupied premises before the passing of 52 weeks in custody.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 6 February 1990]Guidance already issued by the Department has suggested that local authorities should use the wide discretion available to them to specify this class of circumstance as one where the standard community charge multiplier is zero.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce a provision that every person who pays poll tax is entitled to his own dustbin.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 6 February 1990]No.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department has issued to local authority community charges registration officers in relation to nursing students registering for the poll tax.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 7 February 1990]Guidance on the eligibility of student nurses for the student relief is contained in "The Community Charge: Students and the Community Charge" (community charge practice note No. 23) which has been sent to all community charge registration officers. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department is giving to rating authorities about making available photocopies of the non-domestic rating list to members of the public, under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 7 February 1990]: My right hon. Friend has not given any advice to charging authorities on this matter. The provisions for inspection of non-domestic rating lists are contained in paragraph 8 of schedule 9 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, inserted by paragraph 48 of schedule 5 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Under this provision members of the public have a right to require the authority to provide a photograhic copy of the list, or an extract from it. Authorities may make a reasonable charge for doing so.

  Housing, Leicester
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money will be allocated to Leicester city council housing department in the coming financial year; and how much will be allocated for new build programmes.

  Mr. Chope
  Leicester city council was informed on 21 December 1989 that its housing investment programme (HIP) allocation for 1990–91 was £18·32 million. This 760
  compares favourably with allocations to other authorities of a similar size. In addition, up to a further £2·5 million is available for new Estate Action schemes. It is for the council to decide how much of its HIP allocation should be spent on a new build programme.

  Right to Buy
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring into force section 164 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  On 1 March. From that date housing particularly suitable for people of pensionable age, other than sheltered housing, first let before 1 January 1990 will be excluded from the right to buy only if the Secretary of State so determines on the application of the landlord; and a house or flat first let on or after 1 January will no longer be excluded as elderly persons' housing unless it forms part of a sheltered scheme.

  These changes will be good news for elderly and disabled people who feel they have been unfairly denied the right to buy on the ground that their home is particularly suitable for elderly people. They may wish to apply again from 1 March.

  Housing Repairs
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the numbers of tenants who have(a) applied for and (b) received payment for repairs carried out under the right to repairs scheme introduced under the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 in (i) 1986, (ii) 1987, (iii) 1988 and (iv) 1989; what is the total cost of payments made under this scheme in each of these years; and what has been the cost to the Government and local authorities in introducing and administering this scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]The number of claims received and agreed in each of these years is shown in the table, together with the total amount agreed. The Department has incurred total costs of some £40,000 in informing tenants of the scheme and on training them; administrative costs for the scheme are not identified separately. Information on local authorities' costs other than on meeting claims is not collected by the Department.

  England

  Total number of claims received for payment

  Total number of claims agreed1 for payment

  Total amount agreed1£

  1986 1st quarter

  6

  5

  500

  1986–87

  48

  44

  4,500

  1987–88

  18

  17

  1,700

  1988–89

  9

  9

  600

  Total

  81

  75

  7,300

  1 Accepted by landlords as payable

  Landfill Sites
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many landfill sites he considers it necessary for Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution to visit each year in order to establish that waste disposal authorities are complying with their statutory duties.
  761
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 6 February 1990]The number of landfills visited in the course of an audit will vary between waste disposal authorities. The inspectorate anticipates that in the course of a complete full year's audit programme, up to 500 licensed facilities will be visited. This, together with the other information obtained during the audits, will permit the inspectorate to take a view on the overall standard of waste regulation.

  Car Pollution
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to fund a research project into ways of reducing car pollution along the lines of that being financed by the French Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has allocated £2·3 million to support a three-year collaborative research programme with industry of 11 projects on diesel and petrol vehicle engine emissions. The work is being carried out by a consortium of diesel and petrol engine manufacturers, component and oil and fuel additive suppliers. The programme supplements work already being done by the industrial members of the consortium as part of their own R and D programmes.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proportion of land in the United Kingdom given over to forestry.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  About 10 per cent.

  Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to introduce regulations regarding the training of community psychiatric nurses; and if he will make a statement on the current situation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Standards of training are laid down and monitored by the United Kingdom central council for nursing, midwifery and health visiting and the national board for nursing, midwifery and health visiting for Scotland. The skills and knowledge required by these nurses may vary from post to post, and it is a matter for individual health boards as employers to determine what post-registration training individual community psychiatric nurses may require.

  Electricity Board Reports
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1989,Official Report , column 292, he will now publish in the Official Report the dates on which the annual reports of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board have been published in each year since nationalisation, either for existing or predecessor corporations.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 20 December 1989. Annual reports published by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and South of 762
  Scotland Electricity Board are available in the Library of the House. I received the annual reports for 1988–89 on 21 December 1989.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will reconsider the system of bonus payments to general practitioners for cervical smear tests.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Incentives to general practitioners to provide full preventive cover are an important feature of the Government's plans for improving general medical services.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has decided the amount of fee remission grant to allocate to schools participating in the assisted places scheme in respect of session 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  The allocations of fee remission grant for 1990–91 are shown in the table. As in 1989–90, 59 schools will participate in the scheme and overall these allocations should increase the number of pupils benefiting from the current level of about 2,800 to about 2,900. Further expansion is planned for the 1991–92 academic session which will extend to more families the option of education in the independent sector.

  School

  Allocation£

  Aberlour House School, Moray

  22,000

  Albyn School for Girls, Aberdeen

  48,000

  Ardvreck School, Crieff

  3,000

  Beaconhurst Grange School, Bridge of Allan

  14,000

  Belhaven Hill School, Dunbar

  13,000

  Belmont House School, Newton Mearns

  54,000

  Blairmore School, Huntly

  17,000

  Butterstone House School, Dunkeld

  16,000

  Cargilfield School, Edinburgh

  17,000

  Clifton Hall School, Midlothian

  15,000

  Craigclowan Preparatory School, Perth

  14,000

  Craigholme School for Girls, Glasgow

  78,000

  Crawfordton House School, Dumfriesshire

  17,000

  Croftinloan School, Pitlochry

  14,000

  Daniel Stewart's and Melville College

  690,000

  The Mary Erskine School

  Dollar Academy

  148,000

  Drumley House School, Ayrshire

  15,000

  Edinburgh Academy

  158,000

  Fernhill School, Glasgow

  50,000

  Fettes College, Edinburgh

  151,000

  Fort Augustus Abbey School

  110,000

  George Heriot's School, Edinburgh

  535,000

  George Watson's College

  613,000

  Glasgow Academy

  97,000

  Glenalmond College, Perthshire

  160,000

  Gordonstoun School, Morayshire

  114,000

  Hamilton College

  20,000

  The High School of Dundee

  430,000

  The High School of Glasgow

  80,000

  Hutchesons' Grammar School, Glasgow

  280,000

  Keil School, Dumbarton

  170,000

  Kelvinside Academy, Glasgow

  155,000

  Kilgraston School, Perthshire

  133,000

  Kilquhanity House School, Castle Douglas

  40,000

  Lathallan School, Montrose

  17,000

  Lomond School, Helensburgh

  123,000

  Loretto School, Musselburgh

  132,000

  Merchiston Castle School, Edinburgh

  237,000

  Morrison's Academy, Crieff

  387,000

  New Park School, St. Andrews

  12,000

  Oxenfoord Castle School, Midlothian

  25,000

  763

  School

  Allocation £

  Park Lodge School, Helensburgh

  3,000

  Rannoch School, Perthshire

  110,000

  Robert Gordon's College, Aberdeen

  125,000

  Rudolf Steiner School of Edinburgh

  135,000

  St. Aloysius' College, Glasgow

  307,000

  St. Denis and Cranley School, Edinburgh

  88,000

  St. George's School for Girls, Edinburgh

  47,000

  St. Leonard's School, St. Andrews

  104,000

  St. Margaret's School for Girls, Aberdeen

  36,000

  St. Margaret's School for Girls, Edinburgh

  168,000

  St. Mary's School, Melrose

  16,000

  Strathallan School, Forgandenny, Perthshire

  210,000

  Wellington School, Ayr

  117,000

  West of Scotland School Company

  560,000

  TOTAL

  7,450,000

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many self-employed people there were in Scotland in every year since 1979; and how this figure is calculated.

  Mr. Lang
  The table shows the estimated number of self-employed people in Scotland in September of each year from 1979 to 1989, the latest date for which estimates are available. Self-employment in Scotland is estimated to have increased by over 40 per cent. in the past 10 years.

  Estimates of the self-employed in Scotland up to mid-1988 are based on the 1981 census of population and the results of the labour force surveys carried out between 1981 and 1988. The provisional estimates for dates after June 1988 have been made on the assumption that the average annual rate of growth in self-employment in Scotland between June 1981 and June 1988, as shown by the labour force survey, has continued.

  Estimated number of self-employed in Scotland

  September

  Number thousands

  1979

  159

  1980

  153

  1981

  153

  1982

  168

  1983

  181

  1984

  189

  1985

  201

  1986

  202

  1987

  199

  1988

  217

  1989

  227

  Source: Department of Employment

  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the South of Scotland Electricity Board as to how much it has paid British Nuclear Fuels plc for(a) reprocessing and (b) decommissioning for each year from 1985 to 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 31 January 1990] : I am informed by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that the amounts paid to British Nuclear Fuels by the board for reprocessing and decommissioning for each of the years specified are as follows:
  764

  Reprocessing £'000

  Decommissioning1 £'000

  1984–85

  21,415

  1,135

  1985–86

  45,117

  983

  1986–87

  59,117

  956

  1987–88

  71,314

  1,120

  1988–89

  74,506

  1,585

  1 The decommissioning payments are in respect of BNFL plant

HEALTH

  Consultants
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether concessions on financial status given to whole-time medical consultants in the National Health Service on percentage allowances for private practice have altered the numbers of National Health Service only consultants.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 1979–80 whole-time NHS consultants have been permitted to undertake a limited amount of private practice. In 1980 44 per cent. of all medical consultants in England and Wales had whole-time contracts. This figure had risen to 49 per cent. by 1988.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether full-time contracts are to be continued to be offered to National Health Service consultant candidates; and whether any reductions in numbers of National Health Service whole-time consultants have been recorded in the regions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. Health authorities will continue to offer whole-time contracts to consultants.

  Between 1979 and 1988 all regions in England have recorded an increase in whole-time consultant numbers.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which ambulance authorities own and operate a helicopter.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Helicopter ambulances at present in service within the National Health Service are not owned by health authorities; they are funded in several different ways, including sponsorship, and operated by commercial helicopter operating companies.

  Dentistry
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will collect centrally DMF levels.

  Mr. Freeman
  Decennial surveys of the dental health of children and adults in the United Kingdom are conducted on behalf of the Department by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The results of the adult dental health survey which has recently been carried out are due to be published later this year. The next survey of children's dental health is proposed for 1993.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a dental health education project to assess tooth decay in north Staffordshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities are responsible for monitoring the dental health of all age groups in the
  765
  population of their areas and for providing dental health education and preventive programmes. I refer the hon. Member to the North Staffordshire health authority for the information she requires.

  Hospital Operations (Cancellations)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the main factors according to the information available to his Department for the cancellation of operations in hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  Statistical information on reasons for the cancellation of operations is not held centrally. A study of 12 hospitals carried out in 1988 by the Department's value for money unit showed that planned levels of theatre utilisation were affected by factors including: patients not attending; absence of medical staff; emergency procedures; equipment breakdown; and unavailability of technicians. In many cases it is possible to reallocate sessions. The Department is currently consulting health authorities and others about guidance following the recommendations made in the study report. These include a suggested 90 per cent. target level for operating theatre utilisation. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Nurses
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by district health authority in the north-west region(a) the current nursing staff establishment, (b) the number in post at the last available date and (c) the number who have left the service of the National Health Service in the past year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The numbers of nursing and midwifery staff in post by district health authority in the North-Western region are set out in the table.

  NHS Nursing and Midwifery staff in post at 30 September 1988

  Number

  Lancaster

  2,125

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  2,544

  Preston

  2,490

  In-patient waiting list, surgical specialties', by district health authority North Western region, as at 31 March 1985 to 1989

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Health authority

  Urgent

  Non-urgent

  Total

  Urgent

  Non-urgent

  Total

  Urgent

  Non-urgent

  Total

  Total2

  Total2

  Lancaster

  155

  1,902

  2,057

  118

  1,957

  2,075

  19

  2,269

  2,288

  2,281

  2,813

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  270

  3,073

  3,343

  442

  3,625

  4,067

  511

  3,816

  4,327

  3,232

  3,218

  Preston

  11

  4,131

  4,142

  69

  4,501

  4,570

  29

  4,462

  4,491

  4,774

  4,840

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  26

  2,342

  2,368

  8

  2,015

  2,023

  9

  2,387

  2,396

  3,213

  3,759

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  195

  2,228

  2,423

  276

  2,191

  2,467

  255

  1,812

  2,067

  2,201

  1,704

  West Lancashire

  14

  1,743

  1,757

  28

  1,892

  1,920

  16

  2,431

  2,447

  2,336

  2,778

  Chorley and South Ribble

  —

  864

  864

  0

  764

  764

  0

  770

  770

  666

  636

  Bolton

  25

  2,643

  2,668

  40

  2,788

  2,828

  118

  3,013

  3,131

  2,590

  2,930

  Bury

  —

  969

  969

  6

  729

  735

  0

  731

  731

  825

  373

  North Manchester

  77

  2,812

  2,889

  168

  2,454

  2,622

  82

  2,331

  2,413

  3,031

  2,331

  Central Manchester

  164

  4,252

  4,416

  337

  4,843

  5,180

  291

  6,070

  6,361

  6,843

  7,557

  South Manchester

  726

  4,875

  5,601

  682

  4,935

  5,617

  459

  5,529

  5,988

  6,888

  7,242

  Oldham

  348

  4,140

  4,488

  321

  4,058

  4,379

  447

  4,475

  4,922

  4,249

  4,903

  Rochdale

  57

  2,708

  2,765

  122

  2,911

  3,033

  118

  2,815

  2,933

  2,821

  3,280

  Salford

  179

  3,868

  4,047

  120

  3,708

  3,828

  219

  4,517

  4,736

  2,627

  4,187

  Stockport

  366

  4,085

  4,451

  403

  3,698

  4,101

  290

  3,794

  4,084

  4,324

  4,257

  Tameside and Glossop

  110

  1,883

  1,993

  100

  1,533

  1,633

  80

  1,526

  1,606

  1,604

  1,476

  Trafford

  8

  965

  973

  25

  1,476

  1,501

  5

  1,528

  1,533

  1,467

  1,459

  Wigan

  69

  4,022

  4,091

  74

  4,281

  4,355

  40

  4,418

  4,458

  4,080

  4,310

  North Western

  2,800

  53,505

  56,305

  3,339

  54,359

  57,698

  2,988

  58,694

  61,682

  60,052

  64,053

  766

  Number

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  1,935

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  3,237

  West Lancashire

  918

  Chorley and South Ribble

  606

  Bolton

  1,903

  Bury

  1,103

  North Manchester

  2,451

  Central Manchester

  2,073

  South Manchester

  3,121

  Oldham

  1,485

  Rochdale

  1,174

  Salford

  3,318

  Stockport

  2,162

  Tameside and Glossop

  1,420

  Trafford

  1,230

  Wigan

  2,114

  Source: Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  (I)-Includes agency staff: figures are rounded to the nearest whole time equivalent.

  Current nursing establishments in each district health authority in the north-western region are not available centrally. Data on the number of nursing and midwifery staff who have left the National Health Service in the 1988–89 year are not yet available.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by district health authorities in the north-west region the number of people on waiting lists for urgent and non-urgent operations for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the table. Following the implementation of the recommendations of the steering group on health services information (the Korner committee) starting in April 1987, no distinction is now made between urgent and non-urgent cases since the committee regarded such distinctions as unreliable. Between 1985 and 1989 the number of inpatient cases treated in the north-west region increased by 4 per cent. from 617,600 to 640,500.
  767
  Source: SBH203 returns 1985 to 1987, KH 7 and KHO7a returns 1988 onwards.

  1 General surgery, Urology, T and 0, ENT, Ophthalmology, Oral surgery, Restorative dentistry, Paediatric dentistry, Orthodontics, Neurosurgery, Plastic surgery, Cardiothoracic surgery, Paediatric surgery, Gynaecology, Radiotherapy.

  2 Less self deferred cases.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by district health authority in the north-west regional health authority the total available patient beds for each year since 1979.

  Average daily available beds1, all sectors, NHS hospitals, by district health authority in North Western Region 1979 to 1988–89

  Health authority

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Lancaster

  2,645

  2,601

  2,508

  2,512

  2,406

  2,352

  2,217

  2,106

  1,821

  1,798

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  1,564

  1,576

  1,664

  1,733

  1,732

  1,737

  1,756

  1,730

  1,630

  1,763

  Preston

  2

  2

  2

  2,318

  2,239

  2,196

  2,173

  2,060

  2,079

  1,902

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  2,825

  2,781

  2,746

  2,706

  2,665

  2,624

  2,579

  2,509

  1,315

  1,231

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  2,591

  2,591

  2,522

  2,513

  2,516

  2,438

  2,399

  2,303

  3,216

  3,008

  West Lancashire

  886

  862

  854

  851

  851

  867

  812

  790

  735

  661

  Chorley and South Ribble

  2

  2

  2

  374

  378

  357

  345

  345

  323

  302

  Bolton

  1,361

  1,315

  1,328

  1,303

  1,294

  1,285

  1,246

  1,251

  1,254

  1,227

  Bury

  716

  740

  786

  801

  812

  822

  810

  816

  788

  775

  North Manchester

  2,041

  2,038

  2,026

  1,982

  1,950

  1,831

  1,752

  1,692

  1,648

  1,521

  Central Manchester

  1,137

  1,201

  1,227

  1,254

  1,250

  1,242

  1,272

  1,246

  1,238

  1,219

  South Manchester

  2,408

  2,423

  2,389

  2,401

  2,417

  2,355

  2,277

  2,187

  2,112

  2,068

  Oldham

  1,045

  1,028

  1,004

  1,003

  1,029

  1,019

  1,026

  1,004

  993

  980

  Rochdale

  953

  904

  875

  879

  869

  827

  824

  843

  765

  758

  Salford

  3,098

  3,089

  3,017

  3,008

  2,972

  2,876

  2,688

  2,666

  2,506

  2,372

  Stockport

  1,677

  1,692

  1,759

  1,816

  1,793

  1,749

  1,724

  1,741

  1,693

  1,672

  Tameside and Glossop

  869

  965

  981

  941

  917

  942

  945

  957

  982

  955

  Trafford

  836

  864

  869

  837

  827

  814

  775

  747

  755

  718

  Wigan

  1,479

  1,450

  1,430

  1,446

  1,467

  1,426

  1,403

  1,413

  1,469

  1,479

  North Western Region

  30,811

  30,839

  30,662

  30,678

  30,384

  29,756

  29,021

  28,406

  27,320

  26,409

  Source: SH3 returns, 1979–986, KHO3 returns 1987–8 onwards.

  1 Wards open overnight only.

  2 Comparable figures not available due to National Health Service restructuring in 1982.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial resources have been made available for consultant surgeons at Arrowe park hospital participating in the assessment and treatment stages of the Wirral breast screening programme scheduled to start on 19 February; what assessment has been made of the adequacy of these resources; and if he will make a statement on the extent, coverage and date of operation of the breast screening programme in the Wirral.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has allocated resources for the breast screening programme to regions. It is for each regional health authority to decide how funds are allocated to screening services within the region. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Mersey regional health authority.

  Welfare Milk
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in the east midlands are in receipt of the welfare milk token scheme; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information about the number of welfare milk beneficiaries by area is not available, but overall the Government are spending £80 million per annum on welfare milk which goes to some 800,000 beneficiaries.
  768
  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the table:

  Disablement Services Authority
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average waiting time for an artificial limb prior to the Disablement Services Authority being set up.

  Mr. Freeman
  The specific information requested is not available, but one of the reasons for setting up the DSA was to streamline the procedures and we are monitoring the situation.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to develop quality of service objectives in respect of the Disablement Services Authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the Disablement Services Authority which includes the development of quality of service in its aims and objectives. Details of the work it has undertaken in this area can be found in its annual report for 1988–89, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people have been released into the community under the community care programme;

  (2) how many people released into the community under the community care programme have (a) committed suicide, (b) been arrested, (c) died as a result of an accident and (d) been seriously injured as a result of an accident.
  769
  Mr. Freeman
  Figures are not collected centrally on the number of inpatients who have been discharged under the community care programme, nor the outcome of those people once in the community.

  However, during 1986, the latest year for which reliable figures are available, 1,082 inpatients of mental illness hospitals and units in England were discharged (excluding deaths and tranfers to other hospitals) after a stay of five years or more. The comparable figure for mental handicap patients was 1,951.

  Macfarlane Trust
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many haemophiliacs who have contracted AIDS through contaminated blood transfusions are expected to qualify for the £20,000 payments allocated through the Macfarlane (Special Payments) Trust; and what steps are being taken to ensure that all those who qualify apply.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The payments from the Macfarlane (Special Payments) Trust are available to haemophiliacs infected with HIV as the result of treatment with blood products in the United Kingdom, or the dependant or beneficiary of such a person who has died. We estimate that around 1,200 people may qualify. Some 1,150 cases are already known to the trust and through the haemophilia treatment centres it is trying to ensure that any other haemophiliacs who may be eligible know of the payments.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if general practitioners will be expected to take disabled people on to their lists under the new arrangements for the National Health Service;

  (2) whether there will be an appeals procedure for disabled people if a general practitioner refuses to accept a patient on to his list.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Any person may ask a doctor who has contracted to provide general medical services under the National Health Service to be accepted as a patient. Under the terms of their contract, doctors are not obliged to meet such a request. They are obliged to accept a patient when allocated by the local family practitioner committee. Any patient unable to find a suitable doctor should approach the family practitioner committee accordingly.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision will be made in his new arrangements for community care for disabled people to appeal against an assessment decision.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As announced in the White Paper "Caring for People" all local social services authorities will be expected to set up and publicise procedures for receiving and responding to complaints from users of services, including disabled people. Any user, or carer, who is dissatisfied with an assessment decision will be able to make representations through these procedures.

  We will be issuing guidelines to local authorities about these procedures, backed up with Secretary of State directions where appropriate.

  Patients' Records
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time being taken by family practitioner committees in transferring records from one general practitioner to another when patients change their doctor.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The time taken will vary with the circumstances and, in particular, will depend on whether or not the patient moves to a different family practitioner committee area and, if so, on how long is taken to register with a new doctor.

  Doctors' Hours
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long after its completion the Dowie report on doctors' hours was published; and what were the reasons for the time taken.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The interim report was sent to the Department in September 1989. We have been studying the report's findings and considering whether publication in advance of the full report, expected later this year, would be appropriate.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours a week, on average, junior doctors now work.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Dowie report into junior doctors' hours quotes an average of 58 hours of work each week.

  Information on junior doctors' hours of work is not available centrally. The latest available information shows that the average weekly number of contracted hours of duty of junior hospital doctors in England and Wales was 82 on 30 September 1988. A survey in 1985 showed that the average weekly number of hours actually worked as against on duty was 57.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library evidence collected by his Department's working parties into junior doctors' hours.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The reports from regional health authorities on the June 1988 initiative to reduce junior doctors' hours, and from those district health authorities which undertook pilot studies into a 72-hour week, are being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has estimated how many more consultants would be needed for the abolition of one in three shifts and a maximum working week for junior doctors of 72 hours.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The achievement of a 72-hour working week for junior doctors will require a variety of solutions which need to be agreed locally. These may include changes in training requirements, in the working practices of both consultants and juniors, and a changed pattern of service delivery. It remains our long-term aim to reduce the average hours of duty to 72 per week.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what new evidence his Department has received about the hours now worked by junior doctors since it first received the Dowie report;
  771
  (2) why evidence from the Dowie report was not submitted to the pay review body.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Evidence is submitted in confidence to the doctors' and dentists' review body. The DDRB was informed that we wished first to analyse the reports from health authorities on two initiatives launched after the fieldwork for the Dowie report was completed.

  The first, which started in June 1988, asked health authorities to continue to work towards the elimination of rotas more onerous than one in three for practitioners first on call in the hard-pressed specialties.

  The second, begun in July 1989, asked a small number of authorities to conduct pilot studies into whether an average 72-hour week was possible within existing manpower constraints. Reports on both initiatives have been received.

  We will be keeping the DDRB informed of developments in this area.

  NHS Patients
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the numbers of parents diagnosed or treated in National Health Service hospitals for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information about patients treated in National Health Service hospitals in England from 1979 to 1988–89 has been published in the Department of Health statistical bulletin 2/1/90. The bulletin provides tables showing the numbers of inpatient cases, day case admissions, outpatient attendances, ward attenders and accident and emergency cases treated. Copies of the bulletin have been placed in the Library.

  Hospices
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he gives to regional and district health authorities on the distribution of Government funds to the voluntary hospice movement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We shall shortly be notifying health authorities of the allocations they will receive for this purpose, and giving guidance on its distribution.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to the Five Towns Plus hospice organisation as to how to obtain contributions from Government funds to help maintain the Five Towns hospice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The funding of individual projects is a matter for discussion between the health authorities and the organisations concerned.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount from Government funds has been allocated to help the voluntary hospice movement in the Wakefield and Pontefract areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Allocations will be made to regional health authorities. The funding of individual projects is a matter for discussion between the health authorities and the organisations concerned.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the contribution from Government funds to match that of voluntary giving to the hospice movement; and if he will make a statement.
  772
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We intend to monitor health authorities' progress and plans in relation to this objective. No date has been specified.

  Erythropoetin
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether erythropoetin has been licensed by the safety of drugs committee; what has been the length of time it has been under consideration by the Committee; what information he has on the length of time it has taken to approve the medicine in other European Economic Community countries; and what information he has on the reasons for the time required for approval in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]No product licence for erythropoetin (EPO) has been granted in the United Kingdom. In general terms the time needed to obtain marketing authorisation in the United Kingdom for a medicinal product containing a new active substance (NAS) produced by biotechnology, such as EPO, will depend on a number of factors. Such an application must be made through the European Community's concertation procedure, introduced under directive 87/22/EEC. This involves the Community's committee for proprietary medicinal products (CPMP) in giving a non-binding opinion which must be taken into account by national regulatory authorities when making decisions for marketing in their own territories—for which they alone are responsible. In the light of advice from the CPMP and any national advisory committee, for example the Committee on Safety of Medicines in the UK, each authority must decide for itself whether any additional information is needed from the applicant company before reaching its own independent decision. The CPMP opinion is often written in rather general terms and hence important additional data may have to be supplied by the company before individual national licensing authorities can be reassured as to the safety, quality and efficacy of the product. Only when the reassurance has been provided can the licence be granted. On occasions further time may also be required before the application can be cleared if an applicant company decides to exercise its appeal rights. The Department does not hold information relating to the time taken by other regulatory authorities within the European Community to grant marketing authorisations.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 1 February, if he will now provide information on the employment prospects, insurance and mortgage status of people who acquired AIDS from blood transfusions under the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 February 1990]In my reply of 18 January 1990 to the right hon. Member at column 405 I pointed out that haemophiliacs are a group of people who by virtue of their haemophilia are already disadvantaged in respect of their employment prospects and their ability to obtain mortgages and life insurance. We have no evidence to suggest that those people who have become infected with HIV via blood transfusion were similarly disadvantaged before the illness or accident leading to the need for transfusion.

  Stroboscopic Lights
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current advice his Department has concerning the use of the stroboscopic light sources in discotheques and other places of entertainments.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The current guidance from the Health and Safety Executive recommends a flicker rate of below five flickers per second.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of recent trends and likely future trends in respect of the number of food poisoning cases in the United Kingdom and in identifying the causes of those trends.

  Mr. Freeman
  The principal micro-organisms that are identified as responsible for food poisoning in the United Kingdom are salmonella, Clostridium perfringens, Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus cereus. Laboratory reports for 1989 on these organisms to the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre are given in the table.

  Reports of identifications by laboratories—1989 (provisional approximate figures)

  1989

  Salmonella

  26,000

  Clostridium perfringens

  300

  Staphylococcus aureus

  10

  Bacillus cereus

  20

  In recent years, there has been an increase in food poisoning notifications, partly due to an increase in food poisoning but partly as a consequence of better monitoring and public awareness.

  Since 1986 the biggest single cause for the increasing burden of food poisoning in this country can be ascribed to the rise in infections with salmonella enteritidis phage type 4, associated predominantly with poultry meat and eggs. The latest figures from the public health laboratory service for human isolations of this organism indicate, however, a levelling off in this particular problem for 1989. These figures show that in 1989 a total of about 13,000 isolates of salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 were recorded. This is around a 3 per cent. rise on the 1988 figure of about 12,500 isolates, but represents a significant change in the trends noted for 1988 and 1987 when the percentage increases in this organism were respectively 152 and 67 per cent.

  Foodborne illness due to organisms such as Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium perfringens and Bacillus cereus has not shown any particular trend over the years.

  However, the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre also records information on cases of gastro-enteritis (which may not necessarily be foodborne in all cases). These figures show that there has been a marked upward trend in illness due not only to salmonella but also to campylobacter. In 1988, about 29,000 reports of campylobacter were made. The provisional figure for 1989 is approximately 33,000. Campylobacter can be found in water (but not chlorinated public water supplies), unpasteurised milk and chicken (where a survey isolated
  774
  the organism from over 40 per cent. of raw chicken carcases examined). The organism is usually responsible for sporadic cases of illness and rarely causes outbreaks. The widely held view is that much sporadic human campylobacter is probably attributable to cross contamination from poultry and to eating under-cooked chicken; but more information on the sources of contamination of food with this organism is needed before it will be possible to devise appropriate methods of control.

DEFENCE

  General Dynamics
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contractual payments are made by the United Kingdom Government to General Dynamics for products or services related to the potential acquisition of main battle tanks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Details of all and any of our contractual arrangements with General Dynamics are commercial in confidence.

  Kirkcudbright Firing Range
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for development of the Ministry of Defence firing range at Kirkcudbright; what costs are involved; what role SERCO currently plays in these processes and what plans he has for developing this; and what is the chain of responsibility for the operation and development of the range.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 1 February 1990]: We have plans to modernise part of the Kirkcudbright firing range facility over the next few years. Essentially, modernisation will comprise a new range safety radar system and a facility in support of electromagnetic launcher technology. Key features will be the reliability and safety of the facility.

  It is not our practice to reveal costs, since these are commercially sensitive.

  SERCO currently provides 84 staff for the day-to-day running of the range and its activities, as the result of winning competitive contracts. It is this Government's policy that tasks should be carried out in the most cost-effective and efficient manner, and that contractors, selected by competition, should be used where it makes sense to do so.

  The ranges are headed by a Lieutenant Colonel who is responsible to the director of the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE).

  Research Contracts
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long is the present contract with the department of animal husbandry at Bristol university.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our policy to provide details of individual research arrangements.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many research contracts or agreements the chemical defence establishment has placed in
  775
  universities and other institutions of higher education in each financial year since 1979; and what was their total financial value in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many research contracts or agreements the chemical defence establishment is currently funding in universities and other institutions of higher education; what is their total value; how many universities and other institutions of higher education are currently receiving research contracts or agreements from the chemical defence establishment; and if he will give a full list of them.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to provide historical data. There are 94 extant agreements to a total value of £11·8 million placed by CDE with 49 universities and other institutions of higher education but it is not departmental policy to provide details of these arrangements.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a recording of the Channel 4 programme, "Dispatches", 10 January, concerning military funding of research in universities and other institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Neubert
  A copy of this programme is held in the defence press office.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on the level of funding of research in universities and other institutions of higher education; and what are the reasons behind this policy.

  Mr. Neubert
  The MOD has funds available for research in support of the defence research programme, including extramural research at higher education institutions. Such work is placed there when considered appropriate to do so and if value for money procurement policies are satisfied.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many contracts or agreements exist between his Department and universities and other institutions of higher education in the field of genetic engineering;

  (2) how many contracts or agreements exist between his Department and universities and other institutions of higher education for research related to the production or application of monoclonal antibodies;

  (3) how many projects in the field of aerobiology are currently funded by his Department; and whether there are any negotiations to fund further projects;

  (4) what contracts and agreements exist between his Department and universities and other institutions of higher education for research related to nerve gases;

  (5) what contracts or agreements currently exist between his Department and universities and other institutions of higher education concerning research into biological or chemical weapons;

  (6) what research contracts and agreements exist between his Department and universities and other institutions of higher education for research related to anthrax;

  (7) what research his Department is sponsoring into the viability and infectivity of Klebsiella pneumonia; and if he will make a statement;
  776
  (8) whether his Department monitors the potential for offensive use of research it supports in the area of aerobiology by foreign or third parties.

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

  This research includes a number of agreements with universities and institutes of higher education in a range of research areas such as genetic engineering and monoclonal antibodies. It is not our policy to go into details of specific research areas.

  Classified Research
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of staff in universities and other institutions of higher education working on research contracts or agreements currently funded by his Department are required to have security clearance;

  (2) how many research contracts or agreements which are currently being funded by his Department are classified;

  (3) if researchers accepting funding from his Department are advised whether to discuss their work and its objectives with colleagues or the media;

  (4) what is his Department's definition of classified research;

  (5) what measures his Department takes to prevent the misuse of results of research funded by the Ministry of Defence by foreign or third parties;

  (6) what proportion of the results published from projects funded by his Department outside its own establishments is classified;

  (7) whether classified research in universities and other institutions of higher education is funded by his Department.

  Mr. Neubert
  The great majority of work commissioned by MOD with universities is unclassified. There are four extant contracts/agreements with universities and other institutions of higher education classified as restricted or above. The disclosure and publication of the results of classified research is subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. For research which is not classified, while the MOD generally encourages publication of results, the academic institution is required to consult the MOD before any unrestricted disclosures, including any lecture, demonstration, publication or the submission of any thesis to an examining body. This would not preclude informal academic exchanges with immediate colleagues. Finally, it is not the Government's practice to give detailed information about security vetting of individuals.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many research contracts or agreements funded by his Department have been cancelled in the last five years; and for what reasons;

  (2) how many research contracts or agreements his Department is currently funding in universities and other institutions of higher education; and what is their total value.
  777
  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 to a total value of about £65 million. Some 20 agreements have been terminated early during the past five years, the great majority of which were due to administrative difficulties encountered by universities.

  Captain Fred Holroyd
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken by the military authorities to question Mr. F. Holroyd about his knowledge of events at the Kincora boys' hostel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Investigation of illegal activities at the Kincora boys' home is the responsibility of the RUC. The Royal Military Police assisted the RUC with their earlier inquiries by interviewing Mr. Holroyd on 22 May 1982.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date a non-adverse report was raised on 778
  Captain Fred Holroyd (retired), by his commanding officer as referred to in his reply to the Adjournment debate on 29 November 1989, Official Report, columns 812-20.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The special confidential report on Captain Holroyd was signed by his commanding officer on 5 June 1975.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature of assistance given by the Royal Military Police into the allegations of Captain Fred Holroyd (retired), referred to in his reply to the Adjournment debate on 29 November 1989,Official Report, column 817.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to his earlier questions on this subject (Official Report, 28 March 1988, column 362). It has not proved possible from currently available records to define in greater detail the precise nature and extent of the assistance given by the RMP to the RUC in support of its investigations.

EMPLOYMENT

  Gangers
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many accidents on farms have been reported to his Department involving the supply and use of unskilled, unregistered labourers by gangers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those referred by the employment service to ET complete their assessment with a training agent; what percentage of those who complete their assessment stay six days with a training manager; and what percentage of those originally referred by the employment service stay six days with a training manager.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated that 54 per cent. of those people referred by the employment service to training agents complete their assessment; 61 per cent. of people completing an assessment stay one week with a training manager; 33 per cent. of all those originally referred by the employment service stay one week or more with a training manager.

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level of ceiling grant the Government intend to give the sponsors of the sheltered placement scheme for the coming financial year.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am not yet ready to announce a decision on the grant ceiling for 1990–91. I am aware of the need to take a decision as soon as possible and I expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends taking to ensure that more disabled people can be placed in employment within the sheltered placement scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  It remains the Department's policy to expand provision within the sheltered placement scheme as the resources available allow.

  Ceiling Grant
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the level of ceiling grant would have to be for the coming financial year for it to keep its value abreast of inflation including the making up of the shortfall in real terms resulting from this financial year's increase.

  Mr. Eggar
  The grant ceiling is adjusted to take account of changes in the average costs actually incurred by sponsors in providing places in both sheltered workshops and the sheltered placement scheme. It is not the intention of the grant to match specific movements in inflation, and in recent years average costs have risen at less than the rate of inflation. However, the effects of inflation are reflected in the information on costs on which the calculations are based.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Employment Department group keeps under constant review measures to safeguard cash and assets from misappropriation and theft.

  European Information Centres
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has any plans to fund the European information centres when European Commission funding is terminated in June 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. A network of European information centres is being set up by the European Commission. The Commission provides an initial financial contribution on the understanding that the centres will be financially independent after three years. The first four centres in the United Kingdom were established in 1987; a further 16 were approved in October 1989 and will be operational by April this year. All the centres chosen by the Commission were already involved in related activities.

  The centres provide information to businesses on European matters, particularly issues concerning the single European market. They receive all the relevant EC documentation, have direct computer-linked access to Brussels for answers to specific queries and are able to signpost inquirers to both the United Kingdom and EC single market specialists.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what account is being taken in his Department's review of employment services for disabled people of demographic changes and their effect on developing equal opportunities in employment for disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 7 February 1990]: This Department's internal review of services to people with disabilities is taking careful account of the likely effects of demographic changes on the employment of people with disabilities. The shortage of young people in the 1990s means that employers will have to make better use of their workers and seek new sources of recruitment, including people with disabilities.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration his Department's internal review of employment services for disabled people is giving to a quota-levy system requiring employers to pay a levy according to the number of unfilled quota places.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 7 February 1990]: The operation of quota-levy systems is among the subjects being carefully considered as part of this Department's internal review of services to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration his Department's review of employment services to disabled people is giving to the introduction of legislation to prevent unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of disability.
  781
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 7 February 1990]: Successive Governments have judged that education and persuasion of employers is the most effective approach to improving employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The role of legislation is being carefully considered as part of this Department's internal review of services to people with disabilities.

  Local Offices, Doncaster and Mexborough
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current establishment at each grade at the unemployment benefit offices at(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough; how many deal directly with interviewing of new claimants; and what representations he has received concerning the lack of staff to deal with claimants.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 January 1990, c. 59-60]: I regret that the information given in the table in my reply of 15 January was incorrect due to the omission of four executive officers from one column. The correct information is as follows:

  A graded breakdown of the staff employed at Doncaster and Mexborough unemployment benefit offices is given at table 1.

  New claimants are normally interviewed by an executive officer (new client adviser). In each of the Doncaster unemployment benefit offices four executive officers are directly involved with interviewing and counselling new claimants. In Mexborough unemployment benefit office three executive officers interview and counsel new clients.

  Additionally in each office two clerical staff provide support services for the new client advisers, which includes making appointments for unemployed people to make their claims.

  No formal representations have been made to local management about staffing levels in these offices.

  Table 1

  Graded breakdown of staff employed at Doncaster and Mexborough unemployment benefit offices—January 1990

  Doncaster

  Doncaster

  Doncaster

  Mexborough

  'A'

  'B'

  'C'

  Permanent

  HEO

  1

  1

  1

  1

  EO

  9

  8

  7

  4

  AO

  25

  25

  26

  17

  AA

  4

  5

  4

  3

  Messenger

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Casual

  AO

  —

  —

  —

  1

  AA

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Total

  39

  42

  39

  26

  Notes:

  HEO =Higher Executive Officer

  EO =Executive Officer

  AO =Administrative Officer.

  AA =Administrative Assistant.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent meetings he has had with British Rail; and what items were discussed.
  782
  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the chairman of British Rail and his colleagues to discuss a variety of railway issues.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amounts of(a) low-level, (b) intermediate-level and (c) high-level nuclear waste have been transported by train in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand the only movements of waste were of intermediate level and were as follows:

  Tonnes

  1980

  599

  1981

  58

  1982

  263

  Less than 10 per cent. of these weights were actual waste, the remainder being packaging and shielding.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current arrangements for dealing with accidents involving trains transporting nuclear material in London; and when they were last reviewed.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is a comprehensive emergency plan administered by CEGB/Nuclear Electric to deal with incidents involving irradiated nuclear fuel flasks in transit. This was last reviewed towards the end of 1989.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has about plans to increase the transport by train of nuclear waste through London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that there are no plans to transport nuclear waste through London before 2005

  Cycle Proficiency Test
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children in England and Wales have the opportunity to take a cycle proficiency test through their school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Some 275,000 children took part in RoSPA's cycle proficiency training and testing scheme in 1989. This is administered locally by local authority road safety officers with the training taking place mainly in schools, by agreement with head teachers. RoSPA publishes and distributes the teacher materials and the Department supplies each child with a free copy of the "Highway Code for Young Road Users".

  Driving Test Examiners
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many female driving test examiners there are in the United Kingdom, by region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information for Great Britain is as follows:

  Number

  North Eastern

  14

  North Western

  11

  West Midland

  10

  783

  Number

  Eastern

  16

  Western

  9

  South Eastern

  11

  Metropolitan

  26

  Scotland

  6

  Total

  103

  In addition two female examiners are instructors at the Department's driving examiner training establishment at Cardington.

  Applicants for examiner posts are assessed on the basis of qualifications, relevant knowledge, experience and personal qualities. There has been a welcome recent rise in

  Tests conducted

  Pass rate (percentage)

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Men

  Women

  All

  1980

  990,631

  971,403

  1,962,034

  53·0

  41·5

  47·3

  1981

  1,032,454

  998,871

  2,031,325

  52·9

  42·1

  47·6

  1982

  1,028,798

  976,498

  2,005,296

  53·1

  42·9

  48·1

  1983

  930,977

  961,338

  1,892,315

  53·8

  43·7

  48·7

  1984

  861,712

  922,400

  1,784,112

  54·3

  44·2

  49·1

  1985

  863,403

  978,388

  1,841,791

  54·2

  43·7

  48·6

  1986

  930,663

  1,069,075

  1,999,738

  54·1

  43·8

  48·6

  1987

  909,732

  1,071,284

  1,981,016

  55·6

  46·1

  49·7

  1988

  965,144

  1,107,824

  2,072,968

  57·9

  47·2

  51·7

  1989

  914,456

  1,080,956

  1,995,412

  58·0

  47·5

  52·3

  Comprehensive information is not available on candidates' pass rates on each attempt. Surveys in 1980

  First attempt

  Subsequent attempts

  Men

  Women

  All

  Men

  Women

  All

  1980

  51

  37

  45

  55

  46

  50

  1985

  51

  39

  45

  56

  49

  52

  Child Cyclists (Helmets)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to make helmet-wearing for children, whilst riding a bicycle, compulsory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Head injuries are a major cause of death and serious casualties in cycle accidents, so it makes sense for riders to have head protection. We encourage people to wear helmets but there are no present plans to make this obligatory.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Atkins
  Losses detected in 1988 amounted to no more than £2,000.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss-prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Atkins
  The prevention of loss in the Department is primarily the responsibility of management at all levels.
  784
  the number of women candidates coming forward, and 20 of the 47 interviewed for appointment last year were successful compared with 137 of the 283 male applicants.

  Driving Test
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have passed their driving tests for each of the last 10 years at(a) their first attempt, (b) their second attempt, (c) their third attempt and (d) more than fifth attempt; what percentage of each were female; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of L tests conducted in the years 1980–89, together with the percentage of candidates who passed, were as follows:

  and 1985 indicated that the pass rates for candidates taking their test for the first time, and taking it for the second or subsequent attempt, were as follows:

  Management's responsibility is buttressed by systems of checks and controls, and these are audited regularly by the Department's internal audit division, comprising 13 staff trained to the basic audit training standard. Six of these are members of the Institute of Internal Auditors. A further 11 staff are under training.

  ScotRail (Investment)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on British Rail's investment plans for the ScotRail network over the next three financial years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table sets out BR's proposed infrastructure investment (capital and revenue) in Scotland over the next three years.

  1989–90 prices

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  InterCity

  7·1

  3·1

  1·6

  Provincial

  12·2

  12·6

  13·1

  Freight

  3·9

  2·8

  4·8

  Parcels

  0·1

  0·2

  0·2

  Total

  23·3

  18·7

  19·7

  Rolling stock investment cannot be attributed to particular areas of Great Britain.

  Foreign Ships
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number and proportion of foreign vessles visiting British ports in each calendar year from 1979 to have been(a) inspected, (b) found to have serious defects, (c) other defects and (d) pollution defects; what

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–882

  1988–892

  Ships visiting UK ports

  6,445

  6,463

  6,579

  16,500

  6,425

  6,158

  Ships inspected

  2,557

  2,529

  2,532

  2,788

  2,188

  1,830

  Per cent. inspected

  39·7

  39·1

  38·5

  —

  34·0

  29·7

  1 Estimated.

  2 Financial year.

  The Department's records do not differentiate between ships with serious defects and others. In 1988–89, of the 1,830 ships inspected 900 were found to have defects of which 87 were pollution related. Information for other years is not readily available.

  Under the memorandum of understanding on port state control the target inspection rate is 25 per cent. of individual ships visiting a signatory's ports. The United Kingdom has always exceeded the target figure. Port state control inspection figures are circulated to signatories of the memorandum but on a confidential basis. All signatories aim to achieve the same 25 per cent. target.

  No information is available for the United States of America.

  United States Transportation Secretary
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the United States of America's Secretary of Transportation; and what matters he intends to discuss.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A date for what we hope will be a wide-ranging meeting has yet to be settled.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport over what period he expects the contribution to the extension of the Jubilee line by Messrs. Olympia and York of £400 million to be paid; what conditions have been attached to this payment; and what is its expected value likely to be in 1989 prices.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 6 February at column 566.

  Transport (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what charges he expects to be made on the public expenditure reserve fund for transport investment in London, other than that already approved for the Jubilee line extension; and from what vote he expects capital expenditure to be dispersed for either the proposed main line crossrail and proposed Hackney to Chelsea tube line, respectively.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Jubilee line extension is the only public transport project in London for which provision has been made from the reserve. No decision has yet been taken on the funding arrangements for any other new line.786
  is his target for inspections; the reasons for any deviation from this target; and what proportion of vessels is inspected in the United States of America, France and Holland.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The port state control inspection figures for the years 1983 to 1989 are as follows: data for earlier years are not available.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to improve transport facilities for the disabled.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our current programme of initiatives to promote mobility for people with disabilities is set out in our document "Transport and Disability—a Statement of Aims and Priorities". One major priority is to improve the accessibility of public transport including the development of wheelchair-accessible coaches and buses. We are also working with vehicle designers and manufacturers to influence car design and control modifications, to increase opportunities for personal mobility for even the most severely disabled people. We are also developing guidelines on design for pedestrian areas to help elderly and disabled people.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to take in response to recent proposals to remove, from 1 June 1990, the entitlement to drive large non-commercial passenger carrying vehicles on an ordinary driving licence.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am aware of the responses to the recent consulation exercise on changes to the regulations governing the driving of cars and motorcycles. While few people dispute the principle that large buses should be driven only by someone who holds a PSV licence, the proposed timing for removing the entitlement to drive a large bus on an ordinary driving licence would have caused practical difficulties. I have therefore decided to defer the implementation of this measure for at least six months. A further announcement will be made about exactly when and how the entitlement is to be removed.

  Vehicle Operator Licensing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reached a decision on future changes to passenger and goods vehicle operator licensing, following the recent review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The review has now been completed. In the light of consultations, I have today announced decisions on a number of steps to improve the licensing system. Details of these are set out in a press notice, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Merseytravel
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will be in a position to respond to the case submitted by Merseytravel by 14 February.

  Mr. Atkins
  I hope so.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Appeals
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to repeal or amend regulation 72, Social Security Adjudication Regulations 1986, S.I. 1986 2218; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Regulations 1990, which will be laid before Parliament shortly, contain an amendment to regulation 72. The amendment provides that the amount of arrears of benefit on review made as a consequence of a reinterpretation of the law by a decision of a social security commissioner or the courts is paid from the date of that decision.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will widen the scope of the social fund to enable loans to be made to those who have obtained employment but need funds to pay for suitable clothing and transport for the period before their first wages are paid.

  Mr. Scott
  We believe it is reasonable to expect good employers to help with the cost of necessary clothing and travel for their employees, for example through an advance of salary. Where a person does not have enough money to live on until his first pay day, a crisis loan can be considered.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is in a position to reply to both the letters from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East dated 15 January and the question raised in column 183 of the Official Report on 30 January, on Mr. Melvin Wall's loss of entitlement to mobility allowance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My noble Friend Lord Henley replied to the hon. Member's letter concerning Mr. Wall today.

  Students (Transitional Payments)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reintroduce transitional payments for students in full-time further education who have been receiving income support under I/S regulation 132(c) and 2(d), so they may continue their studies to their completion beyond their 19th birthday without the present loss of benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are aware that a small number of young people are experiencing difficulties. Although financial assistance can be provided by local education authorities, we are keeping the benefit rules under review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Anglo-Japanese Trade
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report the extent in cash terms of export trade from the United Kingdom to the empire of Japan and the extent in cash terms of import trade from the empire of Japan to the United Kingdom; and if he will publish figures for both for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are at least 800 industrial and commercial organisations in the United Kingdom owned by commercial interests resident in Japan. I have placed a list, prepared by the Anglo-Japanese Economic Institute, in the Library of the House.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those European countries which have a trade surplus with the United Kingdom, whose trade deficit is a higher proportion of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom's.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1988 Portugal, Greece and Spain had higher trade deficits as a percentage of GDP than the United Kingdom. Of these, Portugal was in surplus in trade with the United Kingdom.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  A central record is maintained of the amounts and details of such losses and an annual return is made to the Treasury.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to abolish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the European Commission to discuss the implications of 1992 for British industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  I continue to keep in close contact with the EC Commission across a broad range of issues.

  Post Office
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (I) if he will list those Post Office sorting offices where the catering facilities are provided(a) by direct labour and (b) by independent contractors;

  (2) if he will list those Post Office sorting offices with catering facilities.

  Mr. Forth
  The provision of catering facilities is a matter for the Post Office. I understand that there are
  789
  1,600 Post Office sorting offices, all of which have some form of catering facility. In many cases this is limited to facilities for staff to prepare food for themselves. I have placed a full list of sorting offices in the Library. Catering services, which in all cases are provided by the Post Office's in-house catering organisation. Quadrant, are provided in the following sorting offices:

  Abingdon

  Aldershot

  Ashford (Kent) Head Office

  Aylesbury

  Banbury

  Barnet Sub-office

  Barnsley Head Office

  Basildon

  Basingstoke Head Office

  Bath Head Office

  Bedford Head Office

  Benfleet

  Bexhill-on-Sea

  Bexleyheath

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Bolton Head Office

  Bournemouth o/w Letters

  Bradford (West Yorkshire) Main Letter Office

  Brentwood

  Brighton Sub-office

  Bristol

  Bromley

  Burnley Head Office

  Camberley

  Cambridge

  Canterbury Sub-office

  Cardiff

  Carlisle

  Chatham (Medway)

  Chelmsford Head Office

  Cheltenham

  Chester Head Office

  Chesterfield

  Chichester Sub-office

  Cleveland

  Colchester

  Coventry

  Crawley

  Crewe Head Office

  Croydon

  Dagenham

  Darlington

  Dartford

  Derby

  Doncaster Head Office

  Dover Head Office

  Dunstable

  Durham Head Office

  Eastbourne Head Office

  Epsom Sub-office

  Exeter Head Office

  Farnham (Surrey)

  Feltham

  Folkestone

  Gravesend

  Great Yarmouth

  Grimsby

  Guildford Sub-office

  Halifax

  Harrogate

  Harrow

  Hartlepool

  Hastings

  Hayes (Middlesex)

  Hemel Hempstead

  High Wycombe

  Hitchin

  Horsham

  Hounslow

  Hove

  Huddersfield

  790

  Hull

  Huntingdon

  Ilford

  Ipswich

  Keighley

  Kettering

  Kingston upon Thames

  Lancaster

  Leeds Head Office

  Leicester Head Office

  Letchworth

  Lincoln Head Office

  Liverpool Head Office

  London:

  Kentish Town NW5

  Kilburn NW6

  Mill Hill NW7

  St. Johns Wood NW8

  The Hyde NW9

  Willesden NW10

  Golders Green NW11

  Camberwell SE5

  Rotherhithe SE16

  Kennington/Walworth SE17

  Woolwich SE18

  Brixton SW2

  South Kensington SW7

  Stockwell SW9

  Battersea District Office

  Putney SW15

  Streatham SW16

  Tooting SW17

  Wandsworth SW18

  Wimbledon SW19

  Paddington District Office W2

  Acton W3

  Ealing W5

  Hammersmith W6

  Kensington W8

  Notting Hill Wl1

  Shepherds Bush W12

  West Ealing District Office W13

  West Kensington W14

  Luton

  Maidenhead

  Maidstone Head Office

  Manchester Head Office

  Milton Keynes

  Mitcham

  Newbury

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newmarket

  Newport (Gwent)

  Northampton Head Office

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Oldham Head Office

  Orpington

  Oxford

  Peterborough Head Office

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  Potters Bar

  Preston (Lancashire)

  Reading

  Redhill Head Office

  Richmond (North Yorkshire)

  Rickmansworth

  Rochdale

  Romford

  Rotherham

  Royston (Herts)

  St. Albans

  St. Helens

  St. Leonards

  Scarborough Head Office

  Sevenoaks

  Sheffield Head Office

  Shrewsbury

  791

  Slough Head Office

  Southall

  Southampton

  Southend on Sea

  Southport

  Stafford

  Staines

  Stevenage

  Stockport

  Stockton on Tees

  Stoke on Trent Head Office

  Sudbury (Suffolk)

  Sunderland Head Office

  Sutton (Surrey)

  Swansea Head Office

  Swindon

  Thanet

  Tonbridge

  Tunbridge Wells

  Twickenham Sub-office

  Uxbridge

  Welwyn Garden City

  Wembley

  Wakefield Head Office

  Walsall

  Waltham Cross (Lea Valley)

  Warrington

  Watford

  Woking

  Wolverhampton

  Woodford Green

  Worcester

  Worthing

  Aberdeen

  Dundee Head Office

  Edinburgh

  Falkirk Sub-office

  Glasgow

  Greenock

  Inverness

  Paisley Sub-office

  Perth

  West Lothian

  Belfast

  Export Credits
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the projected future costs of export credit and financing support provided for project exports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  ECGD charges premium to cover administration costs and expected future net losses. The historical results of these operations are published in ECGD's annual trading account.

  The latest available projections of the cost of interest rate support for exports insured by ECGD are those published in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper for the next three years from 1990–91.

  The forecast cost of interest rate support is £259 million in 1990–91, £90 million in 1991–92, and £10 million in 1992–93. These figures are calculated using certain
  792
  assumptions about future interest rates which are standard throughout Government and actual expenditure will vary in line with fluctuations in these rates.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it a requirement of the privatisation of the insurance services group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department that existing staff in that Department transferring to the private company be given the right of returning to the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 February 1990]: The terms will be decided in due course. It is premature to make a statement.

  Consumer Guarantees
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the representations he has received for or against the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been numerous representations both for and against various aspects of the proposal. Unless agreed otherwise with the parties concerned, these representations have been made in confidence and it would be inappropriate to list them.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretry of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received any representations about business practices in the timeshare industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I receive a steady flow of complaints about timeshare problems, mainly criticising the sales techniques of some companies. My hon. Friend will be aware that I asked the Director General of Fair Trading in June 1989 to conduct a review of the whole range of timeshare problems and to report in the early part of this year.

  South Africa
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the facilities available to exporters seeking entry to the South African market, following the political developments in that country.

  Mr. Ridley
  Within the limits of our international obligations, the full range of DTI services is already available to United Kingdom exporters seeking entry to the South African market. We do not at present offer financial support for firms wishing to participate in trade missions to or trade fairs in South Africa. Recent announcements by President de Klerk are to be welcomed and we will consider what more can be done to help exporters in the light of future developments.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Home Help Service
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why changes have been made to the home help service.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, changes from the traditional home help, providing mainly shopping and cleaning services, to a home care service able to provide personal care have been introduced by many local authorities to enable the service to offer a higher degree of support. That helps dependent people to continue to live in the community in a home of their own. At the same time, authorities are moving towards remodelling their services so that resources are concentrated on those most in need of support.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that many severely disabled and elderly people are now having acute problems in getting their houses cleaned and that to remove the priority of cleanliness makes them feel demoralised and depressed in dirty houses?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that cleaning services are a vital support to keeping elderly and disabled people in their own homes. Inevitably, the change to the new type of home care service will mean that some people who have received help with cleaning will no longer have it provided by the local authority. However, I hope that local authorities will recognise the importance that many recipients attach to that home help cleaning service and that, where they deem it to be essential, cleaning services should not be removed or, where they are removed, alternative arrangements and other ways of providing them should be sought.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that cleanliness is paramount in the comfort of a home? Is it surprising that the country is, frankly, becoming so dirty if that is the kind of view taken by local authorities in looking after the people in their care?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are two responses to that point. First, it is important to remember that domestic services for those people have not disappeared from the job description of the new kind of home care service. Secondly, my noble friend's point is well taken. For many elderly people who have traditionally looked after their homes, the most distressing part of growing old is to see that their bathrooms are not clean and that their floors are not cleaned and swept.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness ask her right honourable friend to have another look at the remodelling because it has resulted in people throughout the country having their number of hours' help reduced? It is true that they may well receive some minimal housekeeping help, but the time has been reduced to less than an hour on the basis that housekeeping is not seen to be important. Other people have had their applications for the services that they have identified turned down. That point is particularly important with regard to arthritic people who rely on the housekeeping and cleaning services to enable them to get around and do the things that they can do. Will the noble Baroness take another look at the effect of the remodelling on those people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the key issue here is proper management of change. It is the Government's policy to keep disabled and elderly people in their own homes. This is an essential part of that service. It is therefore right that we continue to ensure that an essential part of the service is not lost in the course of managing the change. However, the needs of the elderly are now more complex and it is therefore right that a more professional approach to keeping people in their homes is retained while not ignoring the essential part of the domestic side of their lives.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it seems to be a change for the worse. I cannot see how a change for the worse could be recommended. Is the noble Baroness aware that there is growing concern among many organisations about, among other things, the cleaning point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles? One organisation told me that those who have had a home help for some time have had the number of hours reduced or the home help discontinued and those who now apply for a home help are either refused or are not given the help that they identify.
In view of the increasing number of elderly and disabled people dependent upon home helps not just for help but as a lifeline to the community —the one item in their empty diaries upon which they can rely —is it not a matter of deep concern to the noble Baroness that the service seems to be becoming worse?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord appreciates that I sympathise considerably with the point made in the Question. Local authorities should be reminded of their obligation to the Government's policy of keeping in their own homes people who are dependent on that service. It is also worth remembering that the home help service has expanded from about 47,000 whole-time equivalents in 1978 to about 60,000 in 1987. However, having said that, the business of determining priorities and assessing needs is very much a matter for local authorities. They approach that work in good, bad and indifferent ways.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, if there is a severe reduction, as there appears to be, in home help, it will create grave

943
difficulties for the Health Visitors Association whose members are already complaining about the fact that they have no option but to do some of the work that home helps did rather than their own job as health visitors?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer to the previous question proves that there has not been a cut in the service. There has been a considerable expansion in the service. The noble Lord may be referring to the situation where needs change, and to the fact that a person whose need for home help has increased, rather than a person whose need has diminished, will obtain the service. There may be a gap in the services in the way in which local authorities approach explaining the situation to their clients. There is probably considerable scope for improvement in the way that the complexities are communicated.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Baroness has confused me by agreeing with everyone. Will she tell us clearly whether the cleanliness criterion has been removed? Has it or has it not?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that, by accusing me of agreeing with everyone, the noble Lord does not think that I am compromising myself on each point. It is important to make clear that, as I said in reply to one question, domestic duties of the home care service have not been removed from the job description. I understand that there is some genuine criticism about in the country that elderly people are confused about why they are losing domestic services and why they are being replaced with services which some might say are not perhaps as high a priority in their lives. There is scope for local authorities to look carefully at the way in which they determine priorities, how they deploy their resources and how they appropriately address the needs of their clients.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this is a matter for her department? Does she recognise the strength of concern throughout the House? Will she discuss the issue with her right honourable friend? Surely this is an issue for her department and its Secretary of State.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall of course draw the comments made today to my department's attention. It is also worth saying that there is an inspectorate which is concerned about the burden on local authorities to absorb all the changes in the field of community care. It is already moving in alongside local authorities to help with the management of change and to give guidance on the issue.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is as keen on cleanliness as I am and is concerned about those people who cannot do these things for themselves. Will she ensure that her department monitors the situation throughout the country? Will she take it upon herself to undertake that task in view of her interest in this matter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give that assurance that the department will play a real part in monitoring; as also will the local authorities themselves.

Benefits: Housing and Rate Rebates
3.10 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people are currently in receipt of rate rebates and housing benefits respectively.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, this year 4·5 million households are receiving rate rebates and 0·9 million claimants in Scotland are receiving community charge rebates. Housing benefit for rent goes to 4·2 million tenants, most of whom also receive rate or community charge rebates.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful for that information. The noble Lord mentioned that the vast majority of people on housing benefit will already have qualified for the maximum rebate on their rates. Can he tell the House what provision the Government intend to make for those people who are in receipt of rate rebates and who live in an area in which the poll tax will be higher than those rates? The 20 per cent. charge —if I make myself clear —would still be the same. In other words, does he agree that their benefit will be further eroded because the 20 per cent. rebate on rates that they receive will probably be less than the payment that they will have to make for the poll tax?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure whether I quite understand the noble Lord. That 20 per cent. is set on an average and will give the payer of the community charge the right to demand accountability from the authority. It is up to him then to vote for an authority which will keep the charge at that figure.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the maximum rebate is 80 per cent. Many thousands of people receive that 80 per cent., which means that they now pay 20 per cent. However, 20 per cent. of the rates will amount to less than 20 per cent. of the poll tax. In other words, they will pay more poll tax than they currently pay for rates. Can the Minister say whether those people will be compensated for that increase.?
Lord Henley: My Lords, income support rates were set to take account of that 20 per cent. Quite simply, people can vote for an authority which will keep down their community charge.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that surely is not good enough. Is the Minister telling the House that the 20 per cent. is based on the Government's false figure of an average of £278 per person per annum or that it will be based upon the amount that people will actually pay? There is, for example, the profligate Tory-controlled Berkshire County Council which says that the poll tax will be £450 and not £278.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is pure speculation as to the level at which any local authority will set its community charge. It is up to the electors to vote for an authority which keeps down the community charge to a reasonable figure.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that that means that the Government will call an early general election so that the people of this country can make a decision on how their tax rates are to be fixed this year?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that the calling of a general election is a matter for me.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the position of a couple now on income support? As the poll tax is supposed to be for individuals, will each individual receive the 80 per cent. rebate?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the current levels of housing benefit will be sufficient to cover the very much higher level of rents that already are becoming payable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no doubt the noble lord will know that housing benefit is not set at a particular figure. It depends on the income of the individual and on his rent.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the circular dated 24th January from the Department of Social Security which states:
"It is highly unlikely, on the basis of experience in Scotland last year, that landlords will reduce their rent charges to take account of the abolition of rates"?
Is he further aware that the circular went on to suggest that the housing benefit payments should take account of that? In other words, it requires the taxpayer to provide the wherewithal to give the private landlord a windfall profit.
How do the Government intend to help those tenants on low incomes who do not receive housing benefit and who will not be eligible for a poll tax rebate? Does the Minister agree that they must pay the full amount of poll tax and the same rent as before, which has not been reduced because of the abolition of rates, or face eviction?
Lord Henley: My Lords, when they renegotiate the rent with the landlord it is necessary for them to take that into account.

Information Technology: Use of English
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether English is increasingly becoming the main language used internationally in information technology and what encouragement they will give to British industry to take advantage of such a development.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, English is generally accepted as the main working language in information technology. That stems from the fact that the major programming languages are of American and British origin. As United Kingdom firms themselves recognise, this gives them something of a natural advantage.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, in the light of which does he not agree that British industry should be able to benefit, since international companies make their recruits in this field undertake courses in English when it is not their native tongue, and Japanese is still little used in this field outside Japan?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There is a very considerable demand for expert and particularly experienced programmers in this field. Clearly, if they speak English, and especially if English is their mother tongue, they have a head start.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are perhaps overlooking something rather important? Is it not a fact that children in Germany and France (and in Japan, for that matter) are not now taught English but are taught American? Is it not also a fact that companies in Britain which provide translation services, translating from any language into any other language but in the main specialising in translating technical papers and journals, now tell us that much of their work comprises translation from English into American? That is not for American clients but for the Europeans, Japanese and others who insist on having English technical publications translated into American. If the Minister can do anything to reverse that trend, I for one would be very grateful.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as one who undertook part of his education in the United States, I sympathise with the noble Lord's view. However, it is important that documentation relating to particular products meets precisely the requirements of the customer, and that depends very much on his background.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will the Minister confirm that it is a role of the British Council (which I believe it carries out very well all over the world) to promote English as it is spoken in Britain?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, indeed. The British Council does extremely good and important work in this area. Some 66,000 people were taking advantage of British Council services last year, if my memory serves me right. It is a business worth some £25 million.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the premise of the noble Lord's Question and his supplementary question as well as the Minister's Answer is correct? One grants that

947
English is the major language for international business, but is it not true that the language for information technology is the language of electronic data processing? In other words, if I may use shorthand, it is computer language. Will he agree that the basis of that language is mathematics and that we should concentrate on education in mathematics in that regard?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is a difference between the language which a computer uses to talk to itself (if I may describe it in that way) and the language which a computer uses to talk to its user; namely, the language that appears on the screen. The language that the computer talks to itself is highly technical. It is not English or any other language known to the noble Lord or to myself. However, it is important that the computer's capability puts it in a position to talk to all its different customers, whether they speak Japanese, English or any other language.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Minister agree, in the light of his reply to the noble Lord, that my Question was concerned with the spoken languages and not with the technicalities of mathematical computer languages?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification.
Lord Pym: My Lords, I should declare an interest as chairman of the English Speaking Union. Does my noble friend agree that at this point in history, when such enormous changes are taking place, there ought to be an increase in our own investment in teaching and spreading the English language by means of the British Council and through the World Service of the BBC? Does he further agree that it would be quite wrong to sit on our laurels complacently content with the present levels and that if we were to make such a further investment the return would be very handsome indeed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I dare say that he is talking about Eastern Europe. He will have heard of the know-how fund that has recently been established by the British Government. Among other things it will be able to provide additional language training.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether the phrase "sitting on one's laurels" is English or American?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I seem to recall that laurels were a peculiarly Roman institution.

Rental Accommodation: New Building
3.20 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many houses and flats to let started building in the United Kingdom in 1989.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, it is estimated that 28,000 new dwellings for letting were started by housing associations and local authorities in 1989. The extension of the Business Expansion Scheme to give tax relief for investment in rented housing has been most successful, leading to around £370 million having been invested so far which we believe should result in some further 7,000 units.
Lord Jay: My Lords, are the Government content with the situation in which the number of homeless families is at record levels? We are apparently building fewer houses to let than in almost any year since the war.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the Government's recent £250 million initiative to help with the problems of homelessness. I believe that it is worth reminding your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing recently departed for Denmark to discuss housing for the homeless. The fact of the matter is this. Fifty-seven per cent. of the GDP of Denmark is consumed in government expenditure compared with 38 per cent. in this country and they have a problem.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does the reply that we have just received from the Government indicate that we shall export our homeless to Denmark?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it clearly shows that the answer is not to throw money at the problem.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, although the figures that the Minister gave indicating the increase are welcome, is he aware that there was a meeting in Committee Room 4B on Tuesday morning of your Lordships' all-party group on the building industry which was addressed by representatives of the Building Employers' Confederation and they said quite clearly that over the wider spectrum there has been a 25 per cent. downturn in the building of houses and flats over the past 12 months? They were asked for a remedy. They said that the only thing that could stop a further serious deterioration over the next 12 months would be a modest decrease in the bank rate for the money that they had to borrow. What hope can the Minister give that their wishes will be fulfilled in order to build more houses, which are most urgently required?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, being the Government of the long-term rather than the short-term fix, we believe that inflation must be curbed in order to ensure prosperity for the future.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, are the Government working on any new proposals to increase the possibility of houses being built for rent at a low price? Is it not the case that with the land cost of a small house now often 50 per cent. of the cost of the house and perhaps amounting to £50,000 in itself, that means that there is very little chance of getting low-cost rented housing under way in this country?

949
Are the Government working on any proposals in this field to improve the supply of land at a low cost, apart from the small initiative in the rural areas, which is very small indeed and has little effect?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is easy to denigrate the rural areas. However, your Lordships will remember the department's circular last April which was to help to provide cheap accommodation for those in rural areas. It is very difficult to provide cheap land where property already exists. Although the tone of the noble Lord's question is extremely seductive, to tell someone who owns a piece of property in the City that he should hand it over free of charge is rather different from discussing a meadow.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not one of the factors that produce the shortage of cheap land to which my noble friend refers the very restrictive attitude of quite a number of local authority planning committees?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not wish to return to the burdens of last year's Housing and Local Government Act. However, I have to say, as I said then, that the 75 people who signed the petition for the cheap housing to be provided are also the 75 who signed the protest against the planning authority granting planning permission.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that with the difficulty of selling large amounts of property, certainly in the South-East, estate agents' books are now very full of property to rent? There is now no longer a shortage of property to rent in the South-East of England. It may be at the wrong price but there is no shortage of property to rent.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I wish that I could take as optimistic a view as my noble friend. However, I believe that there will always be a shortage of housing long after even I have left the House.
Lord Jay: My Lords, how many houses to let do the Government expect to be built in the present year?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, expenditure this year in the public sector and with housing associations will be some £4·4 billion together with other substantial sums of money when one takes into account the indicators that come from the success of the Government's BES initiative on rented accommodation.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Official Secrets 1989 (Prescription) Order 1989 will be taken.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Licences for treatment, storage and research; alternatively, for treatment and storage only]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 51 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment Nos. 52 and 53.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 5, line 15, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Duke said: The amendment concerns the kernel of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It is so important that there are no Whips on noble Lords and we are all entirely free to vote according to our own consciences.
Clause 11 is not concerned so much with medical matters as with ethical matters. I fully support infertility treatment to enable married couples to have children. I consider the family to be the most important human unit there is and when children are lacking it is indeed sad. I commend in vitro fertilisation as a wonderful discovery which has enabled so many childless couples to have children but, alas, there is only about a 10 per cent. success rate at the moment overall. We are all proud of the achievement that brought about Louise Brown's birth at Oldham in 1978. It has rightly won world acclaim.
According to every text book in the world on anatomy human life starts at fertilisation and ends at death. At the Committee stage in the Chamber last Tuesday the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, sought to clarify the beginning of life by redefining the creation of an embryo. She said that it comes into existence when a single sperm has completed penetration of a human egg. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has agreed to redraft the Bill on this matter at Report stage.
Professor Winston has mentioned that there may be over 4,000 genetic diseases that might benefit if the human fertilisation and embryology authority were to license further embryo research. However, no genetic disease has so far been identified, let alone cured, by embryo experimentation. I repeat that point: embryo experimentation has neither identified nor cured any genetic disease.
The pamphlet Progress expresses the thoughts of scientists who want more embryo experimentation. They admit that they cannot find cures for genetic diseases. Their purpose now is to identify

951
handicapped embryos by embryo biopsy so that the afflicted can be discarded. Having carried out a biopsy on an embryo, they discard the cells which are afflicted with a genetic disease. The hope is that eventually they will be able to replace the embryo in the womb but so far they have not succeeded. Therefore, embryo biopsy amounts to the destruction of the embryo.
The scientists' purpose is to identify handicapped embryos by embryo biopsy so that it may be discarded. However, there is no question of using embryos to cure genetic disease. The scientists admit that. Moreover, there is nothing that they can learn from the human embryo that they cannot learn from the animal embryo in the study of genetic diseases.
I should like to quote from Hymie Gordon, Professor of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic in the United States of America. He said:
"Everything we need to learn can be learnt by studying genetic diseases in non-human primates and other animals … No one has ever been able to tell me as a scientist what particular step in scientific knowledge is going to be achieved by an experiment on a human embryo that could not have been done in an animal embryo".
That quotation was from one of the world's top geneticists.
Recently, immense strides have been made in the search to cure genetic defects. They are all dependent on research carried out on born people who have the diseases. Professor Lejeune identified the cause of Down's Syndrome (Trisomy 21) and it is hoped that he might discover more of the genes which are responsible. There are also great hopes for cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy. I have a disease which is partially hereditary and which was discovered only a few years ago; it is glaucoma. My right eye is only half effective. Strides are also being made in respect of the minor genetic disease by carrying out research on those of us who have it. It is nonsense to suggest that it would be possible to cure the disease by experimenting on me when I was a dot, a one-cell embryo, in July 1915. How can anyone tell me that experiments carried out on a dot in the embryonic stage will cure a genetic disease? How can we be cured —and I include myself as an example —without experimenting and researching on us when we develop the disease? You cannot talk about it when it is not even identifiable in a dot on day one.
A Gallup poll was carried out between 13th to 18th December, 1989. It showed that a majority of British people were against embryo experimentation. Therefore, I am speaking for the majority and not the minority. Furthermore, I have received many letters beseeching me to speak against experimentation, including one signed by the Reverend Canon Oliver O'Donovan, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Christchurch, Oxford. It lists many Anglican bishops and Churchmen and implores me to take the line that I now take. Another letter came from Bolton, Lancashire, listing approximately 200 severely disabled people or their parents from all over the kingdom. Another letter came from John Finnis, Professor of Law at Oxford, supported by the legal
952
lecturers at the universities of Leicester and Manchester. I received another signed by 18 of the country's top philosophers from several universities. They all implore me to move the amendment.
Other countries have banned embryo experimentation. They include Denmark, Eire, Portugal, Norway and the Australian states of Victoria and South Australia. The European Parliament has voted against it. A moratorium has now been declared in France while the matter is considered further. In Germany the Bundestag is about to pass stringent legislation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who unfortunately is unable to be present today, has sent me a summary of the Bill that the Bundestag is about to pass. I shall read five sentences of the summary in order to show what is happening in the rest of the European Community. After all, its members have the same kind of feelings as we in this country; they have the same basic religions, and so forth. It states:
"1. In vitro fertilisation may be practised only for the purpose of making pregnant the women from whom the eggs are taken.
"2. No embryo may be produced which is not intended for return to the mother's womb".
The third is important:
"3. Nothing may be done to a human embryo outside the womb which is not for its own benefit.
"4. Genetic manipulation of human cells is forbidden.
"5. Cross-species fertilisation is forbidden".
I am not opposed to the acquisition of medical and scientific knowledge about embryology and infertility. However, I am opposed to the destructive experiments on human embryos. The Hippocratic Oath has until now provided the basic ethics for doctors and medical scientists. It states that doctors must not carry out experiments which hurt the patients with a view to finding a solution to the problems of science. The oath dated from approximately 400 years BC and has been updated. The Helsinki Declaration, which updated it, states:
"In research on a man the interests of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the well-being of the subject".
The oath was further updated by the declaration made at Geneva. It states that we must:
"have the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception".
I suggest to your Lordships that we as legislators also have a conscientious duty to follow the Hippocratic Oath and the declarations of Helsinki and Geneva. They apply to us just as much as they apply to the medical profession and medical scientists.
Finally, I hope that the Government will pour in more money to help find cures for those who suffer from genetic diseases. Yesterday evening I met people from a small parliamentary lobby. They were in Westminster Hall because many were in wheelchairs. Some noble Lords addressed them including the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Henderson. I share with them all their anxieties that they should get better themselves and that it should be possible to prevent any more children being born with their problems. I believe that it is utterly wrong to exploit the stories that research on human embryos could provide miraculous cures for them and their children.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the noble Duke for giving way. I should make it clear that the parents who were present yesterday were not seeking a cure for their condition but were supporting research to ensure that handicapped embryos would not be implanted. That was the point of the lobby.
However, there is a point which is germane to the point just advanced by the noble Duke. He will remember that last Sunday we were together on the Frost programme when we discussed this matter. When I made the point that research would allow parents who carry a congenital disease to choose to be implanted the noble Duke said —and of course I agree —that he would want to implant a good embryo. Can the noble Duke tell the Committee of the techniques which he would propose to distinguish between the good and the bad embryo and what he would propose to do with the bad embryo?
The Duke of Norfolk: The answer is simple. I believe that an embryo is the start of life and must be given the same status in life as a child, a grown-up person or a Member of your Lordships' Chamber. I can see no distinction between that and the life of an embryo.
In in vitro fertilisation three or four embryos are created and one or two are implanted into the mother. Sometimes too many are inserted and there are multiple births. If you do not insert any which are created, they should be allowed to die. To my mind, those embryos should not be treated as an animal or some other being and be experimented on. I believe that the keeping of spares for experimentation is ethically wrong.
The noble Lord also asked me how one knows whether an embryo is good or bad. Quite obviously, I am not a doctor. I believe that the only way to discover that is that some sort of an inspection or observation is carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, said that he approves of observation on the embyro. If it is found that the embryo is all right then it is inserted into the womb. No inspection of the embryo can be carried out which reveals glaucoma, thank God; otherwise I should not be here.
That was a point made last Sunday on television when I took Alison Davis along with the noble Lord on to breakfast television with my son-in-law, David Frost. She said in the little speech which she made that she had spina bifida and she said, "Thank God they did not scrub me when they discovered I had it and that they allowed me to go on; otherwise I should not be here". Thank God she is still here because she is a wonderful Welsh girl who is making the best out of life, having been to Essex University, and so on. I have now concluded my speech and I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I support the noble Duke in the amendment which stands in his name and mine. This is a debate in which no one should mock or sneer at the opinions and beliefs of others. This matter is unlike the mundane subjects which are usually discussed in the House or in this Committee. This goes profoundly to the heart of the matter.
954
I have always felt anxiety about what was the right attitude of any parliamentarian in matters of ethical concern. It is quite easy when the proposal is to oblige people by law to do acts which thereafter the state, by sanction, will enforce. It is more difficult when the power proposed to be given is only permissive. When that happens, it seems to me you have to apply your personal judgment. As this is a matter of life and death, I believe that it is only now that one can apply one's personal principles on the proposal before us.
I do not believe that this debate will change the opinions of many, because for many this is a subject of profound belief. No one on either side of today's argument would tolerate a permissive right to kill or experiment on any person with a life separate from that person's mother, however short that existence had been. In other words, infant life to all is sacred.
That is what I found difficult in the very distinguished speech on Second Reading by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York when he said that if the moment of conception is the start of human life, then the majority of souls destined for eternity might never have been anything other than embryonic. It seems to me that the same could be said of infants. Without there being an opportunity to commit right or wrong, infant mortality was the scourge throughout the ages and still persists in many parts of the world.
The question is asked: when does life commence? Surely if it has commenced the killing is not acceptable. To those who reply "After 14 days", I say, "Fourteen days after what?" It must be 14 days after something or 14 days into some existence, progress or potential development. What happens to make "after 14 days" acceptable? Life must come from a cause which starts a process which may last, if uninterrupted, for many years. The interruption is death, which comes at any time, arresting potential and terminating a process.
Therefore, is not life like a flow of what could be a great river with a faint intitial movement like a spring, rivulet or stream, which then becomes a river and ends in the ocean, unidentifiable and gone? At any time the spring may be cut off or the stream may be dammed. Is it not logical to start at the beginning? Those very honourable people —and I accept that they are —who prefer subsection (1) wish it to be permitted to experiment with the most honourable of motives, helping those now alive or yet to become alive. However, the value to them of that which they want to use for experiments is that it has a quality which makes it unique. What makes it unique? It is unique because it has the quality of life. Therefore, they are seeking to use that which has begun in the river or on the path of life.
I ask again: 14 days into what? It is 14 days into life. That being so, I cannot accept that man has a right to dispose of what is living, to bottle it, tag it, place it on a shelf, play with it or destroy it because I profoundly believe that our ancestors were wiser in their generation as to the verities of life and death. I believe that man must not do that. I believe that life must be accepted as having begun and should be honoured even from the very moment of conception. I support the amendment.
The Archbishop of York: I thank the noble Duke for his opening speech, which I think helped to clarify the grounds of his opposition to research although I must confess that I found his clarification somewhat odd. I deeply sympathise with his general attitude towards this matter and I deeply sympathise with him in his own hereditary defect, not least because we discovered in the corridor before the beginning of the debate that we are related.
However, the noble Duke began by saying how much he welcomed the advances that there have been through in vitro fertilisation and then made an attempt to deny the very research on which in vitro fertilisation has been based. It seems to be quite extraordinary to commend this particular result and rejoice with those who have received children which they could not otherwise receive and then roundly say that the very means of producing them were immoral and ought to be banned.
The noble Duke then went on to quote an opinion that all that might be discovered could be discovered through animal research. That again seems to be a deeply immoral point of view, in that if one intends to conduct animal research and apply the results to human beings without any sort of intermediate stage, one is not experimenting with embryos but with fully developed human lives. Exactly the same is true of the quite extraordinary set of provisions which the German Government are proposing to pass. If research is restricted to embryos which are subsequently to be re-implanted into women, one is experimenting on embryos which are to grow up and on women who are to bear children. That again seems to me to be deeply immoral.
In debating this amendment we are not considering whether to allow research because research is already going on and has been going on for 20 years. We are considering whether research should be banned. That is not just a difference in terminology because we have to weigh up whether the arguments against research are so strong as to ban an activity which has already been going on in this country in a very responsible fashion and which has already produced very significant results in the field of in vitro fertilisation.
I do not agree with those who say that it will not produce further results which may have consequences for those with genetic defects. Nobody is claiming that all forms of genetic defect can be dealt with by this means. What they are claiming is that there are some kinds of genetic defect where there is a clearly identifiable gene which might be diagnosed before an embryo is implanted and thus give desperate parents, who are fearful of perhaps giving birth to another defective child, an opportunity to know that they are to have a normal child. That seems to me to be a highly laudable proposition.
Arguments have frequently been put forward that we are dealing with a continuum in which one can talk about "the embryo" which at this stage I prefer to call the conceptus. We need to be careful about our terminolgy. We have reacted against the word "pre-embryo". "Conceptus" can bury the idea in the deepest obscurity of the Latin language and I put it
956
forward as a purely neutral term meaning that which is the result of fertilisation up to the time of implantation.
The argument is constantly made that such a conceptus might develop into one of us. Indeed, but there is a great difference between reading history backwards and trying to predict it forwards. When you read history backwards you can trace out a train of cause and event; you can trace back an individual life in which we rejoice now to its earliest beginnings in the womb and beyond in the life of its parents. However, when you are trying to read history forwards you are simply talking of potentialities. What we are talking about when we look at a conceptus is a potential for life. Unless that conceptus is actually implanted in a uterus it has no potential beyond those few days during which experimentation takes place.
The moral difference is quite different from that of infanticide and in a very large measure different from that of abortion. We are now talking of something which has taken place very much further along the road with the growing identity, the growing personal value that the developing embryo has. Nobody in their wildest dreams would want to say that infanticide is justified if research on a conceptus is justified. That is to ignore the whole process which has taken place in between.
One of the difficulties in the debate is that embryology, to coin a phrase, is sui generis. We are constantly trying to apply distinctions which pertain in ordinary life but which do not actually apply in a particular respect. For example, lawyers try to put everything in one of two baskets; it is either a person or a thing. However, there are entities which are neither persons nor things. What we are referring to in the case of a conceptus is an organism of human origin which given the right conditions has the potential to develop and may become a full human person.
In using words like that we need to be conscious of the slipperiness of the terms we use. For example, we use the phrase "respect for life". Do we mean all life, or what kind of life? We use the word "human". We all realise that the word "human" carries two quite different connotations; one is simply descriptive and the other is evaluative. We may describe a hair found at the scene of a crime as a human hair, and that is a simple descriptive use. When we talk about a person being human, we are evaluating as well as describing. Therefore, when we say a conceptus is human, in the first instance that is descriptive. Gradually, as it develops and begins to gain the features of a human person, our word becomes evaluative.
Exactly the same can be said of the words "a being". We ask, what has been produced as a result of fertilisation? If we use the phrase "a being", we must recognise that that has a weak sense and a strong sense. The weak sense of "a being" is that it is an entity; it is simply something which exists. However, we can easily import into it the strong sense if we use it in referring to "a human being"; in other words, a person with an identity, a life of its own, an independence and so on.

957
I am sure that we shall never get that right until we see what is happening embryologically as the creation of persons through a process which, although it begins with genetic union, is not simply about a union of genes but also depends on a certain cellular identity which only becomes apparent at the time of the appearance of the primitive streak. It is only then that one can say that those cells will eventually develop, again given the right conditions, into a human person.
I very much hope, therefore, that in discussing this extremely difficult subject we will endeavour to be careful in our use of language and concepts, because it is so easy to be swayed by arguments which look good on the surface but which are wholly spurious when one looks beneath that surface. I believe we are wise to be guided by common perceptions of ordinary people; and I do not mean those who ring up and say "We do not like embryo research". I am sure a great many people who are approached suddenly in the street and asked "Do you like embryo research?" have some horrific picture in mind of fiendish doctors experimenting on poor little screaming embryos.
The ordinary response of people dealing with the first fruits of conception —for example, a miscarriage —is sorrow at that event, but one does not say, "There is a human person who has died". The parents are conscious of their loss. As that conceptus develops into a fetus and eventually into a baby, obviously the consciousness of loss and the value of what had been created increases. We have a similar scale of value which we operate when we talk about abortion. I do not want to muddle this debate with talk about abortion because in a way it is a different ethical issue. I simply want to make the point that we recognise that at different stages we impute different values to what is there in the womb.
In deciding this particular amendment I hope that we will not be persuaded just by one single criterion. We are dealing with a very complex balance of arguments. We owe it to the scientists to take seriously what they are trying to do, to respect their integrity and to provide them with a clear framework in which to work. We do no good if our prohibitions are so severe as to be regarded by them as unreasonable and unjustified and of such a kind as to prevent potentially valuable and responsible work. Therefore I hope that the Committee will reject this amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In opposing the amendment tabled by the noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, and in explaining why I feel it right to table an alternative amendment in order to make it possible under the Bill for research on the human conceptus up to the 14-day deadline to continue, I do not propose to rehearse in detail all of the arguments which I put before your Lordships in the debate at Second Reading. However, I believe that it would be right for me to try to correct some misunderstandings and misconceptions relating to the current position and future prospects which make the continuation and
958
development of such research so vital to the interests of humanity as a whole.
Let me make it clear at the outset that, whereas I personally prefer that the fertilised ovum up until the appearance of the primitive streak at about 14 days should be called a conceptus or, as some have called it, a pre-embryo, I must of course accept that in this Bill as it stands it is identified as an embryo from the two-cell zygote stage onwards. However, I am totally convinced, as the most reverend Primate said in the debate at Second Reading when he supported the view of many other clerics and philosophers, including some of the Roman Catholic faith like the eminent Norman Ford, that individuation of the embryo does not begin until the appearance of the primitive streak at the 14th day.
At this stage a large group of cells which earlier were indistinguishable from one another by present techniques either biochemically or under the microscope, of which many are destined to form the placenta and membranes and only some to participate subsequently in forming the fetus, have differentiated in such a manner that the origin of an individual can for the first time be clearly discerned. Hence I and the great majority of scientists who have carefully considered this problem believe that it is wholly proper to accept the 14-day limit, beyond which, as the Bill proposes, research on the human conceptus would be illegal.
It is true, as some noble Lords mentioned in the debate at Second Reading, that there are a few scientists who question the validity of that time limit but they are in a very small minority. I personally am in no doubt that the inestimable benefits to human health which will undoubtedly spring from research now being performed or contemplated on the conceptus well within the proposed statutory 14-day limit cannot and must not be frustrated. This view is supported by the very great majority of scientists who work in or who have specialised knowledge of the field. Hence I must refute totally the thin-end-of-the-wedge or slippery slope argument put forward by those opponents of research who have suggested that later this time limit might be progressively extended.
I turn now to the arguments of those who have challenged supporters of research to name any human disease in which so-called embryo research, which is really research on the conceptus, has led, to date, to significant advances in treatment. I agree that as yet there are none, but those who regard this acknowledged fact as being a valid argument for banning such research have either ignored, or have perhaps failed to understand, all of the arguments in its favour.
Certainly explosive developments in molecular biology and DNA recombinant technology, all of them laboratory-based and many resulting from studies carried out on blood and other tissue samples from human subjects with inherited diseases and their relatives, have succeeded in identifying the exact chromosomal localisation in the human genome of the abnormal genes responsible for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington's chorea, haemophilia, myotonic muscular dystrophy, one

959
form of peroneal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, to name but a few such conditions. All of this has occurred within a very few years and advances are being reported almost daily.
In that tragic, progressive and ultimately fatal affliction, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, whose devastating effects upon the patient and the family I described in my speech at Second Reading, the gene has not only been located but has been fully characterised and sequenced and the essential protein component of the muscle cell, now called dystrophen, which is missing as a consequence of the defective gene has been identified. In this and in many other inherited diseases such discoveries have brought much closer the ultimate prospect of effective treatment for the disease, we hope, through being able ultimately to replace the missing protein through techniques of what is loosely called genetic engineering.
But gene therapy is in its infancy; the obstacles which stand in the way of replacing in every muscle cell a protein as large as dystrophen are formidable, and I think it unlikely that such a treatment will become available for at least 10 to 15 years. Opponents of research have often quoted the views of Professor Lejeune who in 1959 made the major discovery that Down's syndrome is due to the presence of an extra chromosome. Since then he has travelled extensively to promote his view that the treatment of genetically determined disease cannot be achieved by embryo research.
Of course I accept that view, but he has totally ignored the growing weight of conclusive scientific evidence that the prevention of many such diseases will not be possible without it. I accept that these major discoveries in molecular genetics have been made possible without embryo research, but what opponents of such research seem unable or unwilling to appreciate is that it is the next crucial step, bringing untold hope to the relatives of such patients, which could not possibly be achieved if such research were banned.
What especially disturbs me is that some scientific advisers to the Pro-Life Group, among them at least one close personal friend, appear either to have brushed aside the clear, conclusive and incontrovertible evidence from many impeccable sources which confirm that view or have not accepted it. Let us not forget either that present techniques of in vitro fertilisation in which eggs harvested from the infertile woman are fertilised outside the human body before the resultant conceptus is implanted in the woman's uterus have only about a 10 per cent. success rate even in the most skilful and experienced hands.
Only by studying this process in greater detail and by developing techniques to improve the viability of the resultant conceptus and to ensure that it ultimately becomes embedded in the inner wall of the recipient's uterus will the effectiveness of this procedure be improved. Such advances, too, would be totally frustrated if research were to be be banned, as would some exciting current research on the prevention of chromosomal abnormalities.
960
To return to what in my view is even more important —that is, the prospects for the prevention of inherited disease—perhaps I may remind the Committee that when the female ovum is fertilised, cell division soon begins and within the first few days floating free in the uterus are groups of undifferentiated cells, each forming a conceptus. At this stage there is no means of identifying which cells will subsequently form the membranes and placenta and which will ultimately create the primitive streak from which the embryo and fetus will ultimately arise. But by about the fourth or fifth day a blastocyst begins to form, and in this a small nodule or basal cell mass begins to differentiate as the harbinger of the primitive streak, and an outer layer of cells begins to be identifiable as the origin of the placenta and membranes.
Since in the process of normal human reproduction about 80 per cent. of blastocysts are shed spontaneously and only one in five attaches to the wall of the uterus at about the sixth or seventh day, this blastocyst is not yet in my view a viable embryo but only has the potential to become one.
But now we come to the crucial point. Duchenne muscular dystrophy is transmitted from one generation to the next by an X-linked recessive gene, like colour blindness and haemophilia. This means that it is passed on by apparently normal carrier females, half of whose sons will suffer from the disease and half of whose daughters will themselves be carriers. Fertilisation in vitro by her husband's sperm of ova obtained from the carrier female, who will normally have had at least one affected brother or other affected male relative on the maternal side of the family, can then be followed by development of the conceptus to the blastocyst stage, with removal by biopsy of a single cell to determine whether or not the gene is present, with a view to implanting in the uterus of the carrier female a conceptus shown not to be carrying the gene. This technique would thus allow a female carrier to bear unaffected sons and non-carrier daughters.
I must stress that the technique of extracting DNA from a single cell removed in this way from a blastocyst is now being developed rapidly, and I and the scientists working in the field are satisfied that within the next year or two at the most a gene-specific marker will be produced enabling this technique to become not just a prospect but a reality. I must also stress, first, that this development will not require any manipulation of that basal cell mass from which the primitive streak and embryo will ultimately develop. Such manipulation would indeed be likely to prevent an embryo from developing further. The cell removed is taken from that group which will form the placenta and membranes, and research on animals has shown that such a biopsy can be performed without detriment to the subsequent development of the blastocyst and embryo.
I would also stress that those who talk about spare embryos being killed are in my view indulging in unjustified hyperbole. A blastocyst found to be carrying a defective gene would simply be allowed to denegerate naturally, as indeed do many which fail to be implanted in the uterus in the process of normal human conception.

961
Perhaps I may also deal with the views expressed by those who have suggested that all the information derived from embryo research could be obtained by animal experimentation or other means. I trust it is clear from what I have said that the remarkable developments in the prevention of Duchenne muscular dystrophy which can be made possible by embryo research could not under any circumstances be taken further by any form of animal experimentation. There is indeed another rare X-linked disease called Lesch Nyhan syndrome which exists in mice. Research on mouse embryos has been shown to identify the presence of that gene in the embryo at the blastocyst stage. But the technique has been demonstrated as not being applicable to the human subject, so that work cannot immediately be transferred to research in man.
The substantial and significant differences in genetic constitution which have evolved even between the higher primates —I use the term of course in the zoological rather than the ecclesiastical sense —on the one hand and man on the other mean that only work on the human conceptus can ever properly yield the results upon which so many infertile couples have pinned their hopes. And the arguments which I have adduced in relation to the prevention of Duchenne muscular dystrophy will undoubtedly within a very few years apply to many other inherited diseases in which the defective genes are now being located and characterised.
Lastly, I should like to deal with the arguments of those who have quoted the work of Verlinsky of Chicago, who is attempting to obtain information about the genetic constitution of the unfertilised egg by examining the chromosomal material in the polar body that is discarded by the egg and which plays no further part in development. Without doubt this is competent. well conceived, pioneering work. Nevertheless, distinguished and reputable British scientists with whom I have discussed Verlinsky's research are satisfied that, despite recent advances in DNA technology, studies carried out solely on the discarded polar body are unreliable as a means of detecting a genetic abnormality with any degree of confidence.
Furthermore, Verlinsky's work requires removal of the polar body before it is discarded naturally, and there are very real fears that such manipulation of the ovum prior to fertilisation might on the one hand impair the fertilisation process or on the other, lead to chromosonal abnormalities and consequential abnormality of the fetus. It is clear that in the present state of knowledge the Verlinsky technique can offer no substitute for the type of research on the human conceptus now being licensed under the authority of the interim licensing authority and which would be authorised under strict control by the statutory licensing authority if the amendment proposed by the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord were to be rejected by the Committee and if that which I have tabled were ultimately to prevail.
I hope I have been able to convince the Committee that as a committed Christian myself I believe that the performance of such research within the 14-day limit and under the strictest control of a statutory
962
licensing body, with all of the safeguards which the Bill enshrines, is not only entirely compatible with the Christian ethic but will have untold benefits for human health. While I understand the sincerely held objections of the opponents of research who believe that the embryo begins at conception, nevertheless I find it very difficult personally to see how anyone deeply concerned about the welfare of suffering humanity could fail to recognise the potential benefits of such research.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet: The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, read out the provisions in the Bill now before the German Bundestag. We should be grateful to him for that; it was most useful. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York then denounced them as inadequate. I think he may have missed the provision which said that nothing shall be done to an embryo except for its own good. That would in itself nullify the most reverend Primate's fears about the effects the provisions might have. It is a detailed point.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has spoken with great authority and experience about the good results which have flowed from this research so far and which would be expected to continue to flow if the research continued. He said that he is in no doubt that the research should continue. I wish I could say that I am in no doubt. I agree that good results have flowed. I agree that they may be expected to continue to flow if the research continues. But that is not the end of the matter.
After two or three months of concentrated thinking —that is, as concentrated as I am capable of—and discussions, which seem to have been almost continuous, with groups of persons more learned on both sides of the question than myself, I have come to the conclusion that all these good results are outweighed by the fact that we may not experiment on the newly conceived embryo because it is a single and genetically unique collection of cells, part of which, given favourable conditions, may become a baby or more than one baby. I do not see that benefits, even benefits as great as those which have been correctly spoken of today in the Committee, can outweigh that fact.
Lord Harvington: Perhaps I may intervene for just a moment in the debate. I shall be very short in what I have to say. I shall certainly not join in the most learned discussions which we have heard from both sides of the Committee. I think that the Chamber is well appraised of what we are really dealing with in this clause. It is quite simple. However, I should like to put noble Lords on their guard.
There are events taking place outside this place of which we should be careful and about which we should beware. I say that because yesterday members of the Progress Group were distributing a leaflet in the street outside this Chamber. I have a copy with me. Moreover, I am sure that other noble Lords may have seen this document. It concerned someone who experienced difficulties over the matters we are now discussing. It contains a statement from a mother of a handicapped child. She described the condition of

963
her daughter, Kerida, as mentally handicapped with no speech, a club foot, partial vision and epilepsy. The statement continues:
"I love her, but I would give anything for her to have enjoyed a full life rather than the limited life she must lead".
Those are most worthy sentiments. However, I think that the document demonstrates very clearly the lamentable way in which parents who have handicapped children have been misled by the experimentation lobby.
I have several points to make. First, it is most unlikely from the description given that the condition of this child is a genetic one. For example, a club foot is thought to be caused by mechanical damage. The other factors mentioned indicate either damage during development or complex congential causes. Those are not the kind of conditions which embryo biopsy could detect.
Secondly, this woman is clearly under the impression that embryo biopsy might have allowed her daughter to,
"have enjoyed a full life rather than the limited life she must lead".
However, nothing could be further from the truth. If the condition of her daughter could have been detected at the embryonic stage which, as I have said, it almost certainly could not, then she would have been discarded and washed away down the laboratory sink.
I cannot for one moment believe that that is what this obviously caring mother would have wished. We must ask ourselves how she could have gained such a false impression of the facts of embryo biopsy. We must be very wary of that kind of campaign, based as it is on such misinformation, misrepresentation and manipulation.
Other equally misleading claims have recently been made. It has been said that embryo biopsy would allow genetic disease to be wiped out. To that claim four points must be made. First, embryo biopsy on human beings has not yet succeeded and, indeed, may never do so. Secondly, a very high proportion of congenital defects and gene mutations occur in families with no history of such disorders and no high risk factors. Unless every pregnancy is to be screened, embryo biopsy techniques could not affect those cases.
Thirdly, it has been calculated that even if every embryo with cystic fibrosis were to be destroyed, it would take 1,250 years just to half the gene frequency. Fourthly, notwithstanding all that, wiping out the patients is not the same as wiping out the disease.
I hope that the Committee will not allow itself to be taken in by the claims of the special interests promoting embryo research —or at any rate some of them. I should like to quote the words of another mother of a handicapped child to whom the facts of the matter had evidently been better explained. Debbie Hill gave birth to a severely disabled son in 1986. His name was Timothy. He died at the age of six months. She said:
"In his short time with us, Timothy brought to us a great deal of love. Parents like us have a choice. They can decide whether
964
to take the risk of having more children. But conceiving babies on a sale-or-return basis is wholly wrong".
I shall not keep the Committee any longer because there are other noble Lords who are much better qualifed than I to speak on such matters. But surely no subject could be of more vital importance to human beings than this one. However, I have one point to make against what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said. I was waiting for him to tell us why so many countries on the Continent have condemned this research out of hand.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, spoke before I did because he referred to Lynne Dodd. I should say that I know this lady and I am aware of the conditons from which her child has suffered. She is well aware of what this research is all about. I shall not say that she is better informed than the noble Lord, but she is absolutely committed and dedicated in this respect. She knows that there is no way in which her child will be helped. Her only motivation is to speak on behalf of MENCAP. I should perhaps at this stage refer to the wonderful work which has been done for that organisation by certain noble Lords in this Chamber; namely, the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Lynne Dodd supports the campaign because she does not want any unnecessary handicapped children to be born, if it can be prevented.
The noble Lord also gave an example of a point which I wish to make. Since the Second Reading debate on 7th December statements have been made about the objectives of this research which are seriously inaccurate, unfair to those concerned and, I think, designed to create fears which are quite without foundation. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, for whom I have the greatest respect —indeed, I am most grateful to him for attending the meeting with parents yesterday—referred to a letter which he received yesterday from Mr. Ian Brown of Bolton, Lancashire. I received the same letter, as no doubt did other noble Lords. I read it with great care. It contained 181 supporting signatures of parents or relatives of handicapped children. How those people could have been so misled as to sign such an inaccurate and distorting letter I cannot imagine. I find it difficult to understand why the noble Duke gave credence to a letter which, if he had studied it carefully, he would have known was a gross distortion of what this Committee is debating today.
The letter claimed that,
"there had been sensational and misleading publicity implying that embryo research would free generations from disabling diseases".
Never has such a claim been made. It accused researchers of saying that,
"we are not interested in your condition. All we want is to weed you out".
They were, it alleged, creating for the public the illusion that embryo research would bring treatments and miracle cures. I have met many of those who were involved in that research and those who support

965
them. I have never heard any such claim. The letter went on:
"This search and destroy programme will wreck our chances of ever having children at all".
They urged noble Lords —I imagine that we all received the letter —
"to reject the deceitful claims of the embryo research lobby".
I hope that those who have supported the pro-life movement will dissociate themselves from the distribution of this distorting material.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spelt out on Second Reading exactly what the research is about and why it is important: first, to promote advances in the treatment of infertility; secondly, increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; thirdly, for developing methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosomal abnormalities in embryos before implantation; the noble and learned Lord explained that research could enable the underlying abnormality to be detected in the first few days after fertilisation, using a technique referred to as reimplantation diagnosis; fourthly, to increase knowledge about cases of miscarriage with a view to paving the way for improved treatment. As we know, all of this is under the strictest control. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said, this has been going on for 20 years without, so far as I know, any allegations of lack of effective control.
As a layman, I find it hard to understand how warm-hearted, charitable, Christian people can say that this is immoral, distasteful and wrong. Yesterday I attended the same meeting of the group as was attended by the noble Duke. About 200 parents were there representing people who have had muscular dystrophy, Tay Sachs disease, Huntington's disease and other diseases of a genetic nature. They came to plead with us to support them. I wish that more noble Lords could have been there because they represented all the charities that are involved in supporting and helping these people who have children who in one way or another are handicapped.
The noble Duke referred to Alison Davis, who appeared with him on television. I congratulate both of them on their performance. Her association is giving full support to the legislation before us and to the amendment so brilliantly presented by my noble friend Lord Walton.
I felt that two of the most moving speeches on Second Reading came from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and my noble friend Lord Carter. They both spoke from the depth of their experience. I told the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that I would quote him. He said:
"I fervently reject the extreme notions … that those scientists are somehow tampering with nature; that because nature has decreed that if some couples should be childless and some children handicapped it is wrong to push back the frontiers of human knowledge to try to help them".
I say, "Hear, hear" and "Cheers" to that statement.
My noble friend Lord Carter said:
"My judgment on both in vitro fertilisation and embryonic research into congenital diseases is based on two basic considerations. The first is the intention of the parents and the second is the supremacy of individual conscience.…
966
The parents' intention is wholly good and incorrupt, to create another human being and, thanks to research, to choose that that human being should not be handicapped".
Those two statements were made by two Members of your Lordships' House, each on a different side, both greatly respected, both Christian people, both speaking from the depth of their experience.
I say to those who support the noble Duke that unless we ourselves have had handicapped children —and I have not —we cannot really know what it means. Yes, of course there is love; there is more love because the child is handicapped. But there is great hardship which none of us would want to take on ourselves. None of us would say, "Handicap is so wonderful, I want to have a handicapped child", that is absurd; no one would say that. If we do not say it then we must say that we should like —
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I may be wrong, but what is my noble friend trying to say? Is he trying to say that if we find or are able to find that an embryo is damaged and will produce a handicapped child, that embryo should be destroyed'? That is what it sounds like. Perhaps he will explain himself.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps my noble friend himself does not understand the legislation or the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Walton. We are talking about —
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will the noble Lord allow me —
Lord Ennals: With respect, perhaps I may answer the question which my noble friend has put to me. There is no suggestion that after 14 days, when an individual or the beginnings of an individual has been created, that should be destroyed. The most reverend Primate has explained it well. During this period there is a brief time when it cannot be said, "This is a person, a human being with identifiable characteristics".
Having heard my two noble friends —and they are friends—speak at Second Reading, and others like them, simple families, not Peers, how can we say no to them? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that to refuse help to those who might be helped is contrary both to religion and to humanity as I understand it. I plead with the Committee to support the amendment and reject the proposal made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I wish to put a slightly different point of view from that put forward hitherto. I wish to base it upon the law. I totally agreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson when he said that we must not make fun of or underestimate the sincerity of those who hold views different from ourselves. The reason for that is rational. It is that both views are sustainable. We have heard both views sustained by rational, responsible and sincere people. We know that that is true.
However, perhaps we may consider the status quo before the Bill was introduced at all, and what we

967
are talking about in discussing the terms of the Bill. I was tempted at various stages in the debate to enter into the realms of philosophy, religion and science —all of which interest me intensely. But I know that I am only a journeyman lawyer and perhaps an experienced legislator over 50 years.
What we are discussing is something which has been going on legally for 20 years. That is the point from which I start. The question which we have to ask ourselves is whether any, and if so what, criminal sanctions ought to be applied to those activities. Clause 36 of the Bill proposes certain criminal sanctions for breaches of its terms, as it stands. If the Bill had not been introduced at all there would be no criminal sanctions whatever that I am aware of.
The question which is of great importance seems to me to be this. There are those who think that any form of experimentation with an embryo is immoral. They are fully protected by the Bill. Nobody asks them to indulge in such activities; nobody asks them even to co-operate in such activities. There are those who think that they are both desirable and valuable in the interests of science. We have heard one very well informed speech this afternoon on one view, and we heard that view explained at rather greater length on Second Reading. The truth is that both views are sustainable and both views are held by responsible individuals.
We have three alternatives before us. The first is to have no Bill at all. That alternative is still open to us. For a long time I was of the opinion that that would be the best option because a form of self-discipline had been developed among responsible scientists of which I largely approved. It is that discipline which is in operation at the moment without legal sanctions of any kind. In my opinion, the Government have shown great courage and are perfectly right to say that the time has come when we have to legislate. That excludes the first option which is to do nothing.
The second option is to prohibit these activities altogether; in other words, to do the same thing by force of the secular criminal law as was done in effect by the religious experts of the time to Galileo to stop the scientists doing what they are doing. That is a perfectly viable option and some Members of the Committee believe in that. However, no one is suggesting within the ambit of this Bill that criminal sanctions of some kind should not be imposed for certain activities. The Government are perfectly right to suggest that by this Bill we have to institute some form of criminal sanctions to prevent irresponsible behaviour and to prevent activities by eccentrics or worse which no civilised human society could tolerate. However, I am bound to say I was not very impressed by the German legislation. I believe they were probably influenced by their own rather unhappy history of the past 50 years into legislating as they did. However, that is their business and not ours. Our business is to try to arrive at a rational, wise and responsible solution.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will forgive me for referring to her. She and her
968
committee proposed that there should be substituted for a voluntary system of discipline a system of compulsory licensing. That is what we are discussing in Clause 11. What we are now being asked to do is to use Clause 11 to destroy the system of compulsory licensing bit by bit —that is the real purpose behind this amendment and others —and to substitute a total prohibition, backed by criminal sanctions. That is a road down which I do not propose to go.
It might be true that on both sides the lobbies who feel deeply have said things which are exaggerated and which perhaps one could not go along with intellectually. However, simply as a legislator I find myself charged with three alternatives. One is to do nothing. However, the Government have been right to say that we must now reach the stage of legislation. That is the conclusion of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and it is also my conclusion. I hope that it will also be the conclusion of the Committee. The other is total prohibition. That course would involve going down a road which has failed every time it has been tried in history. It started before the time of Galileo and it was the road which led ultimately to Tyndale being strangled in a Dutch prison for translating the scriptures. It was the road which led Galileo to be condemned by the Holy Office. It is the road which ultimately has always failed.
The road which I believe is right to pursue is that responsible people with a responsible licensing system should be allowed to proceed with responsible activities with which some people do not agree but which others regard to be necessary or desirable. That is the road down which I hope the Committee will go. It is for that reason and not because I claim any special scientific, philosophic or religious knowledge that I propose to vote against the amendment moved by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. I propose to pursue the line suggested throughout the Bill which is that of a licensing system limiting the activities but not prohibiting them.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I suspect that for many Members of the Committee, as well as for myself, this is one of the most difficult decisions that we have ever been called upon to make. It is certainly one of the most difficult I have been called upon to make during my time as a Member of this Chamber. On the one hand, we are moved by compassion, and properly so. Some of us are moved by compassion not through personal experience in our own families but through ministering to many handicapped people throughout our pastoral ministry. But, on the other hand, I hope that we are also moved by a concern for the extension of knowledge as that is a proper human activity. Yet as regards voting on this amendment, I have a profound concern which I must confess was not wholly or largely relieved by the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
I shall illustrate my point which may sound rather like the slippery slope approach. However, I can put it in a more respectable way than that. I believe it is not simply the slippery slope approach. I can express it in the words of a report from the Church

969
of England of 1985 entitled Personal Origins. The report stated:
"There are further arguments which relate to the sphere of social morality and they involve judgments about whether society possesses the maturity as well as the means for restricting research work within acceptable bounds of objectives and practices".
It is the phrase "maturity of society" which I wish to speak briefly about now. I must confess I have some sympathy, as had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, with the state of having no Bill. However, with the advent of the Bill this matter is brought into the public domain. That means that we do not merely have to consider the integrity and the good will of scientists and research workers, but we also have to consider the attitude of society as a whole. At the moment I do not find society as a whole very well disposed towards recognising the sanctity of human life or the responsibility of the individual. That is a factor I must take into account.
Moreover, when I consider what has happened to legislation in the past 20 years or so, I am not greatly encouraged. When I think of the way in which the legislation on divorce or abortion has developed over those years, I am not encouraged. I can remember some time ago hearing speeches in relation to the proposals for the laws on divorce or abortion which were very similar to what we have heard today. In those speeches the speakers assured us that the legislation would never go beyond what they were proposing. They said it was not their intention to go any further and that what they were proposing represented the limit of the legislation. I believe that stance is living in cloud cuckoo land. We have to face the fact that legislation so often has unintended effects, however well intentioned it may be.
I also am not encouraged by the devices which it has been found necessary to include in the Bill for describing fatherhood. They do so in a way which does not reflect the nature of creation at all but is a kind of legislative figment. I believe that has something serious to say about our attitude to creation, of which we are part.
I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I was much encouraged by his remarks. However, as he attacked the slippery slope arguments and listed all the developments which might occur later, I found myself getting more and more worried. What legislation will be imposed for those developments?
Lord Ennals: What are the fears of the right reverend Prelate as to where the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is likely to take us? What is this slippery slope?
The Lord Bishop of London: My fear is that before too long we shall have legislation extending the 14-day period. Such developments have been stated in regard to previous legislation. I am trying to be realistic.
The more I hear about the possibilities of research, the more worried I become as to whether our society can handle the situation. The Bill is the first attempt to legislate on the matter. It is clear that if the amendment is carried there will still be the
970
possibility of work in regard to infertility. My feeling is that we should take that step now. I endorse the comments made by the noble Duke. However, I find it very difficult to believe that we can responsibly pass the second part of this clause. For that reason I shall support the noble Duke.
Lord Stallard: I was becoming rather depressed when listening to some noble Lords. However, the right reverend Prelate has restored some of my confidence because he has introduced the moral issue, which should transcend many other arguments that we have heard but apparently does not.
I would not dare to speak as a scientist or as a medical man in this very academic debate. I can speak only as one of millions of committed Christians up and down the country who are extremely concerned about the effects of experimentation. Millions of committed Christians are concerned about the prospects for the future. As the right reverend Prelate correctly says, 14 days is the beginning. There is no guarantee that somebody will not discover that 28 days is preferable. It has been stated that some of the necessary changes do not take place for 30 days. Then we go on until the entire Christian argument has been destroyed.
Lord Diamond: When the noble Lord states that we go on and on, he means that new legislation could be put before your Lordships. Your Lordships would then have an opportunity of deciding in the light of what has happened and in the light of further evidence whether to take a certain view. That is the point that we are deciding today. The idea that the Bill commits us to all kinds of provisions that are not wanted is absolute nonsense.
Lord Stallard: The noble Lord has underlined what I have said. We can go on and on with further legislation and further discussion and probably less evidence.
I shall probably need to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, before I can fully understand it. I would not like to say whether other noble Lords understood the speech immediately it was delivered. Many things need to be looked at. I was impressed by the fact that the noble Lord appeared to be dismissing the arguments of scientists. We have all got letters and we have all read papers. I read the book to which the noble Lord referred and many others in order to try to understand this matter. However, if the noble Lord did not agree with what was said, he appeared to dismiss it. I do not think that his dismissive comments were quite fair to some of those who disagreed with him.
The noble Lord made reference to Professor Lejeune. He said that he knew and respected him. However, he dismissed his findings because they did not agree with his own. The findings are listed in various documents. The noble Lord said that he accepted some findings and rejected others. Where does that leave us? We are now in the midst of a scientific argument. If it is not a scientifc argument, it is an academic argument between lawyers. Most of us have to fall back on our basic beliefs.

971
I am pleased that the right reverend Prelate introduced an argument that is much bigger than both of those arguments. Where does it all begin? When does fertilisation take place. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, adequately summed the matter up the other day. I think that her speech is well worth reading in this context.
It is very patronising to say "We respect you, although your views are different, but you are entitled to your views". That kind of statement is made by people who do not want to accept a different point of view. It is patronising to say that they respect our views when they proceed to take no notice of them. It is a similar situation to saying that those who were opposed to slavery did not have to keep slaves and, therefore, they did not have to try to make slavery illegal. I do not believe that that is the correct approach to deal with what I consider to be a fundamental moral issue.
It is a difficult argument to present when one is of the cloth, as it were, but the fundamental argument is the moral issue. I was a wee bit disappointed when I heard the speech of the most reverend Primate. That is no doubt a terrible thing to say, but I thought that he was involved in a scientific argument. I was delighted when the right reverend Prelate introduced the other aspect of the matter because there are obviously differences between them, as there are in the scientific and other worlds. The moral argument is the main argument. Sadly, the other arguments will continue. As far as I understand the matter, this destructive embryo research violates the rights of human beings. It must be illegal for the same reasons that slavery or assault or any other crime against human beings is illegal. The consciences of those of us who are for or against the amendment are not the real issue.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, stated that the amendment was put down in order to destroy the clause and to make nonsense of the Bill. I have been involved in debates on many Bills over a long period of time and it is not unusual to put down an amendment that will have the same effect as this amendment. It is not unusual to delete this section or that section for this reason or that reason. It is a perfectly legitimate parliamentary procedure which is held up as a bogey as part of the campaign against those of us who are taking what I consider to be the correct moral position.
I support the argument that was put forward very eloquently by the noble Duke and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, because I happen to agree with it. I think that the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord were correct to discuss the matter from a moral point of view. I shall support the amendment.
Lord Renton: I rise merely to say that those of us who at MENCAP over recent years have had to take a decision to form an attitude on this important matter have come to the conclusion that, while there is research, there is hope.
5 p.m.
Baroness Elles: I was grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham when he suggested that there were three alternatives: one is not to have a Bill and then there are the two alternatives in Clause 11. The fact that there had not been a Bill has of course allowed research to go on in this field for 20 years without any legal framework whatsoever. It is therefore on these grounds specifically that I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having the courage to take an extremely difficult matter in terms of morals, science, ethics and law and bring it before your Lordships' House.
It will then of course go to another place where a decision can be taken so that those scientists involved in this kind of work will know exactly where they stand —either that they are working within a proper legal framework and are entitled to carry on with research or, in accordance with the way that the vote goes this evening, that they are not. But at least everybody will know what the legal position is. It has been unfortunate that for so long we have been deprived of this legislative framework.
I want to make it perfectly clear that so far as I am concerned, and I believe the vast majority of your Lordships, I am in favour of scientific research, without which there would be no progress for the benefit of mankind. We are therefore not discussing whether research per se is good or bad. What we have to consider tonight is whether the research should be continued on the human embryo and the human embryo only.
There are some who seek to stop the flood in that direction and to turn it in another direction. I would certainly concede to those scientists who do their research at the moment that while we believe that we seek for the benefit of mankind one way, the scientists who are now working in this field believe that they too will reach that optimum position.
I want to make my position perfectly clear. First, what are the objectives of this research as set out? I have here the Medical Research Council's press notice. I accept that there may be other reasons as well, but may I just read out the four major points that the MRC makes in the press notice. The first is to improve in vitro fertilisation techniques. It accepts that only about one in 10 attempts at IVF result in successful pregnancy. I should like later to deal with the fate of the 92 per cent. who actually fail to become pregnant.
The second is to help to reduce the number of abortions in those who are at risk of passing on serious genetic disease to their children. We have heard over the years reasons why people are going to be able to reduce abortions, and I am not going to enter into the ethics of whether it is right or wrong to have an abortion. All through the 1970s we heard of free contraception in order to stop abortions. What has happened? Year after year the numbers have increased so that now we have 180,000 abortions, which is about one-third of the total live births in this country. It should be said that of that figure under 1 per cent. are in fact performed for severe medical reasons in order to stop the birth of

973
defective children. I am sure that none of us could in any case possibly refuse that to a woman.
The third point is to help to understand, and therefore to prevent, miscarriages. The fourth is to insist on the development of simpler, safer and more effective methods of contraception.
We were particularly given to understand on Second Reading that one of the objectives was to control populations in less-developed countries. Frankly, I do not think that it is a purpose of your Lordships' House to consider that kind of matter. It is for those countries themselves to decide their own population control or otherwise. I understand also that if human embryo research is used in this field there will be drug tests on human embryos before the 14 days. If any scientist wishes to get up and confirm that that is totally wrong I would be grateful, because then we would have it in Hansard and be able to refer to it in the future.
But are these overriding objectives? Where is the mention of the fundamental purpose of scientific research in the medical field of genetic and congenital disease? There is no mention of cure or healing. Surely these are the purposes of medical research. Surely this is what we want to achieve for those children who have genetic or congenital diseases.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has already mentioned what progress the pro-research organisation has referred to in Freedom of Choice. Research using human embryos is not and never has been concerned with treatment of genetic or chromosomal disorders. The Committee should be aware that this is not the stated purpose of human embryo research.
Destruction has replaced curing and healing in accordance, as I understand it, with the kind of programme that is envisaged; that is, de-selection before implantation of the embryo. Yet fast developing research is coming along with very encouraging results in gene therapy by molecular biologists. One has only to study the major results that are coming out of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at Oxford and the States. Indeed, it is perfectly possible, without any research on the human embryo, to achieve the amazing results that they have. Of course other scientists have already discovered ways of mitigating the effects of spina bifida and muscular dystrophy as well.
I should just like to take one or two minutes of the Committee's time to discuss a matter that has not been raised by any Members of the Committee, and this is for obvious reasons. I have had many letters, and I have been approached by individuals and organisations, to ask in all this what the position of the woman is. It is the woman who has to produce the ova over the years to provide the necessary gametes which form the human embryo. We know that there are shortages of eggs for research. We know that on sterilisation women are asked to donate their eggs. What unconscious pressure will be put on women, for instance, to have sterilisation?
A woman said to me only yesterday that, IVF treatment having failed, she was left in a terrible situation. She is just one of the many of the 92 per
974
cent. who were given hormones and drug treatment with effects to the human body which are still not known. I use the words of these women; they are not mine. I was fortunate. I confess that I thank God every day for having had two healthy children, so I can understand what it is, first, not to have them and, secondly, not to have a healthy child. But the fact is that these drugs do terrible things to the insides of women.
They cause haemorrhages, they cause ovarian cysts, they cause ovarian cancer, and I do not want to go into all the physical details of what happens to women. These women feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are being exploited by the scientists for the use of their eggs for human embryo research and for the use of drugs on their bodies in order to produce super-ovulation.
This is what has been put to me. I undertook to raise this in your Lordships' House so that noble Lords knew, possibly when voting in favour of human embryo research, that this was what they were subjecting women to. You are putting them into the situation where their bodies could be used for research before research happens on the human embryo. This is something that people should realise.
I know that such matters are anathema to your Lordships, and I quite understand it. Frankly, they are not particularly pleasant for me. But the fact is that I undertook to raise this matter so that noble Lords should know when taking these decisions whom they are affecting. You are not just affecting a human embryo, whether it be a two-cell zygote, a conceptus or whatever you like to call it. You are affecting the bodies of women who are producing the eggs which then go towards the formation of the human embryo. Any noble Lord who has read about how the selective reduction of multiple births is perfomed would never want his wife or daughter to undergo that kind of operation and treatment.
Therefore, it should be said that if your Lordships, as men, had to undergo the forms of treatment under these new reproductive techniques and suffer the pain endured even under the ordinary IVF treatment —the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to that the other night —and the kind of treatment, suffering and degradation, may I say, on failure perhaps to have a child or become pregnant, I am certain that the vast majority would go into the Lobby voting against research.
Lord Rea: Perhaps I may first answer one of the points made by the noble Baroness with regard to development of effective methods of contraception which might be useful in the third world. There is no question of our forcing that contraception in a paternalistic way upon the people of the third world. The methods being developed may be more useful and most easy to use in countries where there are no widespread medical facilties. That is why they may well be chosen as suitable for use by medical and other people in those countries, if they should wish to use them. There is no quesion of our forcing it upon them.
Baroness Elles: I am grateful to have an opportunity to reply to the noble Lord. I served for

975
many years in the United Nations. Many delegates at the United Nations, particularly the women, were horrified at the idea that the Western industrialised countries—I am not saying anything about the Medical Research Council —should produce drugs and various forms of contraceptives that would be used only for population problems in third world countries. I was faced with that problem over and over again.
Lord Rea: There is no question of those products being used only in third world countries; they have also been extremely useful in this country.
It is fair to say that it is a basic premise of those who are against pre-embryo research that it is morally wrong and dangerous to interfere with or destroy what is in effect a human being. I count myself as one who fiercely defends the legitimate rights of every human being. In the issue before us we should consider not only the rights of every conceptus —less than the size of a pin-head before achieving human form and long before developing consciousness—but also the rights and choices of would-be parents and parents who might wish to have normal offspring. Noble Lords will consider that that is a not unnatural desire.
We should also consider society's need to reduce by every means possible the proportion of handicapped children in its midst. It has been suggested by some that those of us who favour pre-embryo research would deny the right of handicapped people to live —the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, implied that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harvington —and that we undervalue their lives. Far from it; a major purpose of the research is to enable us to detect and then replace genetically damaged or abnormal pre-embryos with normal pre-embryos.
That is not to belittle in any way the huge achievements of many handicapped people and their parents against great odds. However, as a doctor, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Ennals when I say that I have seen many times the worst side of handicap as it affects the individuals concerned and their families. I doubt whether any handicapped person would prefer to be handicapped rather than able-bodied or able-minded. To follow the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, he might well have had a healthy and non-handicapped child in place of his handicapped daughter who would have had equal charm but would have been a different personality. He would have had another charming person instead and would never have known that daughter. He would have had a non-handicapped daughter instead. It was perhaps not the correct analogy to use because the condition that he mentioned is not a genetically determined one.
Nature is prolific. As the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said on Second Reading, less than one-fifth of all pre-embryos which are conceived naturally develop into human beings. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, also referred to that point. A woman produces over 400 ova during the normal reproductive lifespan and many thousands more are
976
left in her ovaries at the end of her reproductive life, very few of which are fertilised. To collect, fertilise and observe a few of those and the resulting pre-embryos for purposes which increase human well-being, as is now happening, is to me not only morally defensible but morally correct.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: Perhaps I may return to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I understood from what she said that women will undergo a traumatic experience in providing the embryos which might be used in research, assuming that the Bill receives noble Lords' assent. Was she referring to women who go to a fertility clinic or any other clinic or to a laboratory and ask to be injected with the hormone concerned —the noble Lord, Lord Walton, knows what hormone that is, as do I —in order to provide a number of oocytes for experimental purposes? I was under the impression that the Bill dealt entirely with women who seek help in infertility clinics and who go voluntarily to those people who are licensed to do what is necessary. There may be super-ovulation, as the noble Baroness indicated.
Since this was once my field of research, may I at the same time point out that the figure of 400 for the oocytes that are ovulated normally is only an estimate. We are citing figures in this debate that relate to a subject where none can be precise. When we say that ovulation occurs on Day 14, it might in fact be 13, 15, or 16. I hope that no one will attempt to use indiscriminately any of the tens of thousands of oocytes found in the ovary for in vitro fertilisation. We do not know by what process the 400 or so that are normally ovulated are selected, and anyhow, the majority of oocytes in the ovary are degenerating, and will continue to do so —and a post-menopausal ovary cannot be reactivated.
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, with his wide and deep experience, mentioned one of the points with which I should like to deal briefly. I have met some of the women who have sought treatment and I found the description of my noble friend Lady Elles quite incredible.
When I visited the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Hammersmith Hospital I was privileged to talk to some of the women —a number of other noble Lords were there at the same time —who were faced with the most desperate dilemma. Their families had produced not one but several genetically handicapped children and they knew precisely what the odds were. A couple desperately wanted to have their own children and found the whole process of in vitro fertilisation and genetic separation and reimplantation an absolute godsend. That was the way they would ensure that they had a child who would be born whole, entire and free from the family genetic defect.
On the issue of whether research should be allowed, I find the proposition embodied in the amendment quite extraordinary. It suggests that it

977
is perfectly all right to treat patients on the basis of the results of research that has been done in the past, but that no more research should be done. I find that a very difficult proposition, particularly when one talks not only to doctors but to the patients. They know that the chances are slight. I believe that only one in 10 is successful. They know that there are other diseases which are not yet amenable to this process. They know that there are many problems of fertility which have yet to be resolved. Yet today we are invited to say that no more research should be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals —my predecessor as Secretary of State for Health —this afternoon spoke with great passion and from his long experience of contact with many organisations representing handicapped people and their families —as indeed I have. For me it comes down to the question of choice. It is their choice whether they will use the information that has been discovered. It cannot be "disinvented". Are we to say to them in future, "Yes, you can use that which is there for now but anything after that is bound to be a good deal more hit and miss because we are not allowed to experiment". I find that an astonishing proposition.
Then one comes to the heart of the Bill, in a sense; namely, the test devised by the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. Some say that 14 days is a purely arbitrary figure. The fact is that it is impossible to rationalise from a priori reasoning from the past. There are no principles and no precedents. We are dealing with a mass of new knowledge. New knowledge demands new decisions and sometimes quite new tests. It seems to me that it is broadly a matter of trying to understand precisely what it is that differentiates in a continuous and complex process the point at which the primitive streak first emerges. In these debates we have been enormously assisted in our understanding by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
I have talked to a number of doctors and moral theologians. I listened to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York who today made an immensely persuasive speech, as he did at the Royal Society last night. I believe that we, as legislators, are at the point when we must make a practical decision —do we carry on with this research and how do we decide which way to go? I believe that the committee chaired by the noble Baroness got it right. It is the proposal that has been put in the Bill by the Government, courageously it has been said, and I hope that we will support it. I hope that we will reject this amendment and support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Lord Swann: I know that the time of 5.30 p.m. has been bandied about as a moment when something might happen. I shall be very brief. For most of my life I have been a scientist but I shall not talk about the science of this problem. Others have done that and can do it much better than I can. Very tentatively and with some apprehension I want to voice an amateur thought about the logic and the morals of this amendment.
I believe that in one respect Amendment No. 51 is illogical. While seeking to ban research it still allows —I quote from the Bill:
978
"activities in the course of providing treatment services".
Not surprisingly. They have brought great good to humankind,. But no medical treatment emerges from thin air. On the contrary it is the result of much painstaking research, experiment and practice over many years, and one must remember that that necessarily involves research on human beings. Every medical treatment has involved that at some stage. Even the introduction of a simple drug, although much of the research can be done in a laboratory and on animals, by law requires testing on human beings to ensure that it works and does not have undesirable effects.
Treatments of the kind that we are considering, like all the others, are the product of much research. Therefore I find it curious that the amendment should seek to ban further research which is aimed at making more effective those very treatments that it allows. How can one justify banning research when one approves of using the fruits of that research both past and present? There seems to be a serious inconsistency here as well as a moral confusion which troubles me.
Of course one could get round the illogicality by banning treatment, but it seems to me that that would involve a prohibition that is so morally repugnant that I cannot believe that this House would ever approve it. I believe that there remains therefore only one solution that satisfies both logic and morals; namely, to allow scrupulously regulated research —as does the first option in Clause 11 —on terms that are set out at considerable length later in the Bill. I hardly need say that I would welcome such an outcome and feel bound to vote against this amendment.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: I enter the debate with diffidence. I speak simply as a layman who has listened attentively to the arguments in this long-running controversy and tried to evaluate them as best I could. At this stage it would be quite inappropriate for me to rehearse the arguments afresh. They have all been thoroughly canvassed. However, I hope that it is not inappropriate to try to isolate and define three quite separate issues and assess their importance in relation to the decision which the Committee will make.
The first and central issue of course is the moral issue. The opponents of research assert, as an absolute moral imperative, that the conceptus from the moment of fertilisation of the egg must be treated as having the status and attributes of a human person. The question is: are those who make that assertion right?
Everyone accepts that they are entirely sincere, but are they right? I suspect that most, perhaps all, noble Lords will already have made up their minds on the answer to that question. Certainly I shall not argue it. I simply say that I do not believe that they are right. Any doubts that I may have felt at the beginning were wholly resolved by the deeply thoughtful speeches made both today and in the two earlier debates on the subject by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York.
The second and quite distinct issue is what I call the slippery slope issue. It is at this point that the

979
opponents of research take up their fall-back position. In effect they say that even if research on the conceptus, in the first 14 days after fertilisation, is morally unobjectionable, if that is permitted to continue and not prohibited now, there will be increasing pressure to allow research on embryos at a later stage in their development beyond the 14-day limit and beyond the appearance of the primitive streak, when all should and will accept that that research would be morally objectionable.
The answer to the slippery slope argument to my mind is found in Chapter 11 of the report of the committee of the noble Baroness, which indicates perfectly valid, pragmatic reasons for choosing a biologically sensible and defensible cut-off point. If I had felt any doubt about that, such doubt would have been resolved by the immensely impressive speech that we have today heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walton. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, that cut-off point will be given Parliamentary sanction in the form of the provisions of Clause 3 and it will be given the sanction of the law. Once it has that sanction, I simply do not understand why it is said that it will be difficult to maintain the cut-off point. It can and should be maintained.
In exercising the judicial functions of this Chamber, we are frequently confronted with the argument, "You must not allow this wholly meritorious claim because if you do you will be developing the law beyond a certain point and you will be inundated with a flood of wholly unmeritorious claims". That is an argument to which we seldom find it appropriate to give any weight in the legal sphere. I suggest to the Committee that the floodgates argument attracts no greater weight in the ethical sphere.
There is then the final issue. It appears to be an issue as to whether the research has any potential value. Some of the opponents of research have told us that some scientists deny that it has any value; alternatively, they say that is has only minimal value; or they say that whatever it can achieve can be achieved equally well, or perhaps better, by other means. As against that, there is what appears to me to be the great weight of scientific opinion and authority of those engaged in the research, of those supporting the research, and of those who set up the voluntary licensing authority to ensure that the research is carried out under the appropriate conditions envisaged by the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. And, finally, the issue now has the immense weight of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
However, even if there are some scientists who genuinely doubt whether this research has potential value, how can that possibly be a reason for prohibiting the research by law? Therefore at the end of the day the case against research, in my submission, stands or falls by the claim which the opponents make to exclusive occupation of the moral high ground. If they are right in asserting that research upon the conceptus is morally equivalent to the kind of experimentation that was practised on live human subjects in Hitler's concentration camps, then of course we should all join them and vote to
980
prohibit such research. But if one believes, as I believe, that that comparison is totally invalid, then there is no other ground on which it can possibly be right to deny to humanity the potential benefits in terms of alleviation of human suffering that this research uniquely promises to offer.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: Perhaps I may take up two points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich. First, he said that he believed that the embryo was not a person in the first 14 days. The point is not whether or not one believes that it is, but whether one knows that it is not. Unless one knows that the embryo is not a human being in the first 14 days, one cannot take the risk of carrying out research on him.
The second point is the slippery slope argument. I have a great respect for the medical profession but I think that it has done itself a great disservice in the way that it has let the abortion service get out of hand. By that I mean that if Parliament had known that we would see upwards of 150,000 abortions a year, and that in parts of the country doctors would be giving abortions on demand and that no one would be taking disciplinary action against them, Parliament would never have passed the 1967 Act. Until that situation is put right, the remainder of us have to be a little sceptical that the medical profession will take only what it is given and not take another yard.
The Lord Chancellor: We have had a full, extremely interesting and highly important debate that I am sure holds the interest of all noble Lords and of many outside this Chamber. We are discussing the very centre of the Bill, and a matter that goes to the heart of what life is about and what it is right and not right to do by way of research in the first 14 days after sperm and egg have been mixed together.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham mentioned that in relation to this matter there are in effect three options. The first is to leave matters as they are, unregulated. One must remember that over the past 20 years or so there has been a good deal of work in this area that has been carried on without any legal framework whatever because it is an entirely new area which the law has not hitherto attempted to regulate. This Bill is brought forward by Her Majesty's Government upon the view that it is the duty of government to present to Parliament a Bill in which this matter can be regulated according to the will of Parliament. I believe that it is right —I believe that most Members of the Committee will feel that it is right —that Parliament has the responsibility to lay down the law in this area. If that is so, then that disposes of the first option.
Two options are left. I should like to begin by trying to set the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk in the context of the Bill and other amendments so that we may try to see what the issue is that the Committee is called upon to decide on this amendment. It is the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, and that amendment only, which we are deciding at the moment. Other

981
later amendments have an effect on the matter. I shall try to explain just how I see them arising.
If the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, Amendment No. 51, is passed the effect that he seeks to achieve will be that all research on embryos, as opposed to the use of embryos for the treatment of individual women, will cease. There will of course be some tidying up needed to the Bill, for example, to delete subsection (3) of Clause 11 as proposed in further amendments. But, in a sense, it is a purely technical action. On the other hand, if Amendment No. 51 is rejected, and subsection (1) remains in the Bill, the Committee has then to decide what to do with subsection (2) on which there is an amendment, Amendment No. 54. Perhaps I may put it this way. If Amendment No. 51 is rejected, then in logic Amendment No. 54 should be accepted because that would take out of the Bill the subsection which does not permit research. But if Amendment No 51 is rejected it is not by any means the end of the matter.
The Bill does not propose that all research on embryos should be permitted. Schedule 2 to the Bill sets out the area within which research would, if Parliament so wishes, be allowed. There are already some amendments down which would alter the permitted area of research set out in Schedule 2 and we shall come to these later. The point that I wish to make to the Committee now is that, whereas prohibiting research is a clear-cut decision, allowing research in principle in relation to the amendment will give rise to further debate as to exactly what limits should be set on research.
As I have indicated at Second Reading —and I should emphasise it now —the Government believe that on these amendments, and on Clause 11 as a whole, the proper course for each Member of the Committee is to vote according to his or her own conscience as he or she sees the judgment to be correct. I do not mean for a moment that one necessarily goes on one's own individual preference but on what one conscientiously believes to be the right thing to do, or the right judgment to make in this very difficult situation.
As I said on Second Reading, the role of a government Minister in this situation and in that capacity is to set out, as far as he can, the relevant facts as regards these complex medical and scientific issues, and then to put as dispassionately as he can the arguments on either side of the debate which relate not only to medical and scientific issues but also to ethical and moral questions.
I shall attempt to do that briefly. It has been done by speakers on all sides of the debate with a great deal more authority than I have. At this stage it is right that I should attempt to summarise the situation as I see it. It will necessarily be a summary and I hope that it will be of help to the Committee in coming to an important and difficult decision.
On Second Reading I began by dealing with the arguments for embryo research and followed with the arguments against because that was the order in which these propositions appeared in Clause 11. On this occasion the first amendment we are discussing is to prohibit embryo research and, therefore, after
982
setting out the factual position as I see it, I propose to put the arguments against research before those for research. Needless to say, the length of the argument is no indication of its strength.
I shall therefore begin by trying to give the best factual account in my own words. Eggs for in vitro fertilisation are obtained either from a woman who wishes to have children or from a donor. The donor is usually a woman who is going to be sterilised and who gives her full consent for eggs to be removed from her ovaries while sterilisation is taking place. Before eggs are taken the donor will have been counselled and will have decided exactly what her wishes are; for example, whether or not she wishes her eggs to be used for the purposes of research. The common factor in all cases to which the clause applies is that eggs are brought outside the woman's body; in other words, on fertilisation all eggs are outside the woman's body.
When the eggs have been taken in that way, they are put in a dish with sperm and in a proportion of cases fertilisation takes place. In cases of treatment it is usual to try to fertilise all the eggs which have been taken because the process will not always be successful and some of the eggs which are fertilised may then be seen to be defective. Therefore, in cases of treatment it is usual to have some fertilised eggs which it is not intended to implant. Your Lordships will recall from the Second Reading debate that the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, for example, drew a distinction between the use of fertilised eggs which were, in this sense, spare and the use of fertilised eggs which had been specifically obtained from a woman for research purposes.
If these fertilised eggs remain in the dish —that is, if there is no other human intervention —they will, in a suitable nutrient solution, develop for a fairly short time and will then deteriorate naturally. If your Lordships take the view that any research is permissible, we have in the Bill taken the period of 14 days as being the limit on permissible research and have done so on the basis of the primitive streak.
The position is that once an egg has been brought out of the human body and fertilised, there has to be some further human intervention if it is to become a fetus and develop further. In other words, the fertilised egg has to be transferred into the body of a woman if there is to be any prospect of further development beyond a few days. I am advised that this has to be done at least five or six days after mixing of sperms and eggs. Only in the environment of a woman's body can the fertilised eggs, or some of them, go on to develop their full potential and become in due course, if all goes well, a baby.
I emphasise that at all stages in the progress up to birth the potential for further development can cease. With eggs which are fertilised in the normal way in the woman's body following sexual intercourse, I am advised that for some reason a great majority of the fertilised eggs will not implant into the woman's uterus. In the same way, perhaps a quarter of the fertilised eggs which do implant will at some stage miscarry, often in the first three months of pregnancy.

983
Finally, in this factual survey it may be helpful if I say a little about the nature of the fertilised egg in these early days. At the beginning it is an undifferentiated number of cells which are gradually proliferating. I understand that it is not possible to say which of these cells will develop into the baby and which cells will form the placenta and related structures which are needed to support the embryo and then the fetus through the remainder of its time in the uterus. Nor at this stage is it possible to be clear that a single fertilised egg will not produce twins or in rare cases a larger number of babies. At this stage there is a clear genetic composition but it is not clear how all or any of the cells will develop. I shall not go into the uncommon case where a person has a "mosaic" genetic composition because I do not believe it is relevant to the issues we are discussing.
After about 14 days from the mixing of the sperm and the egg the primitive streak develops and becomes visible. This primitive streak is the first absolutely clear indication of the differentiation of the cells which will develop into the baby, or, if more than one primitive streak appears, into a multiple pregnancy.
In this factual account I have sought to give the House a layman's account of what is an extremely complicated and, as yet, not wholly understood process. It is the duty of legislators to deal as best they can with what is known at the time. In this area there will clearly be in the future, as in the past few years, scope for considerable development and extension of knowledge. This is why the Bill provides for three ways in which that knowledge can be taken into account. The first is by the mechanism of the licensing authority and the scope with the licences which it will issue authorising treatment and, if Parliament allows, research. The second is by the reports which the licensing authority will make not only on the detailed processes of licensing but on its information on the growing knowledge in this field. The third is the power in the Bill, in certain carefully specified areas, to make changes by means of regulations to take account of new scientific and medical knowledge. I am sure that Parliament will wish to keep a close scrutiny on what is happening in these fields, whatever happens in respect of this amendment.
Before turning to the arguments on either side of this important issue, I should like to draw to the attention of the Committee a research report by Dr. Jennifer Gunning which the Department of Health published on Monday, copies of which are available in the Printed Paper Office. The report is entitled Human IVF, Embryo Research, Fetal Tissue for Research and Treatment and Abortion: International Information. I hope that it is a dispassionate account of practice in a number of European countries, the USA, Canada and Australia. The report was drawn up following an intensive programme of desk research and field visits carried out by Dr. Gunning last Autumn. Until the summer of last year Dr. Gunning was the secretary to the Interim Licensing Authority. The report was commissioned in order that in its debates on the Bill
984
Parliament could have as much information as we could provide as regards the way in which the matter has developed in those countries.
I now turn to the arguments which can be advanced in favour of Amendment No. 51. Perhaps I may remind the House that if accepted, it would have the effect of prohibiting all research involving human embyros within the definition of an embryo contained in Clause 1(1). We have already discussed that definition in the context of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Elles in her Amendment No. 3 and it is possible that we may return to that definition at a later stage in the proceedings on the Bill. However, I am sure that the Committee was right to defer definitive consideration of the definition in Clause 1(1) until we had addressed the central issue of today's debate. In the light of the decision taken today there will be an effect in respect of the definition. Therefore, Members of the Committee can approach the question of this amendment on the understanding that that definition will be adjusted to take account of the Committee's wishes in that respect.
Those who have spoken in favour of the amendment have done so with clarity and eloquence. I simply seek to summarise their position. For those who have spoken in support of the amendment the embryo has the potential of human life, of becoming through a successful pregnancy a human being from the moment at which fertilisation occurs. Thus in the circumstances I have described earlier when this process is carried out not as a result of natural processes but through mixing gametes in a glass dish, each of the embryos so created carries with it that potential. Taking this stance leads those who hold this view, which is a fundamental conviction and central component for many of their religous beliefs, to equate research on human embryos with destroying human life. This is because the processes involved in such scientific research inevitably are harmful to the embryo and fatal to its prospect of eventually, if all goes well, being born.
I think that the matter can be put most plainly in the words of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk in moving the amendment. From the point of view of this argument, the embryo has a status of a living child, a human adult or as he said, a Member of your Lordships' House. I believe that that is the central part of the argument in favour of the amendment.
There is a second strand in the argument, which is that for Parliament to permit, in however tightly controlled circumstances, research on human embryos is to take the first step down a slippery slope which might lead to altering the genetic structure of the embryo in order, so to speak, to produce human beings to design. Another version of this argument is that permitting research up to 14 days might be the thin end of the wedge or the opening of a floodgate as scientists could always argue later for changing the basis of the legislation as new research possibilities emerged.
Thirdly, those who oppose research argue that research involving human embryos cannot produce any benefits which it is not posible to obtain in other

985
ways; for example, through research on animals. In their view it cannot be demonstrated that research which has been carried out now for at least two decades has in fact brought benefits in terms of the claims which are made on its behalf.
On that matter, I think I should remind the Committee —I hope I have this right —that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, expressed his view that major prevention of birth with genetic disease will not be possible without such research. He does not say, as I understand him, that any substantial advance has been made in that area as yet but he believes, in the light of the information which he gave, that that would possible.
All Members of the Committee will know that many parents can be advised on the basis of present knowledge that there is some risk —and sometimes that can be expressed as a probability —that a child born to them in the natural way would be born with a particular genetic disease. The possibility of major prevention in that connection is something which people in that position might value.
That is but a brief and no doubt incomplete account of the arguments which are made in favour of Amendment No. 51. If I may put it in a nutshell, those who would vote for this argument would say that whatever the benefits of research involving human embryos, the respect which should be afforded to the embryo in view of its potential to develop into a human being is so fundamental that we should turn away from that prospect and, as would be the effect of this amendment, expressly prohibit in legislation any such research in this country.
That is a moral judgment and question on the basis of the facts. I do not believe that it is possible to reach a sound moral judgment without a fairly close appreciation of the facts. That is why I have sought to set them out as best I can.
I turn now to the arguments against Amendment No. 51. That amendment would allow research involving human embryos to be licensed by the authority to be set up within the range of controls which the Bill provides through a comprehensive scheme of licensing. Those who have spoken in favour of that amendment have also spoken with conviction, eloquence and clarity. Again, I think it may assist the Committee if I attempt to give an account of their arguments.
Those centre on the benefits which it is argued such research can bring,. The objectives of research are as follows and I can do no better than repeat the words in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill which indicate the purposes for which a licence for research, if research is permitted, can be given. These are:
"promoting advances in the treatment of infertility; increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriages; developing more effective techniques of contraception; or developing methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation".
More generally, the paragraph goes on to cover research for the purposes of increasing knowledge about the creation and development of embryos and enabling such knowledge to be applied.
986
Before I look in turn at these purposes for research, I ought to make the general point that doctors would consider it unethical to use a new treatment before they were as sure as they could be that it was unlikely to be harmful. Thus, Steptoe and Edwards before they carried out the first IVF procedure which led to the birth of Louise Brown in 1978 carried out a considerable programme of research before they were satisfied that it was appropriate to try out the procedure on Louise Brown's mother. It is worth drawing this point to the attention of the Committee because the effect of Amendment No. 51 is that, had it been in force at the time, it would have prevented the development of the IVF technique and indeed would prevent any improvement to that technique which could be achieved in the future.
I now turn to the purposes of the research and I think it may be helpful to mention those briefly. First, many doctors and scientists argue that research assists in promoting improvements in infertility treatment. At present IVF has a low success rate which was mentioned repeatedly —perhaps ranging between 10 and 20 per cent. —and research is considered necessary to achieve improvement; for example, on the interaction of the embryo with its environment, on the processes of the creation of embryos and on the freezing of eggs for all of which it would be appropriate and indeed, it is argued, necessary to study embryos in vitro.
Secondly, research has the potential for increasing knowledge about the cause of some congenital diseases and offers the prospect of preimplantation diagnosis through testing developing eggs at an early stage to identify those which will be affected by or carry serious genetic diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy or others.
Thirdly, research is said to be helpful in increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage where problems with implantation are likely often to be associated with defects in early embryonic development. Research on embryos in vitro offers the prospect of improved clinical treatment for women.
Finally, there is the argument that research may assist in the development of new contraceptive methods, notably those based on vaccines, with the aim of ensuring that failure rates are minimal and that they have no adverse effect if pregnancy nevertheless happens. There are of course other benefits which, some would argue, have not yet been thought of. Those who support research argue that if Amendment No. 51 were carried, those doctors and scientists engaged in work involving research on human embryos would be likely to emigrate so as to pursue their work in countries where embryo research was not restricted.
That completes what I seek to put before the Committee at this stage. I should like to mention that what the Committee are asked to do is to lay down, on this aspect, the law for the whole country. It is absolutely plain —and this was referred to —that the Bill contains a clear provision protecting those with conscientious objection against having to take part in any of these procedures.

987
It is a very serious and important question that the Committee face. It is essential that we should all understand this. So could I say that those who wish to vote for Amendment No. 51 will, by that vote, prohibit all research on human embryos as defined in Clause 1(1) of the Bill as it stands.
It is worth pointing out that although inevitably the debate today has centred on Clause 11(1) and (2), that provision was drafted to give a clear-cut choice about whether or not Parliament should permit or prohibit research. It is possible, as I said, to take other positions, notably, as for example the one the Chief Rabbi, the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, mentioned in arguing that research should only be permitted on embryos which become available as part of the IVF procedure; in other words, that no research should be permitted on embryos specifically created by whatever means for the purposes of research and not for the treatment of infertility.
The Committee should be clear that if it votes for Amendment No. 51, the prohibition would be absolute and any such intermediate position, which would allow research but in more tightly controlled circumstances, would not be sustainable. That is on the basis of the Bill as it stands. I am not excluding the possibility that other amendments may be put forward. On the basis of the Bill as it stands, if Amendment No. 51 is carried, all research on embryos would be prohibited and that, I understand, is what my noble friend who moved this amendment and my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson have in mind.
As I have said already, this is a matter of moral judgment in the light of the factual situation, as the Committee will appreciate. I do not believe it is right to take a moral judgment without seeking to appreciate the facts, but once the facts are appreciated, the matter is one, I believe, entirely for moral judgment. This is certainly a very important decision. I respectfully agree, from my own point of view, with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said, that he found this an extremely difficult decision to take. He indicated what he would do. I do not propose to do that.
Lord Ashbourne: Perhaps —
Noble Lords: No. The Duke of Norfolk.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): This is a decision for the Committee and the Committee is making its decision pretty clear.
The Duke of Norfolk: May I thank the noble and learned Lord for his masterly summing up. It was abundantly clear and abundantly fair to both sides of this very important debate. I should like to thank everybody for their speeches, which enlightened me a great deal. I now, without further ado, propose that Amendment No. 51 be carried.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 234.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Ashbourne, L.

London, Bp.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Longford, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lothian, M.

Blake, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Lytton, E.

Braye, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Brentford, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Camoys, L.

Melville, V.

Chester, Bp.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Milverton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norfolk, D. [Teller.]

Cox, B.

Northesk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Parmoor, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peel, E.

Elles, B.

Perth, E.

Falkland, V.

Petre, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Greenway, L.

Reading, M.

Haddington, E.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Harvington, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Havers, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Hemphill, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Hesketh, L.

Salisbury, M.

Holderness, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Hooper, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Stafford, L.

Hylton, L.

Stallard, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kennet, L.

Strange, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Kitchener, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Winchester, Bp.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Addington, L.

Brain, L.

Adrian, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Aldington, L.

Brightman, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Brimelow, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alport, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Butterfield, L.

Annan, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ardwick, L.

Byron, L.

Atholl, D.

Caithness, E.

Attlee, E.

Caldecote, V.

Aylestone, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bancroft, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Barnett, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Belstead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Bessborough, E.

Birk, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Blease, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blyth, L.

Carnock, L.

Boardman, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Carter, L.

Borthwick, L.

Chorley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bottomley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

989

Colwyn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Congleton, L.

Long, V.

Craigavon, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Croham, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cross, V.

McGregor of Durris, L. [Teller.]

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Dainton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

David, B.

Marsh, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Marshall of Goring, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L.

Meston, L.

Denington, B.

Mills, V.

Diamond, L.

Monson, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Moran, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Mountevans, L.

Dudley, E.

Mulley, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Munster, E.

Elibank, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nathan, L.

Ennals, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Erroll, E.

Newall, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nicol, B.

Faithfull, B.

Northfield, L.

Flowers, L.

Ogmore, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Oram, L.

Gallacher, L.

Orkney, E.

Galpern, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gibson, L.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Peston, L.

Goodman, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Griffiths, L.

Pym, L.

Grimond, L.

Quinton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rea, L.

Haig, E.

Reay, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

Richardson, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hanson, L.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rodney, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Russell, E.

Hayter, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Henniker, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hirshfield, L.

Seear, B.

Hives, L.

Seebohm, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hughes, L.

Shannon, E.

Hunt, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sherfield, L.

Ilchester, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jeger, B.

Slim, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Smith, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Somerset, D.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Soper, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Southwark, Bp.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Joseph, L.

Stockton, E.

Kearton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Swann, L.

Kissin, L.

Templeman, L.

Lawrence, L.

Terrington, L.

Listowel, E.

Teviot, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

990

Thurlow, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Tryon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ullswater, V.

Willis, L.

Underhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

Walpole, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Wise, L.

Warnock, B.

York, Abp.

Weinstock, L.

Zuckerman, L.

White, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.18 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Duke said: This amendment puts the Secretary of State in charge more than the authority. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I oppose this amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. If the Secretary of State is to have the power which the Bill now says the authority shall have, it will totally undermine the role of the authority. I believe that it would do great damage to the concept of the Bill. I hope that the noble Duke will not proceed with the amendment.
Baroness Elles: I support my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. This amendment is in line with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act under which the Secretary of State is in charge and is responsible to Parliament for all acts connected with animals, particularly in the field of scientific development. Since we are considered as other animals, it is perfectly logical and reasonable that the same standing should be accorded to this Bill as to the Act concerned with animals.
The Earl of Perth: I support the amendment on the basis that the authority will become another quango. I can see the time when the Secretary of State or Her Majesty's Government are asked questions to which they will say, "It is not our affair". We have seen so many other cases. I see no reason why this amendment should result in any diminution in the authority of the authority. Somehow we need to have Parliament —and therefore the Secretary of State —responsible.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand the view that the licensing decisions should be the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State, who would of course be directly responsible to Parliament. It is a view which has been prominently deployed at various stages in the debates following the Warnock Report. It is also a view which has been carefully considered by the Government but to which, in the end, we have decided not to give effect.
One reason for this is to be found in the amendments discussed on Tuesday which invited the Committee to agree that the authority should be informed by the views of persons having wide knowledge or experience in the fields of law, social

991
work, philosophy and religion, as well as medicine or science. In advising the Committee not to accept the amendment, we said that it would be wrong to confine Ministers; for example, by not mentioning other disciplines such as nursing and counselling. But we also made it very clear that in making appointments to the authority Ministers will be likely to want to select people with experience and from the disciplines mentioned.
I said this because the Government are very conscious that the kind of decisions and the kind of guidance which the licensing authority will need to give has to be based on wide experience. It will need to reflect the coming together of people, from different backgrounds and traditions, who can provide wisdom on subjects which are intensely personal for the person who is receiving treatment and for the clinician who is considering what is best to do for his patient and for any children who may result from successful treatment. The authority will also have to help society to think through what is right to do on issues of great ethical, moral, medical, scientific and legal complexity.
Speaking for myself but I believe for my ministerial colleagues as well, we do not have the detailed specialist experience across these various fields and the advantage that comes from working in a closely-knit specialist group which would help us to take decisions on whether a particular licence should be granted or a particular paragraph of guidance drafted. Our role is a different role. It is to ensure that the right appointments are made, of people with wisdom, experience and breadth of vision. It is also to ensure that, for example, the code of practice which the authority will provide is not in its detail but in its general format and coverage the kind of document that Parliament and the public in this country believe to be right and helpful to recipients. Responsibility for individual decisions could actually inhibit Ministers from carrying through effectively the duties under the Bill which I believe are suited to them. It is for these wider responsibilities on the running of the Act that Ministers should properly be responsible to Parliament.
It may be argued that in taking decisions Ministers would be guided by the authority in an advisory capacity. But if Ministers always agreed with the authority's advice their role would be superfluous. And in so far as they rejected its advice on individual cases or issues they would be overriding the detailed expertise that the members of the authority may possess. Again, Ministers' roles should be rather different. If they were to believe that in large measure the decisions of the authority were wrong or its guidance was in fact misguided, their right under the Bill, and their duty to Parliament, would be to change the composition of the authority.
I am very concerned that the amendments, by running together the separate roles of an executive licensing body and an overseeing Minister, would produce a lower quality of decision and a cumbersome system of administration when what is needed is specialist experience and expertise coupled
992
with individual wisdom from members, but with a general oversight on behalf of Parliament which is provided by the machinery for reports, and the policy responsibilities of the Secretary of State and his responsibility for making appointments.
The option proposed by the amendment was one of those canvassed in the consultation document published in 1986 which preceded the White Paper published a year later. That option was put forward in the consultation document because it was clear in debates on the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, introduced by Mr. Enoch Powell in 1985, that there was a body of support for this concept. However, the results of the consultation exercise were unequivocal and 70 per cent. of those who replied indicated that they favoured the approach recommended by the Warnock Committee of setting up an independent statutory body. The Government endorsed that view in the White Paper and stand by it now.
In their view it would not be right for politicians to become involved in the day-to-day administration of clinical and, if Parliament agrees, research issues of a difficult and delicate kind. The Bill provides for the authority to have a very detailed and strict system of control of certain treatments, the storage of gametes and embryos and, if Parliament agrees, research involving human embryos. The provisions which follow Clause 11 set out this licensing procedure in some detail and give the authority powers to grant, refuse, vary and revoke licences, to make general or specific directions to licence holders and require it to prepare, agree with the Secretary of State and publish a code of practice which gives further detailed guidance on how it expects licence holders to operate.
My noble friend Lady Elles mentioned the position on animal research. There is a significant difference between the research contemplated in Clause 11 and the procedure for dealing with animal research, where the Home Secretary is directly involved. The system is necessary because in that case the purpose is to prevent pain to the animals concerned and to ensure that the project is appropriate in this regard. It is a less detailed and more overall responsibility than would be contemplated for the grant of licences in this Bill. In the light of those considerations, perhaps my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of Norfolk: In view of the fact that the authority will be so widely drawn, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, line 23, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): As Amendment No. 54 has been agreed to, Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 are pre-empted.
Lord Grantchester Lord Grantchester moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert —
("( ) The Secretary of State may, either in consequence of representations made to him or for any other reasons, after consulting the Authority, by order provide that the activities set out in Schedule 2 to this Act for which licences may be granted and activities under existing licences granted by the Authority shall be restricted in such manner and as from such date or dates as shall be specified in such order.").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment. I put it forward in the hope that the Bill will be thereby improved. I was induced to put forward the amendment in order to keep some parliamentary control over the treatment activities set out in Schedule 2. The basis on which the Bill appears to work is that the licensing authority may grant licences for treatment services under Schedule 2. That is done by a licence committee consisting partly of members of the authority itself and, in a minority, persons from outside. The revocation of licences is also left to a licence committee under Clause 17 of the Bill, subject to a right of appeal under Clause 19 in certain circumstances.
My amendment is designed to give the Secretary of State power to restrict activities of those which may be licensed and to act quickly if he is of the opinion that certain activities go beyond those which ought to be carried on and are therefore contrary to the public interest. A reason for proposing this is what happened in relation to the drug thalidomide. In that case, as a result of the use of that drug, very great disadvantages and distress were caused, and the use of the drug had to be restricted and abandoned. Here we are allowing the authority to license treatment services which may develop over the years and which may involve treatments to be carried out even during the pregnancy period. Moreover, drugs may be used which turn out to be as undesirable in their effect as was thalidomide in regard to the unfortunate children.
In those circumstances, put shortly, my amendment would allow the Secretary of State to shut down certain activities by restricting licences in a way that he thought fit. He could do that as soon as it appeared to him to be desirable to do so in the public interest, without having to refer to the authority and go through the procedures of revocation of licences and the resultant appeals and other such matters which may then be involved before the revocations take effect. We hope that the power will never need to be exercised but it is a safeguard which the public and Parliament should, in my submission, require and one which would assist the Bill in its passage through this Chamber.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I listened carefully to the supportive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. He described his amendment as being a minor one. However, if I understood him correctly, it seems to me to be a major amendment. I say that because it enables the Secretary of State to restrict the activities which are listed in the schedule. On any grounds, having listened to certain representations, if he believes that he ought to restrict the activity then he can do so. This proposal
994
seems to me to give the Secretary of State unlimited power.
I am not certain whether the amendment would also enable the Secretary of State to restrict an activity which has been authorised by the authority. If that is so, it seems to me to be undermining the whole authority of the licensing authority. Moreover, it would dissuade doctors from ever undertaking any work under a licence, although it had been granted by the licensing authority. At least, that is my understanding of the noble Lord's speech.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I do not think that this proposal is an improvement to the Bill. In my view it is constitutionally objectionable to give the Secretary of State —who is, after all, a member of the Executive —a right to override the clinical judgment of doctors who are concerned in what is otherwise lawful. I think that it would undermine the authority's function under the Bill. I can assure the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches who moved the amendment that I was a Member of the Cabinet throughout the thalidomide saga and it would have been quite impossible for an amendment such as his to have had the slightest effect on the course of events.
Lord Butterfield: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can answer this question. Is it not true that the use of drugs would come under the provisions of the Medicines Act? Therefore, would it not be for the Medicines Commission to decide whether such treatments were safe? It seems to me that there is a risk here of some reduplication so far as concerns the use of medicines in these circumstances.
Lord Hylton: I should like to say a brief word in favour of the amendment. It states that representations must be made, first, to the Secretary of State. It goes on to state that he must consult the authority. However, after that, presumably he must make up his own mind. It may be desirable that the kind of representations, or who should make them, should be clarified a little further. But, on the face of it, I should have thought that this was a useful reserve power to have in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention of the Bill is that the authority which will be established thereunder will carry out its statutory functions of control and licensing effectively and be worthy of full public confidence. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned, the authority will have the power to give or refuse licences and subsequently to withdraw or vary licences which it has granted. For example, if it should turn out that a particular licence which had been granted had in the judgment of the authority undesirable effects, for some reason which was not anticipated at the time when it was granted, it would have the power to revoke the licence. Of course, as the noble Lord pointed out, procedures will be necessary in such a case to give the licence holder an opportunity to have the matter properly discussed.
This clause, as I understand the basis upon which it is put forward, would give the Secretary of State

995
a kind of short cut to overcome such a difficulty. It would enable him to withdraw the whole basis of the licence by statutory order. I think it would be very difficult to believe that the Secretary of State could properly do so even under the terms of this amendment without giving the people in question —that is, those who were seeking to support the licence —an opportunity of representing the case in the other direction. Therefore the system is a licensing system with fair protection for the public as regards judgment on the practices on the one hand, and the people who may be operating the licences on the other.
The authority will also issue a code of practice which will need to be approved by the Secretary of State and be placed before Parliament. It will also be required to present a full report of its activites to Parliament. We debated an amendment which sought to make the presentation of these reports more frequent than is specified in the Bill.
Accordingly, I suggest to the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Hylton, that the purposes of the amendment are really achieved by powers which already exist in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred by way of example to the thalidomide case. I do not think that he was really suggesting that this proposal would deal with medicines in quite the same way; he was simply giving that case as an illustration of a situation where what people thought was all right at the time the drug was put on the market turned out to be far from all right. He was merely suggesting that something of the kind could happen under this machinery. For example, a licence could be granted and after it had come into effect it might turn out that it was producing bad results. That is exactly why the licensing authority is given power to revoke licences. I believe that that is the correct system.
Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, mentioned, medicines are controlled under the Medicines Act. However, that aspect does not really affect the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester merely wished to give an illustration of what may happen under this system. I hope that in the light of those considerations that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester: In the light of those explanations I should like to withdraw the amendment, subject, however, to the one caveat. I had in the back of my mind that the authority and its members would be interested in the actual carrying on of the activities and the treatment services. The idea was to give an overall parliamentary control. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may deal with a further point that he made. I refer to the idea that the people who grant the licences may not all be members of the authority. I think that Clause 9(5) requires the licence committee to be constituted entirely of members of the authority. I must apologise to the noble Lord for not dealing with that aspect earlier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Activities for which licences may be granted]:
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 25, line 40, leave out from ("embryos") to end of line 42 and insert ("will survive if placed in a woman").
The noble Duke said: This is a very important amendment. The Bill allows that embryos may be assessed to ensure that they are,
"in a suitable condition to be placed in a woman".
It does not define what is meant by "suitable condition". I am concerned that if we leave the Bill as it stands, it opens the way for all kinds of practices which we should all find unacceptable. We can imagine parents who wanted a boy or a girl or a blond child or a blue-eyed child, asking the doctor to select an embryo with these qualities. If the doctor considered that only a child with the qualities that the parents wanted was suitable, he would be allowed to select that embryo. In India the desire of many parents to abort a girl fetus is a major social problem and also, I would say, the worst form of sexual discrimination.
The possibilities of such unethical practices increase a thousandfold with in vitro techniques. This is eugenics, and it is one of the most dangerous prospects opened up by IVF technology. The effect of eugenics is one factor which has motivated the German parliament to introduce its commendable Bill which I mentioned earlier. Even without genetic manipulation, which we all wish to see banned, it would be possible to breed children with any desired characteristics by careful selection of embryos, particularly now that it is possible to create many embryos at once. The amendment seeks to prevent any kind of eugenic selection of embryos. Of course there would be no point in replacing embryos which could not survive or any that might pose a threat to the mother. But all other forms of selection should be banned. I beg to move.
Viscount Caldecote: I support the amendment. I was speaking to a doctor, a gynaecologist, a few days ago who is invited on occasions to do exactly what my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk suggested might sometimes happen. That is determining the sex of the child to be born. Surely that is not something which we would feel was a good thing.
Lord Swinfen: I wish to support the principle behind the amendment. I wonder what happens if the embryo does not survive. The amendment says, "will survive". We have already heard this evening that quite a large number of embryos formed naturally do not survive. I should have thought that the amendment could have been improved by the addition of words such as "are very likely to survive". It would take a lawyer, not me, to get the wording right. I wondered whether, if an embryo is inserted into a woman and it fails to survive, an offence might be committed.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I wish to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has to say. We cannot possibly ensure that an embryo will survive if placed in a woman. I do not know why the noble Duke thought that one could provide any such guaranteee, so I hope that he will not press the amendment. However, I am anxious to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I also wish to support the principle behind this. I should be grateful to hear whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, could define more sharply the words "in a suitable condition". In the normal usage of the English language, that could not really be taken to mean with blue eyes or fair hair. I share all the noble Duke's anxieties about the wrong direction that this might take.
Lord Brain: There is one small point which was brought up. With some of the diseases that are sex-linked there is a definite need. I quite agree about blue eyes and such characteristics but regarding whether a male or female embryo will be replaced in a woman, that is one of the suitable conditions that might be excluded. One would not be able to select that if the noble Duke's amendment were passed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): I am sorry to disappoint some Members of the Committee who expected to hear from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I think that my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk is unduly concerned in attempting to alter the Bill with this amendment. As currently drafted, subparagraph (1)(d) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 permits treatment licences to be issued for practices designed to ensure that embryos are suitable for being placed in a woman. I believe that that does not mean that they conform to the desire of the woman for a baby with blue eyes or other such characteristics, but are suitable for the purpose of implantation and creating a viable embryo.
In seeking to narrow the grounds on which a licence can be issued under this provision to practices designed to ensure that an embryo will survive if placed in a woman, the amendment would not help. The wording in the Bill is designed to ensure that in the course of treatment defective embryos are not unwittingly placed in a woman. If a woman undergoing in vitro fertilisation has a moral objection to a defective embryo being discarded, it is of course open to her to decide to have it placed in her, but I think that that was not the purport of the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. We believe that the mother should be in a position to know as far as possible whether the embryo is suitable. It is for those reasons that we feel we must oppose the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I wish to ask the noble Baroness whether it could relate to things like temperature or
998
some other suitable condition at the moment when it is implanted. Could it refer for instance to temperature or the way in which the embryo was protected before use?
Baroness Hooper: I presume so. As I understand it and as I am advised, suitable in this context means medically suitable. That must take into account, I imagine, such things as temperature.
The Earl of Halsbury: How can one be satisfied that an embryo will survive if placed in a woman when we know that 90 per cent. of them do not?
The Duke of Norfolk: The purpose of my amendment was to stop what I call the brave new world scenario coming along in which mankind is being manipulated by the abilities given through in vitro fertilisation. That itself is a wonderful thing. However, having heard what has been said, I wish to reserve the possibility of bringing the matter up in some other form, if necessary at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth had given notice of his attention to move Amendment No. 61:
Page 25, line 44, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Earl said: This amendment was considered on Tuesday with Amendment No. 21. I pressed that amendment to a vote and unfortunately it was defeated, but I remain hopeful that not everything is lost. I shall say no more at this moment except that when we come to Amendment No. 70 I may make further remarks.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Lord Harvington Lord Harvington moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 26, line 1, leave out paragraph (g).
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 describes the kinds of activities which may be licensed when providing treatment services. The kinds of activities that are to be allowed are listed under the headings (a) to (g). It is stated under heading (g):
"such other practices as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations".
That would appear to give a completely blank cheque with regard to further practices being allowed by regulations. I find that quite unacceptable. We could ask what is the point of giving a list of allowed practices if we then finish up by saying that anything else may be allowed. Further, what is the point of our debating what should be allowed today if we are going to open the door to such a change in the future?
It is true that it is provided that regulations under this part of the Bill would need to be made by affirmative resolution. As the Committee knows perfectly well, that is a resolution of both Houses. However, in my view this is a matter for primary legislation. We should deal with it now. We are debating the fundamental principles involved today. Those Members on both sides of the Committee who are most concerned about this matter have come here today to see this matter resolved. There have

999
been a great many Members of the Chamber present today. It would be wholly wrong if we were to see our decision watered down in six months' time or if we all had to turn up again to debate these matters once more in the context of some government regulation that had been tabled. In my opinion that is not the way to do things. The provision contained under heading (g) is unnecessary and should be deleted. I beg to move.
Lord Adrian: Surely what is being considered here are treatments. That has nothing to do with research. That is dealt with later in the Bill under licences for research. We are concerned here with licences for treatment. The words "such other practices" refer to treatment practices. I am not aware that the medical profession, when considering a new treatment, has to apply to Parliament for primary legislation to allow it. It seems to me that it would be a fatal mistake to ban all practices other than those that are listed. I strongly oppose this amendment.
Lord Ennals: I think the provision in the Bill is necessary. It certainly should remain and not be deleted. It is important. If we are to place confidence in the authority —that is what we intend to do —and the Secretary of State is to determine who will be on it and we are satisfied that it is a responsible body, it is important that there should be a degree of flexibility. We do not want the authority to say there is something which does not fall absolutely within the terms of the headings (a) to (f) but which needs to be done as regards treatment. To deny that kind of flexibility in the area of research which will lead to certain forms of treatment is wrong. I hope the amendment will not be passed.
Baroness Hooper: As the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, pointed out, the provision in the Bill is designed to take account of new treatments which may become available and the Government believe it is right to make provision for possible future advances in fertility treatment. The rapid advances in techniques, even since the publication of the Warnock Report in 1984, show how difficult it is to forecast now everything that may be possible even in a few years' time. In the Government's view therefore it would not be desirable to have to wait for new principal legislation in every case.
However, the Government recognise that this is an area where Parliament has particular concerns. That has been evidenced by the response to the debates on this Bill. Those Members of the Committee who have concerns should feel reassured by the fact that any regulations which are made under this heading would have to be laid in draft and would be subject to an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. On that basis I trust my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harvington: I have listened to the comments of my noble friend the Minister and to those of the Members of the Committee opposite. That has drawn my attention to the fact that I may be
1000
mistaken in what I am trying to do. I have also listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) Order 1989
6.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th December 1989 be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee of Statutory Instruments. It has two simple purposes. The first is to prescribe employees and board members of certain bodies, office holders, and some employees of these office holders so that they may become treated as Crown servants for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
The second is to prescribe certain bodies so that they can control or can authorise the disclosure of protected information. The draft order is, I hope, largely self-explanatory. There are just three general points that I should like to make which I venture to believe will assist your Lordships.
First, everybody who is listed in the order is already subject to the Official Secrets Act 1911. My right honourable friend is not therefore seeking to impose additional burdens or restrictions by this order. The effect of the order is simply to apply the lighter controls of the 1989 Act in place of the heavy, blanket protection in Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
Secondly, the Government do not believe in unnecessary prescription. My right honourable friend has not therefore sought to prescribe everybody who may regularly receive information which is protected by the 1989 Act. His proposals bear only on those who not only receive but also produce sensitive information in the limited categories which the Act covers. The prescription order affects about 27,000 people. Your Lordships may like to compare that with the 500,000 or so who at present are treated under their own legislation as Crown servants for the purposes of official secrets legislation.
Thirdly, the disclosures which will be covered by the new Act are only those which cause harm that is serious enough to merit a criminal sanction. The prosecution will have to satisfy a jury that any relevant harm was done. The effect of prescription for an individual is that, in such circumstances, it will be for the defence to prove that he did not know that harm was likely to arise from his disclosure.
I would not wish to detain the House with a detailed account of the schedules to the draft order. I hope that what I have said has been sufficient to explain to your Lordships the purposes of the order. In each case the principle has already been established. If the draft order is approved, as I hope it will be, my right honourable friend proposes to bring the Act into force on 1st March. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th December 1989 be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order and for his brief explanation of its main purpose. I am sure almost everyone will agree that openness in government is the standard we must aim for. The flow of information is essential in a democracy if there is to be informed criticism of government policies and actions and the use of public resources. That point must be continually stressed. I am sure the Minister is aware that many people are critical of this Government for not doing as much as they should to achieve the aim of open government.
I take the point that the combined effect of this order and the Official Secrets Act 1989 is to reduce the number of people who are treated as though they were civil servants for the purpose of official secrets legislation from half a million to 27,000. Welcome though that announcement is, the figure of 27,000 is still too high. It includes, for example, the health ombudsman. I should be interested to learn what sensitive papers of the state find their way to his desk which need to be protected by this legislation.
The Comptroller and Auditor General and the staff of the National Audit Office and their counterparts in Northern Ireland are included in Schedule 2. That situation was the subject of considerable adverse criticism by the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. There is not only a suspicion but a conviction that the reports of those officers will be more restricted in future than hitherto because of their inclusion in this order. Can the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, give a categoric assurance that there is no basis whatsoever for that anxiety? Such anxiety would be the cause of considerable alarm.
I should like to turn to an item in Schedule 3. Having read the explanatory note —which is far from crystal clear—I have come to the conclusion that the Civil Aviation Authority will be empowered by this instrument to dispose of documents. Presumably it would be authorised to destroy documents. I should be interested to learn in what circumstances and conditions that power would be exercised by the Civil Aviation Authority—assuming that I have correctly understood Schedule 3.
I have no other questions to put to the Minister. I have a very strong conviction that we have not come to the end of the road in regard to this order.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl has rightly pointed out that the number of persons who are subject to the Official Secrets Act has been drastically reduced. It is not simply a question of
1002
numbers; it is also a question of what will be suppressed and why. It will now be the responsibility of those who are accused to show that any revelations which they have made are not against the national interest.
The old Official Secrets Act was bad enough, but under that Act Clive Ponting was acquitted. The first question that I should like to ask the noble Earl is whether, if this order in conjunction with the Official Secrets Act is approved, Clive iPonting would ever have been brought to trial. Would there have been no jury and would the revelations that he made have automatically led to his conviction? If that is the situation, we are potentially suppressing information which is in the national interest and not against the national interest.
Secondly, what effect will this order have, if any, upon the present Wallace case? Will it prevent civil servants who knew of this dirty tricks operation —Clockwork Orange, as it is called —from giving evidence? Will it prevent them from being brought before a Select Committee of another place in order to reveal what went on in what is now seen as likely to have been a set of operations which if not illegal were certainly underhand and against the national interest and against the interests of Parliament and parliamentarians?
The third question that I should like to ask the Minister follows the remark made by my noble friend concerning the Comptroller and Auditor General. Why is he included under this order? How will that situation affect the kind of work that he has been doing with great distinction —work which we hope he will continue to do? What will be the situation in regard to the alleged bribery (I use that word advisedly) in the sale of Rover? It will be the job of the Auditor General to look into that kind of evidence which concerns the use of public money. Will that situation be inhibited by the approval of this order?
As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, stated, in this age we are seeking more open government and more public information. I am sure that the noble Earl has been in the United States, where a great deal more public information is available. It is often shown to the public on television. The democratic process rests on an informed public.
Although the number of people concerned is reduced by the Official Secrets Act and by this order, there is a great danger that the amount of important and vital information about which the public and Members of Parliament have a right to know may be decreased.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hatch of Lusby, were concerned that there was not enough openness of government. I think that there has been an astonishing openness of government. It may not have gone as far as some people would like. However, when one thinks of what the earlier Official Secrets Act covered and the number of people it covered, most people were surprised when the present Government came along with the Official Secrets Act 1989 and loosened the bonds of the 1911 Act to

1003
the extent they did. We are simply concerned here with saying that there are certain secrets which any government must have. That is separate from freedom of information, which I think is the point to which both noble Lords referred. We say that there are certain secrets that any government must have. Therefore, those who are endowed with those secrets must bear that responsibility. This order says that there are other people who work in those spheres, or similar spheres, who should be treated, for the purposes of the Act, as Crown servants.
I shall resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, into going back in history and trying to speculate what would, or would not, have been the case over Ponting had the present Act been on the statute book. I think that there is no virtue in that. Nor will I be drawn into the possibility of discussing what might happen over the Wallace affair. The position certainly over Ponting is that he was a Crown servant. We are dealing with people who are not Crown servants but who are occupied in certain businesses which may put them in a position of having sensitive information, and therefore for the purposes of the Act are to be treated as Crown servants.
If that is so —and perhaps I may remind both noble Lords of this —they will be covered by the new Act, and only disclosures which are likely to cause harm will be serious enough to merit a criminal sanction. Then it is up to the defence to prove that they did not know that harm was likely to arise from their disclosure. That gives the defence a considerable benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that he thought that the figure of 27,000 was too high. That may be his view, but I think that he will understand that a drop of the magnitude that the Government have seen to be prudent to allow is a considerable drop, and there have to be certain people bound by the categories of secrets.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me whether I could give an assurance that no one listed in the schedules will be worse off as a result of the prescription. I can give him that categorical assurance. Everyone who is listed in the order is already subject to the Official Secrets Act 1911. The effect of the order therefore is simply to apply not the same controls as they were subjected to under the 1911 Act, but lighter controls.
Both noble Lords referred to the National Audit Office headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It has the responsibility of certifying the accounts of government departments and certain other bodies, checking that the money voted by Parliament is spent for the purposes that Parliament intends and in accordance with the rules of government accounting. It also carries out examinations of the economy, the efficiency and the effectiveness with which departments have used their resources. For both these purposes the National Audit Office has extensive access to government departments' papers.
As my right honourable friend the Minister of State explained in another place, prescription will
1004
not affect in any way the Comptroller and Auditor General's existing powers of access to information in departments, or his existing ability to report to Parliament, or pass information to the Public Accounts Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also referred to the Health Service Commissioner. Of course the blanket protection for information held by the commissioners will be removed with the coming into force of the Official Secrets Act 1989. It is necessary though that those handling protected information, disclosed or generated in the performance of the functions of the parliamentary commissioners, should be subject to the Official Secrets Act. I think that that is right.
The noble Lord also referred to the Civil Aviation Authority. It must observe the rules of natural justice, which include notifying applicants and objectors of all relevant factors which may influence the authority's decision, and give them an opportunity to comment on them. Prescription under Schedule 3 means that the Civil Aviation Authority can, for example, authorise the disclosure of protected information if need be.
Although the noble Lords are as concerned about the disclosure of information, as they were on the passage of the Official Secrets Bill when it was going through Parliament, I hope that they will accept that governments have the right, and indeed the duty, to have secrets, and in the public interest to protect those secrets. We have sought to limit that protection so far as we can to those most importantly connected with that secret information. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this draft order seeks to do that.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Earl on what he has just said. Am I not right that he is saying that governments, and governments alone, will determine what is in the national interest and what is against it, and that these cases will no longer go before a judge to determine? If that is the case, or whether or not it is the case, why have the Government apparently been retrogressive on even the old Act by putting the onus of proof on the defence?
If the Government are so sure of their probity in their interpretation of the national interest, why do they not take reponsibility for proving that the national interest has been breached? Surely it is the normal practice in British judicial tradition that it is for the prosecution to prove and not for the defence. This seems to be a total reversal of the whole history of our juridical practices.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not want to go over the whole business of what we discussed during the passage of the Official Secrets Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, found difficulty in accepting the position. But when he says that it is the Government who have to determine what a secret is, the answer is that it is, because the Government have their secrets, and they have correctly to determine what those secrets are.

1005
If somebody divulges secrets, he can be caught if he has divulged secrets that cause harm which is serious enough to merit a criminal sanction. If that situation comes about, he can be prosecuted and the prosecution would have to show that it would be a cause of harm. The defence in that case can say that he did not know, when he divulged that information, that it would cause harm. That is a defence, and a very powerful line of defence too for anyone accused of divulging a secret: that is, if he can show that he did not know that harm would arise by that disclosure. I think those are both important considerations, which any person who is accused of divulging secrets could take into account.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, can the Minister help the House just a little further? I understand that the Government come to the view that a matter is of national interest, but in fact is that assessment open to challenge in the courts? That is the first question. The second question arises really from my few comments on the order. Am I right that it is the Civil Aviation Authority that has the power to destroy documents? I asked the Minister in what circumstances, and under what conditions, it would destroy documents. Is the noble Earl able to help the House on that second issue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have momentarily forgotten the first point raised by the noble Lord. But perhaps he will be kind enough to repeat it.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we accept that the Government form the view that a matter is in the national interest. Is that self-assessment open to challenge in the courts?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for repeating his question. I was thinking temporarily of his second question. The Government consider what constitutes a secret. If a person divulges that secret and it gets into the newspapers, it is up to the prosecution to prove to a jury that that person had done relevant harm under the Act. The Act states what the harm is when a disclosure is made and the prosecution would have to say that, by divulging that information this person has caused a criminal offence by divulging harm which is relevant under the Act. It is then up to the defence to use, as a method of defence, the fact that he did not even know that, when he divulged the information he would create harm. As I have tried to explain, that is a significant form of defence.
The noble Lord referred to the Civil Aviation Authority. The authority may produce sensitive information and, in determining air transport licensing cases, the authority's tribunal subject to the supervision of the Council on Tribunals must observe the rules of natural justice which include notifying applicants and objectors of all relevant factors which may influence the authority's decision, and give them an opportunity to comment on them. Prescription under Schedule 3 means that the Civil Aviation Authority may authorise the disclosure of information. It may authorise the disclosure, but that is not the same as saying that it can destroy
1006
documents. The point is that the Civil Aviation Authority is a body which can authorise the disclosure.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to the point, but I shall not detain the House for long. In that case, of the three authorities named in Schedule 3, which one is empowered to direct the disposal of documents? I had assumed that the disposal of documents meant the destruction of documents.
Earl Ferrers: The three bodies are prescribed under Article 4 which enables them for the purposes of the Act to authorise or restrict disclosure and to direct the return or disposal of documents in one case. I believe that I am right in saying that that case involves the Civil Aviation Authority, but if I am mistaken I shall let the noble Lord know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.23 to 8 p.m..]

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Schedule 2.
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 26, line 30, at end insert ("which are life-threatening or severely disabling").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which deals with a subject that I raised at Second Reading. I do not think that it has been discussed at all in the context of the Bill. It refers to the need for criteria that the proposed licensing authority should use to decide which research into congenital diseases it will license. Paragraph 13.6 of the Warnock Report specifically stated:
"We do not see it as our function to specify in detail the criteria for granting a licence but there are certain controls which we believe should be imposed".
In the consultation paper published in December 1986, after the report, the Government said nothing at all about the criteria for research. The White Paper, published in November 1987, echoes Warnock in paragraph 22 which states:
"The Government does not intend to specify in legislation the detailed criteria which should be applied in granting licences".
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was interviewed for television in April 1985. I have her permission to quote from the transcript of that interview. She deals with the point that I am now raising. In response to the question:
"Do you not think there are dangers in that really what one is doing is genetically engineering?"
she replied:
"Well, I think there are dangers and I think that it requires enormous thought to say which of the full list of conditions will, as it were, merit this kind of treatment … I think we need to have an agreed list, by society as a whole, of which of the conditions that are so disabling lead to such a short life on the part of a child who suffers from them that medicine and common humanity must work together to eliminate these if possible".
Later in the interview she said:
"I think this is why I feel so very strongly that when these kinds of developments become possible, we've got to have an agreed list of conditions which are agreed by everybody to be so disabling and so tragic for the person and the family within which they care that it is worth bringing them [the diseases] to an end".
I should make clear that this is a probing amendment. Certainly I do not intend to divide the Committee on it. However, I believe that we should spend a few moments considering this very difficult question of criteria. Although I have not received any advice on this point from outside bodies —and the amendment reflects my own wording —I was gratified to note that the Medical Research Council has circulated a note which, in respect of the amendment, states:
"It seems to be an attempt to prioritise research by bringing it towards increasing knowledge of serious and congenital disease and away from less important areas, and as such would be acceptable to the MRC".
I am grateful for the support of the Medical Research Council, except for the use of the dreadful word "prioritise". The form of words used in my amendment indicates the kind of criteria that the licensing authority might use but I willingly admit the text is not perfect.
Let me take an example. We heard earlier in the debate that colour blindness is an inherited disease or defect. If it were possible to detect it in the embryo, would we really suggest that scarce research resources should be devoted to detecting that defect? The difficult area for the licensing authority may lie in those disabilities which can be detected in the embryo and which are disabling, but perhaps not seriously so early in life yet get progressively worse. That indeed may apply to some eye conditions which do not cause total blindness until quite late in life.
The difficulty of a definition perhaps indicates why the Government have avoided the attempt to define. If that is the case, we should recognise the great responsibility that we are placing on the licensing authority; and the Committee should consider whether that is what it wishes to bring about. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I fully recognise the noble Lord's concern in this matter and the apparent desirability of having some kind of agreed list of conditions. I note with interest the MRC's support for the idea of having some list of priorities. However, in the light of the arguments that have been advanced in the course of our discussions on the Bill so far, we all recognise that there are very rapid advances in techniques and increasing knowledge in this area, so that any attempt to define priorities at a particular stage in itself would impose particular difficulties.
That is why the Government feel that this kind of amendment would not be welcome. In practice, it
1008
would be extremely difficult to decide which diseases came into any particular category, whether it was phrased in the actual wording proposed in this amendment or indeed any other similar wording. We believe that if research were to be licensed, the decision on which research projects to license would be best left to the authority, which will be able to consider each application in detail through the proposed structure of licensing committees. In that context, obviously we have been and are concerned that the composition of those committees should be correct so that they are able to make these decisions which we recognise are important.
In raising this amendment, the noble Lord has underlined the reasonable role that the authority will have in this matter. On that basis I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her reply. She is absolutely correct. I was anxious to underline the severe and very real responsibilties that we are placing on the members of the licensing authority in deciding on the lines of research that they will license. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 26, line 32, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Earl said: This is a probing amendment and it should not occupy the Committee for very long. I gave noble Lords notice during Second Reading that I would raise this point because research into contraceptives using an embryo was outwith the recommendations of the Warnock Committee. I confirmed that with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. In fact it was never considered by her committee.
Therefore this is the first new item which has appeared in the context of embryology and embryo research. I think it worth asking why it has been put into the Bill since research at present is yielding very good results. I understand that the strategy behind it is to produce something like auto-immune antagonism to the ovum or sperm, as the case may be. I also understand that it is only likely to give immunity for a couple of years, or something like that. It is not a permanent immobilisation of a woman's fertility capacity. The dose would have to be renewed by a prick in the arm every two years or so. If it is a medicine it brings in the status of the Safety of Medicines Act. Perhaps the noble Baroness or the noble and learned Lord would like to comment on that question.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Earl surely knows that if his amendment were carried it would throw the International Planned Parenthood Federation into confusion. The whole world is waiting for a better contraceptive.
The Earl of Halsbury: If the noble Lord will give way, I shall not carry this through to a Division. There is no question of the amendment being accepted. I said that it was a probing amendment to find out the current state of play.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend on what basis the measure goes beyond the Warnock Report and the White Paper.
Lord Ennals: I was arguing the case on an earlier amendment for having some flexibility. If we set up a statutory body in which we have confidence, with people whom we trust, but hedge it around with limitations on what it can do —and we are here setting out what it may or may not do —it is important that it should have some flexibility. I suppose that we could have added a rounded term such as "such other activity as might be in the public good" or what have you. It is perfectly clear, as my noble friend Lord Houghton said, that it is important to have an improved contraceptive, and this seems to me to be the right body to approve research in this field. I should therefore be very happy if the matter were to be withdrawn.
It does not flow from the Warnock Committee. It may well be that certain activities may be undertaken which were not anticipated when the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, produced her report. However, it is within the same field and I believe that it is the natural body to do such research, of course under licence. I hope that the provision will remain in the Bill.
The Earl of Lauderdale: We have been told not once but half a dozen times in Committee earlier this week, and several times today, that the argument for such and such is that it was either in the Warnock Report or in the White Paper. I am asking the Government on what basis they are adding extras that were not in either of those documents. I am only asking for the information.
Viscount Craigavon: Perhaps I may help the noble Earls, Lord Halsbury and Lord Lauderdale. I refer to the guidelines in the latest report of the interim licensing authority.
The Earl of Lauderdale: That is not the White Paper or the Warnock Report.
Viscount Craigavon: They have been in use for some considerable time.
The Earl of Lauderdale: They may have been in use for some considerable time, under the interim licensing authority. We are referring to a statutory body. We have been told over and over again, on Tuesday and more than once today, that a measure in the Bill is justified because there was reference in the Warnock Report or the White Paper. There may have been guidelines by the Interim Licensing Authority, but the issue was not in the White Paper or the Warnock Report.
Viscount Hanworth: If it is a sensible thing to do, I cannot understand why we should raise these various objections. We all know perfectly well that the over-population of this planet is likely to become a major problem. I know of course what the Catholics think about it. However, for the remainder of us I
1010
should have thought that there was no question whatsoever that this matter should be included.
The Earl of Lauderdale: We had arguments earlier about the slippery slope. We have had arguments about this or that matter being authorised now and the authority then going a little further. We have here an issue that was in neither the White Paper nor the Warnock Report. I hope that we shall be given an answer as to why it has been added.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I believe that scientific progress has developed even since the Warnock Report was published. The amendment is concerned not so much with the development of new drugs for contraception but more with the possibility of developing a vaccine for male contraception in which this test —the embryo research, but also the issue of the hamster test —is very much involved. It is a technique that brings considerable hope of developing new and effective male contraception methods which may have world-wide application. For that reason I believe that it is an important issue to be retained in the Bill.
The Earl of Lauderdale: What one wants to know is that the activities arising from this authority will not expand by a degree here and there and end up in activities that are only marginally implicit in our legislation and may not even be authorised by it.
Viscount Hanworth: That has been my problem in voting on the Bill. There are several things that could be done illegally at the moment in the Bill —such as cloning —which would be highly unfortunate, but I should have thought that it was a quite clear issue and that nothing has been said which should deter us from putting it in the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: I should start by saying to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale that everything that is contained in the Bill is not totally dependent upon being mentioned in the Warnock Report because the report came out some years ago and, as we have already established, a number of changes in techniques and practices have developed in the intervening period. Any measure is not totally dependent on what is in the White Paper. Nevertheless, if my noble friend looks at Annex B of the White Paper he will see that paragraph 48(c) refers to suggested benefits of research which include developing more effective forms of contraception. It is therefore in this case mentioned in the White Paper.
I should also like to establish in the context of the amendment that has been proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that we are also speaking to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68, which I understand were grouped with Amendment No. 66.
On the question of contraception, and in relation to the amendment, I should also preface my remarks by saying that the Government are neutral on this question and in the event of a Division would leave it to Members of the Committee to decide according to their own consciences on whether a licence should

1011
be authorised for research for the purpose of developing more effective techniques of contraception. However, I acknowledge that the noble Earl said in moving the amendment that he intends it as a probing amendment. I would therefore merely say that those who support embryo research for the purpose of developing more effective techniques of contraception argue that embryo research beyond the two-cell stage is important for testing some contraception methods based on vaccines to ensure not only that failure rates are minimal but also that they have no adverse effects if pregnancy nevertheless occurs.
On the other hand —attempting to be even-handed and presenting the other side of the argument —those who are opposed to embryo research being used for this purpose argue that while they accept research involving human embryos in principle for moral reasons, they would not wish that research to be carried out for this purpose. The Government remain neutral on the question and therefore I must leave your Lordships to decide the matter in due course on the basis of the arguments put for and against.
Viscount Craigavon: The noble Baroness said that Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 have been grouped with this amendment. However, she does not appear to have replied to Amendment No. 68 to which I was hoping to speak. I was also hoping to hear comments from the noble Duke. Can the matter be clarified? Are we now talking to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68? It may be better if they dealt with them separately after first dealing with the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I have been entrusted with moving Amendment No. 67 and it may be to the advantage of the Committee if I spoke to it now. The noble and learned Lord said that we could table amendments to Schedule 1 in order to discuss individual areas of research. This is such an amendment. It would exclude the development of methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. What will be done with the information once it is available?
Research can lead to treatment of the genetic disorders or chromosome abnormalities. However, I have gained the impression from the debates that, as yet, there is no claim that the information will lead to treatment. Therefore, its purpose would be to identify defective embryos so that they could be "weeded out".
I believe that if we go down that road we shall give an unfortunate impression to the public because, in effect, we should be saying that all seriously handicapped people are a burden to society and should not have been born. I question whether that is wise and I shall be interested to hear Member's comments.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand that paragraph (e) of Schedule 3(2) is designed to deal with one of
1012
the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in the course of his earlier speech. One knows that there are married couples who have been advised that there is a serious risk that a child born of their union will have a congenital disease which may be due to a gene or chromosome deficiency. Very often that risk can be expressed as a percentage. The provision would enable research to be carried out into the development of methods for detecting whether that is so in relation to a particular embryo.
In the normal case, if such couples are willing to accept the risk, they can go forward by the normal method in which case the risk might or might not occur. One has heard of and known couples who have been advised and counselled about the risks but have decided to take it. The woman has conceived in the natural way and sometimes a handicapped child has been born. If that happens once, the question becomes even more serious in respect of a second child and so on. I am sure that many Members of the Committee will know families in which until now every male child has suffered from a distressing congenital problem.
If techniques were developed as a result of successful research, the provision would enable medical advisers to be in a position to offer such couples the option of IVF. They would apply to the embryos produced for that purpose the test developed under this research. They would take the view of the parent regarding what they wish to happen. By using the technique of IVF they may be able to eliminate the risk of the congenital disease in the child born to those parents.
It is a matter entirely for the parents. There is no question of the technique eliminating a particular type of congenital disease if it could be detected in that way. The matter would be entirely for the parents. Some couples would be prepared to take the risk as it now exists without going down this road. However, others may feel that the distress of having a handicapped child, particularly if they have had the experience of having such a child already, is too great.
It is fair to say that a woman bearing a child is naturally concerned that the child is normal. One of the most anxious inquiries made by a mother on the birth of her child is whether it is all right. Anxious examination is usually made at the first opportunity that she has of seeing the child. It is one of the deepest maternal instincts. However, that does not mean that if the mother finds that her child is handicapped the love for the child is any the less. But it is a natural concern that the child is "normal", if I may use that expression without any offence to the handicapped or people who suffer from congenital disease. Accordingly, it is a natural concern for parents to have, and if they are advised that there is a risk, that they should seek to have a normal child if a reasonable method is available.
The method is a reasonable possibility. The Government are neutral on the whole question of research and on all its aspects. Therefore, I do not put forward that view as being concluded, but I thought it right to put those points before the Committee for consideration. No doubt the noble

1013
Lord will have them in mind when deciding what to do about his amendment.
Viscount Craigavon: That was an extremely reasoned and reasonable reply to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. The question was debated and the answer was given by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, earlier this afternoon.
I shall not talk about contraception but about genetic and chromosomal diseases which are mentioned in Amendment No. 68. I wish to refer to statistics and I apologise for raising them at this hour of the night. If I confuse Members of the Committee, the statistics will be in Hansard and can be read in the morning at leisure. They are not statistics that I have produced, but those already referred to by the noble Duke. They were produced as a result of a Gallup poll and he first mentioned them on Tuesday. The poll was commissioned by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children on behalf of LIFE.
I wish to quote further extracts from the poll which are not favourable to the noble Duke's cause in the way that he might have hoped. I shall first read carefully the question asked in the poll so that I do not slant it in any way. The question asks:
"Scientists can create human embryos in a laboratory by fertilising ova with sperm. Do you think this should not be allowed for the following types of experiments?"
Category (c) reads:
"For research into genetics and chromosomal diseases".
The percentage who said that that should not be allowed was 32 per cent. and the percentage that said it should be allowed was 58 per cent. That is the public speaking. Those are not my statistics. As I have said, this poll was commissioned by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. I hope that those statistics will be available and will be widely disseminated with the other SPUC propaganda for the benefit of the other place.
I take up another point raised by the noble Duke this afternoon. In his major speech on Clause 11 he said that his views represented the majority. I shall give the Committee the statistics and Members of the Committee can decide whether he is speaking for the majority. The poll, having asked other questions about whether we want embryo research to develop new techniques for abortion or for research on testing drugs, neither of which are actually contemplated, the final question was whether or not embryo research should be allowed at all. In fact, there was 1 per cent. difference between the two answers, with a huge number of "don't knows". Therefore, the majority which the noble Duke represents polled 37 per cent. of the votes whereas those who said that research should be allowed polled 36 per cent. and the "don't knows" polled 27 per cent. Therefore, the majority which the noble Duke says he represents is only 37 per cent. I hope that in future the noble Duke will not use those statistics to claim that he is representing the majority on this subject. I apologise if all this is rather confusing but the statistics can be read in my speech in Hansard tomorrow.
I deal with one final question from the poll. It is rather convoluted but I believe that the answer at
1014
which it arrives is probably not what the noble Duke wanted. The question was as follows:
"If the principal aim of the research into genetic diseases was not to find a cure or treatment but was to try and identify an afflicted embryo so that it could be discarded do you think human embryos should or should not be used for these types of experiments?"
The number of people who said that they should not be used was 29 per cent., and the number of people who said that should be allowed was 55 per cent. According to the statistics, a considerable majority are in favour of the research dealt with in this amendment. I hope that the Committee will accept the arguments of the noble and learned Lord.
8.30 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: Since I have been quoted as almost misleading the Committee, I immediately say that the noble Viscount was quoting from the same Gallup poll which I was using. The poll builds up question by question so that one answer did not lead into the next. The critical question was on the last page and 49 per cent. on the consolidated list were in our favour.
Viscount Craigavon: I cannot see how the noble Duke arrives at that figure. However, if he will disseminate those figures publicly, it would be very useful to see the results.
The Duke of Norfolk: We held a press conference and the Gallup poll figures were given to the press. I shall make quite certain that a copy is placed in the Library, if it is not already there. Some people were against the research and some were not, but the final figure of 49 per cent. was on our side. I assure the Committee that that is the situation.
Lord Ennals: We are all grateful to the noble Duke for saying that he will place a copy of this in the Library. I have not seen those figures and therefore took at face value the summary given by the noble Duke. I wish to ask him to place all the figures, including those quoted by the noble Viscount, in the Library.
The Duke of Norfolk: The poll is very complicated, but the final figure was 49 per cent. I am sorry if the Committee feels that it has been misled. I was totally confused, but the press reported the figures. Members of the Committee can see the statistics for themselves.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: To return to the subject matter of Amendment No. 67, the principle of embryo research has been accepted by the Committee. If there is a possibility of research developing a technique which can give to a mother or a would-be mother the option of bearing an unhandicapped as opposed to a handicapped child, surely there is no conceivable rational ground for saying that research for that technique should not be an appropriate objective.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I simply wish to add that if Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 as tabled were accepted by this Committee, it would have the effect of frustrating at least two of the major objectives of the research upon the embryo, which is the matter upon which the Committee divided earlier this evening. For that reason, in my view it would be quite unacceptable to overturn that earlier decision by accepting these two amendments.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I did not realise quite what I had started when I moved the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The Earl of Halsbury: One of my anxieties was that when the matter appeared in the Bill it had not been discussed publicly at all. We have now had a public discussion and the authoritative voice of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is now on the record. That leaves me content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 71 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consents to use of gametes or embryos]:
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 74 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 27, line 44, at end insert —
("( ) A consent under this Schedule must provide that in the event of the death of the person or one of the persons who has given such consent or in the event of disagreement between persons who have given such consent as to the future use or storage of any embryo to which such consent relates such consent shall forthwith cease to be effective and all rights of control over the embryo shall pass to the person licensed to keep, use or store the embryo who shall forthwith destroy that embryo.")
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 75, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 77. These two amendments are intended to provide for it to be an invariable term of any consent to the storage or use of embryos that in the event of the death of one of the parties giving consent, or in the event of a disagreement between them, they should forfeit control over the embryo or embryos concerned.
Rightly or wrongly, these amendments relate only to embryos, whereas Schedule 3 governs the consents in relation to the use and storage of gametes as well as embryos. That may or may not be a technical defect in the amendment which perhaps can be corrected later if necessary.
These amendments are designed to give effect, although not precise effect, to the recommendations in chapter 10 of the Warnock Report. They are also the recommendations of the Family Law Bar
1016
Association as submitted to the Government at the time of the consultation process. My proposals are consistent also, as I understand it, with the terms which are generally speaking written into consent forms as they are presently drafted by or for the clinics involved in these matters.
Perhaps I may briefly read to the Committee paragraph 10.12 of the Warnock Report. It states:
"We consider that the position that may arise in the event of the death of one or both of a couple who have stored an embryo should be clarified. We therefore recommend that when one of the couple dies the right to use or dispose of any embryo stored by that couple should pass to the survivor. We make this recommendation notwithstanding our reservations about the possibility of posthumous pregnancies".
Pausing there, I should say that earlier in the report the recommendation had been that post-mortem implantation should be actively discouraged. Paragraph 10.12 continues:
"We recommend that if both die that right should pass to the storage authority".
With regard to disagreement, paragraph 10.13 of the Warnock Report reads as follows:
"Problems might also arise when, whether in cases of marital breakdown or not, the couple fail to agree how the shared embryo should be used. We recommend that where there is no agreement between the couple the right to determine the use or disposal of an embryo should pass to the storage authority as though the ten-year period has expired. This recommendation and those in the previous paragraph will require legislation".
In the White Paper, particularly paragraphs 51, 58 and 59, the Government in effect decided not to accept the recommendations of the Warnock Report in this regard, preferring to place emphasis on the wishes of the donors. I submit that that in some ways creates a vacuum. Death and disagreement create different problems, but both sets of problems are areas in which the law should if possible provide certainty. I suggest that this Bill does not do that; indeed, it stores up problems for the future. Implantation of an embryo after the death of one of the parties may cause profound psychological problems for the mother and for the child. That was the view of the Warnock Committee at chapter 4.4.
There may also be legal problems if it is thought to be the position that there is, or may be, a right to dispose of an embryo by will. The problems after estrangement or divorce are similar and, I suggest, arguably worse. The Warnock Committee, at the end of paragraph 10.11, stated:
"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".
The Warnock Committee, however, went on to grapple with the problems which may arise if the couple are incapable of making a firm decision, or disagree. I speak in this context as a matrimonial lawyer who is paid daily to argue about matrimonial disputes involving houses, furniture, money and children. I have recently argued about engagement rings, toastracks and pet dogs. Those are disputes which, as anyone who knows that work will realise, can be vehement and thoroughly depressing.
That depression increased last year when I read of a case —I suspect many Members of the Committee also read of it —in, I think, Tennessee when an estranged couple argued whether an embryo

1017
should be implanted in the mother as she wanted or not implanted as the father wished. As I recall, the mother succeeded, but it being America I should think there will be several trips to the appeal court before the matter is finally resolved. All family lawyers in this country no doubt shuddered at that case and the prospect it opened up for this country. It reinforced our hope that legislation would prevent that sort of litigation in this country.
Earlier this afternoon the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said the lawyers only think in terms of things and of persons. Of course he was right, for the good reason that hitherto we have only had to deal with things and persons and not with the problems of embryos. If an embryo is to be treated by the law as a thing, it could obviously be owned. The Warnock Report dealt with that firmly in paragraph 10.11 as follows:
"We recommend that legislation be enacted to ensure there is no right of ownership in a human embryo".
If, however, an embryo is treated as a person, it cannot be owned. If it is to be treated as a person, how are such disputes to be resolved? Presumably they will have to be resolved, if not by ownership, by analogy to child custody cases and by what is in the best interests of the embryo. I do not envy the court which has to decide what is or may be in the best interests of an embryo, particularly if the choice is between being implanted or not being implanted or if to be implanted will mean that it will be brought up by perhaps a thoroughly undesirable mother living in thoroughly undesirable circumstances who almost certainly will not have the support and may indeed have the active opposition of the father, the father having no commitment to the upbringing of that child.
The further question which occurs to me is whether the court in such circumstances would have authority, as in the wardship jurisdiction in this country, to make a decision which is contrary to the wishes of either the mother or the father; for example, saying to the parties, "We will not decide whether the embryo should be implanted now but will delay the decision in the hope that perhaps the mother's position may improve by remarriage or in some other way".
A further problem which occurs to me is whether the father who unsuccessfully opposes implantation should be expected to maintain the child which is brought into the world against his will. The common law does not allow a natural father to contract out of his obligation to maintain.
One simply states those problems to try to avoid them in the future and in the hope that the Government will grasp the nettle which Warnock grasped and perhaps adopt a less laissez faire attitude than is adopted in the Bill. We hope they will deal with the problems which will undoubtedly arise in the future where either one or other of the parties whose consent is required dies or there is a disagreement between them. It is, in my submission, an area which needs certainty rather than uncertainty. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Meston, is referring to ground which to some extent we covered in relation to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in which he sought to classify an embryo either as a person or as a chattel. In spite of what was said earlier today it was not the lawyers who sought that classification; I think on that occasion it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Some of the lawyers who spoke, including my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, suggested that the lawyers had not developed classifications into which an embryo would properly fit, and therefore he declined to do so. In this particular respect, I followed his good example.
Regarding the amendments, and my understanding of Amendment No. 75, the proposal is that if one of the persons who has given a consent dies, the consent shall no longer be effective. That is one way of dealing with the matter. It does not give much choice to the person who has died while the embryo is still in existence. We have tried to create certainty but in a slightly different way. Death is one point and the second is disagreement. We have sought to deal with both of these. In the first set of circumstances, where the person or one of the persons who had given consent to the future use or storage of the embryo dies, the Government believe not that the embryo should be destroyed, but that the embryo should be used or stored in accordance with the consent of the person who has died.
The noble Lord is saying that one might not contemplate that; and, what would have been said if it had been contemplated? We have tried to deal with that situation. Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 requires a consent to the storage of any gametes or embryo to state what is to be done with the gametes or embryo if the person who gave the consent dies or is unable, because of incapacity, to vary the terms of consent or to revoke it. In other words, the person giving this consent is required to deal in the consent with what he or she wishes to happen in these two events; namely, death or incapacity.
Where there is agreement between the person who has given consent to the future use or storage of the embryo and who has died and the other person who has given such consent, the embryo will be used or stored in accordance with that consent. The whole of this paragraph of Schedule 3 is based on the view that no use or storage of an embryo can be done except with an effective consent. Therefore, I believe it deals effectively with the questions raised by the report of the noble Baroness and also with the question raised by the Family Law Bar Association, but not quite in the same way.
As regards the second set of circumstances where there is disagreement between the persons who had given consent for the future use or storage of any embryo, the Government believe that the consent which the amendment would require Schedule 3 to provide is in effect already provided for in that schedule. Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 3 prevents any embryo which has been created in vitro being used for any purpose unless there is effective consent to that use by each person whose gametes were used to

1019
bring about the creation of the embryo. Again, the general principle is that there should be no use unless there is an effective consent.
Paragraph 8(2) prevents any embryo which has been created in vitro being kept in storage unless there is an effective consent to that storage by each person whose gametes were used to bring about the creation of the embryo. The effect of these paragraphs together is that no embryo which has been created in vitro can be used for any purpose or stored without the effective consent of each person whose gametes were used to bring about the creation of the embryo. If one takes the matter without any variation, the original consents must cover the use, and agree to the use. If there is a disagreement, then there is no effective consent from both parties and the embryo must be allowed, as we say, to perish —or to use the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, to degenerate naturally.
That is the ordinary position where the original consent applies or does not, according to the situation. If one or both of the partners change the wishes set out in the original consent, then the revised wishes will be taken into account under the terms of the Bill as it stands. A person who has given a consent is always allowed to vary it. Let us assume that A and B have agreed a particular use of the embryo. If A and B fall out and A decides that he or she does not wish the embryo to be used in that way, A can withdraw the original consent. Thereafter, there is no effective consent to the use of the embryo and it must be allowed to degenerate naturally —or as we say to perish.
I believe I can reasonably claim that we have dealt with all the points in these amendments, not exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has suggested, but perhaps in a more flexible way which enables the parties to operate to some extent beyond their deaths whereas the noble Lord would restrict their choices to their lifetime.
Lord Meston: I believe that is the difference between the noble and learned Lord and myself. What he describes as greater flexibility could create greater uncertainty. I have studied the Government's position in the White Paper. I wish to consider the matter further. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 79 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 28, leave out lines 39 and 40.
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out at an earlier stage
1020
of this Bill that it was legislation that had to be understood by ordinary people. A moment ago he referred to Schedule 3, paragraph 6(3). That consists of a sentence with 72 words without punctuation before the full stop at the end. I feel rather like the pot calling the kettle black because I have just moved an amendment which contains one sentence of 90 words containing one comma. However, two wrongs do not make a right.
I have tried to understand what the last two lines of sub-paragraph (3) mean. At first I thought that the last two lines were a printing error, but I believe I am wrong about that. I ask what meaning they add to the paragraph. If they add anything, apart from length, it is confusion. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I was labouring under the delusion that this amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 75 and 77 which we previously discussed. I believe that the consequences of the noble Lord's amendment are as stated in paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 3. I consider that there is no advantage in the amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Lord Swinfen: If the gametes are given by a married couple or two single people, does that have any effect on the question of consents?
Baroness Hooper: No. As I understand it, the consents are given by the two people involved whether they are married or not.
Lord Meston: I am very sorry to take the noble Baroness by surprise. The grouping was not of my choice. I very pointedly did not speak to this amendment when speaking to the other two. At this stage I shall do no more than ask the Government to look at the matter again. The wording could be improved. Indeed, I venture to suggest that it can only be improved. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  COMMUNITY CHARGE: LIABILITY
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: LIABILITY
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: EXEMPTIONS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: EXEMPTIONS
  HOUSE OF LORDS WASTE MATERIALS: RECYCLING
  HOUSE OF LORDS WASTE MATERIALS: RECYCLING
  WATER COMPANIES: CHARGES LIMITS
  WATER COMPANIES: CHARGES LIMITS
  SPITALFIELDS MARKET PROPOSAL: EC RULES
  SPITALFIELDS MARKET PROPOSAL: EC RULES