Sitting of 20 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]
      HAPPISBURGH LIGHTHOUSE BILL [Lords]
      Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing waiting lists in the past 12 months.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The £31 million waiting list fund for 1989–90 will enable around 100,000 extra in-patients and day cases and 90,000 out-patients to be treated from the waiting lists by the end of March 1990. We have sent a management team into the 22 districts with the longest waiting lists, and as a result waiting lists in those districts have reduced by 12 per cent. and the number of patients waiting over a year by 17 per cent., with further reductions planned. Nationally, provisional figures for September 1989 suggest that waiting lists, in particular the numbers waiting over a year, have fallen since March 1989.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the Secretary of State think that, in the interests of open government, it would be sensible for the Government to collect statistics nationally on out-patients awaiting appointments? In audiology, there is often an 18-month or two-year waiting list. Does he agree that the BBC statistics collected recently, which show that massive cuts would have to be made in a third of health authorities if spending is not increased, would be made worse if the true national statistics for waiting lists were available? Those statistics would show what people are experiencing rather than the propaganda put out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department.
    Mr. Clarke: We keep collecting more statistics on waiting lists and we collect accurate information, which we disseminate. Recently, for example, we added figures on the waiting lists for day-patient treatment, as that treatment now represents a much bigger proportion of work.
    The BBC survey to which the hon. Gentleman referred showed no results of the type that he described or anything
    762
    like that. The statistics show that some districts are having difficulty keeping within their cash limits this year,but all districts are not only spending much more money than in previous years, but treating more patients and expanding their services.
    Mr. David Howell: My right hon. and learned Friend has shown considerable determination in tackling the waiting list problem. Does he agree that at least part of the problem is caused by short-term budget cuts that must be made in certain hospitals? Is he aware that in my local hospital, the Royal Surrey county hospital, short-term budget cuts have had to be made because no funding is available for the large number of patients who come to that hospital from other districts? Is not it a crazy system that prevents excellent hospitals, such as the Royal Surrey, from providing the patient care of which they are capable, as they cannot get the money, because, apparently, the accounting system does not allow them to do so?
    Mr. Clarke: It has always been a habit within the National Health Service for some authorities to expand their services rapidly for about 10 months of the year and then, towards the end of the financial year, to start to make short-term changes to try to keep within their cash limas. That demonstrates the failure of the present system to enable people to plan steady expansion of services in line with the steady growth of funds. I agree with my right hon. Friend that, in future, districts will be much more able to match their funds to the growth of patients. Districts that take in many patients from outside because of the quality of their services will find that the necessary funds come with those patients.
    Ms. Primarolo: Does the Secretary of State accept that the money given to cut the waiting lists represents a blunt instrument? Many district authorities are concerned about the way in which they must allocate their budgets. Yesterday Bristol and Weston district health authority expressed its great concern about how the waiting list money was allocated, as it means that that authority cannot take into consideration pain and suffering or target lists of pain and suffering that may exceed 12 months in the next few months. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman review that criterion with a view to being much more sensitive about distributing that money?
    Mr. Clarke: Our waiting list initiative will be overtaken by our White Paper reforms when they are brought into practice. They will have the beneficial effect that I have just described to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). In admitting patients, all hospitals take account of the gravity of the case, and the pain and suffering involved. We have to remember that more than half the patients in the National Health Service go for treatment and do not have to wait at all. Of those who go on to waiting lists, about half go into hospital within five weeks. It is not just a queue. People are admitted according to their clinical priority. Where there are serious problems, pain and suffering, we must not alarm people by making them think that waiting lists get in the way.

    Private Health
    Mr. Lee: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers his Department has in the monitoring of private hospital medical charges and private medical insurance premiums.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): None. However, health care providers and insurers operate in a competitive market, which helps to control their fees and subscriptions.
    Mr. Lee: With the number of people covered by private medical insurance now approaching 10 per cent. of the population, increasing public concern about the level and variation of charges, continually escalating premiums and the fact that the Government now have a direct vested interest because of tax relief for the elderly, will my hon. Friend consider appointing a private sector health commissioner to police this sector and investigate complaints?
    Mr. Freeman: The latest figure is that 12 per cent. of the population is covered by private insurance. Some 15 per cent. of elective surgery is performed in private hospitals. It is not the Government's responsibility to control those costs. I share my hon. Friend's concern, but it is for the patient, when he or she takes out an insurance policy to read the small print and be aware of what the charges may be for elective surgery in the private sector.
    Mr. Robin Cook: If the Minister will not monitor the excessive charges of private hospitals, will he at least condemn them? Does he agree that it is an outrage that BUPA, the British United Provident Association, should have charged £168 for a cotton swab and £983 for a drug that cost £13? How does that happen in a competitive market? Now that we know, thanks to the National Audit Office, that the NHS can do most operations at half the cost of private hospitals, would not the Minister get better value for his money by putting public money into public hospitals rather than by paying for tax relief on inefficient, private ones?
    Mr. Freeman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the National Audit Office report. If he reads it carefully, he will see that the NAO reported that, for the £50 million that the National Health Service spent in private hospitals on long-term contracts for 30,000 patients, it got "good value for money".
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On several occasions I have asked the Department of Health for comparative figures on the costs of NHS operations, only to be told that the information is not collected centrally. Is it not about time that we did so, to find out why there are such vast differences in the cost of the same operations in different health districts?
    Mr. Freeman: Through the introduction of the new performance indicators, we have the first year's results for 1987–88, and will shortly have the 1988–89 figures. They will enable my hon. Friend and other National Health Service patients to compare the performance of districts and hospitals, one with the other.

    Speech Therapists
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the salary levels for speech therapists.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Agreement has been reached on speech therapists' pay for the period April 1989 to September 1990 and the new pay rates have been promulgated today. The settlement gives across-the-board increases in pay of 9 per cent. over an 18-month period.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister appreciate the extent of the crisis of morale among speech therapists working in the National Health Service? Why are they so poorly paid in relation to, for example, physiotherapists or occupational therapists? Does not their poor level of pay justify their feeling that the contribution that they make to the National Health Service is undervalued? What studies have the Government carried out to satisfy themselves that the low pay does not have an adverse effect on recruitment?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Speech therapists are most certainly valued within the National Health Service. Under the new arrangements, their starting pay will be £9,487 ranging up to £22,087. The Department of Health NHS management advisory group is collecting information about recruitment and retention, and we shall look at it.
    Mr. Devlin: I welcome the fact that speech therapists' pay has increased by 19 per cent. in real terms since 1979, but does not the fact that theirs is an all-graduate profession and the fact that they can so easily enter other areas of activity mean that they should be rewarded far more generously if their numbers are to be maintained and expanded?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I assure my hon. Friend that there has been a considerable expansion in the number of speech therapists over the past 10 years. There are about 80 per cent. more speech therapists than there were 10 years ago. Their new starting pay level makes them more comparable with others in the Health Service and, more importantly, in the private health sector as well. But pay is not the only factor in recruitment and retention. The first report of the Select Committee on Social Services suggested a number of other areas where their needs could appropriately be met within the Health Service.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree that there will be insufficient speech therapists to achieve what the Government say are their community care objectives and that, because of the starting salary, many young people are denied the right to enter a worthwhile and rewarding profession?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of speech therapists to the provision of care in the community, but I remind him that there has been an 80 per cent. increase in their number. Speech therapists' starting salary has increased by 46·2 per cent., from £3,800 in 1979 to £9,400. The comparable increase in starting salary when the Labour party was in power was a mere 12 per cent.
    Mr. Rowe: I agree that those are encouraging figures, but does my hon. Friend agree that it might be better for

    765
    speech therapists if they left the Whitley council and, taking advantage of the new arrangements for community care and the Health Service, seriously considered setting themselves up as independent, non-profit making trusts to tender their services to all the contractors who might wish to buy them?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is a long-term champion of speech therapists. I am meeting members of the College of Speech Therapists next week to discuss their concerns about future arrangements. Under the new regime, it is intended that they should continue to be able to receive patients on the basis of self-referral. The new salary structure will be an improvement and an enhancement, but they will want to discuss many other ways in which they can deploy their services under a future regime.

    National Health Service and Community Care Bill
    Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent so far by his Department, by district health authorities and family practitioner committees to prepare for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: So far in 1989–90 expenditure on review-related initiatives in the NHS as a whole stand at just over £80 million.
    Mr. Lamond: How is it that the Government can cheerfully find £85 million to set up a monstrous bureaucracy of accountants and clerks who will be busy pushing accounts and receipts across a table to one another, but cannot find one tenth of that to help to overcome the tremendous hardship that people are suffering as a result of the ambulance workers' dispute?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that one year after we produced the White Paper entitled, "Working for Patients", the hon. Gentleman has not yet found time to read it. If he did so, he would realise that it has nothing to do with employing large numbers of accountants and clerks. The expenditure that has so far been incurred, includes, for example, expenditure on 100 extra consultants to tackle the waiting lists, on introducing quality control of clinical services, known as medical audit, and on pilot projects to introduce a new system of contracts to be entered into between district health authorities and hospitals. That £80 million has to be set against expenditure on the Health Service as a whole of £29,000 million next year and the £5,000 million increase in two years alone that we are proposing for the NHS.
    Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider spending more money on ensuring that the general public are acquainted with the Bill's proposals and philosophy, and thus counteract some of the misleading information that has been given by certain professional bodies and by the Labour party?
    Mr. Clarke: The White Paper is still available. It is written with clarity and there are explanatory leaflets to accompany it. There are strict rules governing the use of taxpayers' money for publicity and advertising. I have never been able to match the advertising budgets of the people who spent so much money last year on disseminating misleading versions of the reforms.
    766
    Nevertheless, my experience of the Health Service tells me that the climate of opinion is changing rapidly among all groups of staff within the NHS, and I am sure that that will rapidly communicate itself to the general public.
    Mrs. Wise: Why did not the Secretary of State answer the question, which relates to expenditure
    "to prepare for the implementation of the Natioal Health Service and Community Care Bill"?
    Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman want the House to know the exact figure? Why does he prefer to muddle it up with expenditure on consultants? How can it be lawful to spend any money on implementing a measure that has not yet received the approval of the House?
    Mr. Clarke: I answered the original question with precision and accuracy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The question relates to the Health Service review, and the introduction of, for example, clinical audit is extremely important. As to the Bill itself, those aspects of it that require statutory changes will not be implemented until the Bill is passed. If I were to interpret the question as narrowly as the hon. Lady suggests, I should have to answer, "Nothing." I described the money that has been spent on the National Health Service review—on desirable things, not on the idiotic things that publicity earlier this year implied lay behind the White Paper.

    NHS Pay Disputes
    Mr. Hague: T: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether pay disputes involving any group of National Health Service workers have been to arbitration since 1974.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hague: I welcome today's talks on the ambulance dispute, but does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his answer exposes the double standard of Opposition spokesmen and union leaders in calling for it to be referred to arbitration, while never referring any dispute to arbitration when Labour was in office? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to point out that referring one claim to arbitration would be very unfair to the majority of Health Service workers, who settled their claims without recourse to industrial action?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be unfair to other workers, and an impossible way of running the Health Service, if groups of people only had to go on strike long enough to win their way to arbitration. I do not believe that the people who demanded arbitration ever seriously expected that it would be resorted to. Nor do I imagine that the Labour party, in supporting them, ever expected that either—Labour never went to arbitration in similar circumstances. We are all glad to hear of the talks today. The management has always made it clear that it is prepared to re-enter talks to resolve the dispute on the basis that it described—and talks have started today on that basis. I trust that every right hon. and hon. Member hopes that those talks will succeed and that the dispute will be resolved.
    Mr. Strang: I hope, as the Secretary of State does, that the talks will succeed. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, judging from his utterances earlier in the dispute, the best contribution that he can make throughout the talks at the Advisory, Conciliation and

    767
    Arbitration Service is to keep his mouth firmly shut on the respective merits of the management and trade union claims.
    Mr. Clarke: My remarks throughout the dispute have been consistent——
    Mr. Tony Banks: Yes—consistently bad.
    Mr. Clarke: In attempts to inflame the dispute remarks were attributed to me that I trust those who attributed them will not repeat.
    The Government and the Health Service management have made it clear that they are anxious to see talks resumed, and the basis on which they could resume has also been clear for some weeks. I am glad that common sense has dawned and that talks have restarted.
    Mr. Bowis: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, rather than invoking arbitration, the concept of pendulum pay bargaining may be worth considering? That may be a way of meeting the public demand that disputes in which health, life and safety are put at risk should not be part of our industrial relations system.
    Mr. Clarke: I am keenly in favour of pendulum arbitration in small manufacturing companies, and so on—linked usually with single-union deals and no-strike agreements. The ambulance dispute involves so many issues that it is unlikely that those elements could play a part—and the unions with which we are dealing would never enter into a no-strike agreement of the sort that some companies have entered into with unions.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State accept that the whole House will welcome the fact that his Department has now begun talks with ambulance staff, and the whole country will want those talks to continue until they succeed? In the light of his own repeated refusal to intervene to find a solution, on the ground that management must be free to manage, will he assure the House that management is now free to negotiate and, in particular, that if management wishes to include arbitration or a pay mechanism in the solution, he will not invervene to prevent that?
    Mr. Clarke: As I said in my earlier answer, not only did no Labour Secretary of State ever refer such a dispute to arbitration, but no Labour Secretary of State ever intervened in the way that the hon. Gentleman has been urging me to throughout the dispute. If he took the office of Secretary of State for Health, to which he aspires, and then decided that if a strike went on for long enough he would intervene to tell managers to pay the claim, I can only say that he would be a disastrous holder of that office, from the point of view of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best possible way to facilitate a speedy and honourable end to the dispute is not to make party political comments—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hayes: Such comments inflame the situation and a sensible silence by Ministers, officials, Opposition spokesmen and everyone else involved will lead to a quicker end to the dispute.
    Mr. Clarke: Of course, advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) about the need to keep
    768
    silent on these grave matters is welcome, and I shall certainly take note of it. On the earlier part of his question, negotiations today are being carried on by the chief executive on behalf of the National Health Service executive, and they will ultimately no doubt move on to the Whitley council. Those concerned are free to negotiate there, and that is where the dispute should be resolved. It is the desire of many hon. Members to bring in a party political and a Government context and to keep attributing to me every aspect of the dispute that gives rise to the feeling that has been described.

    Dental Charges
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects of the introduction of charging for dental inspections.
    Mr. Rees: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects of the introduction of charging for dental inspections.
    Mr. Freeman: The number of dental examinations in the September quarter of 1989, the latest available statistics, at approximately 7·4 million, represented a reduction from the year previously, at approximately 7·9 million. With a few more quarters' statistics, the underlying trend will become clearer. The annual number of dental examinations has gone up gradually in recent years, and we expect this long-term trend to continue.
    Mr. Smith: In the light of that answer, can the Minister explain how, as a result of a survey among all dentists carried out in my constituency, the Vale of Glamorgan, it was shown that dental inspections have decreased by up to 20 per cent? The time lag between inspections has now gone beyond the recommended level and it is particularly worrying that 18-year-olds are not having inspections, but merely waiting until they need treatment. When asked to comment, dentists said that the dental health of the nation is suffering and that it will get worse. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
    Mr. Freeman: It is important to appreciate that the charge for examinations under the National Health Service is £3·45, which represents 75 per cent. of the cost. No one disputes that examinations appear to have decreased immediately after the introduction of charges, but we believe strongly that the long-term trend of an increase in examinations will shortly reassert itself.
    Mr. Rees: It is no use for the Minister to hope for the long-term trend to reassert itself. This is an important element of preventive medicine, and in all areas the number of inspections is falling. It is a serious matter. What will the Government do about it?
    Mr. Freeman: Some 50 per cent. of all patients who have National Health Service examinations are exempt from the charges. We believe that the long-term trend will reassert itself. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a hope and an expectation, but we firmly believe that the upward trend will continue.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that people over 18 have a good cognisance of the value of preventive medicine, having received free medical care until school-leaving age, and that asking them to make a

    769
    modest contribution to the cost of dental inspection in no way undermines our ability to keep their health high on our list of priorities?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The money raised through charges goes back into the Health Service and, indeed, helps to improve the quality of dental care.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to benefit dental patients is to make further progress on the new dental practitioners' contract, which will improve the relationship between patients and their dentists? Many members of the dental profession support it, but others have grave doubts. It would greatly assist those charged with the responsibility of persuading their colleagues to accept the new contract if my hon. Friend could tell the House—not now, but very soon—that the Government have no plans to increase dental charges.
    Mr. Freeman: I cannot give my hon. Friend that commitment—he would not expect me to be so specific—but I can say that we have received some very positive encouragement from the profession. We shall not know the final outcome for another six months, but we are very encouraged by the response so far.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister provide evidence to back up his assertion that, to use his own words, the long-term trend will reassert itself in the form of an increase in the number and proportion of people undertaking dental examinations? Does not the current plain evidence suggest that the present charging structures need to be reversed, and that the current trend is making nonsense of the emphasis on preventive medicine?
    Mr. Freeman: I have cited the statistics as fairly as I can. There was a reduction of 6 or 7 per cent. in two comparable quarters. It is not surprising that some deferment of examinations and some reduction in the number of patients going for treatment should follow the introduction of charges, but we hope that the long-term trend will indeed reassert itself when the 50 per cent. of people who have to pay charges appreciate that the treatment is good value for money.

    Community Care
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about community care for the profoundly mentally handicapped in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: We have received a number of representations. The Government are actively encouraging the development of a range of well co-ordinated health and social services for mentally handicapped people and their families.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend ask the chairman of the North West regional health authority to see for himself the superior quality of care provided by voluntary homes such as Brookvale in Bury, South—and provided at half the cost of that provided by Bolton's crisis-ridden neighbourhood network homes?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, I will ask the chairman to do that, and I am sure that he will visit Brookvale. I hope to be in Bolton myself in May, and to join my hon. Friend in visiting some of the hospitals in his constituency.
    Mr. Eastham: While we are discussing seriously handicapped people in the north-west, may I draw to the Minister's attention the case of Cranage Hall? Many Manchester Members have received correspondence expressing grave concern about possible closure from people who do not know what they will then do about their handicapped children.
    Mr. Freeman: I am not familiar with that case, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me I will give him a full response.
    Some 800 hospital patients in the north-west have been resettled in the community, with proper funding from the health authorities. That is a very creditable record.
    Mr. Sumberg: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in saluting the work of Brookvale and its excellent staff in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that it is a fine example of co-operation between public funding and private giving? He is welcome to come and see some of the work being done there.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many examples of both the private sector and the charitable sector co-operating with district health authorities and local authorities in providing services for the mentally handicapped.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware of the presentation by Barnardo's to Members of Parliament last week about the daunting problems of mentally handicapped young people in the north-west and elsewhere? Is he aware of the protests by parents that their children, after their school years, often go from school to scrap heap, and that they are increasingly denied speech therapy even during their school years? Will he meet representatives of Barnardo's as a matter of urgency to hear at first hand their plea for immediate action?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Dickens: I thank my hon. Friend for the additional resources that the Department of Health has given to the north-west, in response to representations from all north-west Members of Parliament of all parties, but will he be sure not to approve the closure of any mental hospital in the north-west until he is fully satisfied that adequate alternatives have been developed? That is most important.
    Mr. Freeman: I give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance. I thank him for referring to the increase in cash resources for the north-west—of 7·21 per cent.—which should permit a real development of services.

    Family Planning
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the family planning services.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government continue to regard family planning as an important preventive service which contributes to maternal and child health and to the stability of family life.
    Mr. Meale: The Minister is aware that there are more than 1,800 family planning clinics in Britain, but is she also aware that, because of the new capital charges, many district health authorities may be encouraged to sell those premises rather than pay the price of retaining them?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. The fact is that a growing number of individuals are choosing to go to their general practitioners rather than to family planning clinics. I understand that the seven places that provide family planning services in the hon. Gentleman's own district health authority, amounting to a total of 58 sessions, are quite secure.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend has a long record of interest in the matter. Will she confirm that the district health authorities, as well as the family practitioner services, have a role to play in family planning and that that is not unconnected with the worrying upward trend in teenage abortions?
    Mrs. Bottomley: In our guidance to the health authorities we make it clear that we see a role for them in providing family planning clinics, particularly for the young. We are sponsoring three research projects—in Hackney, Milton Keynes and south Sefton—to find out how services could better be provided for young people.
    Ms. Harman: Does the Minister not realise that, because of cash limits, one quarter of all health authorities are cutting their family planning services and that some, such as Chichester, Cambridge and Trafford, are closing all their family planning clinics? Will she promise to carry out a review because otherwise there will be an increase in unplanned pregnancies?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, the Opposition are showing their preference for places rather than patients. The evidence clearly shows that patients have increased their use of family doctors by 37 per cent. in the past 10 years and that they have reduced their use of family planning clinics. General practitioners could not provide family planning services at all in the National Health Service until 1976. The evidence is clear that skills have been built up, that training has improved and that patients are demonstrating that they would rather go to their general practitioner to discuss these subjects than to a clinic—in the order of 2:1.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that no decision will be reached about Trafford's family planning services until next month, so the assertion by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was wrong? The hope is that the family planning services in Trafford will continue as usual.
    Mrs. Bottomley: If agreement cannot be reached locally about a substantial change of health premises use, the matter comes to Ministers. I assure my hon. Friend that no case has come to Ministers for decision. It is for the district health authorities to ensure adequate provision in the light of local circumstances and the proper use of resources.

    Trent Regional Health Authority
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Trent regional health authority; and what matters he expects to discuss.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have no plans for a special meeting with Sir Michael Carlisle at the moment, but I shall be meeting the chairmen of all the regional health authorities in March to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Duffy: Given the recent allocation to the Trent authority for 1990–91 and the certainty that the increased distribution to its constituent health authorities will be absorbed by inflation, can the Minister assure me that the Sheffield health authority will not find that it has to retrench because of capital limits as well as cash revenue limits and that it will not be driven to restricting the services that it provides?
    Mrs. Bottomley: In view of the increased resources to the Health Service generally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are major opportunities to provide high quality care. With increasing expectations and changing demographic patterns, all health authorities must be sure that they use their resources to the best effect. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the capital programme in Sheffield is the biggest in the Trent region, with improvements of the order of £38 million taking place at the Northern general hospital.
    Mr. Michael Morris: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the National Audit Office report, "Financial Management in the National Health Service", which itemised the basic problem that the Treasury agreed a certain figure for pay and prices and the Department issued a different one? Can the chairman of the Trent health authority have confirmation from my hon. Friend that in the coming year pay that is agreed nationally will be fully funded nationally?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The pay levels are very much what we anticipated and funded. It is clear that all regional and district health authority chairmen have to ensure that resources are used effectively and properly to take account of pay and of patients' needs.

    Newham General Hospital
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when stage 3 of the development of Newham general hospital will be complete.
    Mr. Freeman: I understand that phase III of the Newham hospital is unlikely to start until after 1995. If further resources become available to the North East Thames regional health authority through an improvement in land sales income, the capital programme will be reviewed.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that that reply will cause bitter disappointment and a sense of betrayal in the London borough of Newham, where phase III has been a central plank of Newham's future services since 1984 when the regional health authority gave its approval and put phase III into its capital programme? Is not it crazy and immoral that the National Health Service is funded partly by property deals, and now that high interest rates have

    773
    knocked the bottom out of the market we shall not get our hospital? Is the Minister aware that it is doubtful that he will save much money because there will have to be extra capital and revenue spending at St. Andrew's hospital and that phase III is doubly necessary because of the expanded population caused by docklands development? In view of all that, will he receive a deputation of Newham Members of Parliament to discuss the matter?
    Mr. Freeman: I should be glad to receive such a deputation. In answer to the main part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is not incorrect that the National Health Service should receive something like 20 per cent. of the total capital funding programme from land sales income. That is appropriate. Some £1,000 million is provided by the taxpayer for the capital programme and a further £200 million to £250 million comes from land sales income. That is greatly to be welcomed.

    Complementary Medicine
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of practitioners of complementary medicine; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: On 29 November 1989 I met, at their request, representatives of the Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and of the General Council and Register of Osteopaths. It was agreed that a further meeting in a few months' time might be helpful.
    Mr. Tredinnick: What arrangements is my hon. Friend making to safeguard the freedom of complementary medical practitioners after 1992? Is he aware that there is widespread concern among doctors in the faculty of homeopathy that they are being insufficiently consulted about the radical changes proposed by the EEC?
    Mr. Freeman: There are two parts to that question. As regards the first part, because all the professions in complementary medicine are not registered and there are no statutory qualifications needed to practise, there will be no impact of 1992 upon those professions. In regard to homeopathy, because the medicines are natural there should be no effect upon homeopathy as result of EEC proposals on regulating the introduction of medicines.

    District Health Authorities
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consequences he expects from the introduction of funding district health authorities by residents in 1991–92.
    Mr. Freeman: Districts that send more patients for treatment outside their boundaries than they receive will have an increase in their funding in 1991–92 to enable them to pay, through contracting, for such services. In the first year, we expect that existing patterns of service will be broadly unaltered.
    Mr. Coombs: In welcoming that important part of the Government's health proposals, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that they will benefit efficient districts such as Kidderminster, which attracts patients from outside, will next year give £90 million extra to the West Midlands
    774
    regional health authority and, most importantly, moll increase competition, efficiency and use of the Health Service for all those patients who most need it?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. An additional fact that represents a change from the earlier working papers on the Health Service reforms is that from 1991–92 the first step in weighted capitation will commence in relation to allocations by regions to districts.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the rebate system for the new community charge is considerably more generous than the old rate rebate system, particularly for those households in the lowest income band who should see, on average, a reduction of 26 per cent. in the proportion of their income that they pay to local government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that they will gain that benefit only if local authorities such as Norwich city council control their expenditure firmly and efficiently and resist the temptation to raise the level of charge?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I confirm that households in the lowest income band will see a lower proportion of their income paid to local authorities. That is because community charge benefits are more generous than rate rebates were and because many of the single adult households who will benefit from the change are pensioners and others on low incomes.
    To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I agree that local authorities should make strenuous efforts to keep their expenditure down. It is reported that some have nevertheless suggested a figure of £370 or more for community charge. If we had retained domestic rates instead of the present community charge, that would have led to an increase in domestic rates of 35 per cent., which is totally unacceptable.
    Mr. Kinnock: When people live in a Tory district, in a Tory county, under a Tory Government, whom do they blame for their very high poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: All local authorities, whatever their political complexion, should strain to keep down their public expenditure so that they can keep down their community charge. Far more Labour than Conservative local authorities are extravagant, with the highest community charges.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why does the Prime Minister try to take refuge in fiction? Does she not realise that there are plenty of Conservative Members and others in her party who could tell her that the whole arrangement was a fairy story from the start, to use the words of her hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? Is not that why

    775
    only one authority in the whole country has been able to set its poll tax at or below the level specified by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: Not all the community charges have been set. We are perfectly well aware, from the answer that I gave previously, that some authorities are taking refuge in the change to have higher expenditure. Therefore, it is our intention, when the community charge is finally set, to say precisely what the increase would have been in domestic rates had that taken the place of the community charge, so that local people can judge whether their authority has been wise or just plain extravagant. They will find that far more Labour authorities and those under no overall control will have far higher spending than most Conservative authorities.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister yet understand that people will pay not what might have been but the much higher charges that will be inflicted on them by her and her Government?
    The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the majority of local authority spending is met by the taxpayer and by business; the rest is met by the community charge payer. When councils load on extra expenditure, it is borne by the community charge payer. People will be able to see which are the most extravagant authorities. In any case, they will all prefer the community charge to Labour's roof tax.
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amos: Will my right hon. Friend persist in her determination to lift the voluntary ban on investment in South Africa, and will she confirm that other countries are investing there?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, President de Klerk has taken fundamental decisions which have gone further in the direction of ending apartheid than those taken by any previous Government. He is determined to end apartheid. In such circumstances, and given the actions that he has taken, we believe it right, step by step, to lift some of the sanctions, in particular the voluntary ones. With regard to the ban on investment, six other Community countries have a voluntary ban. We are not the only country to have a voluntary ban, and we are not suggesting the lifting of those sanctions which are enforced by order.
    As my hon. Friend knows, it is not possible to do anything about profit from investment being reinvested in South Africa; sometimes it has a compound nature within and without South Africa. My hon. Friend will be aware that BMW South Africa has just announced the latest £25 million instalment in a five-year investment programme which is worth £120 million. That means jobs, security and an improvement in living standards for the work force, and should be welcomed.
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michael: What advice has the Prime Minister for the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne)?
    The Prime Minister: The report of the Select Committee is serious and must be considered carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) will want to consider what it says very carefully. In due course, and after consultation with others, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President will say when the report should be debated. I would think that it would be courteous to leave it at that.
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Speller: What has gone wrong with the arithmetic relating to the community charge in England? Why are low-spending, low-rateable-value authorities such as North Devon and Mid Devon, which previously levied less than £190 per adult, having to levy more than £300? Is that the fault of those who are levying the charge locally or those who organised it?
    The Prime Minister: The figure which my hon. Friend mentions of £300 for the community charge in North Devon and Mid Devon is based on an increase of more than 19 per cent. in spending by the county council and 21 and 15 per cent. increases for North Devon and Mid Devon respectively. If the authorities continue their present pattern of spending, the community charge will be £210 in North Devon and £220 in Mid Devon. I hope that Conservative authorities will maintain their present tradition of prudent budgeting and well-managed services.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is inflation still to be the judge and jury of the Prime Minister's Government? If so, how does she explain the fact that Britain's inflation has been higher than the European average for eight out of her 11 years, higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average for nine out of her 11 years and higher than that of any of our industrial competitors for 11 out of her 11 years? Does she realise that if inflation is to be the judge and mortgage misery the charge, with that record there is only one verdict—guilty, guilty and guilty?
    The Prime Minister: The present inflation rate, based on the retail prices index, at 7·7 per cent. would have been low for the Labour Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman's Bench chose to support year after year. For us, it is high, and to bring it down remains our priority. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this country's record on increasing jobs and on creating jobs has produced a low level of unemployment of 5·7 per cent., which is lower than that in almost any other country in the Community.
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jack: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government would never countenance following policies that would impose a 59·5 per cent. tax rate on wage and salary earners? Has she had a chance to see recent

    777
    newspaper reports suggesting that a tax rate of 59·5 per cent. is precisely the policy being pursued by the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that we should never think of putting up a tax rate of 59·5 per cent. and that we shall continue the policy of lower taxation, which has brought about extra enterprise, more jobs and a higher standard of living for this country than it has ever known before. I refer my hon. Friend and Opposition Members to the report, "Social Trends", and I must point out that under our policies the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers contributed not only a larger amount to the Exchequer, but 40 per cent. to the yield of income tax. That is on a policy of reducing taxation which gives incentives.
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clelland: Does the Prime Minister believe that there is any connection between the fact that homelessness increased by 45 per cent. between the end of 1986 and the end of 1988 and the fact that under her Government council house building has fallen from 111,000 per year in the 1970s to only 21,000 per year in the 1980s? Does not that show that the Government lack any concern for the needs of people at the lower end of the income scale?
    The Prime Minister: It has been our policy to encourage home ownership, and it has increased from 11·5 million homes in owner occupation to 15 million. Many people have had a chance under our Government that they would never have had under a Labour Government. On homelessness, the Government announced an extra £250 million to help provide homes for the homeless and an
    778
    increase in money from the Housing Corporation for housing associations, rising from about £800 million at present to £1,700 million in the next two to three years. That is a large allocation of taxpayers' money for alleviating homelessness.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend shocked that ILEA can produce only 137 A-level students in French throughout London? Does not that indicate that years of big spending and comprehensive schools do not necessarily produce the goods?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Big spending does not necessarily produce the best education results and ILEA is proof positive of that. I hope that when ILEA is disbanded very soon the separate district education authorities will have a much better record and a lower level of expenditure than ILEA managed.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 500,000 people in Scotland cannot pay the poll tax, yet Tory councils are going to put a huge poll tax burden on the people they represent? How many people in the Tory shires will not be able to pay the poll tax and how much of that is due to increased inflation?
    The Prime Minister: Bearing in mind that the community charge in Scotland meets only 14 per cent. of the expenditure of local authorities, and that Scotland's earnings are about the fourth highest in the United Kingdom, I believe it is not that people cannot pay their community charge; it may be that some have been led not to pay it on wrong advice of others.

Shipbuilding (Wearside)
3.30 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the decision by the European Commission on shipbuilding and ship repair on the Wear.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I saw Sir Leon Brittan on 2 February to discuss the proposed sale of certain sites of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. Sir Leon Brittan made it plain that he would not accept any proposal predicated upon a return to shipbuilding even after the expiry of the five-year period.
I saw the Anglo-Greek consortium yesterday and told it of the Commission's views. I said that limited facilities to undertake a ship repair and refurbishment operation at the NESL North Sands site would be allowed. It is considering the offer. The enterprise zone at Southwick will be designated as soon as possible. It is likely that the Tyne and Wear development corporation will now proceed with its plans to redevelop the St. Peter's Riverside development site.
Ms. Quin: Will the Minister accept that the latest pronouncements of the European Commission in the person of the Government's own appointee, Sir Leon Brittan, are such as to make future shipbuilding on the Wear, even after the five-year period, virtually impossible? Does the Minister's statement mean that the Southwick yard, which is one of the most modern in Europe, will be bulldozed and that it cannot be used for future shipbuilding activities? Will the Minister comment on the secrecy surrounding the agreement with the European Commission in December 1988? Did the Minister understand the agreement that was entered into by the Government at that time? Will he make the details public to us, because they have never been fully revealed?
The Minister's failure to understand has meant that would-be purchasers of North-East Shipbuilders Ltd., or parties which wanted to place orders in those yards, had their hopes raised during last year and then dashed, as it appeared that the European Commission would not allow those activities to take place. The Minister has made play of the enterprise zone. Does he accept that an enterprise zone would have been possible for Sunderland, based on unemployment levels and previous shipbuilding job losses in the town, but that the people of Sunderland, while seeing advantage in an enterprise zone, do not want one in return for the closure of their shipyards and their shipbuilding facilities?
Hon. Members will no doubt raise their constituency interests in supplementary questions, but will the Minister accept that there are important national implications in the decision of the European Commission? At a time when Japan is taking the lion's share of the boom in shipbuilding orders, when German yards are organising joint ventures with their counterparts in East Germany and when Britain has had more job losses in shipbuilding than any other European country, could not the Government have stood up for British shipbuilding and the Sunderland yard more than they have done?
In this connection, will the Minister comment on the editorial in today's Lloyd's List that it is simply unacceptable to have a rump of a shipbuilding industry which is utilised only when the Japanese and South
780
Korean order books are full? Are not the Government guilty of failing to recognise the value of the shipbuilding industry and the role that it can play in our industrial future?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady asked a variety of questions, and I shall seek to respond to them. On the allegation of secrecy, there has been no secrecy in this matter. She will recall that the whole matter was considered at considerable length by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I had the pleasure of appearing before that Committee and explaining events.
On unemployment in the Sunderland area, the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that, although in December 1988 unemployment was about 26,154, or 15 per cent., I am glad to say that in the 12 months until December 1989, it fell by three percentage points to stand at 12 per cent.
I confirm that it is unlikely that shipbuilding will return to Sunderland. The hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that the development plans of the consortium developed over a period. I make no criticism of that; I simply state that that is what happened. The plans started off as ship repair and refurbishment plans. Then they embraced an element of shipbuilding. Then shipbuilding became the core of the plans. As recently as January of this year, the plans suggested that all the work should be done at Southwick. It was a constantly developing programme.
The plain truth is that shipbuilding is a cyclical industry. I am afraid that shipbuilding in Sunderland has consumed vast quantities of public money. In no sense would the Government be justified in continuing to subsidise the activity in the way that they previously had.
The hon. Lady should be more bullish about the future of Sunderland. She should bear in mind the fact that we put in place an extensive remedial package which included £45 million worth of remedial measures—in particular, the enterprise zone. I hope that that will create between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs in the town. I believe that the future of Sunderland is extremely good. It has been greatly improved by being based on a diversified, strong local economy, which is what we are achieving.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although the Labour party has no grounds for complaint because of its now near-obsession with commitment to the EEC and the development of broader powers there, will my hon. Friend the Minister seriously consider that there is a serious democratic problem when a non-elected civil servant in Brussels can instruct the British Government and Parliament, irrespective of their wishes, that shipbuilding without special aids cannot continue in a part of this country?
In view of this devastating blow for shipbuilding and democracy in Britain, will the Government begin to wake up to the enormous threat of destruction of our democracy of transferring power from elected Parliaments to the non-elected bureaucracies? What is the point of rejoicing at what is happening in eastern Europe at people's escape from a centralised bureacracy, when that is what we are creating in western Europe?
Mr. Hogg: I am afraid, much though I respect my hon. Friend, that I do not accept his analysis. In December 1988, we notified the Commission of the closure of the yards. We put forward a series of remedial proposals, which were accepted on the basis of the closure of the shipbuilding capacity in Sunderland. If we wish to renotify

781
any further scheme, we must go to the Commission with the full plans. The Commission has unfettered discretion on whether to approve those plans. That is what has happened, and it is consistent with the practice that has been approved in this place.
Mr. Bob Clay: Does not the Minister accept that, when he says that the Anglo-Greek proposal changed several times, he ignores the fact that the consortium changed them as it tried to keep up with the goal posts that the European Commission and the Department of Trade and Industry kept moving? They began by defining closure as shipbuilding without subsidy changed it to no shipbuilding for five years and now have a scorched earth policy, saying that we cannot retain the assets that would allow for a resumption of shipbuilding after five years.
Is it not the case that even the modest ship repair proposal that is to be allowed will have to have every acre of land and every piece of equipment that is purchased scrutinised in Brussels just to make sure that it may not be used for shipbuilding in the future? Given that British Shipbuilders, the Tyne and Wear development corporation, Sunderland council, the local Members of Parliament, and the Members of the European assembly, all welcomed the Greek proposal for Southwick—I believe that the Minister himself gave it some support—what is the hidden agenda that leads the British Government, in the most subservient way, to give in to every arbitrary and legally dubious whim on which Sir Leon Brittan decides? Can the Minister honestly tell the House that, if the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) had understood what the notorious December 1988 package really meant, he would ever have agreed to it?
Mr. Hogg: I make no criticism of the Greek consortium. The hon. Gentleman knows that it changed its plans. That is not a result——
Mr. Clay: Because of you.
Mr. Hogg: That is not a result of the Department of Trade and Industry changing the goal posts; it was because we pressed the consortium hard on the viability of its proposals—and on whether its plans offered the prospects of good quality and permanent jobs. It was against that pressing that the consortium identified in its plans that the main element would be a return to shipbuilding.
There are mixed views even within Sunderland on this matter. There is a powerful case for saying that it is not in Sunderland's interests to return to shipbuilding, and that Sunderland's economic future would be very much better served by the broadly based and diversified economy that the remedial measures that we have put in place will bring about.
Mr. William Hague: Will my hon. Friend accept support for his position from his hon. Friends, simply because he has no real alternative? Will he take every opportunity to emphasise the positive aspects of what is happening in the area in question? To save further mix-ups of the type that might have happened over the last couple of years, will my hon. Friend also undertake to clarify with the European Commission just how long the conditions that it has set up are meant to be in force?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The European Commission's policy, effectively, is that, during the period when one is required to give notification of a proposal, it will not accept a proposal that is predicated on a return to shipbuilding. I repeat that such a scheme or proposal will not be acceptable to the Commission. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that one needs to be positive about this. The diversified, broadly based economy that our measure will bring to Sunderland is very much in the interests of that town and will free it from independence upon a cyclical industry, which is not in the long-term interests of Sunderland.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: If the private sector wishes to preserve Sunderland for shipbuilding, why is the state, in the person of the Minister, intervening to prevent it? I thought that the Conservative party believed in letting the private sector take a lead in these matters. How does the Minister defend depriving the whole of the north-east of England of intervention funding for its shipbuilding industry, and yet continuing to fund such support for Harland and Wolff in Belfast?
Mr. Hogg: Two separate points are raised in that question, and I shall address them both, if I may. First, in so far as the proposals are predicated on a return to shipbuilding, the Commissioner has made it wholly plain to me that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the Commission.
The hon. Gentleman's second point dealt with private sector against private sector. However, he has omitted to realise that we have a viable private sector alternative for both Southwick and North Sands. For Southwick, we have the enterprise zone and for North Sands, we have the TWDC's St. Peter's Riverside development.
Mr. Nicholas Brown indicated dissent.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I can tell him now, and I do tell him now through you, Mr. Speaker, that, from the point of view of Sunderland's future, the TWDC prefers its development for North Sands to that of the Greeks.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Is it not the case that, in the past 10 years, the north-east has suffered an extremely painful transition from old, declining industries to new, sunrise industries and that employment opportunities have improved dramatically in the past two years? Given that there are plans on the drawing board for a major redevelopment of the centre of Sutherland, it would not be right to take such rearguard action, which presents a nostalgic view of the north-east as a traditional shipbuilding area—which is no longer the case. We should turn our backs on the past and press forward with the future.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a deep knowledge of the problems of the area. In the past 12 months, unemployment has fallen by three percentage points, which is a dramatic improvement.
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point by suggesting that there are real dangers in being too dependent upon a cyclical industry such as shipbuilding. It is better by far for the economy of the town to be broadly based and diverse. That will be the effect of the St. Peter's Riverside development and of the enterprise zone.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Minister aware that he is talking nonsense when he says that opinion in Sunderland is divided on this issue? Every conceiveable strand of opinion—of the borough council, Members of Parliament, the local Tory newspaper and the chamber of commerce—is satisfied that a return to shipbuilding is in the best interests of Sunderland. Is it not a fact that Sunderland and his Department have been well and truly stitched up by the EEC?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Sunderland has one of the most modern shipyards in western Europe, but we are about to sit and watch it being demolished—that is akin to a scorched earth policy. It will be a crime if the shipyard at Southwick is allowed to be demolished. We should at least keep it mothballed for four or five years, so that the opportunity to build ships again in Sunderland can be taken up when it comes, after his Government have been swept away.
Mr. Hogg: Let us analyse the hon. Gentleman's remarks by considering the last point that he made. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Southwick site should be mothballed for five years—in other words, no productive use should be made of 40 acres for about five years. That cannot be—[Interruption.] That cannot be in the interests of Sunderland, especially when one bears in mind the fact that there will be an enterprise zone on that site, which will create many jobs. We expect that 800 jobs will be created on the part of the enterprise zone now covered by the Southwick site.
So opinion in Sunderland is divided, but there is also a division between what people say in public and what they say in private. There is a strong opinion in the town that recognises the dangers of being dependent upon a cyclical industry, and which sees the advantages of the enterprise zone at Southwick and of the TWDC's development at North Sands. There is a great deal of support for them and, on reflection, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join that support.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not true that shipbuilding is still a labour-intensive industry? That is why, in relatively advanced economies such as Japan, shipbuilding, with the exception of the recent cyclical upsurge, has had a reduced importance in its economy. It is a complete mirage to offer people false hope that an industry such as shipbuilding is an industry of the future, especially bearing in mind the appalling history of awful management and poor labour relations in that industry and the huge subsidy that must be paid for each ship built in Europe.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am afraid that the track record of shipbuilding in Sunderland over recent years was simply not good. It consumed large sums of public money and required great subsidies. He is right to draw attention to the financial perils associated with returning to shipbuilding in Sunderland. It may be relevant for the House to know that the financial advice that we received on the Greek consortium's plans was that they were fraught with considerable risks of failure.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Opposition day and statements should be confined to shipbuilding and ship repair on the Wear.
Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the announcement of an enterprise zone a ministerial admission that the Government are in despair at what remains of regional policy? Is not the Minister aware of the evidence that his Department gave to the National Audit Office, that it will cost £30,000 per job to create a job in an enterprise zone and that, for that reason, the Government had virtually abandoned enterprise zones? Is he not also aware that those jobs that were created came largely from elsewhere in the locality, and that those that were new were generally in retailing or wholesaling, and were part-time and low-paid?
Mr. Hogg: I can only suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reflect on these matters before he asks such a question. If he had the time to visit, for example, Scunthorpe or Corby, to mention just two places, he would see the blatant absurdity of the question that he has just asked. Enterprise zones are an extremely effective way of getting assistance to those areas that need it most. The zone will be an important part of the regeneration of Sunderland. A little more homework would improve the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Neville Trotter: There has been reference to the cyclical nature of this industry, but is not a continuing factor the domination of the world market for merchant shipbuilding by far eastern yards, which continue to offer ships at prices that are millions of pounds less than are quoted in Europe? Is it not unrealistic to expect that to change? Will not Sunderland's future be better with high-tech industries that will be attracted by the enterprise package? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the package is already proving successful in attracting industries with a future that is bright and that it will reflect future pride and glory on the town of Sunderland, in the way that shipbuilding has in the past?
Mr. Hogg: I can indeed give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. He has been a powerful advocate of the interests of his part of the country. He is entirely right to say that we have seen some important industries coming into the north-east. He is most certainly right to draw attention to the capacity that exists for shipbuilding in the far east, where many shipyards have been mothballed. I question very much whether shipbuilding will be the highly profitable industry that some Opposition Members suggest.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Minister aware that I attended a conference recently in America where the discussion was based on getting goods, men and equipment across the Atlantic in case there was a war in Europe? The conclusion of the conference was that there was a marked shortage of merchant shipping to carry out those tasks. Therefore, how is it that, when there is a shipyard in Sunderland with the best equipment and skilled men for building ships, the Government intend to go abroad to increase Britain's merchant shipping? Is not that ridiculous?
Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, we tried to find a bidder for the NESL yard for many months before the decision was snade in December 1988 to close it. I am afraid that, for many years, shipbuilding in Sunderland was making enormous losses and had to be

785
subsidised by public money to a huge extent. It is not right, and is not a proper use of public assets, to continue with that policy, and we shall not do so.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister has sought to blame Leon Brittan for the decision, but has also sought to argue in the House that it was the right decision. Will he clarify whether, in talking to Leon Brittan, he urged the case for the consortium to be allowed to go ahead on behalf of local jobs or simply accepted Leon Brittan's decision—or even welcomed it?
Mr. Hogg: I have not tried to blame anybody; I have explained the situation. The Commissioner made it clear in discussion—I urged the contrary point of view—that he would not allow shipbuilding to return to Sunderland in the circumstances being proposed by the Greek consortium. That is the explanation that I have given the House. When we came to contrast the Greek proposals for Southwick and for North Sands with the alternatives, it was far from clear that, on its merits, the Greek proposal should be preferred. For example, the Greek proposal for the North Sands Riverside development involved taking up to 20 acres of land that would otherwise form part of the TWDC's development. Another factor was that the TWDC development will provide about 850 jobs, which would not have been compatible with the Greek scheme.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that, when the Government decided to install remedial measures in the Sunderland area, they had to go to the EEC for permission for such regional aid and did Her Majesty's Government give the undertaking that the shipyard would be closed? If so, under what regulation did the EEC issue such an edict, when was it debated by the House and what view was taken of it in the House?
Mr. Hogg: On the latter detailed questions, I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman, as he would expect. With regard to the main part of this question, the position in broad terms—I say "broad terms" because it was the subject of extensive evidence before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—is that we had to notify the EEC of the £45 million package of closure aid that we were giving in Sunderland, and that was approved on the basis of the irreversible closure of shipbuilding in Sunderland. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we gave a written undertaking to that effect, I think that the answer is no.

Points of Order
3.56 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. Question 74 in my name on today's Order Paper was submitted to the Department of Health on 6 February, but I discovered that it had been transferred to the Northern Ireland Office. I told the Table Office that that was wrong, but I was informed that that was the Department of Health's decision. I pursued the matter, and I have finally received an apology today. It is ridiculous that. if a Northern Ireland Member who takes an interest in the affairs of the kingdom writes to a Department, the matter can be referred to the Northern Ireland Office. Is that, intentionally or unintentionally, another attempt to make Northern Ireland an appendage of the Kingdom rather than a full party to it?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, because it has enabled me to look carefully into the matter.
As the House well knows, I and my predecessors in the Chair have frequently ruled that the transfer of questions from one Department to another is a matter for Minister, and that the Chair cannot intervene.
However, on this occasion, the Department of Health has clearly recognised that it made an error in transferring the hon. Gentleman's question to the Northern Ireland Office, since it has reappeared on today's Order Paper addressed to the Secretary of State for Health in its original position in the shuffle.
I understand also that Question 135 from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was about to be transferred in error to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it was kept after representations from the hon. Gentleman. Question 142 from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was similarly transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland without apparent justification, and has not been re-transferred.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has not in the end suffered from the erroneous transfer, but it does appear that the Departments concerned, in particular the Department of Health, have not taken sufficient care over the transfer of questions which hon. Members have a right to expect. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has received an apology from the Department of Health.
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to the Education (Student Loans) Bill, and it is one of which I gave brief notice to you and to the Under-Secretary of State with special responsibility for higher education.
Last night, the Secretary of State for Education and Science issued a press statement announcing that he might amend the Bill to force or coerce university and college authorities into what he described as "co-operating" with the administration of the already discredited student loan scheme. That would mark a further major departure from the scheme's administration as approved by this House.
As the Secretary of State must have contemplated that idea for many weeks, do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman has yet again shown contempt for this House, by waiting until after the Third Reading before

787
making his announcement, and by making a press statement rather than a statement to the House? Have you received any intimation whether the Secretary of State intends to make a statement to the House, as he should?
Mr. Speaker: I have not received any such intimation—and I am, of course, aware that the Bill is currently under consideration in another place.
Dame Peggy Fenner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be aware of the dastardly attack made on the Father of the House at the weekend. He is not at all well today, and cannot take his usual place in this Chamber. Would it be in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to send him, on behalf of the House, good wishes for his health and for his speedy return?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House shares the hon. Lady's sentiments. I sent the Father of the House a message on Monday, but was unaware that he was so unwell today. I shall do as the hon. Lady suggests.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the news to which my point of order refers only broke after 12 o'clock, it was not possible for me to table a private notice question on the decision by British Steel to close Ravenscraig, the steelworks in my constituency, for another week from 25 March. Such a decision, arising from a short-term reduction in demand, greatly angers the steel workers and the public in general in Scotland, and is capable of gross misinterpretation if Ministers cannot be called to account immediately and make a statement. Has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for Scotland sought leave to make a statement, to allay any misunderstanding that might arise?
Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) makes a very good point. The production pause to which he refers is a bad decision, dictated by short-term considerations. I emphasise to you, Mr. Speaker, how important it is for the Government to keep the House informed of developments. A great deal of anxiety is felt about the future of the steel industry in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the remarks of both hon. Gentlemen will be conveyed through the usual channels.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner). You will be aware, Sir, that the incident at the Royal Albert hall last Saturday night involved acts of violence against several right hon. and hon. Members. During the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool,
788
Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), a smoke bomb was thrown, and various flour bombs were thrown throughout the proceedings—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Those events took place in another chamber—the chamber of the Royal Albert hall. I share the hon. Lady's concern, but they are not strictly a matter of order for this place.
Miss Widdecombe: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that those incidents were part of a picket by a group called the "Stop the Amendment" campaign. Various hon. Members are closely associated with that campaign. Do you, Mr. Speaker, think that it is honourable conduct for hon. Members to be associated with such a campaign?
Mr. Speaker: If anything of that kind occurred in this place, I would take a very poor view of it.
Mr. David Alton: Further to the points of order raised by the hon. Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), Mr. Speaker. The whole House will have been disturbed that the most senior figure in this House, the Father of the House, was left after a cowardly attack on Saturday night with his arm in a sling and with a blackened eye, having been pushed to the ground and his head crushed against a lamp post. He had been explaining to a perfectly proper public meeting the details of a Bill currently before Parliament.
That must certainly be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. Are you prepared to call upon the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to investigate that incident? Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it has implications for right hon. and hon. Members who go about their proper duties in pursuit of parliamentary democracy and who, in the course of doing so, are subject to thuggery and intimidation? Surely that cannot be right.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will judge that to be an absolutely reprehensible episode. However, I cannot have responsibility for the safety of Members when they are outside the Chamber. Of course I have great concern for the Father of the House. As I have already said, I have sent him a message, and I shall do so again today.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to what the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said, obviously all hon. Members deplore what happened at the weekend. However, surely it cannot be in order for the hon. Lady to stand and impugn other hon. Members of the House and to say that somehow they endorsed or had some knowledge of the attack that took place, or knew that it was going to take place. That is to impugn the integrity of those who happen to disagree with her. Surely she should withdraw that imputation?
Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better get on with the Opposition day debate.

Unadopted Roads
4.5 pm
Mr. Barry Field: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedures whereby householders and frontagers may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority; and for connected purposes.
I know how anxious the House is to debate the Royal Shakespeare Company, because nothing can be nearer to the Labour party's manifesto than "A Midsummer Night"s Dream". However, I shall limit my remarks to 10 minutes.
The Bill is aimed at bringing up to date and simplifying the law on private or unadopted streets. It is a tangled area of the law and one which causes a great many problems and misunderstandings. Those familiar with and involved in highway law are only too well aware that private streets often mean trouble. The perception of the public—the home-owners and frontagers—is that, under the existing rating system which is being phased out with the introduction of the community charge in five weeks' time, owners of properties in private streets usually pay lower rates, and the property prices are often lower than for surrounding dwellings, fronting adopted roads.
What so many of those home-owners often fail to understand are the possible consequences of private street status, and many get a nasty shock when they find that they are liable for accidents, and that they have to make up the road surface, and dig up and re-lay the road for water, gas and electricity, often completely at their own expense.
At first sight, to many people the price differential, and in the past the small differential in the rates bill, have seemed thoroughly attractive in the short term. However, in the long term, the liabilities accompanying a private highway far outweigh the small benefits passed on by the rating authority for the lack of a paved footpath, a highway or street lighting. Some people prefer the quiet life of an unadopted road. My Bill contains no element of compulsion.
Much of the present legislation dates back to the 19th century, and although some new developments involve private streets, those generally cause relatively few problems. There are well-established procedures whereby developers use the advance payments code to agree with the highway authority to make up the streets throughout a new estate. A consultation document has recently been produced by the highway authorities and local authority associations about how the law on unadopted roads should be improved.
The Bill allows district councils to contribute to the cost of street works. At present, they are prevented from doing so. Frontagers to public footpaths should have to pay for the associated street works, and vice versa. The cost of making up a public footpath should be included in the cost of the street works.
The Bill will provide increased flexibility for serving notices, and will ensure that there is provision to recover the cost of street works on behalf of a frontager, when the owner is unknown.
The Bill will allow authorities to disapply the advanced payments code when they decide to do so, and will empower authorities to release deposits after four years. In some cases, authorities have held deposits against private street works. The value has dwindled because of inflation and, with the passage of time, has become meaningless
790
when measured against the initial cost of the road works. However, the Bill would include provisions to allow an authority to decide a rate of interest on deposits, and would include a fine of £1,000, for non-compliance, when the builder or the owner does not carry out the work to the satisfaction of the highway authority.
This potholed area of the law is not all gloom and doom. I am pleased to be able to say that local authority associations and the house builders have formulated a new agreement, which will be an improvement on the old one.
It has been estimated that the country contains more than 4,000 miles of unadopted road, and that it would cost over £2,000 million to make them up. As so often happens, Scotland has already addressed the problem: the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Security for Private Road Works (Scotland) Regulations 1985, SI 1985/2080, make the law on private streets much simpler, and remove some of the difficulties.
It appears that there is complete agreement within the Department of Transport that the current system in England and Wales needs to be simplified. Unfortunately, it is not a high priority for the Government, and to make any changes will be a complex and technical task. Nevertheless, given the existence of 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales and the phasing out of domestic rates, I feel that the system cannot he allowed to go on bumping along in a rough and ready way as it has, in many ways, since the 1930s.
One of my constituents has spent much of his retirement researching the legal liability of his own unadopted road, tracing it back to the Isle of Wight Highways Act 1813, which was subsequently repealed in 1925. Until that repeal, any island road that had been dedicated to the public was automatically repairable by the local authority. That small extract of the legal history of just one road in my constituency will, I think, give the House a taste of the complexity of the unadopted road system—five years of research by a retired civil servant endeavouring to establish the legal and financial liabilities for the unadopted road running past his house.
I understand that the last Department of Transport survey was carried out in 1972: it was established then that England and Wales contained 40,000 unadopted roads, amounting to 4,000 miles. It is thought that no significant change has been made since the survey.
The main thrust of my Bill, which provides for the paving, levelling and lighting of unadopted roads, is to ensure that frontagers can in future make their decisions on the basis of a simple majority, either in number or in the value of property. It is extraordinary that the nation can elect a Government by a simple majority, while residents whose houses front on to unadopted roads are prevented from making provision for their own comfort, enjoyment and safety—and for enhancing the value of their properties—by complex, outdated and outmoded legislation that requires everyone to be in total agreement before works can proceed. That cannot be right, and I know that I speak for thousands of home-owners when I say that we look to the House to replace a musty, outmoded tangle of legal nightmares with modern legislation that is easily available and acceptable to every estate that wishes to make up its roads, and to have them adopted by its local council.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. Ian Taylor, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. David Evans.

Unadopted Roads
  UNADOPTED ROADS
  Mr. Barry Field accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedures whereby householders and frontagers may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
Opposition Day
  9TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.14 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the Government's obsession with electricity privatisation which is pushing up electricity prices and undermining Britain's commitment to reducing acid rain.
    The electricity industry has not yet been privatised, but electricity prices are already being pushed up unnecessarily, to add to the industry's assets. The Government's commitment to combat acid rain is in danger of being set aside in an effort to reduce the industry's liabilities. That is being done to suit the City, which wants to take over the assets of the electricity industry but not to take on any of its liabilities. We can be fairly sure that the needs of the City will be given priority because the present Secretary of State has only one task: to sell off the electricity industry before the next general election, whatever the cost to the consumer, the balance of payments, the prospects for British industry or the damage to the environment.
    We know from answers to parliamentary questions that the Secretary of State is buying advice on electricity privatisation from no fewer than 47 different companies, at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of nearly £37 million. Those companies include no fewer than 13 firms of estate agents and 10 firms of accountants. There are marketing advisers, people who are described as head hunters and even salary advisers. There is even a firm called Anderson, Mori and Rabinowitz, which is improbably described as a firm of Japanese lawyers.
    Not one firm on that list of 47 is advising the Secretary of State on the interests of the consumer. Furthermore, not one of those 47 firms is advising the Secretary of State on the environmental aspects of privatisation. Nothing could more clearly show what the Government's priorities are.
    That is why the Secretary of State announced last Monday what might be described as the third leg of the Tory inflationary spring treble. Domestic consumers will have to pay more for their electricity, just as their poll tax falls due and their housing costs increase. It is almost as though the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked each Cabinet Minister to make a special contribution to inflation, since I have not even mentioned the fares increases or the increased water charges that will also be due.
    The electricity price increase, of £30 to £40 for domestic consumers, is quite unnecessary and was imposed by the Government. It does not result from rising costs. During the last three years, the generating boards' fuel costs have fallen by 7 per cent., but the average price charged for electricity has increased by 13 per cent. and the generating boards' profits have increased by 90 per cent. Under the new coal contract, rightly imposed by the Secretary of State, fuel costs to the generating companies are to fall further, as British Coal is obliged to absorb most of the cost of inflation.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the last five years, the cost of electricity to domestic consumers has fallen in real terms and that the cost of electricity to industrial consumers has fallen by 10 per cent.? However, when the last Labour Government were in power, the price to domestic consumers went up significantly in real terms over five years.
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is what might be described as an old stager in our debates on energy. The general circumstances surrounding energy prices world wide are different from what they were 10 to 15 years ago.
    Last year, the electricity industry as a whole made a profit of £777 million. Within that sum, the London board made a profit of £72 million, Southern board £65 million, Eastern board £70 million, East Midlands £50 million and Yorkshire £49 million. Only two of the remaining boards made a profit of less than £29 million last year.
    The industry is doing so well that last November, the chief executive of National Power, Mr. John Baker, said that there was a good chance that domestic electricity consumers would get through 1990 with no price rises. But Mr. Baker had not reckoned with the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman was so keen to push up prices to domestic consumers that he did not even wait to find out what costs the area boards would incur under privatisation.
    When my office rang every board last week, they said that they did not know quite what their price increases would be, because they still did not know from the generating companies or the grid company what prices they would be charged for electricity or for the transmission of electricity. All they knew was that the Secretary of State had said that they could put prices up by a bit more than the rate of inflation and they certainly intended doing that. They all promised to ring back when they knew anything more, but none of them rang back. It is quite clear that the increase is unnecessary and unwanted. It was invented in Whitehall as a response to pressures from the City.
    The Secretary of State said last Monday that the price increases that he has imposed will not be much of an increase in real terms. An increase of £30 or £40 may not be very real to him or to his well-heeled City advisers or even to the Prime Minister—despite the extra costs of her electric bath treatment—but a £30 to £40 increase will be real enough to pensioners, to families whose child benefit has been frozen, and to millions of others, coming as it does on top of mortgage interest rate increases, rent increases, the poll tax and fare increases, not to mention those newly privatised water charges.
    It is all unnecessary; it is just intended to help the Secretary of State sell off the electricity industry. That decision makes it clear that the Secretary of State could sacrifice anything on the altar of privatisation. We cannot really blame him for that; it is his job.
    Not only the consumers have been given low priority. We now hear stories—leaks from the generating companies and from the Department of Trade and Industry and counter-leaks from the Department of the Environment—that the Secretary of State is prepared to jettison the fight against acid rain if that will help keep the ship of privatisation afloat. Before we consider what is happening now, it is necessary to look at what has happened over the last decade.
    794
    By the end of the 1970s, it was generally accepted that emissions of sulphur dioxide from power station chimneys helped cause acid rain. In Europe, particularly in West Germany—the only other country in Europe with a large modern coal industry—they started to set standards to reduce those SO2emissions. The West Germans eventually set about installing flue gas desulphurisation equipment on all their modern coal-fired power stations—a total of 33,000 MW. That has put them at least a decade ahead of Britain.
    In Britain, we behaved like the environmental chancers that the Government are. Nothing has yet been done, despite pressure from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, scientists and the general public. In 1984 and again in 1985, the Cabinet rejected proposals for action. Finally, in 1986 the Prime Minister announced that Britain would install FGD equipment on 6,000 MW of generating plant. But nothing was done. To this day, not a single major power station in Britain has been fitted with FGD equipment.
    Not only did Britain do nothing, but our Government tried to prevent the setting of European standards, and succeeded in delaying and watering down those standards. All that was done in what has become Britain's role of tail-end Maggie—whingeing and whining that Britain knows best, and in any case it would all be very difficult and expensive.
    In 1988, the British Government had to accept target emission reductions of 20 per cent., by 1993, 40 per cent. by 1998 and 60 per cent. by 2003. Those are among the lowest standards in Europe and were accepted by our European partners only because British Ministers argued that the medium-sulphur British coal industry needed to be protected and that flue gas desulphurisation equipment would take a long time to install. On the basis of those statements and arguments, honestly made, our European partners agreed to that reduction in standard. To move away from the introduction of FGD equipment will mean that our European partners could rightly demand, immediately, higher standards than the ones we have adopted.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the largest employers in Scotland and in Renfrewshire is Babcocks, which has been encouraged to develop power stations which would eventually reduce acid rain? The news he has mentioned. will be a catastrophic blow to constituents in Renfrewshire, who will probably face further job losses. It seems that every announcement by the Government creates further and deeper unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is perfectly right and I shall move on to the industrial consequences of the Government's short-sighted policy in a moment.
    Eventually, Britain had a programme to install FGD equipment on 12,000 MW of generating capacity. That policy was confirmed as recently as mid-December by an Environment Minister and it was estimated to cost £2 billion. The programme was to start with the installation of FGD equipment at the 4,000 MW Drax power station, which would by itself meet the 20 per cent. target reduction for 1993.
    Last November, at the United Nations, the Prime Minister made a speech which The London Standard

    795
    moderately described in a memorable headline as "Maggie's plan to save the world". It reported that she had proclaimed:
    "We already have a £2 billion programme of improvements to reduce acid rain emissions from our power stations."
    It now appears that that is no longer true. It seems that the Prime Minister has given up her plans to save the world. She appears to have found a higher calling; she wants the electricity industry sold off before the next general election.
    Presumably the 47 expensive advisers have told the right hon. Lady that a £2 billion programme to clean up the environment is the sort of spending that the City does not like, at least not if it is done by an organisation that it wants to buy on the cheap.
    The installation of FGD equipment at Drax will now not be sufficiently far forward to meet even the 20 per cent. target reduction set for 1993, so the generating companies are asking the Government if they can burn low-sulphur coal to make up some of the difference, the oil refineries and industrial users are being asked to make even bigger reductions in their emissions to make up for the shortfall. They are advising everyone that they do not think they will be able to make up that shortfall. The generating companies have said that they would like to be able to import low-sulphur coal instead of installing FGD towards the later and higher targets.
    Mr. Peter Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what his policy really is? On the one hand he wants British coal to continue to be burnt, and he wants it to be burnt cleanly. On the other, apparently he does not want anybody to pay the price for that clean-up by way of higher prices for electricity. What is he really asking for?
    Mr. Dobson: Labour policy is that FGD equipment should have been installed in the 1980s, that it should be installed now, and that the generating companies should get on with the job and thereby meet Britain's international obligations. We believe that the people of Britain would be prepared to pay the price for cleaning up the environment. The Torys' friends in the City are not prepared to pay that price. Although FGD is expensive and takes a time to install, it has the merit that it removes 90 per cent. of sulphur dioxide from chimney emissions.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Is it not a fact that electricity revenues increased by £1 billion in 1988–89 and that at least part of the price of the installation of the systems about which my hon. Friend is talking could have come from those revenues?
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend and I think along the same lines; he has anticipated what I intended to say, and I shall come to that point shortly.
    The present proposals to substitute low-sulphur coal for the medium-sulphur deep-mined British coal that is currently burned in British power stations will, at best, cut sulphur dioxide emissions by half, because low-sulphur coal contains about half as much sulphur as the average British deep-mined coal. There is no question of using no-sulphur coal, because there is no such thing. Enormous quantities of low-sulphur coal will be required to achieve a reduction similar to that which would be achieved by installing FGD on 12,000 MW of plant, as promised by the Prime Minister in New York.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. To deal with the relatively high content of sulphur in British coal, we either spend a couple of billion pounds installing new plant or we import coal from Colombia and other countries in South America. He is against the importation of such coal, but wants immediate expenditure on capital equipment. Which way is he going? He must make up his mind.
    Mr. Dobson: I am entirely lost by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I have made it quite clear that capital expenditure should be made, and where the money should come from. I simply do not know why the hon. Gentleman is rabbiting on.
    Until now, low-sulphur coal has been given low priority by this short-sighted Government. When they took office, there were 57 collieries in the low-sulphur coalfields of Kent, Wales and Scotland. All the Kent mines have now closed. The number of Welsh mines has been reduced from 37 to six, the number of Scottish mines from 16 to one, and Monkton hall is in mothballs. As a result, British low-sulphur coal capacity has been reduced to a third of its level when the Government took office. If the Secretary of State wants low-sulphur coal, I challenge him to say, either now or in his speech, whether he will insist that Monkton hall be reopened immediately and that the threat of closure be lifted from the remaining six collieries in south Wales. If he will not, it will mean that he prefers foreign coal to British coal.
    The Government have encouraged more opencast mining and propose to give it another boost under the Coal Industry Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place. Besides all the environmental problems that result from opencasting, coal from opencast mines in Britain, with the exception of Scotland, has another major disadvantage—a higher sulphur content than deep-mined coal. In both respects, the Government's policy has made it more difficult for Britain to mine the low-sulphur coal that it needs. Therefore, most low-sulphur coal will have to be imported.
    That poses other problems. I hardly need remind the House that last year Britain had a record trade deficit of £20,000 million. In cash terms, our trade in gas, oil and coal did little better than break even, and in tonnage terms we had an overall fuel deficit of 14 million tonnes, including 12 million tonnes of coal imports. To meet the 1998 target set by our European partners may require a further 30 million tonnes of low-sulphur coal imports, and 50 million tonnes may be necessary to meet the 2003 target.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) said, that is not the only trade disadvantage that would result from abandoning the FGD programme, because it would also harm British boiler manufacturers, who were hoping for contracts to install the FGD equipment. They have put much money and effort into preparing for that work. Had this short-sighted Government got on with desulphurisation in the 1980s, like West Germany, British companies such as Babcock Power and Northern Engineering Industries would be well placed to compete for contracts to clean up the dreadful chimney emissions in eastern Europe.
    However, the latest news means that those companies are likely to be told by the people in eastern Europe to whom they are trying to sell their skills, "Why should we give contracts to you? You have not even done that work

    797
    in Britain. You have no experience and you cannot compare with the achievements of Deutsche Babcock." That is another example of the Government's lack of concern for British industry.
    Why is FGD to be abandoned or severely cut back? After all, it would best counter acid rain, best help British manufacturing industry, best secure the long-term future of the coal industry and best help the balance of payments. The answer is that the flue gas desulphurisation programme is threatened because it would cost money.
    No one should be fooled by the claims that the electricity companies cannot afford it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said, the electricity companies are rolling in money. Last year alone, they repaid £1,779 million to the Government, they self-financed investment of £1,492 million and they still made a profit of £777 million. More than £4,000 million was slushing around in their accounts in one year. If they have a £4,000 million surplus in just one year, they must be able to find £2 billion over the next six or seven years for this vital environmental programme.
    Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes much play of the fact that the electricity industry has made a profit of £770 million. Is he aware of the value of the investment in the electricity industry? Does he not agree that, were the same amount of money to be put into the Post Office, the electricity industry would earn more than it does by the supply of electricity?
    Mr. Dobson: It appears that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy wants to get rid of the electricity industry and to put the money in the Post Office instead. I must remind him of another point. According to the annual reports of the various electricity boards in England, Wales and Scotland, to which the Secretary of State referred me when I asked him about the value of assets, the total net value of assets is £35,000 million, which the British people have invested. We now understand that the Secretary of State will sell them off to his mates in the City for less than £10 billion. There will be a lot of our money swilling around in the hands of people in the City.
    We must accept that a great deal of negotiating is going on. For all I know, all the rumours may have been put out by the electricity industry because it wants to make it appear that it is skint and needs money. Perhaps it will agree to introduce FGD into its power stations, in accordance with the Prime Minister's promise, providing it receives a green dowry from the taxpayer as a sweetener at the time of privatisation. Such a sweetener is not necessary, and should not be given.
    Let me make it clear today that the next Labour Government will require the generating companies to meet the European targets—and to meet them by the installation of FGD equipment. Let me also make it clear that we believe that it would not be fair for any excess installation costs which result from the delay now being sought by the companies to fall on consumers. Those extra costs will not result from anything that consumers have done, so any future requests from the companies to pass on such extra costs to consumers will get an unsympathetic reaction from the next Labour Government.
    Flue gas desulphurisation equipment can be installed in the sure and certain knowledge that it will work. Once such equipment has been installed, operators have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances without raising
    798
    sulphur dioxide emissions. That does not apply to a policy that relies on low-sulphur coal. That is a high-risk policy. For a start, there are severe doubts about Britain's ability to obtain secure supplies of the vast quantities of low-sulphur coal that would be required. Even if they were obtainable, at a reasonable price, the low-sulphur option would be vulnerable to such factors as an unexpected increase in demand for electricity, or the lack of availability of nuclear power from Britain, or even nuclear power imported from France.
    Mr. John Hannam: There is an important point about the operation. Is it not a fact that the desulphurisation process on coal with a high sulphur content results in an increase in the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the other major problem of the greenhouse effect, whereas using coal with a low-sulphur content, from whatever source, does not involve that process and therefore does not create the increased CO2 effect, which is one of the major problems which the world has to face?
    Mr. Dobson: The differences between the two, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are not that large. We have given a clear undertaking to our European partners to reduce acid rain. We should get on with that, rather than pretend that we are making a shabby compromise for the sake of the greenhouse effect. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect; the Government are concerned instead about the counting-house effect in the City.
    The low-sulphur option, if pursued, would lead to massive closures of collieries, which could never be reopened. If collieries are closed in part of a shipyard, it would probably be impossible to sink a safe shaft thereafter.
    To augment low-sulphur coal by burning natural gas, as some people suggest, would be typical of the Government's wasteful and short-sighted energy policies. It would do even more harm to the coal industry and to the balance of payments. It would also rapidly deplete our natural gas reserves, which should be put to better uses than generating electricity, as laid down in an EC directive.
    Not to go ahead with FGD would mean placing less reliance on the most efficient stations on the system. Equally at risk would be those collieries and coalfields which supply such power stations. The British collieries which supply the stations to be converted to low-sulphur coal would also be at risk. The Nottinghamshire coalfield would be most vulnerable, in view of the proposals for coal import facilities on the Humber, and for gas-fired power stations also on the Humber. The low-sulphur-coal approach, according to estimates given to me, could reduce the Nottingham coalfield to just three pits by the end of the decade.
    The Secretary of State has been praised for progressing his privatisation programme and for untangling the knotted nonsense that he inherited from his predecessor. I concede that, from that narrow point of view, he deserves credit for the progress which he has made towards the goal of privatisation set for him by the Prime Minister. But I should remind him that there are more important things in the world than pleasing the Prime Minister. That may be an unusual concept for members of the Cabinet, but it is nevertheless true.
    I remind the Secretary of State of his own experiences. After the House voted to televise its proceedings, the Prime

    799
    Minister wanted the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, to do what he could to delay and obstruct the coming of the cameras. After a time, perhaps as a result of my advice, the Secretary of State rightly decided that it would be better to go down in history as the man who got the cameras in rather than the man who did the Prime Minister's bidding. He showed considerable ingenuity in coming up with a formula for televising the House which was acceptable to nearly everyone. He showed even more courage in telling the Prime Minister that she would have to go along with it.
    The Secretary of State should show those characteristics again. He should take the Prime Minister aside and tell her that the fight against inflation and the battle against acid rain cannot be reconciled with Cecil's potty scheme for electricity privatisation. He should tell her to give priority to the consumers and to the environment. He should tell her to choose between pleasing her friends in the City and breaking her public promise at the United Nations.
    The privatisation of electricity is already proving expensive to consumers, damaging to the environment, harmful to the balance of payments, crippling to British manufacturers and inflationary. It is time for the Government to think again. Above all, the Secretary of State should not agree to the backsliders' charter on acid rain proposed by the generating companies and his city advisers. Our country and our European neighbours deserve better. The advisers should turn their attention from trying to fiddle the figures to thinking of something more important.
    For the last decade, Britain has been the dirty old man of Europe. It is time to look ahead. We should make sure that we lead the way in the international effort to make the new Europe a better and cleaner place, to ensure that, by 2000, the skies are clear, the trees are growing again and the lakes and rivers are restored to their original purity. That is what our people are looking for in the 1990s. They will not forgive those who put privatisation before those hopes and aspirations.
    4.45 pm
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'recognises the significant progress made by this Government in preparing the electricity supply industry for privatisation; welcomes the introduction into the industry for the first time of real, visible and effective competition which will turn the industry from a producer centred monopoly into a truly consumer oriented industry; welcomes the downward pressure that this will put on customers' electricity bills and the upward pressure on standards of service; welcomes this Government's intention to see a radical restructuring and strengthening of pollution control through the Environmental Protection Bill; and welcomes this Government's commitment to complying with the requirements of the European Community's Large Combustion Directive.'.
    I do not know what I have done to deserve praise from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), even in such an oblique way. After all, for three years I spent my time trying to nurse him as shadow Leader of the House by feeding him titbits to try to get him to ask sensible questions, but he rarely did so. I suspect that he was trying to establish a passage of time between his obvious and complete lack of grasp of accountancy
    800
    principles or economics—I do not know whether that accounted for his demise from his employment with the Central Electricity Generating Board or whether it was election to the House——
    Mr. Dobson: I got a better job.
    Mr. Wakeham: He got a better job—as a Member of Parliament, no doubt—so that was that.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the televising of the House, he knows that, after the decision of the House, I paused to consider what to do; I think that I paused for about 20 minutes before I went on television and announced that I had accepted the decision of the House. He knows full well that I worked very hard indeed to try to implement that decision, with his co-operation.
    Having got over the shock of praise from the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the further opportunity so soon after last week's statement to bring the House up to date with our continuing progress and to put on record the performance of the electricity industry under this Government.
    In just six weeks' time, Britain's electricity industry will undergo a dramatic transformation. From the end of March—when 16 new companies will be created—the old electricity supply industry will disappear. In its place, we will establish a competitive market in power. For the first time ever, there will be genuine competition in electricity supply.
    The vesting day for the new companies will mark one of the last hurdles for this, the most complex privatisation ever undertaken. From there, the Government will move ahead and complete the privatisation of the industry in the lifetime of this Parliament, just as they have pledged all along. Then, for the first time, workers in the electricity industry and consumers of electricity alike will have the chance to invest in 14 of the 16 new private companies we will be creating, and to take part in the world's biggest and most exciting privatisation.
    The motion tabled by the Opposition talks about electricity prices. These are, of course, a matter for the industry and it has yet to announce its proposals for the coming year. I indicated to the House just over a week ago that I saw no reason why there should be any increase in the average price of electricity this year. I am now able to inform the House of my latest thinking. I repeat that it will be for the industry to announce its proposals on prices. These will, of course, vary between the boards, depending on their individual circumstances, as they have always done. The likelihood now is that the average price increase overall for electricity consumers in April should be below the current rate of inflation.
    In fact, many industrial customers—those who consume more than 1 MW—will for the first time be negotiating prices in a truly competitive market, and will benefit from price reductions. Where they are not able to do so—perhaps because they need time to negotiate—we have sought an undertaking from the industry that it will use its best endeavours to offer a one-year real price freeze. Overall, I anticipate a significant reduction in the average price paid by customers who consume more than 1 MW.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to finish dealing with prices.

    801
    Customers who take below 1 MW will benefit from regulation and the change to the price control that I announced last week, As I said then, I see no reason why the average price to these customers should rise by much more than the current rate of inflation this year. The price control should prevent any further increases before the end of March.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, as a result of the enormous and unnecessary increases in electricity prices in 1988–89, were it not for privatisation, the electricity industry could easily be in a position to reduce prices, rather than simply freeze them?
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall address that very point in the latter part of my speech.
    I was frankly amazed at the sheer cheek of the motion tabled by the Opposition. The Labour party knows a thing or two about electricity price rises, because it was under the Labour Government that prices rose.
    Mr. Martin Flannery rose——
    Mr. Wakeham: Indeed, a former Labour Cabinet Minister stated:
    "The last Labour Government, of which I was a member … caused a massive increase in electricity charges".—[Official Report, 13 December 1983; Vol. 143, c. 813.]
    The size of the increase was staggering. During the last five years of the Labour Government, with inflation raging out of control, domestic prices increased, in current terms, at a rate equivalent to 2 per cent. every six weeks, or a staggering 155 per cent. over the five-year period.
    If we look at domestic prices under the last five years of this Government on the same basis, we see that they increased by some 21 per cent. Under Labour, they would have increased at a rate equivalent to that percentage each year.
    The picture is clear. Where Labour puts prices up, the Conservatives bring them down. I simply cannot comprehend the Opposition's allegations that preparation for privatisation has put up prices when it is clearly not the case.
    Mr. Alexander Eadie: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr Wakeham: I wish to finish this point. I shall give way in a moment. I may clarify some of the points that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise.
    The simple truth, demonstrated by the Opposition motion, is that the Labour party is confused. As usual, Labour Members want it both ways. They oppose the tough line that we have taken with the coal industry, which has resulted in the stabilisation of prices. They oppose the necessity of raising the return on the assets employed in the electricity supply industry, although the return has still not reached the 5 per cent. that they themselves set when they were in power.
    The fact is that prices would not be any lower if electricity remained in the public sector, and for many consumers they would be a good deal higher. The reality is that the pressures on the electricity supply industry will all be to hold or reduce prices as competition develops. That will be good news for the consumer.
    Mr. Eadie: Using the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, does he agree that there is an element of bare effrontery
    802
    when he draws a distinction between the period of Labour Government and that of the Conservative Government? Does he not realise that there was an oil crisis then and that billions of pounds were being passed across the exchanges for oil? Incidentally, if we pursued his policy, we would pass billions of pounds across the exchanges. Does he not realise how many billions of pounds his Government have had as a consequence of North sea oil? It is bare effrontery for the right hon. Gentleman to quote those statistics to the House.
    Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman likes, I will quote the figures by direct comparison, taking out the inflation factor, which was substantial and caused partly by price rises and partly by oil prices. During the last years of the Labour Government, industrial electricity prices increased by 6 per cent. in real terms and domestic prices increased by 9 per cent. in real terms. In the last five years of this Government, industrial prices fell by 10 per cent. and domestic prices by 8 per cent. in real terms. Industrial prices are lower than they have been since 1973. That is a perfectly good answer to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Wakeham: No. I must get on a little. I will give way in a minute.
    The Opposition are also on shaky ground if they accuse—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) will keep calm for a moment. The Opposition want to raise prices. They do not like it when someone tells them the facts.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: I am intrigued by the Secretary of State's analysis. I have listened patiently to him. In December 1973, OPEC quadrupled oil prices. In the mid-1970s we were contemplating a $35 to $40 barrel in money terms. We now have a $19 barrel. World oil prices and, indeed, world energy prices have fallen in real terms. The Secretary of State knows that, and he should not try to take credit for it.
    Mr. Wakeham: I was simply stating the facts because the Opposition referred to the price of oil. The important point, which the Opposition cannot wriggle away from, is that, under their policy of seeking a 5 per cent. return on assets, prices today would be higher under a Labour Government than they are under the Conservative Government.
    The Opposition are also on shaky ground if they accuse the Government of weakening the protection of the environment. It was this Government who signed the EC large combustion plants directive in 1988. It is this Government who are intent on a radical restructuring and strengthening of pollution control through the Environmental Protection Bill. It is this Government who are in the forefront of international efforts to see that the greenhouse effect is taken seriously.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Wakeham: Is it on the directive?
    Mr. Home Robertson: No.
    Mr. Wakeham: In that case, I shall not give way.
    Mr. Home Robertson: The Secretary of State should save himself some time and give way now.
    Mr. Wakeham: In June 1988, the Government and the Governments of the other EC member states reached agreement on the terms of the large combustion plants directive. Under this directive the United Kingdom will reduce the level of airborne sulphur dioxide emitted by existing large combustion plants—such as coal-fired power stations. For the United Kingdom, the objective is a 60 per cent. reduction in our sulphur dioxide emissions, based on 1980 levels, by the year 2003, with intermediate reductions of 20 per cent. by 1993 and 40 per cent. by 1998.
    The Government have also undertaken to reduce the United Kingdom's emissions of nitrogen oxides—another pollutant implicated in the formation of acid rain—by 30 per cent. on 1980 levels by 1998.
    The essence of the directive is a commitment by member states to reduce their emissions of acid gases. It is not a commitment to any specific form of abatement technique.
    The retrofitting of power stations with flue gas desulphurisation equipment is an important means of reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide. Contracts have been placed for the retrofitting of the 4 GW Drax power station. But there are other means, too. For example, greater use of natural gas in power stations would not only reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide, but would help control our emissions of carbon dioxide. That could prove of greater value as part of the strategy to combat global warming.
    I assure the House that the privatisation of the electricity industry will not affect United Kindom compliance with the terms of the directive. The Environmental Protection Bill will provide the Secretary of State for the Environment and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution with adequate powers to ensure compliance with the directive.
    Mr. Salmond: May I take the Secretary of State back to his argument on the virtues of competition? I read his speech in Aberdeen last Friday. How will the cross-border competition work? In particular, how can we export Scottish electricity generated by coal at 4p per unit or by advanced gas reactor at, perhaps, 8p per unit when there are proposals to build 3,000 MW of gas-powered electricity stations in the north-east of England which will produce electricity at 2p per unit? Is not that a recipe for one-way competition? The competition will not be from north to south. From a Scottish perspective, can the Secretary of State really argue that it is a good deal to allow gas from Aberdeen to be sent to the north-east of England to out-compete the Scottish electricity industry and Scottish industry as a whole?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that the whole of Scotland is not as pessimistic about the fortunes of the Scottish economy as the hon. Gentleman. When I was in Scotland, I talked to a number of people involved in the electricity supply industry there, who believe that they can compete—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman quotes a lot of figures. It is not for me to discuss the details of contracts to which I am not party. I am convinced that Scotland has the ability to compete; that Scotland will compete on electricity and be very welcome in our system, in which it will play its part.
    Mr. Salmond: What about the price of the AGR system?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question to which, in my view, I have given him the answer.
    I always take a lively interest in the pronouncements of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and his colleagues. Both he and his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) have come up with some interesting new policies on the environment recently.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras wants to introduce a new merit order based on environmental friendliness—by which, we must assume, he means nuclear first and coal last. The hon. Member for Dagenham—taking time off from the roof tax—has said that Labour would stabilise carbon dioxide emissions within five years and then embark on a major programme of reductions.
    It seems to me that both hon. Members have committed themselves to policies without working out what impact they would have on our economy—and more specifically on the coal industry. The combination of those policies could have a devastating impact on the industry and on the workers in the industry that many Opposition Members represent. Perhaps the hon. Members have not done their homework, or perhaps they should think a little more before committing themselves to such policies, but until they come clean we can only assume one thing—that a Labour Government would be disastrous for the coal industry.
    Mr. Dobson: I assume that the Secretary of State is referring to a speech that I made in Wakefield on 21 November. It would have been better if he had told the House that I did not announce the merit order as part of Labour's policy. I said——
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is recanting.
    Mr. Dobson: No, I am not recanting at all. I said, "I don't pretend to have all the answers"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—unlike Conservative Members who always have all the answers. I said that I was seeking advice about one idea that which force the generators to take the environment seriously. If the Secretary of State—and, presumably, those who helped him draft his speech and who are now sitting in the Box—had looked carefully at my speech, they would not have seen any suggestion that there should be comparisons between gas, electricity and coal because we are looking at the comparative merits of one gas-fired method against another and of one coal-fired method against another. I hope that the Secretary of State will stop this canard, which he has run out half a dozen times already.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I am glad that an element of bipartisanship has broken out. We can agree that the hon. Gentleman does not know all the answers. However, more seriously—some important issues are involved—I give the hon. Gentleman this undertaking. If he has any plans about how he would like the merit order to be altered from the point of view of the environment, and if he will send his proposals to me, I will ensure that they are considered by the experts in the Department and I will give the hon. Gentleman a perfectly adequate answer. I mean that seriously. I am happy to cast a slide rule or two over the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
    Mr. Home Robertson: When the Secretary of State has the slide rule out, and since his experts are to assess the environmental impact of different types of power, will he take this opportunity to say something about the circumstances in which the offshore wave power programme was rubbished by people in his Department, we assume, back in 1982? Is he prepared to make a further statement now on whether that programme will be started again?
    Mr. Wakeham: I came to the Department on 27 July 1990—[Interruption.]—no, 1989, and I have not briefed myself on what happened in 1982. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about it, I shall be happy to look into the matter.
    Even before it is accomplished, privatisation has had the effect of stimulating new thinking about methods of electricity generation in this country. The scope and incentives for combined heat and power, for the burning of gas and for renewable energy sources have become much clearer. All these are to be welcomed on environmental grounds. As I said on 12 February, around 300 projects have been put to the area boards in response to our policy of encouraging the development of commercial renewable energy sources.
    There has been some ill-founded comment that we have overlooked the interests of independent generators in framing our privatisation proposals. This is not the case. The promotion of competition in generation remains a key objective.
    As far as the existing generators are concerned, there are about 100 projects selling to area boards under the terms of the Energy Act 1983. My predecessor announced a year ago that we had agreed five-year transitional arrangements with the area board chairmen to ensure that the changes that we are bringing about do not materially affect the working of those independent power contracts that had been agreed against the backdrop of the Energy Act 1983. The object of the transitional arrangements is to ensure that the generators are no worse off in revenue income terms than at present.
    Nevertheless, not all generators currently selling under 1983 Act terms could have been covered by these arrangements, since some 40 of those projects predate the 1983 Act. I have been considering this further and am pleased to say that my proposal is to extend the transitional arrangements to all existing independent generators, regardless of when the plant investment was made.
    The successor companies of the area boards will, therefore, make available 1983 Energy Act terms to all existing generators who wish them, for a period of five years after vesting. I believe that that will give all independent generators now on the system an oportunity to come to terms with the new market environment that we are now creating.
    As for new entrants, there is a substantial interest among the independent sector in entering the generating market. Lakeland Power and NORWEB, of course, led the way last October with the signature of a long-term power sales contract from the Roosecote station in Cumbria. I am glad to say that this particular project is progressing well. As we speak, the staton is undergoing conversion to burn gas and it is hoped that Lakeland will be supplying power by the winter of 1991.
    806
    I hope and believe that more will follow. We know of around 20 other major generation projects in prospect and negotiations between the companies concerned are actively under way. I hope that the emerging final details of the new regime will assist in bringing such negotiations to successful conclusions. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked a great deal about the Government's record and policies——
    Mr. Kevin Barron: It says here—he has it typed out.
    Mr. Wakeham: Well, I do not think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras can object to me commenting as such, because he said very little about his party's record and policies. Perhaps he is a little embarrassed to talk about them. But if he will not, I shall. I shall set the record straight—and the record is clear. Labour is the party of electricity price rises. The Conservatives are the party of electricity price reductions. Labour in government did nothing to clean up the environment. The Conservatives in government are taking the lead throughout the world in tackling environmental problems. Labour believes the answer to everything is renationalisation. The Conservatives believe in free enterprise——
    Mr. Dobson: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about policy, does he recognise that on 13 December 1989 an Environment Minister said in a written answer that meeting the anti-acid rain commitment
    "will involve a range of measures by United Kingdom industry, including retrofitting at least 12,000 MW of electricity generating capacity with flue gas desulphurisation equipment."—[Official Report, 13 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 717.]
    Is that still the Government's policy, or has the Secretary of State just changed it?
    Mr. Barron: Let us have a straight answer.
    Mr. Wakeham: We shall meet that directive in the most sensible and practical manner. Global warming and carbon dioxide are important factors, and we have given a clear undertaking to meet the directive.
    The contrast between the two parties could not be starker. Where Labour failed, this Government have a proud record and sound policies. I commend them to the House.
    5.9 pm
    Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to follow the preposterous speech of the Secretary of State. We can only assume that he is looking for an early ministerial reshuffle, as it is obvious that he does not want to be in charge of the electricity industry as it goes towards privatisation.
    It is true that energy prices rose in the 1970s following the Yom Kippur war, when fuels costs quadrupled. After 1980, however, the reason for high electricity prices was the industrial devastation that had reduced demand and left the industry with a substantial surplus of generating capacity. That problem should have been resolved, but we now face massive price increases for no good reason.
    I was present when the Secretary of State's predecessor came to the House to say that electricity prices had to rise by 15 per cent. in 1988 and by up to 7 per cent. in 1989 to pay for capital investment. Hon. Members who were present then will recall that. We pointed out that the

    807
    Central Electricity Generating Board had already budgeted for adequate capital investment without price increases and, during the passage of the Electricity Bill in Committee, we established that electricity prices had gone up for no good reason, as the board's capital expenditure programme had been met from its budgeted sums before those price increases. Those increases have put a heavy burden on domestic and industrial consumers.
    In the past two years, the Government have been fortunate, as the winters have been relatively mild. Had that not been so, there would have been a scandalous number of hypothermia cases and similar conditions. What the Secretary of State has said today brings no comfort to the domestic consumer. He has promised that prices will not rise above the level of inflation, but inflation may well reach 8 per cent. this year and any price increase will be a significant burden on those already paying too much for their electricity.
    Whatever the Government may say, the share of income devoted to electricity and fuel costs by the poorest 4 million people in our country is already excessive. They cannot afford to buy electricity shares or water shares. The private water companies recently demonstrated what privatisation means. They are now telling the fire authorities that they have no obligation to provide free water for fighting a fire. Before long, the private electricity generators will say that they have no obligation to provide heat and warmth for the poorest of our country.
    It is bad enough for the Government to impose hardship upon the poor, but, while maintaining their arm's length relationship with industry, they should remember that they have an obligation to supervise the British economy. On Saturday, I spent the evening talking to employees of the steel industry who are members of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the ISTC. They are anxious not only about their jobs, but about rapid developments that will take place in the months ahead. Their anxiety is shared throughout the steel industry and the chairman of United Engineering Steels, Mr. Pennington, wrote to me recently to express his anxiety. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that anxiety.
    The signs are that we are heading for an industrial recession. Between December 1988 and December 1989, steel production fell from 363,000 tonnes to 343,000 tonnes; between November 1988 and November 1989, steel production fell from 360,000 tonnes to 330,000 tonnes. Those falls are significant and serious, as the steel industry is typical of a number of high-technology, high-energy-using industries. Those industries know that, if we enter a tighter, more competitive international market, our competitors will behave with a great deal more intelligence than the Government have displayed since 1979.
    As competition increases and tightens, our competitors in France, Germany and elsewhere will recognise that intelligent support from the state and intervention by the Government will be helpful in maintaining their share of international trade. Our Government should remember that, for companies such as Rotherham Engineering Steels Ltd., the price of power may account for more than 20 per cent. of production costs. The Government will not
    808
    provide such support, but how will we generate the import revenue to pay for the enormous importation of low-sulphur coal, as envisaged by the Government?
    The Government have wiped out the British low-sulphur coal industry, and they intend to rely upon imports. In the 1990s, it is inevitable that the premium enjoyed by that coal will increase. Within the decade, I estimate that it will cost £50 a tonne. Because of the Prime Minister's betrayal of her commitment to serve the cause of decency in the environment, we shall be forced to buy low-sulphur coal from abroad, and that will mean the equivalent of a balance of payments demand of £3,000 million.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hardy: I would rather not, as I promised to make a short speech—perhaps to enable the hon. Gentleman to make his own.
    The Prime Minister and her Government have betrayed the commitments to the environment that she gave several times 18 months ago. This most recent betrayal comes as no surprise; we have seen it all before. As a result of the failure of the Government's energy policy, British industry and exporting companies such as Rotherham Engineering Steels Ltd. may face a serious competitive disadvantage. That will affect the national economy and the employment potential that industry should command.
    This should not be a matter for party games; what is at stake is too serious. The Government's handling of the energy economy will endanger the well-being of the country, pose a threat to our exporting industries and cause hardship to the poorest sections of our community, who are already suffering a great deal. The Government's failure poses a danger to the health of the nation as they cling to the idea that the leukaemia-friendly nuclear industry is helpful to the environment. The facts are far too serious to allow the Government to continue with their preposterous approach.
    5.17 pm
    Dr. Michael Clark: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) announced his plans for the privatisation of electricity, he made the wise decision to split the generating board in two. He also made the important decision that the distribution companies could generate electricity and that other companies should he able to generate electricity by the use of private capital. One part of that privatisation plan was not how I would have wished, however—that relating to nuclear power.
    We could have privatised the electricity industry as a whole, but we excluded the nuclear part and kept it as a separate public company. The third report of the Select Committee on Energy for 1987–88 said in paragraph 147:
    "independent witnesses were unanimous that, because of commerical discount rates, and the price of coal, unsupported, private companies were most unlikely to build nuclear power plants."
    In a speech in this House on 12 December 1988, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who has now left the Chamber, spoke of the wisdom of having a separate publicly owned nuclear company. I said that there was a right and an obligation to buy non-fossil electricity, but asked where the obligation was to build nuclear power stations or generating sets

    809
    based on renewable sources. It seemed to be a one-sided relationship, with an obligation to buy but no obligation to build.
    At that time—admittedly, I am going back more than 12 months—there were arguments for a separate public company for nuclear power stations, so that the generation of nuclear electricity would he guaranteed. There was also an argument for a separate company to prevent the nuclear component from eroding the selling price of National Power and PowerGen—particularly National Power. There was also an argument that we should retain a centre of nuclear excellence in terms both of operating nuclear power stations and of research and development. There was, and still is, a case to have a separate nuclear company so that there would be public confidence in nuclear energy, especially with regard to safety.
    Above all, the main point made in that debate was that it was essential to keep nuclear generation separate from other forms of generation, so as to prevent the true costs of the nuclear industry from being concealed. They were the costs of capital, fuel, waste disposal and decommissioning. It seems that, due to the accoustics and the speed of sound in this Chamber, it takes about 12 months for noises from Back Benches to travel the 10 or 15 ft to the Front Benches.
    I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the bold decision to put nuclear generation into a separate company—Nuclear Electric. The fact that the decision has been taken a little later than one would wish does not change the fact that it was a bold, wise and correct decision, and I congratulate him on it.
    I add to the congratulations offered by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the magnificent job that they are doing in completing the privatisation programme in the scheduled time. The vesting date will be 31 March. There is little doubt that my right hon. Friend is the right man for the right job at the right time.
    Mr. Dobson: How would the hon. Gentleman describe the Secretary of State's predecessor?
    Dr. Clark: I am talking about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I congratulate on the work that he is doing at present. He is creating competition that will result in downward pressure on prices. Through competition, he will also encourage upward pressure on standard of service, which will benefit everyone using electricity.
    We have heard much this afternoon about acid rain, which is principally caused by burning coal and producing sulphur dioxide. There are other forms of pollution, including that caused by carbon dioxide, which causes the so-called greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide comes from burning not only coal, but all fossil fuels. It seems that, whether we are talking about acid rain or the greenhouse effect, it is either burning fossil fuel or, more specifically in terms of acid rain, burning coal, that is the problem. The difference between the two is that we can scrub out sulphur dioxide and prevent acid rain, as has been said, but we cannot do much now, if anything, to remove carbon dioxide, which causes the greenhouse effect. The only way we can do so is to think of other forms of electricity generation, whether renewables or nuclear.
    810
    There is a principle—it is presently being embodied in legislation—that the polluter pays. With the privatisation of electricity, I am certain that that principle will continue. The price of electricity must reflect the price of removing such things as sulphur dioxide and preventing acid rain. If we were not careful and did not have privatisation, we would be in a cost-plus position, where the cost of the measures would be passed straight to the consumer by the generator. With privatisation and the competition that will ensue, the cost of removing pollution will be kept to a minimum and will result in a downward trend, not an ever-spiralling upward one.
    In the long term, there is little doubt that the nuclear programme and renewables are the solution to removing acid rain. However, we must concede—our Select Committee report showed this—that it is unlikely that the nuclear industry can make much of a contribution during the next 10 or 20 years. Therefore, we should perhaps look towards renewables.
    In his statement on 12 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy commented on the fact that the non-fossil fuel obligation would also encourage the development of commercial renewable energy sources. He reminded us this afternoon that about 300 projects have been proposed to the area boards in response to that policy. We await with considerable interest the second order, that he will introduce, which relates specifically to renewables. We look forward to learning about the success of many of those 300 projects.
    Let us also hope that some of the money that is now being saved from nuclear research and development can be directed towards renewables. A little pump priming—if I may be excused the pun—in the renewable direction will have a great deal of benefit. Nuclear research is expensive, and it would not require more than a small percentage of that money to be diverted to renewables to have a significant impact on the number of renewable sources, their viability and their commercial success.
    I still believe that, in the long term, the nuclear industry gives us the best options for constant availability of energy. In due course, as fossil fuels rise in price due to their scarcity, nuclear electricity will have advantageous prices and will be pollution-free.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, he knows full well that, while we have been taking expert evidence on this subject recently, no one has been able to give the exact cost of nuclear energy in the future, including decommissioning.
    Dr. Clark: I grant that it is difficult to know what the cost of nuclear energy will be in future. However, it is also difficult to know what coal, gas, or oil will cost. One fact we do know is that coal, gas and oil are declining in world reserves, whereas the amount of uranium is largely untouched. Basic cost graphs will show that the cost of fossil fuel will increase as it becomes scarce, and the cost of nuclear energy will either remain stable or decrease as technology improves. We know that there is plenty of uranium to fuel the stations.
    When the nuclear industry recovers from its temporary setback and starts rebuilding stations, I am certain that they will be in the private sector, as they are in America.

    811
    There is no reason why they should not be in the private sector here in due course, although it is not appropriate at present, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
    I am disappointed that the review of the nuclear industry has been delayed until 1994. That will probably mean that there can be no new nuclear power stations before then. I wonder what will happen to fill the gap left by the cancellation of the three pressurised water reactors that are no longer to be built.
    The work on finding sites for nuclear waste must continue regardless of the nuclear review. We have to be sure that we have the advanced technology for disposing of nuclear waste by 1994, when there will be another boost in the build of nuclear power stations. The nuclear industry will then be able to keep prices down, without the pollution which results from the burning of fossil fuels.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. If hon. Members limit their speeches to 10 minutes, all those who wish to speak will be able to do so.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is amazing to hear the complacent way in which the Government defend the privatisation of the electricity industry, given the shambolic way in which it has been conducted over the past year or two. The Government have turned cartwheels; advice from Opposition Members and others outside the House, once treated with contempt and rubbished, has proved to be correct and has ultimately been accepted, but only after confidence in the Government's handling of the matter has been shattered. But that only came about because the City was not prepared to buy the package that was originally proposed. I agree with the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) that, in the circumstances, the Secretary of State has made the best of a bad job, but I am sure that he and his predecessor are not the closest of friends as a result.
    I am not convinced that the electricity industry has been privatised with the interests of the consumer in mind, with the objective of keeping down electricity prices or with the objective of dealing with the environmental problems associated with electricity generation. It has been done with the voter in mind, as a means to buy votes. However, the Government's economic policies are now in such a mess that it is difficult to see how they can issue such a bribe without aggravating the problems that they have created.
    The nuclear power industry has proved most embarrassing to the Government. We were first told that nuclear power was the cheapest form of electricity, even though for years it has been apparent to anybody who looked at it closely that that was not the case, and that it was expensive. At least privatisation flushed that fact out so effectively that the Government were forced to pull it from the sale, as I and others warned at the outset they would have to do, because it would not be a saleable proposition.
    Not only is the nuclear industry uneconomic, but it cannot be claimed to have all the benefits that the hon. Member for Rochford described. Safety problems occur far too frequently for us to be complacent about existing
    812
    nuclear power stations. Only last week there was an incident at Hinkley Point. The industry maintains that there was no significant problem, but it was only a matter of luck that there were no serious consequences. The incident was certainly outside the budgeted safety provisions. In other words, it should not have happened. In addition, there are the problems of leukaemia clusters and the genetic transfer of leukaemia at Sellafield.
    That raises serious questions about whether the THORP project is the money spinner that the Government suggest. At the end of the day, that will prove to be a major cost and environmental liability. The project should never have been embarked upon. The idea that it will win us large quantities of foreign exchange in the short term is likely to be outweighed by the difficulties of maintaining the safety of that plant and dealing with the large volumes of radioactive waste that will be produced as a by-product.
    The nuclear industry has no useful contribution to make in the foreseeable future, and it should be phased out during the next 15 to 20 years. That will require a radical reassessment of what our electricity supply industry should look like in 15, 20 or 25 years' time.
    I agree with the Secretary of State that the Labour party's motion is a little cheeky. It is certainly bald, and it says little if anything about the Labour party's alternative. It is extremely negative in its approach. One of the Labour party's problems is that, fundamentally, it likes the electricity supply industry the way it was—a huge, centralised monolithic structure.
    Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bruce: No, I am trying to be brief.
    To make the point more forcefully, during the Lib-Lab agreement, the Labour Government's objective was a single electricity company for the United Kingdom. It was one of the small negative benefits of that period that the Liberals in government refused to accede to that objective, and we were right to ensure that the regional structure was maintained. It is necessary to ensure that the industry has some transparency and comparability.
    There is room for competition within the supply industry. That has never been a problem for me or for my party, but I am not convinced that the structure that has been created is likely to be the definitive answer. Restructuring will inevitably take place over the years. I am not wholly convinced that there will be a proliferation of new small suppliers, but that is the direction in which the electricity supply industry should move in the next few years, so that we have much greater variety, scale and size of generation.
    Another mistake in the way in which the industry has been structured and has instinctively operated over the past 10 or 15 years is that, when demand has risen, the response has been to build a series of new giant power stations. That era should be behind us. That is one of the better reasons why the PWRs should be cancelled: not just because they are nuclear stations but because they are of a scale and type that is not relevant to the future structure of the industry.
    We want smaller-scale generating capacity, which can be much more efficient because it can use combined heat and power systems and district heating systems and in other ways operate at a level of efficiency which will reduce environmental pressures as well as fuel requirements.

    813
    Environmental pressures must be addressed from the outset. The Government should be setting targets not only for the reduction of acid rain but for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. That can be done only if one sets out the objectives for three to five years ahead and then works out how they can be achieved. The Minister says that the Government aim to achieve a 60 per cent. reduction in acid rain by 2003. The EC wishes to achieve that by 1995, so the Government are clearly not moving as fast as they should be.
    The practicalities of reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not too acute in the short term. I had the privilege and pleasure of opening a sheltered housing complex in my constituency last week. It was built by Gordon district council and is claimed to be the most energy-efficient housing complex in operation in the United Kingdom. For £30,000, a substantial reduction in heating costs has been achieved. The project cost £1·44 million and the 32 units cost £1 per week for all heat and light, using condensing boilers, triple glazing, high insulation and low-energy lighting.
    It is also estimated that carbon dioxide emissions from that building have been reduced by 50 per cent., compared to what would have been the case if that £30,000 investment had not been made. Building standards and an energy audit for the introduction of such new systems in a variety of buildings could quickly reduce fuel consumption and carbon dioxide output. Radical measures of that kind are needed if the environmental pressures created by the electricity supply industry are to be reduced.
    The Government told the United Nations that they believed that it was possible to reduce the demand for electricity by 60 per cent. within the next few years—that is, a 60 per cent. increase in efficiency. However, in written answers that I have received even in the last few weeks, the Government insist that they believe only a 20 per cent., saving is achievable. How do the Government explain that differential? What is being done to achieve even a 20 per cent. saving?
    One must ask also what is being done about renewable sources of energy. After conservation has been exploited—that must be the priority—alternative energy resources must be dramatically expanded. Scotland has the best wind profile in Europe, yet that resource is not being developed at anything like the rate necessary. In fact, one company involved dropped out of the market because the pace of development did not allow it to survive.
    We should be setting ourselves the clear objectives of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent. over the next 15 years, introducing a system of emission control licences to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and of other greenhouse gases released by energy generation, developing renewable energy resources on a much greater scale, and changing the nature of the coal industry to ensure that we do not continue losing low-sulphur reserves, as we have done over the past year or two. We should also phase out the nuclear power industry by 2020, if not before.
    All that is achievable and would bring the substantial benefits of savings to the consumer, reductions in electricity costs, reductions in fuel poverty, and reductions in the impact of the adverse effects of electricity generation on the environment.
    5.41 pm
    Mr. John Hannam: I welcome the privatisation of the electricity supply industry and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the effective grasp of the reorganisation that he has shown. In 1979, I and the late Jocelyn Cadbury, both working in the energy group, first drew up a report suggesting splitting the electricity industry into eight coterminous generating and distribution companies, as the first step to achieving a competitive situation. At that time, many technical objections were made, which outweighed the advantages. A decade later, the dream that I and the late Jocelyn Cadbury had or a more flexible and more competitive system is coming to fruition.
    We are about to embark on a new era in electricity generation now that the old Central Electricity Generating Board monopoly is to be broken. With the emergence of two new private companies, National Power and PowerGen, together with the newly emerging independent generating companies such as Lakeland Power Ltd.—which has reached agreement to sell the output of its 225 MW power station in Cumbria to NORWEB—we can see all the pressures of competition being brought to bear on prices. I am confident that, within a few years, all the exaggerated fears of the Labour party that electricity prices will rise by 25 per cent. will be proved groundless—just as they were in the case of other major privatisations.
    The Government can be proud of the success of their privatisation programme. Twenty-nine major former state sector companies have been privatised since 1980. Almost 45 per cent. of the former state sector and nearly 800,000 jobs are in private hands and are prospering accordingly. That has resulted in a trebling in the number of United Kingdom shareholders to more than 9 million. Ninety-nine per cent. of British Gas employees bought shares, and it would be a salutary lesson for Labour to poll all those employees, asking whether they really want to go backwards and see the renationalisation of the gas industry. Domestic gas prices fell by 16 per cent. in real terms in the five years from 1984 to 1989, and British Telecom charges have fallen by 5 per cent. in real terms since November 1986.
    The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week that average electricity prices will increase below inflation is good news for everyone. It means, of course, that once again, Labour has got it all wrong, with its scaremongering forecasts of huge price increases.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
    Mr. Hannam: Because of the time limitation, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman—but I can prove if necessary that such a forecast was made by two Labour Members.
    History has shown that there were massive price increases under Labour Governments. Between May 1974 and May 1979, domestic electricity prices increased 9 per cent. in real terms, compared with an 8 per cent. fall between 1985 and the present under a Conservative Government. Under Labour, industrial electricity prices rose 6 per cent. in real terms, but have dropped 10 per cent.. under a Conservative Government. As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said:

    815
    "The last Labour Government, of which I was a member—I take my share of collective responsibility for this—caused a massive increase in electricity charges."—[Official Report, 13 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 813.]
    I have no doubt that the diversity of supply that the Electricity Act promises will materialise.
    Mr. George J. Buckley rose——
    Mr. Hannam: In view of the comments of Mr. Deputy Speaker, who asked right hon. and hon. Members to curtail their speeches, I think that I had better carry on.
    I mentioned Lakeland Power's 225 MW station, and there is also the ICI-National Power-Enron proposal for a £1 billion gas-fired power station using combined heat and power, which would generate 1,500 MW. Thames Power has plans for a series of five or six generating plants, including a huge 1,000 MW station at Barking, which would supply nearly one quarter of London electricity board's peak demand. South-Eastern electricity board, London Underground Ltd., British Coal and Whitchurch hospital in Cardiff all have schemes that would produce downward pressure on prices and much greater efficiency in energy production.
    By seeking out the cheapest source of supply, the 12 area supply companies will promote competition among the generators, with the national grid acting as the market. They will be able to generate electricity themselves or to purchase it from new independent generators. The requirement to purchase a percentage of their needs from non-fossil fuel sources will help to ensure security of supply and encourage the development of renewable sources of power. I wish that the non-fossil fuel percentage could somehow have been extended to include combined heat and power, which must be more greatly encouraged as one of the most energy-efficient means of generating and using electricity.
    I support the decision to separate the nuclear power element of the industry at this stage. It is vital to keep nuclear capacity, not only for security of supply but on environmental grounds and a longer-term supply basis. Within a few years, fossil fuel prices will without a doubt begin to rise again and nuclear power will become price-competitive in the United Kingdom—as it is in France, Japan and West Germany. Alternative renewable resources of non-fossil fuel generation will also play an increasingly important part in our energy equation.
    The Government are right to help research into, and evaluation of, various forms of electricity generation. Although I should not like to put my money on any particular schemes at this stage, because we have seen their order of priority chop and change over the years, I believe that the Mersey tidal barrage will succeed, as will wind farms on our windier islands. I note the remark of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), that Scotland presents special opportunities in that context. The landfill gas schemes that are proliferating are also likely to succeed.
    The impending privatisation of the electricity industry has given a huge boost to the development of such projects—so much so that 300 schemes have been submitted to area boards for consideration under the non-fossil fuel obligation. Important to us all is the effect of energy production and use upon our environment. A great deal more has to be done in respect of cleaner production and energy efficiency. As I pointed out in an earlier
    816
    intervention, a process that removes a pollutant such as sulphur dioxide or the lead from petrol can increase the amount of carbon-dioxide going into the atmosphere. That problem will not go away, as has been made clear in all our discussions with environmental organisations.
    We need imaginative new initiatives throughout the whole area of energy efficiency, if we are to properly protect our environment, as the hon. Member for Gordon said. All the present evaluations show that the best opportunities for environmental benefit probably lie with transport, through increasing car engine efficiency and through new attitudes to travel systems.
    In recent discussions with Friends of the Earth, it was pointed out that our present policy of creating industrial estates and new factories far away from the houses in which the employees live creates huge transport problems. It results in vast commuter traffic and use of cars. As many of the new industrial plants are quiet and clean and use new technology, perhaps our planners ought to consider whether we should go back to integrating some of the plants and industries with the housing for the people who will work in them, and so help to produce an answer to one of our environmental problems.
    We now spend six times the amount that we spent in 1979 on energy efficiency. The Electricity Act places a duty on the Secretary of State and on the Director General of Electricity Supply to promote energy efficiency and economy by suppliers, and to promote the efficient use of the electricity which they supply.
    However, the energy efficiency of British buildings is not satisfactory compared with that in other European countries. The programme of energy saving in the early 1980s produced a significant upturn in the awareness of the importance of energy efficiency among industrialists, business men and domestic householders. Now is the time to regenerate—if I may be allowed to use that phrase—full awareness of energy saving and the benefits to the consumer and for future generations. Energy audits, insulation, double-glazing, building design and electronic controls—those are a whole range of actions and options that need to be encouraged, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pursue them vigorously together with Ministers in other Departments.
    The Opposition motion has effectively been torpedoed by my right hon. Friend's announcement of a lower-than-inflation price structure. I ask the House to support the Government amendment.
    5.51 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the fact that the Government are buying advice from 47 companies. If the Government were sincere in their beliefs about the work and the worth of the Energy Select Committee and other Select Committees, there would have been no need for them to spend that sort of money.
    I thought that I saw four members of the Select Committee here today. That pleased me, although I think that the Chairman has now left the Chamber, as has the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost). All four were party to the Energy Select Committee's third report of 6 July 1988. I may be wrong about the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), but I think they all were a party to it.

    817
    The Government never wanted that report to be published. Hon. Members may recollect that, on one particular morning, the Select Committee was to discuss the possibility of taking evidence and producing such a report, and because of pressure from the Whips, Conservative Members were supposed to object to such an investigation. Unfortunately, for some reason, some Conservative Members failed to turn up to the Committee, and the Opposition Members—we do not usually split on political lines—were then in the majority. That is why that report saw the light of day.
    That was an excellent report, in which the Committee advised the Government—who were hell-bent on shoving forward their privatisation programme, and had produced a White Paper with very little consultation on electricity privatization—that they were in danger of producing spatchcock legislation [Interruption.] The Committee suggested that the Government might be well advised to defer the implementaton of the legislation until they had had sufficient time to consider it.
    The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East wanted to know what spatchcock legislation means. I am prepared for that one. I have been asked that question many times, and I have failed to answer it, but now I have found the answer. I understand that a spatchcock is a cock bird, a bird unplucked or unhung, and not ready for cooking. I think that that explains the word, and the motives behind the Select Committee's decision. The Committee saw the dangers of that hasty legislation.
    I believe that the Select Committee has been proved right. They produced a report after seeking much expert evidence. I would have thought that the Government would have been wise to consider that report, but no, they did not. The Select Committee said in its third report;
    "First, we are worried about the costs of nuclear power … Secondly, if there are to be additional costs from nuclear power, we are concerned about where they will fall."
    In recent times, as the present Chairman knows well, we have taken much expert evidence in Committee on the cost of nuclear power. Why did the electricity supply industry and Lord Marshall get their sums wrong? Why has the country been told for many years that the comparison of costs between coal and nuclear showed that nuclear was always much cheaper? That was never true; it was probably hidden from the public and from the Government—in fairness to them.
    Mr. Dobson: For a time.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Yes, for a time. But it was certainly hidden from the country.
    The Secretary of State has not altered one word in his speech about the nuclear sector, part of which will be generating electricity in Britain. The big question mark over electricity prices is, how much will it cost, bearing in mind the proportion of 25 per cent. generation by non-fossil fuel? We are aware that there will be a colossal cost, and no one knows the real cost of decommissioning. Somewhere down the line someone will have to foot that bill, but who? It will not be the private sector. Nuclear power generation has been pulled out of the sale because it would not be attractive to the private sector. I appreciate that there have to be alternative sources of energy, but I do not believe that effort and money should be put into the nuclear industry.
    When we talk about costs, we immediately think of financial costs, but of leukaemia clusters and other things
    818
    there are greater costs. Evidence is now coming to light in some areas of nuclear activity. Nobody knows the extent of the problem. It has been denied for many years, but now people are beginning to wonder. What a cost we may have to be prepared to pay for the nuclear generation of electricity. What a social cost, and what misery we may cause families.
    There is also a risk of major accidents. I believe that the reason for pushing nuclear energy as an alternative supply is purely dogma. It is to whip the miners, who have never been forgiven and never will be while the Government are in power. The Government will live to regret the day that they ran down the coal-mining industry to the extent they have. Once mining cannot meet the demands of the next generation of industry in this country, we shall have to pay through the nose for coal—whether it is desulphurised or not. That is purely a result of dogma. I hope that the Government will think again, and will do what they can to provide some nuclear power costing.
    No less a person than Lord Marshall, on whose guidance the Government have relied for many years, told the Select Committee only last week or the week before that he agreed with the view in its report that the Government had produced spatchcock legislation, and Conservative Members know full well that that view is correct. He also said—in his final question to the Committee's Chairman, I believe—that, after 25 years of advising Government, he had failed. I believe that he is now a very disillusioned nuclear scientist, as are many of his friends.
    If costing is to be fair and properly controlled, there can be no place for nuclear power generation.
    6 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: I should have thought that it was obvious that, on an Opposition day, the Opposition—in this case, the Labour party—should choose a subject on which they had a good record when in office, and on which their spokespersons were renowned for the accuracy of both their research and their pronouncements. Labour's record on both electricity prices and care for the environment is woefully arid pathetically weak. Far from being a shining beacon of achievement and endeavour, it is hardly measurable in megawatts. Candle power would be more appropriate: even in that context, however, it is short on the light of inspiration and long on the wax of fudge and obfuscation.
    Let us look first at Labour's record on prices. Between 1974 ad 1979, domestic electricity prices rose by 9 per cent. in real terms. Under the present Government, between 1985 and 1990, they fell by 8 per cent. in real terms. Opposition Members may not like the figures, but they represent the truth. Under Labour, industrial prices rose by 6 per cent. in real terms; they have fallen by 10 per cent. under the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was 10 years ago."]
    I hear Opposition Members protest that their record was established 10 years ago. Has anything changed? Have they learnt anything? Is their understanding of the electricity supply industry any more intelligible, and are their predictions any more accurate?
    In December 1988, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) forecast a 25 per cent. rise in electricity bills as a result of privatisation. Misleadingly, he lumped together the 1988 rise, the forecast rise for 1989 and the fossil fuel

    819
    levy, which was already an integral part of electricity bills. Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State announced that this year the average price for all consumers would increase only in line with inflation. The hon. Member for Sedgefield was some 17 percentage points out: I wonder whether that is why he has moved to employment. As recently as last September, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that industrial customers faced rises of between 15 and 25 per cent. in April, but it was announced today that the Government had obtained an undertaking from the industry to offer a real-terms price freeze, at least to the larger industrial users.
    Under privatisation, downward pressures will be exerted on prices as a result of competition between generators. Prices will also be strongly regulated through the control of transmission and distribution pass-on costs and the firm and rigid implementation of the pricing formula, RPI minus X plus Y. The fossil fuel levy—which has just been set at 10·6 per cent. of the final sales to be borne by all customers—does not represent an additional cost, because the nuclear costs are already included in electricity bills. As recently as November last year, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) predicted that the levy was likely to be about 15 per cent.
    Privatisation has brought about an entirely new competitive structure for the industry. At over 10 MW, customers will be entitled to contract supply; at under 10 MW, they will be entitled to a tariff supply from the public electricity suppliers. At over 1 MW, customers are free to obtain supplies from any supplier, and from March 1994 those at over 100 KW will have that option. In March 1998, all customers will be free to seek alternative supplies. That will achieve a well-ordered phasing in of total competition, stabilising the market. PowerGen will testify to the fact that the present position is uniquely competitive.
    Labour's energy policy is entirely irresponsible. If Labour had its way, electricity supplies would depend entirely on the coal industry, and we would be in hock to the National Union of Mineworkers. Not only do Labour Members ignore the need for security and diversity of supply; they have shot themselves in the foot in the second part of the motion, which refers to the environment. I note that the motion, rather than dealing with the environment as a whole—as did the original version—confines itself to acid rain. Where is Labour's consideration of the problems of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect?
    Any future Labour Government who failed to protect the country from the whims of the NUM or the OPEC cartel would be guilty not of selling off the family silver, but of giving it away under duress. Where is Labour's consistency? When in office, the party backed nuclear power. Labour Members were responsible for the disastrous AGR programme; they started the PWR programme, and now they cannot ditch it fast enough. With what would they replace it? Why, with carbondioxide-producing coal-fired power stations, of course.
    The United States Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that between 60 and 65 per cent. of the greenhouse gases are produced through energy use, and that half the global warming effect is produced by carbon dioxide. In this country, 80 per cent. of carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal.
    820
    About 36 per cent. of our carbon dioxide emissions is caused by electricity generation, and another 11·6 per cent. by solid fuel.
    Labour's plan to replace nuclear power with fossil fuel would increase carbon dioxide output by about 53 million tonnes per annum—25 per cent. above the current levels. What hope is there of reaching the Toronto target of a 20 per cent. reduction by the year 2005? Each PWR saves 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Surely it is somewhat premature, and a little irresponsible, to rule out entirely the future of PWRs in this country and in the wider European dimension?
    Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Moss: I must press on: other hon. Members wish to speak.
    The most significant change in the electricity supply industry is the Government's non-fossil fuel obligation. In 1990–98, 8,000 MW of nuclear power is to be contracted under the levy. Renewables have also been given a major boost: some 300 new projects have been submitted to the area boards, including one in the Wash, near my constituency—an offshore wind generating farm.
    The response from the renewables, and from industries seeking to build renewable generating capacity, has been so overwhelming that the Government intend to give the area boards two more months in which to negotiate with prospective operators before laying a second non-fossil fuel obligation order relating specifically to renewables. Only under privatisation has the importance of renewables come to the fore: it has been the key to unlock their potential.
    I cannot allow the debate to end without some reference to energy efficiency. The Government's proposals in the Electricity Act break new ground. The Act places a duty on the Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply to promote energy efficiency on the part of suppliers, and also efficient use of the electricity that they supply.
    Spending on energy efficiency is now six times as large as it was some 10 years ago. Since 1983, the Energy Efficiency Office has helped to achieve annual energy savings worth over £500 million. There has been a dramatic improvement in the United Kingdom's energy ratio. Consumption of electricity has remained unchanged since 1979, but in the meantime the gross domestic product has risen by over 20 per cent.
    The Labour party is committed to renationalising the electricity supply industry. Not a word, however, has so far been said about how it intends to do that. Will it have a CEGB mark 2, with all its attendant cost-plus accounting procedures, with a bulk supply tariff imposed from above by the monopoly supplier, and no questions asked? Will the Labour party buy back the shares of millions of investors? If so, what price will it pay for the shares? It is the same old package of political interference, customer irrelevance and large subsidies from the taxpayer.
    Nothing positive has been said by the Opposition in the debate. They have given no details of what they plan to do. They have offered nothing new or beneficial regarding electricity prices. They have offered nothing that is either viable or workable that would help to improve the environment. As we have come to know, they never did and they never will.
    6.10 pm
    Mr. Alexander Eadie: As the debate progresses, we can see that nothing but lies, damned lies, are provided as information by Conservative party headquarters. I was surprised when the Secretary of State referred to the Opposition's barefaced effrontery, yet he ignored entirely what happened between 1974 and 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) drew his attention to the political and economic climate at that time. Oil cost $40 a barrel. Its price increased three times, just like that. The country had to pay over £5 billion across the exchanges for oil. No previous Government enjoyed the bounty that this Government have enjoyed of £70 billion to £80 billion in North sea oil revenues. However, the Secretary of State had the barefaced effrontery to compare the economic climate then with the one that we have now.
    What worries me even more about the Secretary of State's speech is that it seems that there is to be no energy policy, either for price or for production. I referred to the problems surrounding energy costs across the exchanges. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the fact that the Government's energy policy would lead to the contraction of the coal industry, thus committing the nation to a £3 billion deficit across the exchanges. The Opposition believe that such a policy is illogical.
    The Secretary of State does not appear to understand the political consequences of the Government's pricing and energy production policy. He said that there would be a further massive contraction of the coal industry: that pits which produce low-sulphur coal will inevitably have to close. It would be economic lunacy to adopt an energy policy that led to the loss of our indigenous supply.
    Scotland well illustrates the lunacy of the Government's energy policy. A few weeks ago I was asked to meet local authorities and British Coal to discuss the serious position in Scotland, where the coal industry has been decimated. In a political sense, the Conservative party in Scotland will not thank the Secretary of State for Energy. Its standing in the opinion polls in Scotland is about 16 per cent. If his policies are pursued, the consequences for the Conservative party in Scotland will be dire.
    At that meeting, we discussed Longannet colliery and two other pits that are mothballed. The Frances pit is mothballed, although it produces 45 million tonnes of the best coal in Europe, since its sulphur content is very low. The other pit that is mothballed is Monkton hall, which is in my constituency. It will remain mothballed for two years, according to the agreement that was reached. However, I have little confidence, after the Secretary of State for Energy's speech, that the pit will be reopened after two years. He referred to the conversion of coal-fired power stations to gas. How much that will cost I do not know, but the Secretary of State said that when he was in Scotland he was impressed by the fact that all those to whom he spoke in the electricity industry were optimistic about the future.
    Scotland has three power stations with a capacity of 13,500 MW, of which 3,500 MW is produced by coal. Scotland produces 90 per cent. more energy than it needs. We require an outlet for that capacity. The Secretary of State for Energy did not provide us with much hope. Ministers told us that they intended to strengthen the interconnector so that some of the additional capacity
    822
    could be exported. That capacity—13,500 MW—has already been paid for. It is already available. The interconnector could take the output of between 1·5 million and 2 million tonnes of coal, but nothing is going through the interconnector. Scottish industry is locked into legal battles in the courts.
    The question is whether the South of Scotland electricity board should take more coal-fired energy. The people at Longannet are worried about what is to happen; so are the people at Monkton hall and Frances. Ministers have said that the intention is to strengthen the interconnector, but that would cost about £80 million and take three or four years.
    I am glad that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, is sitting on the Treasury Bench, since he waxed eloquent over the fact that all that needs to be done is to strengthen the interconnector. However, even though I met the local authorities and the Coal Board, the reality is that nothing is being done about the interconnector. Having listened to the Secretary of State for Energy, I have very little confidence that anything will happen.
    I believe that the Government have decided further to contract the coal industry. If they have decided not to go ahead with low-sulphur coal at Monktonhall, not to get an agreement at Longannet, not to strengthen the interconnector, which can export 1·5 million to 2 million tonnes of coal output, I am afraid not only for the miners, but for the Conservative party in Scotland. I hope that the Government will take to heart what I have said because it has political consequences for them.
    6.20 pm
    Dr. Kim Howells: I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Secretary of State for Energy has blown some of his circuits as he has discovered the anomalies in the privatisation machine which his predecessor, the current Secretary of State for Transport, left him. One major anomaly is the big fix, which means that he attempted to get rid of a great monopoly generator and supplier of electricity and replaced it with a duopoly, the two companies of which have been allowed to carve up the most lucrative markets.
    It is a tribute to the present Secretary of State's political nous that he recognised that the big fix was likely to crank up electricity prices and wind down public support for the Government. He has opened up the supply sector to a wider range of generators, and I welcome that, although the range is still far too restricted, and planned additional generators are still too thin on the ground.
    I should like to quote Doug Rodger, a representative of the Chemical Industries Association. I am sure that the Minister will know that that organisation represents. intensive users of electricity. He said that large industrial consumers would be much happier with a longer transitional period than is currently being offered on pricing. They are not convinced that new generators will be entering the market to provide the promised competition.
    Mr. Rodger expressed the hope that the new mechanism would be open to scope and flexibility when all the details became clear. Government sources, however, indicate that licence prices and the operation of the price

    823
    control formula are likely to be reviewed as late as 1995, which they believe is too late for heavy industrial customers if the terms prove inflexible before then.
    How would it be possible to assure people such as Doug Rodger that they will not be priced out of an increasingly competitive market after 1992? Not by searching the world for parcels of relatively cheap low-sulphur coal. Low-sulphur coal is rapidly becoming a premium fuel, with premium prices attached, and major customers such as the United States, Germany, Denmark and Britain are seeking increasing amounts of the stuff. Nor will prices be reduced by relying on increased imports of French nuclear-generated electricity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said.
    Apparently, the electricity which comes to Britain via the cross-Channel interconnector has been the target of a number of our newly privatised area distribution boards. I was informed yesterday by a very distinguished and authoritative source that Electricite de France has lately received a number of distinguished British visitors. A delegation from one of our southern English area electricity boards visited Paris. I am told that they enjoyed a marvellous lunch in the Eiffel tower and they asked Electricité de France whether they could purchase some of its surplus electricity. "Of course," said EDF—I shall not put on my Clouseau accent—"How much are you prepared to offer us for it?" The delegation replied, "We will offer you what the CEGB offered you for it." There was a French shrug, they smiled and said, "We will think about it."
    A week or so later, a delegation from another southern English area electricity board arrived, who again enjoyed a splendid lunch up there in the Eiffel tower and afterwards asked EDF, "Would it be possible for us to purchase some of your marvellous, cheap electricity?" "Certainly," said EDF, "But how much are you prepared to offer us for it? We have already had one offer from a neighbouring area electricity board." The delegation replied, "We will offer you 10 per cent. more than they offered." No doubt Electricité de France ordered another glass of Medoc and said, "We shall think about it. We have some other visitors arriving."
    The following week, a delegation for another electricity board—I shall not be too specific; I am aware that I have a mortgage to pay—arrived in Paris, enjoyed another marvellous lunch in the Eiffel Tower and said, "We should like to buy some of your electricity." "Certainly," said EDF, "How much are you prepared to offer us?" "We will offer you 10 per cent. more than that outfit from southern England offered you," was the reply. That is no way to secure cheap supplies of electricity to guarantee the future of British industry.
    Mr. Eadie: They will get it as long as there is not a drought.
    Dr. Howells: Exactly.
    My very bitter but distinguished source informed me that it was fine to buy French electricity, as long as the CEGB remained a monopoly purchaser. He said, "We could screw them rotten," as far as the price was concerned. But we no longer have such a monopoly. We will find it increasingly difficult as a nation—borrowing my distinguished source's phrase—to screw any nation or
    824
    transnational corporation that possesses the fuel that we decide we need. That includes Colombian coal, South African coal, middle eastern oil and French nuclear-generated electricity. We will have to pay the going rate for any electricity we purchase in future and for any other fuel that we may need to generate electricity.
    I do not believe that we should reduce ourselves to a nation that travels around the garage forecourts of the world looking for cheap bags of coal or cheap cans of oil in the hope that we will be able to muddle through, as we have so often in so many crucial and strategic sectors. We have to make the most of our abundant natural resources. We have had it easy until now. I am not defending the strategies of the past, whether they have been implemented by Labour or Conservative Governments.
    We have had disastrous fuel policies in the past and we have landed ourselves with a dirty, stinking, unimaginative generating industry which was frequently determined by monopoly characteristics and not by the needs of consumers and which favoured the building of huge power stations and corporations to supply those power stations—whether it was undemocratic British Coal or secretive British Petroleum. We need a complete and imaginative review of the way in which we generate electricity in Britain. We should not begin that review by making our nation a hostage to fortune.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Peter Rost: I am anxious, in the brief time available to me, to explain that, as a student of energy policy for 20 years—I readily declare my interest as an energy consultant—I have seldom heard so much inconsistency and hypocrisy from the Opposition Front Bench. Labour Back Benchers have been somewhat less inconsistent.
    All the energy policies that Opposition Members have been advocating for the last 20 years are now happening as a result of electricity privatisation, yet they do not have the courage to admit it. All that they have been campaigning for—greater energy efficiency, a chance for renewable energy to come into play, greater environmental control, combined heat and power, less pollution and greater competition in affecting prices, enabling industry to shop around—is happening as a result of privatisation, yet they oppose it.
    Opposition Members have mostly been opposed to the nuclear industry. The electricity privatisation proposals have, for the first time, exposed the real cost of nuclear, an aspect which Opposition Members have been raising for many years. They, and some of us, have been campaigning on behalf of new coal technologies—fluidised bed technology and so on—which the CEGB continually refuse to consider.
    All that is now happening because of electricity privatisation, yet Opposition Members are opposed to it. I have never heard so much inconsistency and hypocrisy as I have heard from Opposition spokesmen today, yet everything they want is happening.
    Mr. Dobson: Where is it happening?
    Mr Rost: All the policies that Opposition Members have been advocating over the years are now coming to fruition as a result of the Government's proposals to privatise electricity, yet they are still opposed to privatisation. I wish that the occupants of the Opposition

    825
    Front Bench would have the guts to say why they are opposed to electricity privatisation, when they must know that we are at last beginning to realise all the objectives of energy policy for which they, and many of my hon. Friends, have been campaigning over the years.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. Kevin Barron: I recall the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) arguing in the House not long ago about the need for a combined heat and power policy. He wanted it written, as a policy, into the Electricity Act 1989. He knows, as vice-president of the Combined Heat and Power Association, that those attempts failed both here and in the other place. How can he say that electricity privatisation is providing a helping hand to the nation, in view of his previous utterances about combined heat and power?
    The House should be grateful to the Opposition for providing this opportunity to discuss the position of the electricity supply industry. I regret that the Secretary of State is not in his place, because I want to congratulate the Government on their sense of humour in writing into their amendment the way in which, in their view, we should recognise
    "the significant progress made by this Government in preparing the electricity supply industry for privatisation".
    It is clear from what we have heard—perhaps I should say, from what we have not heard—from the Secretary of State today that we are witnessing another chapter in the shambles of the saga of privatisation that has continued for the last 12 months.
    The first element of shambles was the removal of the magnox stations from the flotation. On 27 September last year, the Secretary of State said in a radio interview that the Government believed that the AGRs and PWRs should be part of National Power. It was not long before he changed his mind and removed them from the sell-off.
    There then followed a series of changes that will prevent, rather than encourage, competition. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) talked about competition, but accepted that we would have to wait until 1998 before that competition was introduced. That represents a considerable time scale in the energy industry, and in electricity in particular.
    In addition to the eight-year protection period for distribution companies, we had the introduction of the price mechanism. In Committee on the Electricity Bill, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) spoke about the poor pricing system, and said that it would resemble bidding on the stock exchange for electricity. We fear that the sort of competition that Conservative Members speak of in relation to electricity cannot exist.
    There followed the moratorium on direct contracts and the continuation of cross-subsidisation. All that has not been sorted out from the point of view of heavy industry. Many other matters remain to be settled, despite the statements in December 1987 about the way in which the Government would privatise the electricity supply industry and introduce competition.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) spoke eloquently about electricity prices. In 1988, electricity prices went up by 9 per cent., at a time when there was no need for an increase, certainly not from the point of view of the industry. They went up by 5 per cent. in 1989, again for no real reason; massive profits were being made by the generating and supply companies.
    826
    The Secretary of State said that a further rise was on the way. I am not clear whether he meant to say that it would be below the rate of inflation. If we interpret that as meaning another increase of 7 per cent., then that, too, is totally unnecessary at a time when the industry is making massive profits as a result of the investment that has been made in it over the years.
    The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East spoke about my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referring to a price rise of 25 per cent. It is all very well for the Government to talk in their amendment about
    "the downward pressure that this will put on customers' electricity bills",
    but how can such a downward pressure exist when increases of that magnitude are occurring?
    Privatisation is not about reducing prices: it is about raising them, before and after the sale of the industry—before the sale, to fatten up the industry and, after the sale, to meet the demands for higher profits. I regret that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is not in his place, because he likened the rate of return for the CEGB, as it was, to the profits of the then Post Office. It is clear that, if the sort of investment that is being made in the electricity industry had been made in the Post Office, a higher rate of return would have been required.
    The London business school conducted a study into the subject of rates of return and the drive to maximise them. That study concluded that prices in the electricity industry could rise by as much as 33 per cent. by 1995, after privatisation. It also suggested that, if the industry stayed in the public sector, with its present rate of return, prices could fall by 12 per cent. That is the crux of our argument.
    It was all very well for the Secretary of State to argue in terms of a target of 5 per cent. based on the last Labour Government's White Paper on energy policy, but he did not finish the story by saying what National Power and PowerGen believe should be their rate of return when the industry has been sold off. We are well aware why he did not do that, for he would have been predicting the sort of electricity price increases that were postulated by the survey conducted by the London business school. We need regulations to ensure that, if the sale goes ahead—I am by no means sure that the industry will be floated in the way that the Government believe—the consumers are protected.
    We are faced with a threat not only to cancel the Government's programme to deal with the problem of acid rain, but it is being suggested that the programme is not of any great worth. In 1986, the CEGB first announced a 6,000 MW FGD programme. In November 1987, the Government signed the EC large combustion plant directive, which increased the FGD programme to the CEGB's estimate of about 12,000 MW.
    It took until February 1989 for the CEGB to give the go-ahead for the retrofit at Drax. It now looks as though that will complete only half its first stage, even though estimates suggest that changed circumstances have increased the amount of coal burn that must be retrofitted to achieve the limits laid down in the EEC directive. Indeed, the estimates have increased the figure to about 20,000 MW because of the changes that have been made.
    Conservative Members have been trying to raise the flag in favour of the PWR. But the cancellation of the three

    827
    PWRs has meant our having to retrofit a large amount of coal burn than would have been the case between 1986 and 1988.
    On 17 May last year, the CEGB issued a press release proclaiming the successor company's commitment to the environment. It gave a pledge that
    "all existing major coal fired stations will be fitted with special burners to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions and many will be fitted with sulphur removal plants."
    What has happened since last May? Why does the Secretary of State refuse to reaffirm that commitment?
    Short-term economic gain has led to the reduction of the FGD programme. Originally, the contract was for six burners at Drax, but I understand that that may have been reduced to two.
    The Secretary of State said that he would give my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras an undertaking, but how much faith can we have in undertakings given by Secretaries of State for Energy? The previous Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), said in a debate on the coal industry:
    "I am able to confirm today that we have asked the privatised generators to continue to plan on the basis of installing 12,000 MW of FGD capacity during the 1990s … If we were to revert to low-sulphur coal, we would have to import massive quantities from overseas. The fitting of Drax and other stations with FGD equipment will ensure that there is a substantial market for British Coal".—[Official Report, 26 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 764–65.]
    Everyone knows what has happened between May and today. The Government have decided to sell to those who want to make profits from electricity privatisation. They are prepared to sell out not only the consumer but the environment.
    The Minister must know that we have insufficient capacity to import the amount of low-sulphur coal necessary to meet the low-sulphur directive. Twelve large coal-fired power stations retrofitted with FGD would be necessary to meet the new estimate of 20,000 MW. Plant will be replaced, but it will not be enough drastically to limit SO, emissions. We shall have to consider small types of plant that can burn efficiently using circulating fluidised bed combustion.
    The hon. Member for Erewash said that we are now seeing freedom in electricity generation and the development of clean-coal technology, but that flies in the face of what has happened since I have been a Member. Labour Members, with the support of some Conservative Members, have argued time and again for the Government to match the amount being spent on developing clean-coal technology at Grimethorpe.
    Mr. Rost: The hon. Gentleman has criticised me, but, like the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he keeps referring to the high profits made by the CEGB. Is he aware that, if it had correctly costed nuclear power, it would now be showing not a profit but a loss? It has fudged the figures. If its costings had been done on a commercial basis, it would have shown a loss.
    Mr. Barron: The CEGB has been making a profit. I accept that there have been fudges.
    Mr. Dobson: Or fiddling.
    Mr. Barron: As my hon. Friend says, its costs may have been fiddled, but that does not explain why the Government have decided to ring-fence the expensive nuclear power industry and guarantee it a generating base for the foreseeable future, leaving other more profitable means of electricity generation to fight with foreign coal in the market.
    In 1988–89, the revenue of the electricity industry increased by £1,000 million. It made profits of £777 million, paid back £1,779 million to the Government and made capital investment of £1,492 million. On my reckoning, that means that £4,000 million was available to it in that year. The Secretary of State smiles; no doubt many people in the City will smile when they realise that that will soon be up for auction.
    A retrofitting programme will have to go ahead. Even if the Government abandon it for short-term economic gain, it will have to come some time. It will offer Britain several major benefits. It will create and maintain jobs in the beleaguered power engineering industry, which, despite having the technology and expertise, has been starved of orders over the past decade. It will ensure markets for coal that is mined in Britain, thereby maintaining jobs in an industry that has been cut to the bone and keeping reserves accessible for the future.
    Despite all that the Secretary of State said about the British coal industry and how well it has done over the past five years, the Government cancelling the FGD programme is a stab in the back for everyone who works in the industry, from the smallest coal mine to Hobart house. If manufacturing industry had done half as well as the coal industry in Britain over the past five years, we would not be in the economic mess we are in at present.
    The retrofitting of FGD will contribute to relieving pressure on the balance of payments by eliminating the need for imported coal. Our energy deficit last year, in this energy-rich country, was £567 million. Are the Government seriously suggesting that we should import tens of millions of tonnes of low-sulphur coal? If they are, what will be its cost, not to generators but to the country?
    The retrofitting programme will ensure that we are capable of meeting our commitments to the international environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, we lag many years behind other industrial nations in our attitude to and action on sulphur emissions. The retrofitting programme will reduce sulphur emissions. It must go ahead, and at some stage it will go ahead. It cannot be avoided by the Government trying to ease the flotation of the electricity industry to ensure that they have a better chance at the next election. The Government are doing a disservice to consumers who will have to pay more and, more so, to the international environment, to which Minister after Minister says that the Government are committed.
    6.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): The Government welcome this opportunity, provided by the Opposition, to trumpet the continuing success of our energy policies, the continuing progress of our policies to improve the environment and the continuing success of our policies on privatisation.
    The debate has been all too short, but some telling contributions were made by my hon. Friends the Members

    829
    for Rochford (Dr. Clark), for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) and for Erewash (Mr. Rost).
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford, who is the well-regarded Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, made some telling comments. I thank him for his clear support for the straightforward and sensible decision on nuclear power, made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He rightly said that progress to the full privatisation of the electricity industry is well on course.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, who has long made a leading contribution to the development of energy policy, rightly highlighted the contribution that competition will make to continuing downward pressure on electricity prices. He rightly drew attention to the number of new independent generators who are eager to enter this new marketplace. He rightly recognised the energy efficiency and environmental benefits of combined heat and power.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, who is a keen member of the Select Committee on Energy, is correct to draw attention to the failure of the Labour party's energy policies when it was last in government, and to the wildness and inaccuracy of its predictions on electricity prices and energy policies since it has been in opposition. He is right to reiterate that we are establishing a competitive electricity market—a market in power—which will ensure that for the first time, there will be genuine competition in electricity supply.
    Mr. Barron: Can the Minister tell us what the Government's estimates are on the rate of return of the newly privatised generators?
    Mr. Baldry: I shall say something on the rate of return shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who is also a keen member of the Select Committee on Energy, succinctly and effectively made clear the benefits that privatisation will bring to the consumer and to the environment.
    Despite the best efforts and the good humour of the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), the debate has demonstrated beyond doubt that the Opposition have lost the argument and have got it wrong. They are wrong on electricity prices, on protecting the environment and on privatisation. Clearly, their motion is wholly misconceived. In the words of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, they have "spatchcocked" themselves.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister agree that his hon. Friends who are members of the Select Committee also got it wrong in their report?
    Mr. Baldry: I always have great regard for the reports of Select Committees. However, the hon. Gentleman would be surprised if the Government of the day agreed with every word of every Select Committee. I have great respect for my hon. Friends who are members of the Select Committee. Nothing will detract from the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have spatchcocked this debate.
    The position on electricity prices could not be more straightforward. In the past five years of this Government, we have seen industrial prices decrease by some 10 per
    830
    cent. in real terms. Indeed, industrial prices in real terms have been on a downward path since 1982 and are now at their lowest level since 1973. Industrial electricity prices are lower in the United Kingdom than in leading industrial nations such as Japan and Germany, and are comparable with those in the United States.
    There has been some comment in the debate about the position of intensive users. International tariff comparisons for very intensive customers are notoriously difficult owing to the large number of special deals, the relatively few companies prepared to reveal the real price that they pay for electricity and the unwillingness of some countries to declare the state aids that they are giving their electricity industries.
    In future, users over 1 MW will be able to negotiate prices in a competitive market. Those businesses are used to purchasing commodities competitively in the marketplace. Electricity will be no different and we expect many of them to benefit from price reductions. However, because it may take them time to negotiate longer-term arrangements, we have asked the electricity industry to ensure that larger customers—customers over 1 MW—are offered a real price freeze for one year if they cannot negotiate reductions.
    In the past five years of this Government, we have seen domestic prices decrease by some 8 per cent. in real terms. Indeed, in real terms, domestic prices have been on a downward path since 1982. We see no reason why domestic prices should increase by much more than the rate of inflation this year and the price control formula should ensure that the price does not rise in real terms for the next three years.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in opening the debate, we expect the average price increase overall for electricity consumers in April to be significantly below the current rate of inflation.
    I want to make it clear to the Opposition, as they do not appear to recognise it when considering rates of return, that the returns earned by the electricity industry at current price levels are not excessive. Over the three years from 1985–86 to 1987–88, the returns earned were only 2·75 per cent., which was well below the average for the private sector. That was also below the greater return of 5 per cent. for the public sector set by the previous Labour Government.
    The position is equally straightforward on the environment. The Government will ensure compliance with the EC large combustion plant directive.
    Mr. Barron: I asked a specific question in my speech and in an intervention. What is the Government's estimate of the rate of return of the new generators when they are privatised? It is an important question when one considers the amendment, which refers to electricity prices.
    Mr. Baldry: I urge the hon. Gentleman to curb his enthusiasm and to look forward with anticipation to the: publication of the prospectuses for the generators. To return to my earlier point, the hon. Gentleman complains about the rate of return, although the rates of return earned by the electricity industry are not excessive at current price levels and are well below the rate of return of 5 per cent. that the previous Labour Government set.
    The Government intend to ensure compliance with the EC large combustion plant directive. I must make it clear what that directive involves, because some Opposition

    831
    Members, including the hon. Member for Gordon, seem confused. It was suggested that the European Community wanted a reduction of 60 per cent. in sulphur dioxide emissions by 1995. That is not the case. The directive sets limits for 1993, 1998 and 2003 for emissions from existing plants. For the United Kingdom, those are as stated by my right hon. Friend: a 20 per cent. reduction by 1993, a 40 per cent. reduction by 1998 and a 60 per cent. reduction by 2003, all compared with 1980 emissions. We are determined to meet those targets and to ensure compliance with the directive.
    The Environmental Protection Bill, now before the House, will provide the Department of the Environment and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution with the power to ensure compliance with the directive. We are determined that the directive will be implemented in full. The retrofitting of the 4 GW Drax power station with flue gas desulphurisation is already in hand at an estimated cost of well over £500 million and further retrofits are in prospect. The successor companies to the Central Electricity Generating Board—National Power and PowerGen—will complete a programme of fitting low-nitrogen oxide burners to all 12 major coal-fired stations. The capital cost of FGD will be taken into account in setting the capital structure of the generators.
    It is clearly important that the international community should move to stabilise carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions at the earliest possible moment.
    The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in the international work on climate change. Privatisation will help. Competition and market forces will encourage more efficient, cleaner and more diverse forms of electricity generation such as combined heat and power, and combined cycle gas turbines.
    At present all of us still waste far too much energy. Energy efficiency—a fuel of the future—will clearly be greatly enhanced by the rise of competition and market forces. In short, competition will have increased the efficiency with which energy is used, while our legislation contains a totally new duty for public electricity suppliers to meet set standards of performance in promoting energy efficiency.
    Perhaps the Opposition's confusion, as evidenced in both the motion and their comments in the debate tonight, is a result of the fact that they still do not appreciate the contribution that privatisation can make to our economy. We have a firm belief that competition in free markets is preferable to state-controlled industrial strategies, that the promotion of enterprise is preferable to bureaucratic interference and that there should always be a business philosophy designed to meet the needs of customers and consumers, rather than the convenience of producers. In electricity, privatisation will lead to an increase in efficiency by introducing more competition, so that decisions are shaped by market forces rather than being taken by Government Departments.
    Perhaps the Opposition confusion is that they still do not appreciate that we are determined to have the most competitive electricity industry in the world. Perhaps they do not understand that a radical new structure is now in place, which introduces fundamental changes in the way in which electricity itself will be traded—through a pool or
    832
    spot market in which the price will be determined during every half hour of trading by the balance between supply and demand—a very competitive marketplace.
    So let me make it clear. Electricity privatisation is well on course. Sixteen new and exciting companies are being created and people, including employees, will be able to invest in 14 of them. I have no doubt that in due course large numbers of those working in the electricity industry will wish to become shareholders in their industry.
    There will be a completely new operating regime, with genuine competition being introduced. That competition will lead to greater energy efficiency and protection for the environment. In addition, we are determined to continue to play a leading role in tackling global warming. Competition will ensure downward pressure on prices. So our policies are good news for the customer, the consumer, industry and the environment.
    The Opposition motion is misconceived and misconstrued. I urge the House to reject it and to support the Government amendment.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 289.

    Division No. 85]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Allen, Graham

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

    Anderson, Donald

    Dewar, Donald

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dixon, Don

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Dobson, Frank

    Ashton, Joe

    Doran, Frank

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Douglas, Dick

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Barron, Kevin

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Battle, John

    Eadie, Alexander

    Beckett, Margaret

    Eastham, Ken

    Beggs, Roy

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Beith, A. J.

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Bell, Stuart

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fatchett, Derek

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

    Faulds, Andrew

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fearn, Ronald

    Bidwell, Sydney

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

    Blunkett, David

    Fisher, Mark

    Boateng, Paul

    Flannery, Martin

    Boyes, Roland

    Flynn, Paul

    Bradley, Keith

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Foster, Derek

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Fraser, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Buchan, Norman

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Buckley, George J.

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Caborn, Richard

    George, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Gould, Bryan

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Graham, Thomas

    Canavan, Dennis

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Hardy, Peter

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Clay, Bob

    Haynes, Frank

    Clelland, David

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Cohen, Harry

    Henderson, Doug

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Cox, Tom

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Cryer, Bob

    Home Robertson, John

    Cummings, John

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cunlitfe, Lawrence

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Howells, Geraint

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    833

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Illsley, Eric

    Radice, Giles

    Ingram, Adam

    Randall, Stuart

    Janner, Greville

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Richardson, Jo

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Robertson, George

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Rogers, Allan

    Kennedy, Charles

    Rooker, Jeff

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Lamond, James

    Rowlands, Ted

    Leighton, Ron

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Salmond, Alex

    Lewis, Terry

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Livsey, Richard

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Short, Clare

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Skinner, Dennis

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McLeish, Henry

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    McWilliam, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Madden, Max

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Marek, Dr John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stott, Roger

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Martlew, Eric

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Maxton, John

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Meacher, Michael

    Turner, Dennis

    Meale, Alan

    Vaz, Keith

    Michael, Alun

    Wallace, James

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Walley, Joan

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morley, Elliot

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Wilson, Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Winnick, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Nellist, Dave

    Worthington, Tony

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    O'Brien, William

    O'Neill, Martin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Mr. John McFall and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

    Patchett, Terry

    Pendry, Tom

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Body, Sir Richard

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Amos, Alan

    Boswell, Tim

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bottomley, Peter

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Ashby, David

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Atkins, Robert

    Bowis, John

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Brazier, Julian

    Baldry, Tony

    Bright, Graham

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

    Batiste, Spencer

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Bendall, Vivian

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Butcher, John

    Benyon, W.

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Carrington, Matthew

    834

    Cash, William

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Churchill, Mr

    Irvine, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Jack, Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Janman, Tim

    Colvin, Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Couchman, James

    Key, Robert

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

    Kilfedder, James

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Day, Stephen

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dicks, Terry

    Knapman, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Dunn, Bob

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Durant, Tony

    Knowles, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knox, David

    Eggar, Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Latham, Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Evennett, David

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Fallon, Michael

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Favell, Tony

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Lightbown, David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Lilley, Peter

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lord, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    McCrindle, Robert

    Franks, Cecil

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Freeman, Roger

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gale, Roger

    Maclean, David

    Gardiner, George

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Madel, David

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Malins, Humfrey

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Maples, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marland, Paul

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Marlow, Tony

    Gorst, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gow, Ian

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mellor, David

    Gregory, Conal

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mills, lain

    Grist, Ian

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Ground, Patrick

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Hague, William

    Moate, Roger

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hannam, John

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Harris, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hayes, Jerry

    Mudd, David

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hayward, Robert

    Needham, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Neubert, Michael

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hill, James

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Norris, Steve

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Page, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Paice, James

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Pawsey, James

    835

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Portillo, Michael

    Summerson, Hugo

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Price, Sir David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Redwood, John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Thurnham, Peter

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Tracey, Richard

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Tredinnick, David

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Trippier, David

    Rost, Peter

    Trotter, Neville

    Rowe, Andrew

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Ryder, Richard

    Viggers, Peter

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walden, George

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Waller, Gary

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Ward, John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shersby, Michael

    Watts, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wells, Bowen

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Whitney, Ray

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Speed, Keith

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Speller, Tony

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wood, Timothy

    Squire, Robin

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Steen, Anthony

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stern, Michael

    Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    Stevens, Lewis

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House recognises the significant progress made by this Government in preparing the electricity supply industry for privatisation; welcomes the introduction into the industry for the first time of real, visible and effective competition which will turn the industry from a producer centred monopoly into a truly consumer oriented industry; welcomes the downward pressure that this will put on customers' electricity bills and the upward pressure on standards of service; welcomes this Government's intention to see a radical restructuring and strengthening of pollution control through the Environmental Protection Bill; and welcomes this Government's commitment to complying with the requirements of the Economic Community's Large Combustion Directive.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been informed that a bomb exploded in Leicester this afternoon. An Army bomb was strapped to the back of a Sherpa vehicle, driven by an Army officer. Apparently it fell off the back of the lorry and caused an explosion that resulted in injury and damage to property. Clearly, this is a serious matter, which raises questions of why that particular vehicle carrying such a device was travelling through the centre of a major city in Britain. Have you had any intimation from the Secretary of State for Defence or the Leader of the House that a statement is to be made either tonight or tomorrow about that important issue?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the whole House is sorry to hear about that incident and the injuries that have been caused. I have had no such request.No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to pursue the matter and seek other opportunities to do so.
    Mr. Vaz: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for what you have said. Can you press the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement tomorrow about this issue?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman, not the Chair.

    Royal Shakespeare Company
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.14 pm
    Mr. Mark Fisher: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the Government's poor treatment of the Royal Shakespeare Company which has forced the company to announce the closure of its two London stages for four months from next November; recognises that this is consistent with the Government's long-standing neglect of the Arts, museums and libraries; notes with disquiet that this has led all four national companies into deficit; is concerned that this inhibits their excellent work in seeking to increase and widen their audiences by means of education and outreach work, and by touring in the regions; and calls on the Government to bring forward immediate supplementary grants to tackle these deficits and to increase funding for the Arts Council to allow for expansion and development.
    When the Royal Shakespeare Company was forced two weeks ago to announce the closure of its two London stages at the Barbican and the Pit, it brought to a head the miserable failure of the Government's arts policy over the past 10 years. In the motion the Government stand accused of under-investment, ineptness and inactivity. While one of the world's great theatre companies closes its London base, the Minister for the Arts has been silent. He has not said a word about it. Indeed, many people wondered whether he was out of the country. In the arts we have a say-nothing Minister and a do-nothing Government. The Government seem to have no sense of pride in our culture and certainly no sense of responsibility for funding it.
    If the Royal Shakespeare Company's crisis is the trigger for the debate, it is certainly not the only cause of it. Its problems are shared by arts companies all around the country which are also in deficit or severe financial crisis. Tonight the Government must account for themselves and say what they intend to do immediately about those deficits and, more generally and in the medium term, about how the Royal Shakespeare Company and other arts companies can play their full part in the 1990s.
    No one in the House would dispute that the Royal Shakespeare Company is successful. It has received international acclaim and is extremely popular. Last year its productions played to about 1·5 million paying customers. Yet it is in deficit to the tune of £3 million. Why? It is certainly not because of bad management, as the Government know all too well, because in 1984 they set up a special financial scrutiny by the management and efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office, no less, under Mr. Clive Priestley.
    In a 500-page document Mr. Priestley declared clearly that the Royal Shakespeare Company was well and efficiently run. That is hardly surprising when, of its £90 million turnover and £5 million grant, it returns directly to the Treasury more than £5 million in VAT, national insurance and income tax. Mr. Priestley said of the RSC in his report that it was "palpably under-funded." He recommended that the grant should be increased to £4·9 million and that it should be maintained in real terms against both the retail price index and average earnings. The Government and the then Minister for the Arts accepted that report and, to their credit, raised the grant to
    838
    the level recommended by Mr. Priestley. The subsequent Minister, however—he is still in post—failed to honour that undertaking and to maintain those increases.
    Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Fisher: No. When the hon. Gentleman has heard the facts, he may not want to intervene.
    In the past five years, the Minister for the Arts has not fulfilled the pledge of his predecessor. He has increased the grant by 1·9 per cent., 4 per cent., nothing at all, 2·4 per cent. and 2·2 per cent.—a total increase of just over 11 per cent. in five years, while inflation was 30 per cent. That was an enormous loss to the company as a direct result of the Minister's refusal to honour the Government's pledge.
    Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman has made no mention of the fact that part of the deal to which he referred was the writing off of a substantial amount of debt which had built up so that the Royal Shakespeare Company could get back on an even keel and pay its way. The Royal Shakespeare Company could not make money even if it was sitting on an oil well. Rather than blame my right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman would do better in seeking to be a trustee of the public purse if he pointed out ways in which tougher financial disciplines could be imposed within the RSC, not by the Government.
    Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to the argument, he will see that, far from being rude about the Royal Shakespeare Company's ability to make money, he should praise it, because that company has done extremely well. It has done exactly what the Government have asked it to do over the past few years. If the Minister for the Arts had honoured the pledge of his predecessor, the company would not have a deficit of this size. In cash terms, the right hon. Gentleman's failure to honour his predecessor's pledge means a cumulative loss over the years of £5·7 million. The company has a present deficit of £3 million. If the pledge had been honoured, the company would be £2 million in credit and would not have to close two stages. The figures do not add up.
    There has been bad faith by the Government. Although this is a crisis of the Government's making, we have not had a single word from the Government. It is extraordinary that the Minister for the Arts does not think that this matter is worthy of note and that he has had to be dragged to the House to answer for his inaction. The Minister has taken the attitude, "It has nothing to do with me—it is all to do with the Arts Council." He is an arm's-length Minister—his arms are so long that they are a mile from his body. That is not good enough. Does the House imagine that, if the Comedie Francaise in Paris were closing down, the French Arts Minister would have nothing to say? He would not allow that to happen.
    Mr. Toby Jessel: Has the horn. Gentleman seen the Minister's replies to written questions this week?
    Mr. Fisher: We want a statement in the House from the Minister. We want him to take this matter seriously. We do not want written answers. We want to hear what the Government are doing about it. The hon. Gentleman can plant as many easy little written questions as he likes, but we want proper answers——
    Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The questions were tabled by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Fisher: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in a moment. I know that he takes a lot of interest in these matters and may ask a slightly more intelligent question.
    I should like to proceed a little further with my argument. At the root of all this is not only the Government's ineptness and inactivity—the problems go wider and deeper than that. The Government's policy is totally wrong. Throughout all this, both to the Royal Shakespeare Company and to other arts companies, the Government have been saying, "Don't look to us for money. Raise sponsorship. Go out into the marketplace. Increase your income."
    In a thoroughly maladroit speech, the Minister said:
    "There are still too many in the arts world who have yet to be weaned away from the welfare state mentality and from the attitude that the taxpayer owes them a living."
    The Royal Shakespeare Company is not owed a living. It gives back to this country far more than it gets. The Minister for the Arts continued:
    "If it is any good, people will pay for it."
    That is the Minister's arts policy; that is his own point of view.
    Mr. John Bowis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as fair as he usually is and acknowledge not only the quality of the Royal Shakespeare Company and its ability to raise funds, but his past tribute to three-year funding so that such companies can plan ahead. Does he agree that the company was planning ahead on the basis of an expected 2 per cent. increase, and that the unexpected thing was that it increased to 11 per cent.? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be some criticism of the management of a company that has had an extra 9 per cent., but which suddenly finds itself in such a mess?
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious point. I shall come to precisely the point about 11 per cent. in a moment.
    The Royal Shakespeare Company has had no option. Because of the three-year funding, it knew that funding for the second and third years would be well below the rate of inflation. What good is three-year funding if the recipient knows that it is being funded simply to fall further into deficit? However, because the Royal Shakespeare Company knew that that was the reality of life, it responded exactly as the Government wanted. It did brilliantly. It went out and raised sponsorship and a £1 million per year deal from the Royal Insurance Company and others. It went into the marketplace and got its plays and productions put on in the West End.
    It now has an income of about £1 million per year from "Les Miserables", "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" and "Kiss Me Kate", but Conservative Members say that it is no good at making money. Those productions are admired throughout the world and have played in many different countries. They are earning foreign exchange for this country, hand over fist. The Royal Shakespeare Company is very good at making money. It has done precisely what the Government wanted it to do.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has said that the Royal Shakespeare Company could not make money
    840
    if it was sitting on an oil well. The Government have been sitting on an oil well for 10 years, but for the first time in this country they are about to charge for entry to our great galleries and museums, and for the very first time the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has had to publish a minority report stating opposition to those charges.
    Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend and his hon. Friends have produced a well worded and well thought out minority report, which has been widely read, nailing the idea that we should begin to charge for entry to our great national collections. It is interesting that the Minister has not responded to that minority report, but I hope that he will do so. It will be interesting to know whether the Minister will say that the Government cannot afford to fund the arts properly. He knows that the arts are not funded and invested in properly in this country. However, I warn him that if he uses that argument, my hon. Friend has already effectively shot it.
    Last year, in the Budget, the Government had a £14,000 surplus—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Government had a surplus of £14,000 million—or £14 billion—and there will probably be a surplus again, but it is no credit to the Government because North sea oil produces it for the Government. Even so, the Government are not prepared to invest in the Health Service, transport, culture, or in the other parts of the infrastructure of our life——
    Mr. Terry Dicks: It is the hon. Gentleman's culture, not mine.
    Mr. Fisher: I disagree. The hon. Gentleman and I share the same culture, and no doubt we shall cross swords on this later. If the hon. Gentleman is paying attention, I am sure that he will recognise that he and I can agree on a great many things.
    Although the Royal Shakespeare Company has been so successful, the warnings were made clear to the Government. Mr. Geoffrey Cass, the chairman of the Royal Shakespeare Company, wrote in the Arts Council's annual report last year:
    "If we pare to the bone every last financial commitment, leaving no reserve for the risk that goes wrong, then the worldwide reputation of the British arts will suffer. That is the danger of current Government policy."
    That was the solemn warning that the chairman of the Royal Shakespeare Company gave to the Government and although the Government did not appear to respond immediately, to the credit of the Minister for the Arts, he appeared to respond this winter.
    I now return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Battersea. At last we got an 11 per cent., increase, but it was too little, too late. Although it was welcomed by the arts world, I repeat that it was too little, too late. Ten years of Government neglect cannot be repaired by one settlement that is only 3·5 per cent. over the rate of inflation. We can juggle figures on this, but we can see the evidence all around us. Every single one of the great national companies has a deficit. The royal opera house has a deficit of £3 million; the south bank centre has a deficit of £1·5 million; English national opera has a deficit of £0·5 million. Rather coyly, the national theatre does not publish its deficit, although it admits that it has one.
    However, the problem is not confined to national companies, theatres, other arts projects all around the country——
    Mr. Nelson: That is not true.
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not true, but the Leicester Haymarket announced a deficit of £500,000 last week. The Nottingham playhouse, the Plymouth theatre royal, the Liverpool playhouse, the New Victoria theatre in Stoke-on-Trent, the Lyceum in Edinburgh and the Dundee repertory company all have a deficit. They are all in severe financial crisis, but the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is not so.
    Mr. Nelson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will add to his list by paying the tribute to theatres like the Chichester festival theatre, of which I am a director and which, without any aid or assistance from the Arts Council, has paid its way year after year, built up a cash reserve and continues to pay its way and to provide excellent theatre at an affordable cost.
    Mr. Fisher: Of course. Our case is not that every theatre in the country is in deficit, but that every national company is in deficit, as are a great many other important arts projects. Are they all to blame? Are they all at fault? The Prime Minister has a favourite trick of saying that everyone is wrong but herself. Has the Minister for the Arts learnt from his right hon. Friend? Is he going to say that all those companies are wrong and that he knows best? We need only read the Government's amendment to our motion to see that he is, because seldom can the Government have tabled a more self-congratulatory or complacent amendment. However, if Conservative Members read the amendment's claims carefully, they will see that they are not what they seem. They are Mickey Mouse figures which do not add up.
    Let us examine the Government's case. They claim that funding of the arts has increased by 40 per cent. Apart from the fact that that increase includes the Property Services Agency's money for museums, it also includes, which is much more damaging, the £25 million of abolition money which is spent every year as a result of the Government's abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. We are not talking abut new money for the arts or a 40 per cent. increase in funding, but about the transfer of money that the Government have already taken away from local authorities. The Minister knows that that is correct, and he should retract the 40 per cent. claim.
    The Government claim that the museums have done well, but the purchase grant of our great national museums has been frozen for between five and seven years. The British museum has received the same purchase grant for the past 10 years. The Minister says that the Arts Council has done well, but judged against the retail price index, the increase received by the council between 1979 and 1989 has been a princely 1 per cent. If one sets that increase against average earnings—people in the arts must earn something—it represents a 19 per cent. loss. The Government's figures are phoney. The only thing that is creative in their arts policy is their accounting.
    The answer is out there—arts companies, audiences and the Minister know that. Our museums are being forced to charge and their attendances have dropped by between 40 and 50 per cent. Attendance at the Welsh national museum has dropped by 85 per cent. That is a disgrace and no way to guard our heritage.
    Last year, the Royal Court's theatre upstairs, the Bristol Old Vic's studio, and Kent Opera had to close. The
    842
    Welsh national opera and the Hallé orchestra are facing severe financial problems. Northern Ballet has held on by an inch because of the enormous popular response that caused the Arts Council to change its mind. That all happened before the impact of the poll tax.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that local government support for the Hallé will be severely threatened by the introduction of the poll tax? As a result of the imposition of the poll tax, local authorities will look for a soft option when deciding on cuts. Should those authorities be poll-tax-capped, the arts might regrettably become the soft target for many local authorities.
    Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, the Government refuse to accept that our culture is a serious matter and should be a statutory responsibility on local authorities. The next Labour Government will take a different view about that and I believe that that will be welcomed widely. If the Hallé goes down, people in the Lancashire constituencies, which the Government will lose at the next election, and throughout the north-west will not forgive the Government. The Government should not allow the Hallé to slip further into debt.
    The Government can fool themselves, complacently, that they have done so well in the arts, but they cannot fool others. Last week, in an article in The Times, the Minister quoted his successes, but they are as phoney as his figures. He asked to be praised for the successful move to Birmingham of Sadler's Wells, but it is Birmingham city council, by itself, which is putting up that company's new £2 million home. The Minister had the nerve to ask to be credited for Glasgow becoming the city of culture, but he gave only £500,000 towards the costs—and only after being pressed to do so. Glasgow put up £41 million. Such is the Government's commitment.
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend chose it.
    Mr. Fisher: Well, that is fantastic. How very kind of him. If he had chosen to give some money that would have been more helpful.
    To give credit where it is due, the Minister should say that credit for the city of culture goes to Glasgow and that the credit for Sadler's Wells goes to Birmingham. The Minister did himself no justice by trying to take the credit. That perhaps reveals another side of the Minister.
    Apart from being too complacent, the Government have got their priorities wrong. I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is aware of that. He is probably partly responsible for it.
    Mr. Tony Banks: He does not know anything.
    Mr. Fisher: Yes, he does. In 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, military bands were funded by the Government to the tune of £62 million—due to the passionate advocacy of the hon. Member for Twickenham.[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) enjoyed my pun. The national arts companies, all four of them, received £32 million backing from the Government—about half what was given to the military bands. There is plenty of oom-pah-pah, but little funding.
    Mr. Jessel: Army bands are one of our finest traditions. They lift the spirit of the nation, enhance morale and help

    843
    recruitment to the Army, and their members serve as medical orderlies in wartime. They do a great deal for our country and make a better noise than the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Fisher: All hon. Members enjoy brass bands. The hon. Gentleman is the parliamentary euphonium—he produces a lot of air, a lot of round mellifluous noise, and he is a delight to have around. Nevertheless, it is a strange country which decides that all its national arts companies together merit only half the investment given to military bands. That is purely comedy and the Government will judge whether it is a good balance. Compared with the rest of Europe, we are at the bottom of the league in funding the arts, with only Portugal and Ireland below us.
    Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Gentleman is looking at this matter entirely in terms of state funding, but the important question is the quality of the arts in this country. We have superb theatre and opera, we have had a string of wonderful exhibitions and, although its acquisition fund is so small, the national gallery acquired a string of magnificent paintings. The hon. Gentleman should look at the end product rather than the funding.
    Mr. Fisher: No one disputes that we have some of the finest artists, directors, designers, actors and others in the world, but the Government will not back them. That failure not only limits wider access to the arts—that is our policy—but means that those people cannot contribute to our cultural and economic life. The Government should appreciate that the investment is cultural and economic and that such investment would reward a better return. The potential is there, but it is being neglected and theatres are closing.
    In terms of funding the arts we are bottom of the league compared with other countries. The Comédie Francais receives more from the French Government than the Royal National theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company receive from our Government. What a message to send to the world! The Government who represent us care so little about the arts that they are prepared to see the Royal Shakespeare Company close. What a message that is to tourists, who usually come here not for our weather but for our heritage, countryside and culture. The message to them is "Don't bother to come to London next winter as the RSC will be closed." That message is economically stupid. If the Government were seeking to do something to sponsor tourism, they could not have handled the matter more ineptly.
    The Government do not understand the economics of the arts. John Myerscough and the report from the Policy Studies Institute, as well as commentators around the country, have tried to explain to the Minister that 650,000 people work in the arts and the cultural industries and that they have a turnover of £12,000 million per year. The arts represent the fourth largest earner of foreign exchange. Leaving aside the cultural arguments, it is sheer economic stupidity and illiteracy on the part of the Government to knock back those things that stimulate that investment.
    What do the Government intend to do? Will they give the RSC the Priestley sum and honour their commitments? Will the Government tackle the deficits and recognise that the free market sponsorship approach to arts funding is self-destructive? Will the Minister help the arts to develop
    844
    in this country? Even now, will the Government realise that the arts are not an addition to life which happen for a few hours after 7.30 pm but an integral part of our lives?
    Mr. Dicks: No.
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman may scoff. He should look at what is happening in Wakefield and Birmingham, where artists are improving the built environment. The Government should look at hospitals where artists are changing their environments through the British health care arts centre. They should look at what is, or could be, happening in transport, instead of the present London transport network. They should look at what Stockholm has done for its underground system and what could be done to improve the quality of everyday life. They should look at what could be done in education, through theatre and education teams. Sadly, the Government cannot see what should be done, but the public and artists can.
    Artists know that they could, and want to, contribute to the quality of life in the 1990s. They are held back by the Government's underinvestment. The arts are one of the few sectors in which the United Kingdom is a world leader. That is reflected in our balance of payments, our reputation and the use of our language overseas. For the Government not to recognise the lead and the prestige that it gives us in the rest of the world is silly. The Labour party believes that arts and cultural policy can play a central part in the quality of life in the 1990s, but the Government do not. That is why the Government are letting the Royal Shakespeare Company go dark next year in London. I ask the House to vote for the motion tonight.
    7.40 pm
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'recognises the Government's outstanding record in supporting the Arts, which means that more people throughout the country are now enjoying the Arts at an unprecedented standard of excellence; congratulates the Government on increasing its funding of the Arts by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and by a further 24 per cent. over the next three years; welcomes the increased support of 31 per cent. to the national museums and galleries to restore their fabric and the continuing funding of the new British Library; reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining support for the Arts while supporting its approach of encouraging arts organisations to become more self-sufficient; acknowledges the important role of the Royal Shakespeare Company; and endorses the principle of arm's length funding whereby decisions about the funding of individual organisations are made by the Arts Council.'.
    I warmly welcome this chance to debate the arts, and to do so in Opposition time. This is the first time that I can recall—I stand to be corrected—that such a debate has been taken in Opposition time since I have been Arts Minister. Every year, we have taken a debate in Government time. I am glad that the Opposition have come to see the importance of this subject. The debate also gives us the chance to celebrate the sucess of British arts in this country and the fact that British arts are recognised throughout the world for their high standard, quality and excellence—a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) so rightly made.
    I wonder quite how I can best summarise the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I have come to the conclusion that it was somewhere between "A Comedy of Errors" and "Much

    845
    Ado About Nothing", with certainly the most enormous amount of "Alice in Wonderland". He is becoming the merchant of doom and despondency. Every time he intervenes, it is sheer doom and despondency, far from the reality of what is happening in the arts world today.
    I ask the Opposition to face what is happening in the arts and to look at the subject with me. The annual attendance at subsidised performances which, in the mid-1980s, were 7 million, are 9 million this year and the forecast is that they will be 10 million in 1990. There have been the biggest audiences at professional opera than we have ever had in our history. In 1989—Museums Year—there were record attendances at museums of 100 million.
    London is a great cultural centre that competes with any other in the world. It has great orchestras—the four great symphony orchestras—and two great opera houses. There is the BBC orchestra and the south bank with its royal national theatre. It is the greatest arts centre complex in the world. We can certainly be proud of what we see in London.
    More generally, there are arts festivals in which the community participate, and standards of excellence are high. Those festivals have doubled in the past five years, to 600 today. In 1986, I was proud to recommend to my European colleagues, the Ministers for Culture, that Glasgow should be the European city of culture for 1990. I am proud that I was able to recommend Glasgow against other competing cities and I am glad that my colleagues in the Community agreed to it. Surely we can welcome that, and we can praise the people of Glasgow for the way in which they have made use of that decision.
    The Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra is a great success, under a great Czech conductor. The Tate extension is a great success. Many millions of the public have already attended it. The new national museums and galleries on Merseyside are increasingly successful. In two weeks, in Leeds, the new West Yorkshire playhouse will open.
    There are many examples of arts as the centrepiece of expansion and regeneration of inner cities. From Bradford to Newcastle, Bristol and Cardiff, things are happening, and arts are at the centre. There was a debate about the future of Northern Ballet about a year ago. Look at how it has done in the past year, under the inspired leadership of Christopher Gable. I am glad that the West Yorkshire local authorities have shown their support for Northern Ballet by offering it a home there. A new concert hall is being constructed for the Halle orchestra.
    It is the climate for the arts that matters in this country. It is important to let the arts people take the lead. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central did not mention the success story of the English Shakespeare Company and the Renaissance Company. They have had outstanding success and have received strong support. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) highlighted the Chichester theatre.
    When we consider national museums and galleries in the light of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, it seems as though he has not been around for the past few years. The number of museums and galleries in this country has doubled in the past 20 years, to 2,500 today. Our national institutions are extending their tentacles around the country. The national portrait gallery uses four country houses, the latest opened in north Wales,
    846
    at Bodelwyddan. It is lending and housing a number of its paintings there, and the exhibition is already becoming increasingly popular.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister explain why the Government have not raised the purchase grants of the national museums for five, six, seven and, as I said, in the case of the British museum, 10 years? Why does he believe that it is not important for them to have the money to add to their collections?
    Mr. Luce: Of course I will explain. I have explained it many times, and the hon. Gentleman knows the answer. I was coming to it. At the request of the chairmen and directors of our national museums, I have given priority to the fabric of our national institutions. No other Government have set a target for one decade to get the fabric of our national museums and galleries in good shape. That is my objective, and the hon. Gentleman should support me in it.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Surely the Minister knows that, in spending the money on the fabric of the museums, he is dealing with the neglect that has occurred over the past 10 years. That Government, as has been said again and again by museums and in the Public Accounts Committee report, were condemned for failing to look after the fabric of those buildings.
    Mr. Luce: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, has studied this matter, and the Committee produced a report on it. He knows perfectly well from that, that the poor condition of our national galleries and museums has accumulated over a long time. This is the first Government to set a target to get the fabric of those institutions in good shape by the end of the 1990s. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have supported that.
    Sir John Soane's museum is a modest but important museum. The property company MEPC has given money, and the Government have matched it. The fabric of the museum will be in good shape within three years. The Government, with private sector support, have spent a great deal of money on major redevelopment of the imperial war museum. That is a great success and there was great public support for it. The national maritime museum is also a success. The Queen's house, an Inigo Jones house, has been refurbished with Government help and money.
    I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was at the opening of the re-hang of the Tate—a great and outstanding success. It has 600 paintings on display in rotation at any one time. Its plans to extend its operation to St. Ives is well in hand, and it might also extend it to Norwich. There is also a Tate extension in Liverpool. There are exciting plans for the Sainsbury extension to the national gallery to be opened next year. The museum of the moving image has, with private sector support, been highly successful. By contrast, we can look at our heritage——
    Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the Minister also instruct us to look at some of the figures for attendances? What has happened to the attendances at the museums and galleries since they imposed charges? In some cases, the attendance figures have halved, or are down by three quarters. The Minister should add that to his litany.
    Mr. Luce: Nationally, there have been record levels of attendance at all museums, including independent museums which charge. The attendance figure for 1989 was 100 million—we have never reached that figure before.
    The Government established the National Heritage Memorial Fund in 1980 and have spent more than £100 million on heritage—a great deal of money. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked, quite rightly, what we were going to do about preserving important objects of art. Look at what has been done—the list is infinite. With the help of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and many others, we have reached an understanding on the Mappa Mundi. More recently, the British library has purchased the Wellington dispatch, another example to which people would attach importance. The Government have accepted objects of great importance in lieu of tax, such as El Greco's "Fabula" for the national gallery of Scotland and two paintings by Hogarth for the national museum of Wales.
    The Opposition's motion refers to libraries. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should make a speech as he did and not once mention the construction of the new British library at St. Pancras, which will be the largest cultural construction by any Government this century. We have one of the most wonderful collections, dispersed among 20 locations, which will now be housed under one roof in far better environmental conditions, with better service to the customers. The first part will be opened in 1993, and it will be completed in 1996. Yet we heard not one word about that from the hon. Gentleman. It shows that his speech was hypocritical and phoney.
    Mr. Fisher: The Minister knows that I welcome the British library, but previous Governments take credit for that. The Government cannot claim sole credit, and they are not pursuing the plans to their conclusion. But how does the Minister address the fact that 200 public libraries have been closed so that people all over Britain, particularly in schools, are receiving a worse service because of the Government's underfunding of local authorities?
    Mr. Luce: It is not right to suggest that people are getting a worse service. A number of small libraries, open for fewer than 10 hours, have closed, but the number of service points to the public has increased by several thousand.
    The issue is how to create the right climate for the arts to succeed. That is what any Government are there to do, and that is what we are seeking to do. The rest is in the hands of those in the arts, and they need to be congratulated on their achievement in the past few years. We have rightly asked for their support to come from other sources, not just from the Government. The arts pride themselves on being self-reliant and independent. Freedom of expression and independence are at the heart of the success of the arts. The more self-reliant they are, the better it is for the arts. The arts are achieving that. The Government are there to create the right climate.
    The Government are committed to maintaining taxpayers' support for the arts. There is a clear public commitment to maintaining taxpayers' support for the arts. Overall support for the arts budget has gone up by 40 per cent., including abolition money. If abolition money is excluded, it has gone up in real terms by 33 per cent. I am prepared to yield to the hon. Gentleman on that. Funding
    848
    for the Arts Council has gone up in real terms by 28 per cent. If one excludes abolition money, as I am happy to do, it has gone up in real terms by 13 per cent. in the past 10 years, using the GDP deflator that all Governments accept.
    We have seen the introduction of new policies under the three-year funding plan. The hon. Gentleman has been generous about that in the past, and I do not want to be churlish about his remarks on that. But the hon. Gentleman did not mention the 24 per cent. increase in the cash budget for the arts in the next three years. The hon. Gentleman was good enough just before Christmas at Question Time to congratulate me on that achievement. I wonder where he stands now. He seems to change his position every day. There has been a cash increase in the Arts Council's resources of 22 per cent., with a 12·5 per cent. increase in the coming year. That is a good record.
    There has been a 27 per cent. increase over three years in funding for museums and galleries, with special emphasis, which I think is right and which has the support of the chairmen and directors, on building and maintenance and the fabric of those institutions.
    Against that background, and the introduction of three-year funding, the arts will be able to plan well ahead. We decided that in 1987, not the hon. Gentleman or his party. We decided that that would be a good basis on which the arts would be able to plan in the longer term to diversify their funding.
    Therefore, the Government have spent about £500 million to underpin——
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Luce: I should like to continue, because many hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made a long speech, and I do not want to prolong mine. Others want to contribute, and I wish to hear their views.
    The Government have spent about £500 million of taxpayers' money to underpin the private sector expansion that we have been seeing. According to the box office figures for many arts organisations, audiences are expanding and the amount of patronage from individuals is increasing. Sponsorship is increasing and, under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, has produced an extra £31 million for the arts.
    Under the new incentive funding policies through the Arts Council, the Government are investing £12·5 million over three years, which it is estimated will bring another £50 million of extra resources for the arts from the private sector. Local authorities spend about £250 million on arts, excluding libraries. They identify projects which they think are worthy of support and which will be welcomed by their ratepayers.
    Arts in the United Kingdom are rich in their diversity and achievement. In the light of what the Arts Council has achieved, and is achieving today under the excellent leadership of Mr. Palumbo, it can be proud of what it does. The arts cannot be static. Fashions change and quality goes up and down. Change is the key to vitality in the arts, and we cannot expect the subsidised or the non-subsidised sector to be locked into a rigid position. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman can see or understand that.

    849
    That does not mean that there are not problems. There always have been and there always will be problems in the real world, and they must be tackled on their merits, problem by problem. That is the right approach.
    The hon. Gentleman dwelt to a considerable extent not just on the Royal Shakespeare Company but on our centres of excellence, and that is an important subject. A diverse range of arts is supported throughout the country. The difficult question for the Arts Council is how much goes to the centres of excellence, the flagships, and how much to other important artistic activities. The Arts Council, led by Mr. Palumbo, is mindful of the importance of centres of excellence, not just in London, although that is important as a great cultural city, but around the country as well.
    I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). He has been an active supporter of the Royal Shakespeare Company ever since he became the Member of Parliament for Stratford. I agree that the Royal Shakespeare Company's record is outstanding. I recently saw a performance of "Coriolanus" as good as anyone might see. There have been 2,000 performances, 227 on tour at 29 United Kingdom locations, and it has about 40 productions in its repertoire. That is a major advance since earlier days. I pay tribute to the chairman, Geoffrey Cass, and his team, and I wish the new management every success.
    The Royal Shakespeare Company is a national centre of excellence, and I am glad that the Arts Council has seen fit to raise its budget next year by 11 per cent. to just over £6 million. I accept completely that the Royal Insurance Company's contribution to the Royal Shakespeare Company of just over £1 million is exceptional. I acknowledged that when it was announced. I acknowledge too that its box office record has been extremely good. It now has a turnover of about £20 million a year. It is a great artistic centre. It is also a substantial business. That is important because, as with all arts organisations, it must be operated as a business.
    Every arts organisation must operate within its resources and must cut its coat according to its cloth. I acknowledge that difficult decisions have to be taken by the chairman and management of the Royal Shakespeare Company, though I suggest that its three-year funding, which no arts organisation has enjoyed before, provides a sound basis on which to plan.
    The hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central mentioned the Priestley report, but I believe that he unintentionally misled the House. To over-simplify matters, that report, which referred not just to the Royal Shakespeare Company but to the royal opera house, contained three recommendations. The first was to write off a deficit at a certain level; the second, to increase the core funding of the Royal Shakespeare Company to £4·9 million. The third recommendation was to adopt the policy of index linking or inflation proofing.
    My predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Gowrie, agreed to writing off the deficit at an agreed level and to increasing core funding, which then became the new basis for the future. However, he did not accept, and nor do I, that that organisation or any other should be specially selected for index linking and be made inflation-proof. It is up to the Arts Council to decide whether or not, within its overall resources, the RSC should receive a certain level of
    850
    support. This year, support happens to be above the anticipated rate of inflation, but the value of its grant has been eroded by inflation over the past two years.
    Mr. Fisher: What about the arm's-length concept?
    Mr. Luce: I shall deal with that point shortly, because I am beginning to wonder whether the Opposition are any longer committed to the arm's-length principle, or whether they want to impose central control. If the Opposition have changed their policy, the House is entitled to know—and so is the arts world.
    I am confident that the Royal Shakespeare Company will overcome its problems and will continue to achieve the highest standards of excellence. Certainly I am very proud of its achievements, as I am one of the other flagship companies, including the royal opera house and the English national opera. Together, they give more than 300 performances every year. Last year the royal national theatre won nine awards and gave 1,200 performances. I am glad that it has received an 11 per cent. increase in its Arts Council subsidy, giving it an overall subsidy of just over £9 million.
    The hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central, by the tone of his speech and the implication that central Government ought to intervene left, right and centre, suggests that the arm's-length policy is no longer acceptable to Labour. I challenged him on that point in our debate last June. On that occasion, the hon. Gentleman's reply was all fudge, and he gave no clear answer. We are entitled to know whether the Opposition believe in the arm's-length approach or whether they are moving to a policy of central direction of the arts.
    Mr. Fisher: I said that it was the responsibility of the Government to formulate a strategic policy for arts funding but that the details of grant administration should be left to the Arts Council. Our accusation against the Government is that they do not have a strategic arts policy for supporting the national companies. I hope that the Minister does not intend to end his speech without addressing the plight of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Will he do nothing and allow it to go dark all next winter? What will be done about the company's budget for next year? The deficit that the RSC and other companies share will not go away. The Minister may try to run away from the problem, but he cannot hide from it. The problem will not be solved unless he takes a strategic view, as he ought to do.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman just about confirms that the Opposition are adopting the view that they should no longer have an arm's-length policy. That is what the lion. Gentleman's remarks imply. He is saying that the Government should intervene every time that a national company experiences difficulties. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what an arm's-length policy is all about, and that really worries me.
    The Minister's job, as I see it, is to negotiate with the Chief Secretary of the Treasury and with his other colleagues in government about how much money should be available to the arts under the three-year funding policy. The consequence of that approach is that the Arts Council will enjoy a cash increase next year of £20 million. How the Arts Council dispenses that money is for it to decide. It is not for the Government to intervene. It is not for Ministers and Whitehall officials to decide how arts

    851
    organisations should be managed. The hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central is saying that Labour is going for central direction of the arts and wants to eliminate the arm's-length concept altogether.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the Minister now defining arm's length as saying, "We shall let theatres close"?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman flies in the face of reality. He represents a Glasgow constituency at a time when that city is enjoying a marvellous renaissance across a whole range of artistic activities, so I find his remark quite extraordinary.
    It is easy to forget that much of what is available today grew up during the postwar years. That renaissance of the arts has been made possible by rising levels of investment by central and local government, by increasing private efforts, both corporate and individual, and by the efforts of the Arts Council. However, there is a tendency by some to hark back to the palmy days of the 60s, when the arts were at a peak.
    There were many great achievements in the 60s, but it is also true that many of the great companies we are debating this evening did not exist in their present form 20 years ago. The English national opera had yet to occupy the Coliseum. The National Theatre Company was still at the Old Vic, and the Barbican did not even exist. In recent years, we have seen an explosion of arts activity and support throughout the country. That is why the Government increased funding to record levels. In real terms, our grant to the Arts Council is now worth three times what it was 20 years ago, which is a reflection of our economic and artistic successes.
    The Government have shown their strong commitment to the arts and, looking to the 1990s, their positive approach to the quality of life in this country. I hope that the House will express its confidence by voting overwhelmingly against the Opposition motion.
    8.6 pm
    Mr. Norman Buchan: I am pleased at the opportunity to speak so early in the debate, and I want to pick up one or two extraordinary points that the Minister made. He still has not answered the question of whether his perception of the arm's-length policy is that one is content to let theatres close. It is appalling to think of the Royal Shakespeare Company, of all companies, closing theatres.
    It is true that Glasgow has fought over the years to develop as a city of culture. It is doing all that it can to attract people to the arts there. Certainly it is not closing the Citizens theatre, the Tron, the King's or the Tramway. We are keeping them all going. If that is an arm's-length policy on the part of the local council, I applaud it. Arm's length is a matter of judgment. I accept completely the definition given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) when he says that arm's length is also a matter of strategic planning.
    Are we to tell overseas visitors that we cannot even maintain the Royal Shakespeare Company? Imagine the French saying that they cannot maintain the Comédie Francaise. I wish that the Minister would shake his mind clear of dogmatic nonsense in respect of the arm's-length concept.
    852
    It was revealing that the Minister referred again today—perhaps because he knew that I was originally involved—to the Priestley report's three recommendations and to the Government's refusal to accept index linking. In other words, the Government rejected the one proposition that could have provided financial security and the facility to plan. The Minister applauds that decision, but the truth is that he has never understood the point and purpose of a three-year rolling programme. We pressed on him the necessity for such a programme from 1983–84 onwards, so that companies could enjoy a period of security. We tried to explain to the Minister that such a programme would have to be index-linked, because as inflation rose, any three-year plan would be made worthless if no provision was made for inflation.
    Each year there should be planning for index linking of the subsidy three years ahead so that the company had three years' knowledge and understanding and could plan for that period of time. The next year, if the company was told that the subsidy for the third year was going to be reduced, it would understand. The Minister has never understood the position, and that is why the argument has failed.
    That lies at the heart of his failure to understand the economic situation that he should be facing as a Minister. He told us about the increases in the past year—that is true. However, the applause when he announced the figures—for example, the 12·9 per cent. increase in subsidy to the Arts Council—was not applause, but sighs of relief. It was not to show joy. If one examines the figures, the picture that emerges shows the Minister's failure to understand index linking.
    There is a 12·9 per cent. increase from this year's grant of £155 million to next year's grant of £175 million, but the increase from last year to this year was only 3·7 per cent. because the Minister failed to index-link the rolling programme. The combined increase for the present year and next year, despite that massive leap, is only 16 per cent., which is barely above the inflation rate—and the way that the Government are going, it will probably be below the inflation rate by the end of the year. What is worse, it means that, in the following two years of the three-year programme, in 1991 and 1992, the increases will be 4·6 per cent. and 3·8 per cent.—massively below the rate of inflation. The apparent jump this year concealed the planning for a cut in real terms.
    The Minister argued that the Government were giving special support to museums and galleries, but the same argument holds true there. They are the most hard-pressed sector at present, or they were until the blow to the Royal Shakespeare Company. This year and next year, museums and galleries will get £158 million and £182 million respectively. That is a combined increase of 15 per cent. over the two years, which is just about, or perhaps a little over, the rate of inflation. We do not know yet.
    For the following two years they will get 4·9 per cent. and 4·7 per cent. increases, which are well below inflation, and at best only keeping pace with it. That is at a time when our galleries and museums have never been in worse condition. They are in a crisis, and the crisis has had to be forced upon the Minister before he could see it.
    What is the Government's contribution to solving the crisis? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central had to face that problem in the Select Committee. The Government's answer was to bring in charges. They brought in charges and halved attendance. That is a bit

    853
    like saying that we shall make our schools economic. We could easily have economic schools by sacking half the pupils and teachers and sending them home. There is no merit or pride to be had when Government policy has pressurised museums and galleries into charging and halved attendance.
    The Government have never understood what sort of people attend museums and galleries. The evidence given by Neil MacGregor of the national gallery was among the best that the Select Committee heard.
    Mr. Flannery: In his evidence Mr. MacGregor told us that when Sir Robert Peel opened the national gallery he said that those of us who have money to buy pictures can do it, but the national gallery is for people to go into. He also told us that the gallery used to charge one day a week for people to come in to paint and copy pictures, and on that day the general public did not bother to go there.
    Mr. Buchan: Mr. MacGregor's evidence was fascinating and courageous, in the circumstances. That is also true of the British museum, which was built to be free for all time. The present director says that if a penny is charged for attendance, he will resign.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman was applauding the way that the French handle these matters. Does he not recognise that all the museums in Paris charge people and have done so for years? People accept that as a matter of course.
    Mr. Buchan: I recognise that, and as a general principle I reject it, although there are other arguments that I wish to employ. That is an appalling situation, and I stand by that opinion. Paris is a city full of tourists in the summer and there are particular problems there, as all of us who have queued for the Pyramid will know, but the French are wrong to charge.
    The best answer that I heard on this issue was at a conference some years ago, when the director of the La Plata museum in Buenos Aires said that museums and galleries are part of the emancipation of human understanding and consciousness. We must not put a barrier between people and the possibility of expanding their awareness and consciousness. That is exactly the reason for free education in this country, and free education is the parallel, not Paris and charging.
    I know that many hon. Members want to speak so I shall be brief, but we must consider the argument on the pressure to achieve sponsorship in the arts. We warned that, as sponsorship increased, the Government would renege on their duties, and would not add to public subsidy, except through the sponsorship scheme. If a firm gives a quid for sponsorship—it gets good value for that sponsorship—the Government are also willing to give money, but the company has to prove that it will make a commercial gain as a result or it will not get sponsorship. That is the definition of sponsorship as opposed to patronage. The Government are willing to insert that sort of money into the private sector so that the arts become private sector-led instead of community, social and public-sector led.
    The Government have been saying that sponsorship is a replacement for proper public funding and that is why so many of the sponsors are beginning to get angry. That is why sponsors are saying, "We shall not bail out the Government for failing in their duties."
    854
    The Minister explained why the Government had cut back on acquisition funds and given money for the fabric of buildings instead. The people who asked for that—the directors of our museums and galleries—are terrified at the condition of the fabric of the buildings. They said that they would have to do without another painting, piece of sculpture or objet d'art to save the roof. We have seen buckets in the British museum as the drips come in. The director himself has helped to place the buckets. That is the situation that we are facing.
    Consider the prices on the international art exchange—£28 million for Van Gogh's "Irises", and £24 million for his "Sunflowers". The director of the national gallery could not afford more than 1 sq ft of the canvas of a Van Gogh at present. The national gallery would have been able to buy one eighth of the last Turner sold—"The Top Sail of the Fighting Temeraire". It would have been unable to buy the whole painting. That is appalling, and it is nothing to boast about, but the Minister said how pleased he was that curators and directors had asked for money for the fabric instead of for acquisitions. That is because they had no other recourse but to do that.
    For a long time I resisted what I used to call the argument by the forces of darkness—the economic argument. I had so much battering over the head, that I changed my view, and I am now in favour of economic advantages for the arts.
    Glasgow is a case in point, and I thank the Minister for coming in with support, although I think that other people prepared the memorandum that put the case for Glasgow, and I think that he recognises that too. Glasgow was in that position because the local authority had the courage to do it—Glasgow has spent enormously. A new concert hall is being built and the local authority has also given general support for the arts there. In the west of Scotland as a whole, support has also been good.
    What thanks does the local authority get? A method of local government finance—the poll tax—which will make it extremely difficult to have that level of expenditure, not merely because it has been pinched but because of the nature of the pinching. The poll tax and the new gearing mechanism will lessen local government revenue and therefore additional expenditure on the arts. That is the problem that we now face.
    I am not saying such things because I am a troglodyte Marxist. I was reading a very interesting article the other day, which said:
    "Those of us who were pro the Thatcher broom (and of course not everyone was) took it on because we believed if these objectives were achieved and that we laid low the attitudes of the past … a reconfiguration of the arts would emerge …
    The new efficiency and the new prosperity would bring fresh initiatives from both the revived private sector and the revived public one.
    By the end of 1989, it became clear that one had been under a delusion …
    Alone, it seems, within Western Europe we have a Government which has no coherent philosophy on the role of culture within society beyond let market forces prevail'.
    The Prime Minister is, of course, no fool and… Taking her cue from the majority of the royal family, she and most of her Cabinet know perfectly well that the fact they are rarely seen at any theatre, opera, ballet or museum will not make one jot of difference when it comes to the next election. Nor will one recent speech at the Tate Gallery compensate for a decade of inertia …
    Indeed, Mrs. Thatcher may well take her place in the cultural history of this country as another queen of the Goths."

    855
    The writer also described the Government's philosophy as "bourgeois philistine".
    That article did not feature in Marxism Today, nor was it written by me—although I might have used the phrase "bourgeois philistine", and indeed might have spoken in stronger terms. It was written by Roy Strong, who quarelled with me pretty strongly about the imposition of charges for admittance to the Victoria and Albert museum. He has now changed his view, and recognises that the private sector does not necessarily mean a cultural renaissance.
    I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has joined us. As his constituency is Stratford-on-Avon, I should have thought that he had a vested interest in the Royal Shakespeare theatre, but I shall not ask him to declare it. If Shakespeare had not existed, Stratford would have had to invent him; yet the Minister wants an end to all subsidies. He has heard me say this before, so he should not look puzzled. He says that farming subsidies should end, uneconomic nursing homes—or was it maternity homes?—should be closed and theatres should receive no public support. I hope that he has told his local authority that. Some bulwark he is to the Minister for the Arts!
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented me grotesquely, which is always easy to do by means of partial quotation, and if he wishes to be fair to the House he will be prepared to admit it. I have indeed said that his arguments for virtually indiscriminate and unlimited subsidy are fantasies, but I have always argued for a sensible level of subsidy for the Royal Shakespeare Company to assist it to fulfil the terms of its charter.
    Mr. Buchan: I hope that the House has taken note of that. I shall dig up the relevant speech as quickly as possible. It seems that the Under-Secretary is now saying that he would rather close an uneconomic nursing or maternity home than close the Royal Shakespeare theatre; I would prefer not to pose such a choice.
    The present chairman of the Arts Council was responsible for one of the most philistine development proposals in the City of London. We should take pride in what little is left of the City. I should be happier if the Minister recognised the plight into which he, or rather his Government, led the arts: he could restore more confidence and vitality if he fought. In fact, he probably has fought, but with an entirely philistine Government—a Government who measure the value of everything in cash terms. In their pursuit of cash, they have turned the arts to dust.
    8.23 pm
    Mr. Toby Jessel: The whole House will have been interested in what the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said about Glasgow being the city of culture. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties wish Glasgow every success in this highly important year for the city. It is significant that both the Government and Glasgow itself have contributed to the funding of the "city of culture". That is as it should be.
    856
    Apart from that, I could not find much in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I could agree. He said that the Government's approach was to say, "Let market forces prevail," and that they measured everything in cash terms. I could not help recalling the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) an hour before; almost all that speech was about measuring support in cash terms, and funding with cash.
    Surely what matters is ensuring that funding is seen as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. What matters is how well the arts are doing—how many people go to the opera, the ballet, concerts, museums, art galleries and cathedrals, and participate in the perception of the arts in general. That is achieved by a variety of means, of which funding is only one.
    Because Parliament has a duty to deal with things in a financial way, we have a tendency to discuss everything in cash terms. Cash is an accurate way of measuring one aspect of what happens, but it is not the only thing that matters. The Opposition have talked much more about measuring results in cash terms than has my right hon. Friend the Minister, who thinks more in terms of the number of people who enjoy the arts. That is what really matters, and it is also an indication of how well the economy is flourishing.
    Even if we measure results in purely financial terms, however, it is absurd for the Opposition motion to refer to the Government's "neglect of the Arts". Only three months ago they announced an increase of £66 million over three years, on top of the existing £393 million. We have heard a good deal about percentages; it is time that we looked at the figures in absolute terms, and in money terms. Total spending will be £460 million—an average, in a population of 55 million, of about £8 per head per year, or £35 per household. That is a significant amount by any standards.
    The arts lobby, of course, says that it wants more. In a free country, it has the right to campaign on behalf of its beliefs and interests, but we as parliamentarians must make our judgment in the larger context of Government spending: spending on the National Health Service, education, aid for developing countries, the environment and the largest item of all—retirement pensions and social security, which take up some £50 billion per year. That has arisen not least from the improved standard of health, and the fact that there are about half a million more old-age pensioners in every decade because people are living longer. I should like us to spend more on the arts, but we must recognise that the Government's spending capacity is not a bottomless pit, and I do not think that the arts as a
    The arts are flourishing as never before. They are contributing much to the quality of life, and there is an unprecedented range and depth of talent in the country. Last night, along with other hon. Members, I visited Tate gallery to see the splendid re-hangings of paintings. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for arranging it. The public are flooding in—there are queues every day.
    As for the theatre, it is difficult to obtain seats for many of the best London shows. The national theatre's standards are brilliant. It shows some superb plays, although I have reservations about the architecture of the building. I was a member of the Greater London council 20 years ago, when we were told that the architect, Denys Lasdun, was one of the finest ever known, but that the national theatre's roof had been leaking ever since the

    857
    building was erected, causing serious problems for all concerned. The standard at the national theatre is remarkably high and is a credit to the nation.
    More people visit the theatre each week than go to football matches. There is a tremendous range of marvellous concerts. As the Minister for the Arts said, London is the musical capital of the world. Recently, I heard two magnificent concerts at the Barbican concert hall. They were given by the London symphony orchestra, one of the best orchestras in the world. It performs regularly at the Barbican and attracts much less flak than the Royal Shakespeare Company; the concert hall seems to be run much more easily.
    At one of the concerts by the London symphony orchestra, I heard the great cellist Rostropovitch play four cello concertos. At the other—a 70th birthday concert—the distinguished clarinettist, Jack Brymer, played Mozart's clarinet concerto and Mozart's clarinet quintet. Both concerts were sponsored by Shell—a fact that should be mentioned, alongside the sponsorship by the Royal Insurance Company of the plays in the theatre at the Barbican.
    Sponsorship has multiplied 20 times in the last 12 years. A large number of industrial and commercial companies sponsor concerts, theatre and opera. They have sponsored magnificent productions of opera and ballet at the royal opera house. The English national opera at the Coliseum has also benefited from sponsorship, as have art exhibitions. There has been a flowering of artistic activity of all sorts.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)—who, I hope, will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is opposed to any public funding of the arts. He thinks that entertainment of all kinds is of roughly equal quality. He and I must agree to differ about that. The human spirit needs more than the contentment of a cow or a cabbage. The best drama, music and paintings educate and fire the mind and uplift the spirit.
    When the arts flourish, so does the country. The flourishing of the arts interacts with national confidence, as reflected by this country's success during the first Elizabethan age—and during the second Elizabethan age since 1980. In both ages the arts have burgeoned.
    The arts also bring financial benefit. Visitors come to Britain not for our weather but for our history and traditions, for our royal palaces, such as Hampton Court in my constituency, for our beautiful cathedrals and churches, for our museums—which have doubled in number from just over 1,000 to 2,500 within a generation—for our theatres, concerts, opera and ballet.
    Apart from the money that visitors spend on gaining entry to our theatres, concert halls and opera houses, they spend it on their hotel accommodation, and in restaurants and shops and on transport. The money that they spend generates employment and income and provides a tax yield to the Government, thus helping the balance of payments.
    All these financial effects are difficult to measure with precision, but they exist. It is right, therefore, that the House, with its interest in financial and economic matters, should take that into account. It adds weight to the argument for support for the arts. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington never seems to face up to the importance of that argument.
    The other regular tenant of the Barbican, the Royal Shakespeare Company, has had its Arts Council grant increased by 11 per cent. Its standards are superb. The
    858
    company started at Stratford-upon-Avon. Subsequently it gave performances in London, at the Aldwych and elsewhere, and moved to the Barbican. Subsequently it promoted musicals, some of which, such as "Les Misérables", have been roaring successes, while others, such as "Carrie", have been disastrous flops. That must have affected the Royal Shakespeare Company's financial position.
    The amendment to the motion refers to the
    "important role of the Royal Shakespeare Company".
    Perhaps its role ought to be to stick mainly to productions of Shakespeare. The company seems to have overstretched itself and lost money, and now blames the Government. Furthermore, its relationship with the management at the Barbican and with the City of London, both of which have given a great deal of help to the company, has not been very polite. I hope that it will be much better in future.
    I was sorry to read of the fire 10 days ago at the Savoy theatre. That theatre was the home of Gilbert and Sullivan. The burning out of the Savoy theatre is at least as serious as a three or four-month stoppage by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Barbican. The effects of that fire will last far longer than four months. Perhaps I am biased and ought to declare an interest. The interior of the Savoy theatre was designed by my step-grandfather.
    Ticket touting is a repulsive trade. I hope that the Government will consider what can be done to stop it.
    As for an arts matter that relates to my constituency, four weeks ago the National Campaign for the Arts published a table of what London boroughs spend, per head of population, on the arts. I was shocked to see that the London borough of Richmond upon Thames, which is controlled by the Liberal party, was the third bottom in the list. It spends only 65p per head each year on the arts. Its spending on the arts is exceeded by 22 other boroughs. Only 25 replied to the questionnaire that was sent out by the National Campaign for the Arts. There are 32 London boroughs. However, Richmond upon Thames was the third bottom out of the 25 boroughs that replied.
    That borough covers both the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—who, because he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for the Arts, cannot speak in the debate—and mine. The borough has one of the highest intelligence levels in the country, as measured by examination results, and those who live in the borough include a large number of professional, executive and intelligent people of all sorts. It is shocking that this Liberal-controlled council should come third bottom in spending, per head of population, on the arts. It is utterly uncivilised.
    That is made worse by the fact that recently the council spent £12 million on a new town hall. That was a shocking waste of public money. I hope that the electors of Twickenham will have something to say about that in the May elections.
    8.37 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Royal Shakespeare Company's decision to put out the lights for four months at the Barbican is truly shocking. It prompted the Opposition to hold the debate. I regret that it was so widened as to take the spotlight off the problems faced by the Royal Shakespeare Company and national theatres generally, thus risking the House not helping to resolve the problem.

    859
    The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) suggested that the Royal Shakespeare Company should perform only Shakespeare plays. That would be contrary to the terms of its charter, which requires it to develop the theatrical arts. It would also turn the company from a live, creative institution—the foundation of a national theatre before we had such a thing—into something quite different. It has developed ensemble acting, which has led to our theatre being admired throughout the world. That seems to be the only contribution from the Government to solving the problems of the Royal Shakespeare Company.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) set the predicament in context. He is right that the predicament of the theatre is only a visible symptom of the weakened condition of theatre in Britain today. In devoting a mere four minutes of a 26-minute speech to the predicament of the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Minister showed a quite extraordinary indifference to the problem. It is the Minister's responsibility to speak on those matters, not in some knockabout by a more junior Minister at the end of the debate.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that the Minister will wind up. Presumably he will listen carefully to what everyone says and then talk about the Royal Shakespeare Company in detail.
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I did not appreciate that the Minister intended to answer the debate. The debate would have been better and more informed if the Minister had expressed the Government's views and policy on the subject matter which has been tabled by the official Opposition. We heard four minutes on the predicament of the Royal Shakespeare Company and I fear that that is a reflection of the Government's desire to distract attention from the plight of the theatre. It stems from the consistent underfunding of live theatre over many years. It is symptomatic of a failure not so much to value the arts as to match that valuation with an appropriate cash price.
    Of all the art forms in Britain, the live theatre is perhaps the most universally admired, certainly throughout the English-speaking world. It draws visitors to Britain in great numbers not only to see classical works performed with epic splendour, but new plays admirably acted and innovative in ideas.
    The Minister properly received appreciation when last autumn the Government decided to increase the budget of the Arts Council by 12·8 per cent., but he must appreciate now, if he did not then, that that was certainly not sufficient to tackle the problem of many years' standing.
    The most authoritative independent inquiry into the publicly funded theatre in recent years was that of Sir Kenneth Cork commissioned by the Arts Council and concluded in September 1986. Most of the issues which give rise to the current plight of the RSC, the national theatre and other theatres throughout the country, were considered in Sir Kenneth's report. The central message of that report was that additional funding for theatre development fund with an annual ceiling of £5 million at 1986 prices should be made available and that figure
    860
    should be adjusted for inflation in subsequent years. No action was taken upon that recommendation and the consequences are not apparent.
    The Cork report warned:
    "If no means can be found to finance the recommendations, it follows that either the proposed developments would have to be shelved or there would have to be some redistribution within the present theatre allocation."
    It went on:
    "The choice without extra funds is stark: either withdraw funding from a national company for the benefit of the theatre of the nation, or allow regional theatre throughout the country to wither and become unviable in order to maintain two national companies."
    The dilemma appears to have been recognised by the Arts Council, but if it sought to press it upon the Government then and in subsequent years it was certainly not successful in eliciting the required additional funding.
    As the secretary general of the Arts Council, Luke Rittner, reported in the 1987–88 annual report:
    "We are disappointed that the gap between our funding of London and the rest of the country is still as wide as ever. No-one on the council wants to see the national companies held back, nor do we want to stifle the Arts in the Metropolis; however, unless there were a dramatic increase in overall funding it is difficult to see how we can ever really get the balance more equitable."
    If it were not clear then, it is certainly clear now, but the Arts Council was hampered in making its case for what Mr. Rittner called
    "a dramatic increase in overall funding"
    by the preoccupation of the then chairman, no doubt reflecting Government thinking, with what Sir William Rees-Mogg called
    "the Council's objective to reduce the art world's reliance on subsidy and to lower the proportion (but not of course the absolute amount) of grant to the overall turnover of art organisations."
    I consider that the years of Sir William Rees-Mogg were wasted. The problem was spelt out in successive inquiries—Priestley reported, Cork reported, the companies warned what would happen, and every commentator who knew anything about these matters drew attention to the fact that merely redistributing the Arts Council budget without taking account of that gap would result either in the closure of a major national theatre or the withering away of the regional theatres. That is what this debate is all about. That view was expressed as long ago as the Priestley report and the 1986 Cork report and has been reiterated by the Minister's own appointee, Mr. Richard Wilding, as recently as October in his published report on the structure of the funding of the arts:
    "The propensity to spread the butter too thin"
    had
    "already resulted in the grants to the four national companies being pared down to the point at which they can no longer put on programmes of the high international standard rightly expected of them."
    The preoccupation of the Arts Council under Sir William Rees-Mogg and the Government with obtaining a balance between public funding and sponsorship has obscured, certainly for the past five years at least, the urgency of obtaining extra public funding to meet the objectives so well set out in Sir Kenneth Cork's report.
    During the past six months there has been a partial recognition of the limits of sponsorship in the arts. It has come most notably from the sponsors themselves, who have made it abundantly plain that they do not wish to be

    861
    involved in the core funding of the national theatres, the national collections or any of the other major national artistic endeavours.
    The sponsorship of the Royal Shakespeare Company has been exceptional—more than that of any other company in the country. Their sponsors have allowed some of that funding to be used for core operations but it is not preventing the closure of two of their theatres.
    The limits of sponsorship were recognised to some extent in the Minister's success last autumn in obtaining a 12·8 per cent. increase but it was certainly not sufficient to save the flagship companies, all of which are in deficit at the moment and the Minister did not even mention the fact that the three other companies are also in deficit. It certainly is not sufficient to deal with that continuing problem.
    It is clear that the Royal Shakespeare Company, which only six months ago was performing simultaneously 10 different productions in 10 different theatres around the country with the lowest public subsidy of all the national theatres and the highest percentage of self-generated earnings could not keep going. It has tried to do what the Government asked and it has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations. It has brought in more than 1 million people to Royal Shakespeare Company theatres in a year and 65 per cent. of that audience is not in London. It is right that the cuts should not fall on audiences outside London although tours are being cut. But the Newcastle and Stratford bases are being left intact.
    No one has seriously argued that it is not an efficient company, though a rather nasty aspersion has been cast by some hon. Members. Nobody has brought forward evidence to suggest that the Priestley findings, which were exhaustive and which were made five years ago, were wrong. It is a unique company with five base theatres. Its self-generated earnings from transferred productions—from "Les Miserables" to "Les Liaisons Dangereuses"—are the admiration of the west end and of Broadway. The company has won the Queen's award for export achievement.
    The burden of the Royal Shakespeare Company's case is that the three proposals of the Priestley committee—a committee set up by the Cabinet's own efficiency unit—have not been recognised in full. In his short allusion to the predicament of the RSC, the Minister said that he had never given an undertaking to uprate the provision from the base of £4·9 million of the 1984–85 year. I wonder what language means if the then Minister's statement in 1984–85 that
    "provision will also be made for subsequent years"
    did not imply—it was certainly intended to imply—that that base would not be eroded by the passage of time and the growth of inflation.
    Mr. Geoffrey Cass, in his subsequent report, clearly said that the Government were not fulfilling their commitment—and that was a repeated statement. I do not know whether the Minister has previously said, as he did tonight, dismayingly, that there was no intention to uprate from that base in line with the Priestley recommendations. If there was no such intention, that fact should not have come out five years after the event. It should have been discussed so that the Arts Council could have openly made the case for the fulfilment of the Priestley intentions. It came as a shock to me to hear the Minister's remarks on that issue tonight.
    862
    The financial crisis first became acute as long ago as 1986–87, when the RSC suffered from the downturn in audiences due to the falling off of American tourism that year. There is now no way out other than a substantial increase in the funding of that company. Mr. Ian Rushden, chief executive of the Royal insurance Company—the major sponsor of the RSC, giving more than £1 million a year—said:
    "If we pare to the bone every last financial commitment, leaving no reserve for the risk which goes wrong, then the world-wide reputation of the British arts will be the poorer. That is the danger of current British Government policy. The strength of plural funding depends on all parties pulling their weight, the Government maintaining their grant levels in real terms, the sponsors maintaining their commitment for the agreed period and budgeted audience figures being set at a reasonable level."
    Despite high inflation, a squeeze on personal incomes and an increase in the price of seats, audience numbers at the RSC have remained high—at a level well above that which the commercial theatre would regard as necessary to achieve success. The Barbican is now the highest priced theatre in London, and since 1985 seat prices have increased by 47·5 per cent. There is no scope for further price increases without the charitable objectives of the RSC's charter being infringed.
    It is accepted as a matter of fact—the Minister did not allude to it, but I assume that he accepts it—that even with the increase of 11 per cent. in the subsidy of the RSC this year, it is over £1·5 million short of what is needed for the current year, and there is a cumulative shortfall in subsidy of £5·7 million. That will be reduced by only £1·3 million as a result of the closure of the Barbican and Pit theatres.
    The Minister owes it to the arts, and to the RSC in particular, to explain with precision what his predecessor meant when he said in 1984–85:
    "provision will also be made for subsequent years."
    I understand that the Arts Council has repeatedly drawn the Government's attention to that commitment in the annual negotiations on its budget, but no account appears. to have been taken of it by the Government in settling the Arts Council's vote.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman says that no account has been taken of such matters. Has he acknowledged that in the next financial year the Arts Council will get a cash increase of £20 million and that that increase in percentage terms is 12·5 per cent.? Does he not acknowledge that, when discussions take place with the Chief Secretary, all such factors—not just the Royal Shakespeare Company but the many other problems that are faced by the Arts Council—are taken fully into account?
    Mr. Maclennan: I shall not be diverted from the subject of the predicament of the RSC and other national theatre companies by the Minister's attempt to divert attention from that predicament. I have given the Minister the figures. The money that he has obtained is not adequate to meet the gap, never mind to meet the kind of developments of theatre in this country that were recommended by Sir Kenneth Cork all that time ago.
    The right hon. Gentleman is the responsible Minister. He is failing the arts and it will not do for him to pray in aid the difficulties that he has with his Treasury colleagues. Beyond that, because I do not wish to take up too much time, I will not go into the economic arguments for the

    863
    right hon. Gentleman's Treasury colleagues to meet the challenge that is before the country and the opportunity of drawing in more tourists to see our great companies.
    The director of drama of the Arts Council, speaking last night at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, asked:
    "For how long can we in the Arts Council go on holding the bits together? Something is liable to give if additional funds are not available."
    Those companies look to Parliament to offer some solution. This debate will not have achieved much if it degenerates simply into a situation in which
    "Two men look out through the same bars;
    One sees the mud, the other sees stars."
    The reality is a much more mixed picture than the Minister painted today. There are good and extremely bad things on the arts scene. A bad thing is the fact that the fabric of our national collections is disintegrating and that more resources are not being made available. Also among the bad things is the predicament in which all the national companies aided by central Government funds find themselves.
    I took some encouragement from the remarks of the Prime Minister when she reopened the Tate gallery last month. In a notable comment, she said:
    "It is not enough to conserve the heritage: we have to enlarge it before we pass it on."
    Will the Minister pass that message to his Treasury colleagues in coming to grips with this crisis?
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak, but time is getting short.
    8.58 pm
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made a cross-gartered speech, which I shall not follow.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has performed a service by bringing to our attention the plight and predicament of a great national company, but his utterances were not balanced; there was much sound and fury, but not much else. By nodding as my right hon. Friend the Minister spoke, he was giving a truer indication of his appreciation of the state of the arts today. My right hon. Friend spoke eloquently of a record of which he has no reason to be ashamed.
    I was most interested when the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) quoted Sir Roy Strong—I am delighted to name Sir Roy Strong among my friends—but, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, he got the thing out of balance.
    My right hon. Friend was right to speak of the many achievements in the arts over the past 10 years, of the burgeoning of interest and the burgeoning of success, but, as he knows, I believe that all is not well. It is right to use tonight's opportunity to focus—I shall relate my brief remarks to what we are debating—on the plight of this great national company.
    The Royal Shakespeare Company is unique. It is a great national company with two full-time national bases. At the Barbican, to the delight of hundreds of thousands of people, it performs the plays of Shakespeare. In Stratford, the birthplace of our great national poet and
    864
    playwright, we have, if I may paraphrase the Arts Council's recent publication, the "glory of the garden" itself.
    The activities of the Royal Shakespeare Company must be conducted on a budget of £6 million a year—about £3 million less than that of the national theatre. I would not wish to decry the national theatre, of which we are all properly proud, but one must recognise that, under its charter, the Royal Shakespeare Company must concentrate on the works of Shakespeare, which, as most of us know, call for large casts. They are inevitably large productions to mount.
    No one could deny that the Royal Shakespeare Company has done everything possible to maximise its resources. It has been at the forefront in obtaining sponsorship. It has never lagged behind in innovative techniques, consistent with the quality of the works that it portrays, and it has always brought much credit on this country wherever it has performed. It has performed abroad, and every year it puts on 136 weeks of drama in Stratford, London and on tour.
    It is sad when such a company is faced with such problems. I hope that we can send a message from the House that we are troubled by them. I do not want the Barbican to go dark for four months this year—I do not think that any hon. Member wants that—but what can we do? It is right and proper that we send a message to the Arts Council.
    Perhaps we could also send a message to Lady Porter. If she had done her thing by the English national opera, the Arts Council would have had a £2 million contingency fund that it might have felt inclined to use to help the Royal Shakespeare Company. We must never lose sight of the balance and plurality of funding—state, local authority and private—but I am very disturbed, and rather angry, about what Westminster city council has done recently.
    What should we do to help the Royal Shakespeare Company? We should consider what Priestley said about underfunding—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on this—and the specific and particular problems of the great national companies. It is no disservice to the arts or to the nation to say that, if we allow the lights to go out in London, we are diminishing the arts throughout the nation. It is also appropriate to recognise that the great national companies, which have a particular national responsibility, deserve special regard when it comes to funding.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister has many times given the lie to the view that he relies—or wants to rely—solely on sponsorship. Of course he does not. He has a good record as Minister for the Arts in battles with the Treasury—a record that has been acknowledged in the past by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.
    Mr. Fisher: For this year.
    Mr. Cormack: No, it is a good record overall. It was dented by an unfortunate rise in inflation. My right hon. Friend came back and obtained more. Last year's funding put the matter more or less right, although that does not mean that we do not want more. My right hon. Friend has a good record on considering the Exchequer and its responsibilities.
    Mr. Fisher: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I paid tribute to the Minister when he obtained the increase last

    865
    year, although it cannot repair the damage, as I said earlier, of 10 years of underfunding. The hon. Gentleman will know of the figures that the Royal Shakespeare Company has issued. In every year of the previous five years, the figure has been below the rate of inflation. It was not just an accidental oversight that, in all but one year following Priestley, the inflation level should not even be reached. Every year since Priestley, until last year, the figures under-performed on inflation.
    Mr. Cormack: I know that, and I know that the Royal Shakespeare Company has done well to try to bring money in from "Les Miserables", for example. I also know that, if the RSC had been able to take up the option to invest in the American production, we should not be having this debate today.
    Mr. Fisher rose——
    Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member has made his speech, and I hope that he will let me make mine.
    The royal national theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the royal opera and English national opera stand in a special position. It is unfair to put a responsibility on the Arts Council which, if it has regard to all its other responsibilities, it cannot always adequately discharge. We should consider more earmarking and special funding for our great national institutions.
    That point has been brought home in the last week by the predicament of the Royal Shakespeare Company. We considered the matter at the beginning of the 1980s in the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is an active and distinguished member. We took evidence from Mr. Priestley and from Sir Kenneth Cork. One could never say that a company over whose finances Sir Kenneth Cork has presided is profligate. That is nonsense.
    We took evidence from them, and the needs became clear. It is clear that, if we want a Royal Shakespeare Company that will always be able to do honour to the greatest name in English literature, it must be paid for. That means being paid for by us, as well as by sponsors and by local authorities.
    Mr. Maclennan rose——
    Mr. Cormack: I shall not give way again, because several other hon. Members want to take part in the debate, and however brief interventions are, they distract from and prolong speeches.
    I say to my right hon. Friend that we should let the message go out to the Arts Council. My right hon. Friend has nothing to be ashamed about in his record, but in the next few months, as we move towards the next annual round, let us look specifically and in great detail at the role and needs of our great national companies. Let us see whether they could not be better served and more adequately provided for if we had more earmarked funding.
    Mr. Maclennan: At arm's length.
    Mr. Cormack: It could be. I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend should make the final decision on what the Royal Shakespeare Company has and what the national theatre has. Perhaps we should have a special committee of the Arts Council, and there may even be a case for a special body. If we are to sustain excellence in the
    866
    capital city—and we have excellence in the capital city—and if we are to promote the flourishing glory in the garden about which the Arts Council spoke, what we already have—good as it is and creditable as my right hon. Friend's record is not enough.
    Let no one say in interjection at that point that I am asking for an open-ended subsidy, because I am not. But if one weighs in the balance what is spent on the arts and recognises their contribution to the spiritual and cultural life of the nation, and to its tourist potential and economy, one sees that we get marvellous value for very little money.
    That is also the lesson of the RSC. It has made a hard commercial decision in deciding to close for four months. Given the figures, it had no alternative. I hope that, during the next few months, something will happen that will enable it to stay open throughout the year. I hope that we will be able to use the debate as an opportunity lo concentrate our minds on the very special position of those who honour our capital city and, in so doing, bring great credit to the nation.
    9.10 pm
    Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) always speaks well and eloquently for the arts. I am sure he will join me in accepting that some words of John Masefield form a suitable text for the debate:
    "Some day, in this England that has so often borne beauty,
    her genius will again move,
    in the unexpected ways of insight,
    Man will recreate the arts, or die."
    Part of the genius of England is Shakespeare and part of the genius of Great Britain is the Royal Shakespeare Company. In accordance with Masefield's text, we should never let either the spirit or the drama of Shakespeare die but always seek to renew or recreate it. If we are to be true to Masefield's text we need more, not less, plays of the calibre and standard set by the productions of the Royal Shakespeare Company of "King Lear", "Romeo and Juliet" and "Hamlet".
    To be fair, I know of two Ministers who wholeheartedly believe in Masefield's text. Unfortunately for lovers of Shakespeare, however, both are French. One is President. Francois Mitterrand and the other is Minister of Culture Jack Lang. Whereas Francois Mitterrand is the greatest patron of the arts since Louis XIV, our Prime Minister is a legendary philistine. She simply does not understand how Shakespeare moves the human spirit, delights the senses and excites the imagination. She cannot understand Shakespeare because she does not have a sense of humour or a proper sense of tragedy, nor can she cope with irony, which is essential to understanding Shakespeare.
    Jack Lang is perhaps the most popular Minister in the French Government. With great respect, I have to say to our Minister that only his close relatives and the fawningly obsequious would put him in that category. The truth is that, unless he has something special to tell us when he replies, he has not lifted a finger to help the Royal Shakespeare Company in the current crisis. In answer to parliamentary questions put down by myself, he has hidden behind the arm's-length principle. That is what he has done in the amendment. In so doing, he seeks to put the blame on the Arts Council. The Government and the Arts Council between them are seeking to get out of the mess by playing off high art against popular culture, the

    867
    regions against London, and inner-city London against central London. As an inner-city London Member, let me say that we should have none of it.
    It is perhaps not surprising that the Arts Council, having created the present shambolic position by underfunding the RSC since the 1984 Cabinet report, has reacted pathetically. It may be time for high Tory Peter Palumbo, chairman of the Arts Council, to follow Shakespeare's Richard II and think of giving up his empire.
    " … for a little grave,
    A little little grave, an obscure grave",
    as befits his little, little, obscure talents. If the real value of the subsidy recommended by the Cabinet Office in the 1984 report had been instituted, we should not be here today talking about closing down the Barbican and the Pit theatres, because the Arts Council grant to the RSC for 1990 would be £1,525,500 more than is proposed. The cumulative shortfall that we would pay to the RSC would be £5,708,479.10.
    Some 40 Labour Members have condemned the conduct of the Arts Council in that Back Bench affair. No Back-Bench Tory Member has come to their aid with amendments to the motion on the Order Paper. In early-day motion 505, Members from all parts of the kingdom called on Peter Palumbo either to find more money for the RSC or to resign. No Conservative Member has come to his rescue. Peter Palumbo has shown that he is not up to the job. He is in danger of turning the RSC—a priceless national asset—into a national liability. In my view, he should seriously consider resigning, not as some dramatic gesture to the people in the Gallery but as part of the desperate need to bring home to both the public and the Government just how deep the crisis is.
    Some people have asked me why the Arts Council has suddenly come forward with money for the English national opera but has not found extra money for the Royal Shakespeare Company. I should say immediately that I am pleased that English national opera has been given more money. I like opera. When I leave this lunatic asylum tonight, as on most evenings, I shall play some opera records. When I go to hear live opera in this country, I usually visit the ENO.
    What the Government have done is odd, because the RSC fits the Government's model better than ENO. The RSC obtains 51 per cent. of its income from the box office, whereas only 30 per cent of ENO's income comes from the box office. The Government's subsidy to the RSC is only 32 per cent. of its total income, whereas the subsidy to ENO is 50 per cent.
    What is the reason for the discrepancy in the Government's approach to those two institutions? In theory the market orientated approach of the RSC should please the Government more than the approach of ENO. The answer is simple. Despite what the Minister has said, the Government effectively abandoned the arm's-length principle when they made it clear to the Arts Council that, out of the extra funding they gave it not so long ago, they expected it to give more money to ENO.
    The Government do not care about the RSC. I challenge the Minister on this. It was not me, but Roger Bramble from Westminster city council, who said that the Minister knows full well that some of the extra cash given to the Arts Council was earmarked for ENO and the
    868
    English national ballet. That does not say much for the arm's length principle, which I do not consider to be important.
    If I may use a little irony, I do not suppose that the extra money for ENO has anything to do with the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has provided the extra cash for the arts, lists his recreation in "Who's Who" as opera or the fact that his wife is an opera singer, an opera buff and an opera biographer. Although I have nothing against grants for the arts being distributed on the basis of the sexual politics of the Chancellor's bedroom, that way of settling matters certainly can cause problems.
    If I wanted more money for the RSC, what should I do? Clearly, I would not go to the Arts Council or the Minister because they do not have the power to provide more money. I am loth to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer direct because, in the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, I constantly accuse him of being an economic illiterate. It seems that my only hope would be to try to form a liaison dangereuse with the Chancellor's wife, persuade her to act as an agent provocateur and hope that the esprit de la chambre coucher will triumph. I know that we have to translate our foreign language phrases in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Roughly translated, that means that the only way for me to obtain more money for the RSC is to have an illicit affair with the Chancellor's wife and hope that she will use her seductive wiles to obtain the money.
    Talking more seriously about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the report of Terry Hands, who I see in the Gallery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—the report of the person whom I do not see in the Gallery, to the council of the Royal Shakespeare company on 7 February this year, showed how the Chancellor's economic policies of high inflation and high interest rates have pushed RSC audiences down to 75 per cent. of capacity. Although that figure is still astonishingly high, it means that there is bound to be another substantial operating deficit for the RSC this year.
    Terry Hands has made it clear that we are fighting an ideological battle for the hearts and minds, the intellect and the imagination of the British people. We are fighting an ideological battle between the materialists, the philistines and the fashionably vulgar in modern Conservative Britain, and the civilised, educated and cultured Britain to which the rest of us aspire.
    As the Minister for the Arts goes into the Lobby tonight to vote against us, he will carry with him our contempt, our scorn and our ridicule. We must all hope that the evil that he does in the Lobby tonight will not live after him but be interred with his bones.
    9.20 pm
    Mr. Terry Dicks: I have sat in the Chamber since 7 o'clock, and I have not heard so much pompous nonsense in all my life. As always in arts debates, the great and the good come forward in their droves and talk a lot of nonsense, expecting all the ordinary people in this country to believe it.
    What surprises me most is that, with all the problems that the Labour party alleges are happening nationally and internationally, Opposition Members could find nothing better to discuss this evening than the Royal Shakespeare Company. However, I think that I know the answer to

    869
    that. It is because their leading spokesman and his deputy—a couple of middle-class socialists—know much less about the working class than I do.
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Upper-class, not middle-class.
    Mr. Dicks: I apologise: I understand that they are upper-class, not middle-class.
    Arts grants have increased by £33 million this year and now approach £500 million. That is a 12 per cent. increase. The Arts Council grant is now about £175 million. In a recent debate, the Minister said that that is because inflation has gone ahead faster than the allowance that he fed into the figures and he almost apologised for the suffering caused to the arts world as a result. But there have been no apologies elsewhere about the suffering caused to ordinary people because the money that they receive does not keep up with inflation.
    At the time, the arts lobby, and especially the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) were delighted by the grant. The Minister was tremendously praised for his efforts. I should like to ask a couple of questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is no longer in his place——
    Mr. Jessel: I am here.
    Mr. Dicks: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. My hon. Friend said that the arts contribute to the quality of life. Perhaps he could explain to me one day how the arts' contribution to the quality of life affects my pensioners and ordinary people who want to buy a pint and have a game of bingo—[Interruption.] Their quality of life is not enhanced by seeing some man prance about in a box or by listening to the different range of an opera singer.
    Other questions that I should like to ask—which nobody answers, certainly not any of the great and the good on the Opposition Benches—is, what is art? What is culture? Who defines it? The answers to those questions are personal, but I know who the hell pays for it. The ordinary chap down the street pays for most of it, while the great and the good take advantage.
    We have heard about the royal opera house. I shall show the way in which it thinks about money. I gather that it is about £3 million in debt. It spent £200,000 recently on a production. It has agreed to a 15 per cent. increase for ballet dancers who prance around, pretending they are toys, at an annual cost of £600,000. I find it strange that the arts world is up in arms about the lack of money yet ballet dancers can get a 15 per cent. increase, which is twice the rate of inflation. Nobody mentions that—certainly no Opposition Member has mentioned it. When extra money is called for, all the whingers appear on both sides of the Chamber [Interruption.] Every man, well and good, appears. Nobody should need to question the situation: everyone should understand what needs to be done. Why should we subsidise old pros dressed in doublets and hose? I do not understand.
    In common with my right hon. Friend the Minister, I could say that it is all "Much Ado About Nothing", but I am not an expert on Shakespeare. The Royal Shakespeare Company has made its bed and it must lie on it. I see no justification for a grant increase, nor can I see any justification for any grant. No one in the working class, or
    870
    the people I represent, could give a toss about the Royal Shakespeare Company staying open or closing down. There is nothing special about it.
    One can compare and contrast the RSC with the commercial theatre, which must survive by putting on a programme that people are prepared to pay an economic cost to see. The same argument applies to professional football. In common, I am sure, with many colleagues I received a copy of a letter from Ken Bates, who is the chairman of Chelsea football club. He says:
    "The Arts Council grant to the Opera House this year is more than £13·3 million, or £75,000 a week … I'd be interested to know what percentage that is of the Opera House's total income."
    So would I.
    "Far from offering us any subsidy or assistance, it"—
    the Government—
    "takes £300 million a year in betting tax out of the game, which is equal to £3 million per Football League club"
    Is it not strange that the working-class pastime gets hammered by the taxman while the upper-class pastime—I notice that a member of the middle class is sitting next to the upper-class man on the Opposition Front Bench—is subsidised all the time by the rest of us.
    The poor chap down the road must pay the full whack to see Brentford or Chelsea, apart from the cost that he must meet in the future towards increased safety in those football grounds. He must pay for that ticket from his own pocket, but the great and the good, in their bow ties and long frocks, get them paid for by someone else. It is strange that we adopt such an approach to the upper class in this House and we forget the ordinary people who put us here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that the audience is so good, and that most of the audience have had a good dinner.
    Child benefit has not been uprated for a couple of years and the ambulance men are being offered only 6·5 per cent. for this year——
    Mr. John Battle: What has the hon. Gentleman done about that?
    Mr. Dicks: I spoke against the decision not to give the ambulance men that increase, so I am on the right side. On the community charge, only 4 per cent. is allowed for inflation in the rate support grant settlement; that is why I voted against it recently. All those figures are way below inflation, but 12 per cent. funding was given to the arts this year, and I believe that 11 per cent. will be given to the arts next year. Why is that genuine need, as represented by child benefit, the ambulance men or an inflation allowance in the rate support grant are downgraded when they receive Government grant, yet the arts receive 12 per cent. funding, way above inflation?
    The arts are the only areas of activity not looked at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but every other aspect of Government spending is examined year by year to see if it is fair. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has a point, bearing in mind his views about the background of the Chancellor and of his wife. The Government emphasis on public expenditure control cannot be as firm as they claim when they give money to the arts.
    I can see no case for any arts subsidy, and there is no case for helping the Royal Shakespeare Company. Economic costing is the only fair way in which to operate. If people think that something is that good, they are prepared to pay the full cost. The only reason why people

    871
    go to the RSC now is that the rest of us pay 30 quid towards their seat. That cannot be right. No leisure pursuit, mine or anyone else's, should be subsidised. My football watching and old-age pensioners' bingo playing have as much right to be subsidised as the arts although, preferably, nobody should be subsidised.
    The definition of what is or is not art has never been given by the arty-farty crowd opposite—[Laughter.] I am sorry if I used the wrong word, but I do not know the French equivalent. To subsidise or not to subsidise, that is the question. In my view, the answer should be an emphatic no.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Frank Haynes: That really was a two-faced contribution. I watch what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) does in this Chamber: whenever a proposal that the Government oppose is made from the Opposition Dispatch Box in the interests of those people at the lower end of the scale, particularly the lower-paid workers, the hon. Gentleman goes into the No Lobby. He does not support us, and that is why his contribution was two-faced. He does not realise that many people in the lower income group are interested in the arts. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] Who said rubbish? This is wrong—we have the deputy Chief Whip saying, "Rubbish," to a contribution that was made by the Opposition. I shall have to refer him to the Chief Whip for the contribution that he has just made.
    It is important to note that the two-faced contribution of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was as bad as the Minister's speech. The Minister is not listening, but talking to the deputy Chief Whip who just said, "Rubbish." I said that the Minister's speech was as bad as the hon. Gentleman's speech because the Minister put on a lot of gloss and left out much of the substance underneath. The Minister should realise that there is a lot of suffering in the arts.
    There is a crisis, and not just in the London area, where everyone wants to come to work, live and make pots of money. I live in a constituency up in the east midlands, where people struggle. We have an interest in the arts, but slowly but surely, because of the Government's attitude, we are losing it. The Minister has some responsibility for that. They tell me that he is Minister for the Arts, yet he can stand up at the Dispatch Box and say, "It's his responsibility and his responsibility, but not mine." Who is he kidding? The Prime Minister appointed him to do a job on behalf of the arts of this country. It is high time he started to do it properly.
    The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has a smile on his face. I shall remind the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes that not long ago we had a first-class debate on the film industry. I remember talking about his beautiful mother who worked in that industry—she is gorgeous. I am not afraid to say that I have held her in my arms—[Laughter.] I am talking about real art.
    Nottinghamshire county council and my own Ashfield district council contribute fairly strongly to the arts locally, but the Government destroy them by the cuts that they have made in grants to local authorities. That means
    872
    that there have to be cuts here, there and everywhere. That is what they are like; that is what they are all about. They make cuts here, there and everywhere.
    The Minister must realise that there is real quality in the arts at the lower end of the scale, and we want to lift the people who provide that into the gloss about which the Minister talked earlier. The gloss can look after itself, but what is beneath that needs looking after and the Minister is responsible for that. That is why we have had this debate today. That is why we want to tell the Minister in no uncertain terms how we feel and what should be done. We do not want to listen to stupid contributions such as the one we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
    There is a crisis in the arts throughout Britain. The Minister made a little comment to me at the last Question Time on the arts. He made a marvellous contribution today, which was real acting: it was not honest; it was not true. I suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, consult the powers that be with a view to providing a drama award in the House. Let the first award be made to the Minister for the Arts. I have got my own back, have I not? I was waiting for the opportunity and, by God, it came along tonight. I have had to wait since 2.30 but, by God, it was worth it.
    9.35 pm
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: I have been called upon, Mr. Speaker, to do the impossible—to follow two magnificent acts. It only goes to prove the old theatrical principle that the audience will follow a star performer. To see hon. Members return to the Chamber when my hon. Friend for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) rose to his feet was a measure of the significance and great importance of his contribution to the arts and to the debate in the House.
    The subject that we are debating causes sadness and regret on both sides of the House. When a great, much respected and much loved company which gives so much pleasure to so many finds it necessary to cut the number of its performances and productions, we must feel some sadness. We recognise that the theatre presents the world of fantasy upon the stage, but we must also realise that it lives in the world of reality offstage. It has to make many artistic judgments and, at the same time, many commercial judgments. The need to bring those two judgments into balance is one of the great difficulties with which all cultural and artistic endeavour has to wrestle. Today we recognise that the cultural and the commercial, the artistic and the real, produce a tension which is of value in espousing and encouraging cultural endeavour.
    The threat to the Royal Shakespeare Company comes from its presentation of classical drama. It has been innovative and has encouraged wider development, but the time has come for it to consider its identity, to think about the thing that it does best, to bring into balance its commercial and cultural concerns and to look to the future in a spirit of positive optimism, not with regret that it has had to close one of its stages for a short time during the year.
    The debate also raises the wider issue of what should be a Government's policy in such a situation. Conservative Members have endorsed the Government's policy that the arm's-length principle should apply—that money should be given to an intermediary, which is independent and

    873
    objective in its artistic judgment, to ensure that the money is allocated in the best possible way without any direct Government interference in the cultural or artistic input.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and other Opposition Members have paid lip service to the arm's-length principle, but I suspect that that implied a financial finger firmly in the artistic pie. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the arts should rely on state subsidies, on public money, as their main source of support. I believe that the arts have blossomed by virtue of the diversity of their funding. Money should and does come from the state, in the form of public subsidy through the Arts Council, but it should also come from sponsorship, for corporate reasons, from individual firms, whose motives may be higher in some cases than in others. A third but most important ingredient is the box office—the individual contribution and desire to pay the price of a ticket to see a production.
    The benefit to the arts of receiving funding from those three sources is inestimable. The danger of any arts organisation, institution or theatre relying for its funding on a single source is that it will become wholly dependent on that source. We have known instances in the past when an entirety of public funding has brought with it implications of corruption.
    The Government's policy of a plurality of funding has brought about a flourishing of the arts, the like of which has not been seen before this century. It has brought about a diversity of the arts. A diversity of funding brings about a diversity of production, and that should be applauded.
    9.41 pm
    Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the shadow Arts Minister, the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on being so determined to arrange this debate in what is obviously Opposition prime time. They had to face a bit of flak from their own side, because the Terry Dicks tendency is behind us as well as in front of us.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends know that an economically efficient and socially just society will not only address the problems of homelessness, poverty and unemployment that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) mentioned. Such a society will support also a thriving and burgeoning arts expenditure. It is a mark of a confident and strong society that it encourages and nurtures the arts. The Victorians did it in the past in this country, and the French, Germans and Italians do it today.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is not in his place, because listening to him opining on the arts is rather like listening to Vlad the Impaler presenting "Blue Peter". The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly living proof that a pig's bladder on a stick can be elected as a Member of Parliament.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I know—but although the hon. Gentleman's comments may not be very pleasant, they are not unparliamentary.
    Mr. Banks: They were artistic, Mr. Speaker. I am just sorry that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was not in his place to hear them. Still, I do not wish to offend you, Mr. Speaker.
    874
    It is a comment on the depressing state of Britain today, with all its economic inefficiencies and social injustices, that a great cultural institution such as the Royal Shakespeare Company faces the crisis that it does. I speak of the theatre that bears and propagates the name of the greatest English playwright. However, the crisis that afflicts the RSC is not confined to that company. The English national opera, royal opera house, south bank centre, London Festival Ballet and royal national theatre all face similar problems. Those problems extend to our museums and art galleries. We have heard complaints about the crumbling fabric of the Victoria and Albert museum and of the British museum that should shame us all. We are squandering a wonderful inheritance.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned regional arts institutions, which are struggling to survive. We are not just talking about high art or middle-class art, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned, but all the provincial and municipal theatres in towns and cities throughout the country, which provide a lot of pleasure for working-class people and are also facing a crisis.
    My own theatre, the Theatre royal, Stratford, is one——
    Mr. Cormack: This is your theatre.
    Mr. Banks: is a damn sight more compensated and better heeled than my own, which has seven new productions a year. We have tried to get business sponsorship for the theatre in Stratford. Perhaps hon. Members remember seeing the comment in the article in The Stage by the Minister—
    "Private funding is the engine of arts expansion"
    That is where the Minister thinks the real money for the future is coming from. However, The Stage shortly afterwards said:
    "'We've been lumbered' say arts sponsors"—
    because the businesses and companies that sponsor the arts realise that they will be left holding the baby, and that they will attract great odium if they withdraw the sponsorship, which they provided as top-up money, only to find that they are held responsible for the collapse of a particular arts institution. The future does not lie with business sponsorship, as the Minister implied in that article.
    We face a depressing scenario in the arts, but one which is typical of the Prime Minister's philistinism and the unimaginative, shoddy, second-rate Government that run the country. It is typical of a Prime Minister who goes to see "The Mousetrap" and re-reads whodunits. Who has to read a whodunit, when she knew whodunit when she read it again? It is typical of a Prime Minister who is happier getting in and out of tanks than in and out of museums or theatre seats, and who seems to derive more pleasure from admiring new missiles than great works of art. What else can we expect from an ex-Spam hoarder from Grantham, presiding over the social and economic decline of our country?
    Why are the Royal Shakespeare Company and the arts so important? I say to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who is now back in his place, that the arts are certainly not more important than homelessness, unemployment and the transport chaos that we have in this country, but the arts are as important as those areas of expenditure.

    875
    I have two reasons for saying that. First, an age is more likely to be judged by the standards and the excellence of its architecture, music, painting, sculpture and literature than by obsolete weapons of death and destruction. Involvement in the arts, either as a creator or a consumer, is one of the finest forms of human activity that we can encourage. I remind Conservative Members that there is very little crowd violence at the opera houses these days.
    Secondly—this should appeal to the monetarists opposite—the economic significance of the arts is continually underestimated and undervalued. They have a £12 billion turnover; the industry employs some 450,000 people; it contributes £4 billion to the balance of payments. That is a record of economic achievement that should have everyone in the House applauding.
    People do not come to this country to see office blocks, Third-world roads or crumbling transport infrastructure, or to learn how to control inflation or enjoy traffic jams. They come here to enjoy the enormously rich art legacy that we have inherited. The come for theatres, art galleries and museums. I remind Conservative Members that that legacy is as important as North sea oil, but unlike oil, it will not run out. However, it can be run down, and that is what is happening to the arts in this country today.
    It is our responsibility to build on what we have, and to invest in the arts, because it is one of the finest forms of public expenditure investment that any Government can make.
    The Minister made great play of the recent increase in subsidy for the arts. We told him that he has done better this year than before, and better than some other Ministers, and we praise him for that, but in 1990–91, arts expenditure will be one third of 1 per cent. of public expenditure, while defence expenditure will be 11·8 per cent. It is interesting that we should have one of the highest defence budgets in western Europe, and one of the smallest arts budgets.
    The current events in eastern Europe provide previously undreamed-of opportunities for world peace and harmony. We must match those great events with bold, imaginative political leadership. We need the vision and confidence in Britain that will allow us to turn tanks into tractors, bullets into ballet and bombs into books. There is no such vision and confidence among the clapped-out second-raters on the Conservative Benches, but those qualities are present in abundance among Opposition Members.
    The Government's time is almost finished: Labour is poised on the threshold of a golden future. The arts need a Labour victory, and they will soon get one.
    9.50 pm
    Mr. Luce: Without a shadow of doubt, the debate has been both colourful and entertaining. I have been recommended for one or two things in my life, but never for a drama award, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for suggesting it.
    I found myself buffeted between two extraordinary speeches—one by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). One condemned me for my almost evil approach to policy and to tonight's vote; the other stated that it was
    876
    disgraceful of me to increase taxpayers' support for the arts. I am beginning to think that perhaps I have got the balance about right.
    Although the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) focused mainly on the Royal Shakespeare company in both the motion and the opening of his speech, this was a broad-ranging motion relating to every aspect of the arts. I welcomed that, although some hon. Members clearly thought otherwise.
    As always, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made a colourful and enjoyable speech; nevertheless, when I came to assess the value of what he said, I found it very difficult. One strand was clear from the beginning—his contempt for the private sector's role in supporting the arts. He said at the outset that he despised it.
    The Government's role, as I see it, is to underpin arts support with taxpayers' money—and we are maintaining that commitment with public funding for the next three years—but also to provide a climate for the expansion of the arts through the private sector. Spokesmen for the arts say repeatedly that the arts thrive on independence and freedom of expression. I believe that that should be encouraged, but success is possible only if the arts are not wholly dependent on the taxpayer and the ratepayer through central Government or local authorities. That is not to reject the importance of the role of taxpayer and ratepayer, but it highlights the important role that the private sector can play in sustaining the self-reliance and independence of the arts world.
    The arts deserve to be congratulated on what they have achieved over the past five years. They have diversified their sources of funding and have sought to increase audiences through sheer professional management, sponsorship, patronage and increased contributions from individuals as well as corporations. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) for stressing the need for plurality of funding to secure that independence.
    I must pick on the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch again. I always think that a person shows great weakness or paucity of argument if all that he can do is indulge in personal abuse. That is what the hon. Gentleman did. He abused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the chairman of the Arts Council. He made disgraceful remarks about Mr. Palumbo. The chairman of the Arts Council loves the arts. He is prepared to dedicate his time to leadership of the Arts Council. He commands the respect of those in the arts world. He has travelled all around the country. The hon. Gentleman should not have made such disgraceful remarks about the chairman of the Arts Council.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made a most reflective and interesting speech. He has a great knowledge and feeling for our heritage and the arts. He referred to the Barbican. It is interesting that the Barbican has not featured greatly in the debate. During the past eight years, however, it has made a great contribution to increasing support for the arts through the range of entertainment that it provides.
    I understand that broad agreement has been reached between the Barbican and the Royal Shakespeare Company about arrangements. It is only right that we should acknowledge the Barbican's role, as well as that of the City of London, in supporting the arts in London, and

    877
    generally, directly and also indirectly. I take seriously what my hon. Friend said in his notable speech and I am grateful for what he said.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to a number of issues, but he spoke principally about the Royal Shakespeare Company. He also referred to support for the arts in London, in centres of excellence and in the regions. Having been to Inverness, I know that the Eden Court theatre, although it is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, provides outstanding quality and does a great service to that part of Scotland.
    There is already a formula for the disbursement of funds to both Wales and Scotland. It is known as the Goschen formula. It gives a reasonable deal to Scotland. I admire very much the Scottish Arts Council's support for the highest standards of excellence in the arts. It is always difficult to achieve the right balance between the centre and the regions, but I believe that the Arts Council has got it about right. It is for the Arts Council to decide how much money should be given to the flagships, including the Royal Shakespeare Company, and how much should be given to others.
    The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) also made an important speech. I gladly congratulate Glasgow on its enormous contribution to the arts—its art collections, art galleries and the remarkable ballet and opera companies and orchestras that are based in Glasgow. I have great faith that next year will be a tremendous year for Glasgow and for this country.
    The hon. Member for Paisley, South referred also to the fabric of our national museums and galleries. This is the first Government to give a clear commitment that during the 1990s we shall ensure that sufficient money is spent—principally by Her Majesty's Government, because it is taxpayers' money which has to be spent on the fabric—on ensuring that the fabric of these institutions is in good shape. If the private sector is prepared to play a role, I shall welcome it—as, I am sure, will the hon. Member for Paisley, South.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse') made an excellent speech. He drew attention to the importance of quality in the arts and to the royal charter of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Its charter emphasises the important balance which has to be struck between performances not just of Shakespeare but drama of all kinds.
    Much of the focus has been on the Royal Shakespeare Company. As I said in my opening speech, it is a great centre of excellence and it should be given high priority. It is therefore right that the Arts Council decided to increase funding by 11 per cent. in the coming year so that its funding is more than £6 million, but equally, it is for the Arts Council to argue the case to me on behalf of all the arts, including the Royal Shakespeare Company, and for me then to discuss with my colleagues what overall resources should be available. With that in mind, there has been a £20 million increase in cash terms for the Arts Council for next year and a 22 per cent. increase for the next three years. That is a real indication of the Government's commitment to the arts.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 272.

    Division No. 86]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    George, Bruce

    Allen, Graham

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Alton, David

    Gordon, Mildred

    Anderson, Donald

    Gould, Bryan

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Graham, Thomas

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Ashton, Joe

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hardy, Peter

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Barron, Kevin

    Haynes, Frank

    Beckett, Margaret

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Beith, A. J.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Bell, Stuart

    Henderson, Doug

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Hinchliffe, David

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

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Home Robertson, John

    Blunkett, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Boateng, Paul

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Boyes, Roland

    Howells, Geraint

    Bradley, Keith

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Illsley, Eric

    Buchan, Norman

    Janner, Greville

    Buckley, George J.

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Caborn, Richard

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Canavan, Dennis

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Lamond, James

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Leighton, Ron

    Clay, Bob

    Lewis, Terry

    Clelland, David

    Livingstone, Ken

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Livsey, Richard

    Cohen, Harry

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Corbett, Robin

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Cox, Tom

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Cryer, Bob

    McLeish, Henry

    Cummings, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    McNamara, Kevin

    Cunningham, Dr John

    McWilliam, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Madden, Max

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

    Marek, Dr John

    Dewar, Donald

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Dixon, Don

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dobson, Frank

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Doran, Frank

    Martlew, Eric

    Douglas, Dick

    Maxton, John

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Meacher, Michael

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Meale, Alan

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Michael, Alun

    Eadie, Alexander

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Eastham, Ken

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fatchett, Derek

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Faulds, Andrew

    Morley, Elliot

    Fearn, Ronald

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

    Mullin, Chris

    Fisher, Mark

    Murphy, Paul

    Flannery, Martin

    Nellist, Dave

    Flynn, Paul

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    O'Brien, William

    Foster, Derek

    O'Neill, Martin

    Fraser, John

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Fyfe, Maria

    Patchett, Terry

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Pendry, Tom

    879

    Pike, Peter L.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Stott, Roger

    Radice, Giles

    Straw, Jack

    Randall, Stuart

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Richardson, Jo

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Robertson, George

    Turner, Dennis

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Wallace, James

    Rogers, Allan

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wilson, Brian

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Winnick, David

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Short, Clare

    Worthington, Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

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

    Mr. John Battle and Mr. John McFall.

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Soley, Clive

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Day, Stephen

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amess, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Amos, Alan

    Durant, Tony

    Arbuthnot, James

    Eggar, Tim

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Evennett, David

    Ashby, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Atkins, Robert

    Favell, Tony

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Forman, Nigel

    Beggs, Roy

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Benyon, W.

    Franks, Cecil

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Freeman, Roger

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gardiner, George

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gill, Christopher

    Boswell, Tim

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bottomley, Peter

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Gorst, John

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gow, Ian

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brazier, Julian

    Gregory, Conal

    Bright, Graham

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

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

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Grist, Ian

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Ground, Patrick

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hague, William

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Butcher, John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butterfill, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hannam, John

    Carrington, Matthew

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

    Cash, William

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Churchill, Mr

    Harris, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hayward, Robert

    Cormack, Patrick

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Couchman, James

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    880

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Norris, Steve

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hill, James

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Page, Richard

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Paice, James

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

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Pawsey, James

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Portillo, Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Price, Sir David

    Irvine, Michael

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Jack, Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Janman, Tim

    Redwood, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Key, Robert

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Kilfedder, James

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Rost, Peter

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rowe, Andrew

    Knapman, Roger

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Ryder, Richard

    Knowles, Michael

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Knox, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Latham, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lightbown, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lilley, Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Speed, Keith

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Speller, Tony

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Squire, Robin

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Maclean, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Stern, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stevens, Lewis

    Madel, David

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Maples, John

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Marland, Paul

    Stokes, Sir John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mellor, David

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mills, lain

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Moate, Roger

    Thurnham, Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Tredinnick, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trippier, David

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Trotter, Neville

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Mudd, David

    Walden, George

    Neale, Gerrard

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Needham, Richard

    Waller, Gary

    Nelson, Anthony

    Ward, John

    Neubert, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Watts, John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Whitney, Ray

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    881

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wood, Timothy

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House recognises the Government's outstanding record in supporting the Arts, which means that more people throughout the country are now enjoying the Arts at an unprecedented standard of excellence; congratulates the Government on increasing its funding of the Arts by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and by a further 24 per cent. over the next three years; welcomes the increased support of 31 per cent. to the national museums and galleries to restore their fabric and the continuing funding of the new British Library; reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining support for the Arts while supporting its approach of encouraging arts organisations to become more self-sufficient; acknowledges the important role of the Royal Shakespeare Company; and endorses the principle of arm's length funding whereby decisions about the funding of individual organisations are made by the Arts Council.

    Clergy (Ordination)
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper——
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
    Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, which will last for only an hour and a half. I ask hon. Members to make brief speeches so that as many as possible may be called. As this is not a party political issue but one on which hon. Members on both sides of the House hold views, the Chair may not necessarily go from one side to the other of the Chamber, but it will seek to balance the debate.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of seeking to catch your eye, but I should like one piece of advice before the debate begins. Is it not normally the case that a matter on which the House has reached a decision is rarely brought back to the House within 12 months? If, for example, the Government lose a vote, they accept it and that is that. Why is it that in this case, we have to consider again a Measure on which we have already taken a decision less than 12 months ago?
    Mr. Speaker: That decision was taken in the previous Session of Parliament. This is the new Session, so the motion is in order.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
    That the Clergy (Ordination) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament in the last Session.
    I am sorry to have to trouble the House with the rather unusual re-run of a Church of England Measure that has already been debated once in the House. On that occasion, it failed to obtain approval. I feel a little like a nervous curate having to call the banns of marriage for the second time and inquiring whether anyone knows cause or just impediment why the motion of the House and the motion of the General Synod may not be joined together in harmony. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) ——
    Mr. Harry Greenway rose——
    Mr. Alison: I must get on a little.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds jumped the gun even before the banns were called for the second time. An exceptional circumstance arose the last time that the Measure was considered, on 17 July 1989, in that, contrary to all expectations, we reached it only at 2.6 am and the vote was not taken until 3.35 am. That late hour was considered by many inside and outside the House not to do justice either to the great importance—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr.Greenway rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me go first, please. A great deal of private conversation is going on. This is an important measure.
    Mr. Alison: I think that you will find that there is a series of mini-debates, Mr. Speaker, and I trust that they will emerge in a consensus at the end of the debate.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Alison: No, as I must get on a little. I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.
    That late hour was considered by many inside and outside the House not to do justice either to the great importance attached to the measure by the Church of England General Synod or to the sensitive personal cases involving a number of our constituents whose lives were and are profoundly affected by the measure's fate. Hence the decision taken late last year by the General Synod to ask the House of Commons in this new Session to reconsider the Measure and our earlier verdict on it at a more reasonable and propitious hour. The hour is certainly more reasonable than it was last year.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
    Mr. Alison: It remains to be seen whether the hour is more propitious.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
    Mr. Greenway rose——
    Mr. Alison: I give way to my hon. Friend who caught my eye first.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Alison: It may simplify your problem, Mr. Speaker, if I cancel both offers to give way.
    As a result of the substantial controversy and constituency correspondence that the Measure has generated—not least because of the hour at which it suffered defeat last July—right hon. and hon. Members of all parties are now reasonably familiar with the issues at stake, so I need not weary the House on this occasion with a long explanatory speech. I shall be brief, in the interests of allowing as many of my colleagues as possible to enter the debate. I hope, by leave of the House, to speak again for a few minutes at the end of our debate to deal with particular points or queries raised by right hon. and hon. Members, which should receive a response.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
    Mr. Alison: I want to get on further; I shall certainly give way later.
    The issue to which the Measure addresses itself is quite narrow. It relates to the marital circumstances of men and women who decide that they wish to seek ordination as priests or deacons in the Church of England. Under the law as it stands, a previous divorce is no necessary bar to such individuals seeking ordination, but remarriage after divorce constitutes such a bar under certain circumstances. Thus, under existing canon law, there is an absolute bar against a candidate seeking ordination if he or she is married and has a previous spouse still living from an earlier marriage, or if the partner to whom he or she is currently married likewise has a previous partner from an earlier marriage still living.
    884
    That absolute bar reflects, for Christians at least, Christ's unequivocal teaching about marriage as a lifelong, permanent union, which only death can properly dissolve, and remarriage after divorce, although not after a partner's death, as adulterous if a previous partner is still living, although Christ also taught the possibility of grace and forgiveness.
    I hasten to add that the Measure does not seek to question, abrogate or repudiate that fundamental Christian doctrinal position. Indeed, that fundamental position is rehearsed and reasserted as normative in the Measure, in its very first clause. Hon. Members who look at the clause will see that plainly.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend understand and accept that that very point is a bar for almost all of us? How can that bar apply to people who have been divorced, who seek to be remarried in church and who are prevented by the bar from doing so, yet, if the Measure goes through, it will not prevent a man or woman in due course from being ordained? That same individual, having been ordained, will have to enforce the very bar that the Measure seeks to remove.
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend, for whom I have respect and affection, is misinformed. There is no statute law debarring divorced men and women from being married in the Church of England. Any clergyman who marries a divorced man or woman cannot be proceeded against by any Church disciplinary measure.
    The much narrower point at issue in the Measure is whether provision should be made in and by the Church of England to allow occasional exceptions to the absolute bar in specially deserving cases. After long reflection, extending over several years, the General Synod decided by a substantial majority that provision should be made for such occasional exceptions, each case to be individually weighed and determined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York themselves, exclusively.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
    Mr. Alison: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not giving way to her, so she had better save her breath for when she makes her speech.
    It is to legislate for occasional dispensation only that the measure is brought before the House. Our own parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee has likewise by a majority endorsed the position of the Synod, as our report to the House makes clear. It is not difficult to cite cases in which the special dispensation of the archbishops might reasonably be exercised.
    The most compelling case of which I am aware is of a mature candidate who decided to seek ordination after an active secular career. It is an actual, not a hypothetical, case. He and his wife have had a long and happy marriage, and have grown-up children. His wife was once briefly married in her teens; that marriage was never consummated. No full and proper marriage took place and the marriage could have been annulled. However, the parties involved decided that divorce rather than annulment was a quicker and less unsavoury experience in ending the marriage and the girl was divorced. As a result, the husband is debarred on a technicality, so to speak, from seeking ordination, to which he has a strong vocation. If the Measure is passed, it will enable special

    885
    dispensations to be granted to people in such cases. Other cases can and probably will be cited by other hon. Members during the debate.
    I hope that no one will argue that it is improper for Parliament to consider these matters. Marriage in our society is of immense consequence and interest to Church and state alike. I repeat the figures that I cited last July. In the latest year for which figures are available, 1986, 348,000 registered marriages in England and Wales—well over half—were solemnised in religious ceremonies. Of those, one third were solemnised in Church of England ceremonies.
    Constituents are deeply interested in these matters and in religious matters generally as they affect public policy. Churchgoing is still the most popular voluntary communal activity in Britain, far outstripping——
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It will not be, the way things are going.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that her behaviour does not improve her chances of being called?
    Mr. Alison: One has only to recall the interest taken during the last Parliament in Sunday trading and in the present Parliament in religious broadcasting, to make the point. The great majority of our population who identify with the Christian religion—probably about 80 per cent. according to surveys—but who are not active churchgoers tend to write to their Members of Parliament about religious matters to express their fears rather than to members of the General Synod.
    Parliament rightly established the Church of England General Synod so that more time and specialised consideration could be given to matters by that body. But Parliament rightly reserved for itself the last word. Parliament represents a reasonable cross-section of religious interests, commitment and concern in our society.
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Alison: No, I have nearly finished. I hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. More than one hon. Member has tried to make this into a debate instead of a series of monologues. Is it right for my right hon. Friend to ignore interruptions or is his case so weak that it cannot——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that if an hon. Member does not wish to give way——
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This is a monologue, not a debate.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member said that he is not giving way, so that is up to him.
    Mr. Alison: That merely underlines the point that I was making—that passions run high in the House on matters of religious interest and that it is proper for Parliament to spend time on and occupy itself with such matters, which are of immense interest and concern to our constituent:;. To adapt an old saying, religion is too important to be left to the bishops and clergy—the professionals, so to speak, who dominate the General Synod.
    The General Synod, clergy and laity alike, has given lengthy, responsible and anxious thought to this strictly limited new power of dispensation, as set out in the Measure. They have reached a clear decision by a substantial majority. Our Ecclesiastical Committee endorsed that majority view of the General Synod. It has acted as Parliament was intended to act. Therefore, I commend the Measure to the House.
    10.28 pm
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: I do not wish to detain the House for long, because many hon. Members wish to contribute to this important debate. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to reflect the views of many Anglicans, who are mystified at what the Church is seeking to achieve at present. Their voice is not reflected sufficiently in the Synod, and they look to the Church to provide them with a lead in moral and other matters, but so often they are sadly disappointed.
    The measure emanates from the 1978 Lichfield report entitled "Marriage and the Church's Task", the main recommendations of which failed to be accepted, as the House will recall. It has been suggested that the Commons should not thwart the wishes of the Synod, a view that I find extraordinary bearing in mind the writ that has been served questioning the legality of the General Synod's vote. In some people's minds, this may not be the right moment for Parliament to take on the established Church and to give it a boot up the backside, but I genuinely believe that it is the right moment to make a stand against the liberal trends on matters of morality, and to conclude that to allow the ordination of men who have been divorced and have then remarried makes a mockery of the Church's teaching.
    The Lichfield report stated:
    "it seems clear that Jesus made an uncompromising statement about divorce: a man or a woman who remarries after divorce commits adultery."
    Of course we understand the pressures of modern day life on families and on marriage. Of course we understand the dilemma faced by individuals who feel that they have been called by God to serve in this very particular way. However, such people could find many other ways in which they could serve God and their fellow man, and they should seek out those alternative ways.
    The House must realise that tonight we are being asked to bend the rules to enable a few—240 at present——
    Mr. Robert Hayward rose——
    Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman will have his say in a few moments.
    We are being asked to bend the rules to allow 240 people to become priests. These are not necessarily hard cases—there are very few hard cases—and we in the House know only too well that good legislation is never introduced for hard cases. We must take the broader view and decide what is in the best interests of the Church as a whole and of the people of this country as a whole, and not of those hard cases.
    Mr. Hayward: Does not the church also teach us to forgive, as well as moral certainty?
    Mrs. Winterton: I have never suggested that this should not be about forgiveness. One can forgive, but one must remember that, when someone has married, he has stood before an altar, in his right mind, has decided to take the other person on and has said that the marriage should last "until death us do part". If that is meaningless, I suggest that those who seek to go into the priesthood are forgetting one of the basic tenets of their faith, which would be a great mistake. This is not about forgiveness
    888
    —of course people forgive—but about something more fundamental. As I have asked, we are being asked to bend those rules.
    I do so hope that we shall reject the Measure because we must not dilute even further the influence and the example of the Church at a time when the country is longing for a strong moral lead. I beg the House to overthrow the Measure once again.
    10.33 pm
    Mr. Tony Benn: I invite the House to support the Measure, for three reasons. The first is that the Church wants it. Secondly, the Church of England, being a state-controlled Church, can at present achieve what it wants only if the House votes for it. Thirdly, in so far as any individual can assess it, the Measure removes the anomaly whereby one can be a priest, be divorced, remarry and continue to be a priest. I also support the Measure because it affects certain people who have a vocation which it is not for the House to deny.
    I am totally unimpressed by the arguments used against the Measure, including the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). The House is made up of many faiths and there is no requirement, as once there was, to be an Anglican in order to be elected to the House. The house has no moral authority or mandate to set its judgment above that of the Synod. I challenge any hon. Members to claim that they gave a pledge, whether in a party manifesto or in an election address, that on Church Measures they would vote against those which they did not like. If any hon. Members could assure me that they had notified their constituents that they had such a mandate, they might be in a special position, but I do not believe that to be the case.
    The argument about constitutional rights is not a valid one. The Crown has the constitutional right to reject all our legislation but does not exercise it. The Crown has the right to dismiss the Prime Minister at any time without question, but it does not exercise it. Similarly, the Crown has the right to dissolve Parliament at any time, but it does not exercise that right. The argument about constitutional rights should not carry any weight in the House.
    The arguments used against the Measure rest on double standards, for who liberalised the divorce laws but Parliament? Parliament has liberalised those laws regularly. Hon. Members can be divorced. Sir Anthony Eden was divorced when he became Prime Minister yet under our State Church. as a divorced man he had the power to appoint bishops. It is nonsense that the House should set its judgment on this matter above that of the Synod.
    The debate brings into sharp focus the question of Church-state relations. I believe that one of the motives of those who wish to overthrow the Measure is that Church pronouncements on peace, poverty and social justice have greatly angered some Conservative Members. They do not like it, but without being offensive, I will not take lectures on moral standards from those who have enacted legislation which has caused so much social injustice.
    I was brought up on the Old Testament, on the conflict between the kings who exercised the power and the prophets who preached righteousness. The story in the Old Testament would have been different if the kings had appointed the prophets. But I do not have much time for churchmen who protect the establishment.

    889
    I attended the coronation service and I have brought the order of service with me. I remember the occasion well—2 June 1953. One of the few pledges that the Queen gave to the Archbishop of Canterbury was the following:
    "Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
    Queen: All this I promise to do."
    The bishops are part of a privileged group in our society. They sit in the House of Lords and they have a special status. They insist on maintaining the blasphemy laws, which has an element of contemporary importance.For one reason why the Muslims are angry is that they are not protected by those laws, which the bishops insist should protect the Church of England.
    This is a time for a fresh look, though I know that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who moved the Measure, does not agree with my reasons for supporting it. A few weeks ago the Soviet Parliament repealed article 6 of its constitution. Article 6 established Marxism-Leninism as the only political faith in Russia. The Russians have disestablished Marxism-Leninism. In this country, there are Protestants, Nonconformists, Catholics, Hindus and Muslims, yet we are told, on the advice of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, that we must preserve Parliament's power to control one church.
    Tonight's vote will be a watershed. It is a crowded House. The early moments of the debate did not give me the idea that the House was an appropriate body to deal with such a matter. I did not think that the behaviour of some hon. Members confirmed our right to exercise the powers which, by statute, we have. If we accept the Measure, we are accepting the Church's right to be free. If we reject the Measure, the Church will demand its freedom.
    There is no doubt that if Parliament rejects the Measure for a second time, the pressure in the Church of England for disestablishment will grow. I happen to share that wish, but I do not want to see it brought about by denying justice to people whom the Church, in its wisdom, considers eligible for ordination. Therefore, whichever way the vote goes will be a step towards disestablishment—de facto if we accept the Measure, de jure if we reject it.
    I shall conclude because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. State control of religion is a feudal survival. The sooner we end it, and end the farce of debates such as this, the better it will be for the Church of England and for the House.
    10.42 pm
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I do not think that we help our case on either side by besmirching the motives of those who argue against us. This is an issue about which people feel strongly. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has shown how strongly he feels about it. He is entitled to his view and has been honest about it. He is not an Anglican, but he has every right to speak in this assembly on these issues, because that is the nature of an established Church.
    890
    The problem with this issue is that it is not as simple as it has been made out to be. The Church of England sought to reform all its divorce laws. It brought forward a major motion. In order to pass it, it needed a two-thirds majority. It could not get that majority because many people believed that, in a world where divorce was becoming a major problem and in a nation with the highest divorce rate in the European Community, the Church should continue to uphold the sanctity of marriage and the notion of the lifelong union.
    The bishops sought to find an answer, and discovered that they could not. Therefore, they withdrew from the Synod the general proposition and left us with this small rump bit. Had they said to the Synod, "Because this is so essential a matter and one that people feel so strongly about, we are not prepared to take the whole issue through; nevertheless on this issue, we will have the two-thirds majority which is necessary for so major a change," many of us would have been much happier.
    However, instead of doing that, the bishops said that there would be no two-thirds majority. We understand why, because in the House of Laity—this House has a particular concern for that House—they have never managed to get a two-thirds majority. They have had a substantial majority, but not the majority which, under the generally understood nature of the Church of England, they needed to make so substantial a change.
    It is a substantial change, because it means that we shall ordain men who, from the beginning of their ministry, will be unable to turn to young couples coming for advice on marriage and say to them, "The Church stands by our Lord's direct command to uphold marriage as a lifelong union. Therefore, under the rules that most bishops insist upon, you cannot be remarried in church, because you cannot remake the vows that you originally made."
    Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I want to be brief. I think that my hon. Friend will find that I answer him in due course.
    That is what the Church said——
    Mr. Roger Stott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: This is a matter of considerable pain and importance to many, and it would be helpful if all hon. Members were allowed to develop their arguments to see what the answer is.
    Mr. Stott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: The priest who has to advise people——
    Mr. Stott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way to someone who has been remarried in church?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The tight hon. Gentleman said that he is not giving way.
    Mr. Gummer: The priest will have to say that he has not been able to carry that out, and in that sense he is not the person who stands for the highest that the Church can ask for.
    Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way. Many people wish to speak and I have been asked to keep my remarks short.
    The issue is surely whether the Church has the right to say of those who stand at the altar in the place of Jesus that they should set an example of a kind that may not be asked of other people. I think that it has. In those circumstances, other Churches say that a man may not marry at all. They ask for celibacy generally. The Orthodox Church says that one may marry but not divorce or remarry after divorce. The Church of England is merely saying, as it has always said, that priests may divorce but may not remarry, because that is to take the vow a second time.
    If the Church had sought to recast the whole of its marriage arrangements and deal with the issue of annulment to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) refers, not just for priests but for all the other people who, because the Church of England has no annulment procedure, are also forced into a divorce, many of us would have gone along with the change that was necessary. But we are not faced with such a proposal. We are faced with a special proposal about the very people of whom one should ask a higher standard than one asks of others.
    What kind of signal does that give to the rest of the community? What will it mean if, for the first time, the Church of England decides to ordain not one or two difficult cases, but—as we know from the figures that have been thrashed out after a great deal of trouble, considerable pressure and several months of discussion, the Ecclesiastical Committee, having been given the figure of two or three a year—240 in the first year? There is a lot behind that, and I agree that would not be a typical year, but there is no doubt that many will be concerned, so that is a different situation from that which was presented to the Synod.
    The issue is surely also that the Church of England needs to look at its marriage and divorce legislation, for we have a much tougher rule than in any other Church in Christendom if it is kept. But, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend, it is often not kept. The Church must face that issue.
    Our problem tonight is that the Church has been denied the opportunity to face that issue. It has been given a bit of a measure. That bit has been got through without a two-thirds majority, and the House is now supposed to support what has been an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Church.
    It is no good saying that this is a matter for the Church, and we must leave it to the Church. If we have an established Church—I am not one of those who believe it to be essential—it is the duty the House to stand up for those who have been disfranchised by the mechanisms of the Church.
    I find it surprising that the motion should be brought before the House at a time when there is a court case outstanding against the principle of the way in which the Measure was put through. I know that it is in technical terms possible for the House to approve it, but I thought that the Church would have stayed its hand and waited a little, until that case had been heard. I hope that there is no truth in the report that, if the case is lost, the Church will seek costs from the very ordinary Anglican lay people who took the matter to court. If that is true, the Church ought to think again, because it was right to take that case to court.
    892
    There may be another Session for us, but there is not another session for the Synod. There are synodical elections towards the end of this year. Why was the Church not prepared to leave the matter to be voted upon again by a new Synod? Even those of us who may not be entirely convinced by the argument that an example ought to be set, and that the Church should stand for something at a time when marriage is undergoing so much pressure, may we ask why the Church did not, in Christian charity, hold back the Measure to be voted upon again after the synodical election, when the case could have been put to its electorate? Why did not the Church allow the High Court case to be heard before bringing the matter before this House?
    My last point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Opposition Members ought to accept that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about this matter, and have been consistent in their views.
    It is often said that the argument is one of forgiveness. One of the problems in Britain is how we should support the two out of three families who do stay together and who regard marriage as a lifelong commitment. How do we help them in those difficult circumstances? We can do so only by upholding the highest standards and by setting before them what Jesus demanded and what the Gospel demands. Once the Church of England moves from the Gospel demands, many of us will ask in whose name the Church speaks at all.
    10.52 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): No right hon. or hon. Member who has met or who has been written to by a number of the people whom the motion most closely concerns can fail to approach the matter partly through those individuals. That raises for any Christian the fundamental question of whether we really believe that the power of the Holy Spirit is limited. Sometimes, I wonder whether that doubt is the sin against the Holy Spirit that none of us has ever had explained.
    Grace is infinite, and the history of the Christian Church is the history of ordinary sinners redeemed by grace and securing successes beyond that which anyone could normally have expected of them. It is worth reminding ourselves that St. Peter built the Church having denied Our Lord on oath no fewer than three times. As we all know, St. Paul was instrumental in causing the death of a number of Christians before he played his part in building the Church.
    If someone, whether or not he is a Christian, fails in a marriage, are we to say that at no stage in his subsequent life is the Holy Spirit able to redeem him sufficiently to allow him to become a priest or a deacon? We know that the efficacy of the sacrament is not affected by the purity of its administrator. We know also that it is more likely that a couple will seek to be married by a priest who has been divorced while an incumbent than by one of the tiny handful of people who may get through an elaborate process, having been divorced goodness knows how many years ago.
    Yet there is, as we can see, an impressive balance of right hon. and hon. Members lined up against the Measure. One has to ask why. Is it because they want to send the message to the Church of England that they do not trust the archbishops? If so, this is a wholly inappropriate vehicle to carry that message. Why pick on

    893
    a tiny handful of committed Christians, who want the chance to test their vocation only at the humblest level of the priesthood, to attack the pinnacle of the hierarchy? Is it because they want to send out a message about the inviolable sanctity of marriage? This is a grossly inadequate vehicle to carry that huge burden. To use a group of Christians who will, by definition, be more sharply tested in their vocation and more centred on the vital importance of chaste and holy marriage than anyone else I can imagine, as a candle to light the fire of a national revival of enduring marriage, is as cruel as it is inappropriate.
    I believe that if hon. Members turn down the Measure we shall send to the Church and to the country beyond the message that we doubt the redemptive power of the Holy Spirit. We shall send the message that we distrust the judgment of the archbishops whom the secular authority has placed at the helm of the Church of England and that we are happy to ride roughshod over the vocation of a handful of Christians to gratify our prejudices or to feed our human fears. Such instrumentality—the subordination of individuals to the larger purpose—is precisely the opposite of the Gospel and the sort of thinking that our Lord came to overturn.
    10.56 pm
    Ms. Jo Richardson: The right hon, Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to our previous debate, when there were fewer hon. Members present. That debate resulted in a very close vote, which gave no satisfaction to the winners or the losers. I think that it was recognised immediately that we should have to re-run the whole event. On that occasion, 14·7 per cent of hon. Members voted in the middle of the night, and the Measure was defeated by a mere six votes.
    I make no criticism—why should I?—of the hon. Members who did not stay for the debate. Doubtless, many of them thought that sleep was more important, and perhaps their families thought that it was more important that they should be at home with them. We often have debates at what some hon. Members consider to be unreasonable hours. I sometimes think that we should consider that aspect of our debates, and decide whether our procedures should be changed so that we all have the opportunity to come to a sensible conclusion, without being too tired and mugged by the procedure. Some absentees might have been motivated by the fact that they felt that the issue was not one upon which parliamentarians should vote at all. I voted for the Measure. I am one of those hon. Members who takes the view that it is not a matter upon which Parliament should make a decision, but I shall come to that point in a moment.
    I am glad, having excused in my mind the absentees, that so many hon. Members have turned up tonight and decided to stay, even at this slightly earlier hour, to listen and to vote. I have been sitting here trying to calculate who will vote on which side, and it is not easy to judge from hon. Members' faces.
    I was privileged to take part in the debate in July. I guess that I was one of the few contributors on that occasion, and probably one of the few on this occasion who is not a member of the Church of England.
    I come from a pretty religious background, although hon. Members might not think it: my father was a Methodist preacher, my mother a Congregationalist, and
    894
    I turned out to be an agnostic. Despite my feelings, I take an interest in what is happening, and I strongly believe that matters such as this should be left to the parliament of the Church of England. A lot of what has been said tonight has been said in language that may not be comprehensible to people outside, some of whom may be in the Public Gallery tonight. The Measure belongs to the General Synod, and I do not think that we should make a decision contrary to the decision that it has already made; indeed, I do not think that we should make a decision of any kind.
    Despite what the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said earlier, I believe that the Synod has agonised over the Measure. It has come to a conclusion—albeit not by a two-thirds majority—and I think that we have a duty to pass the Measure too, although on another occasion we may be able to discuss the possibility of separating Church and State.
    Mr. Eric S. Heller: My hon. Friend said at first that we should not make a decision; now she says that we should. I agree with her that it should not be the business of the House of Commons to make that decision, but now that it is our business I feel that we have a responsibility. I think that we should support the majority on the Synod, although it was not a two-thirds majority. I say that as an Anglo-Catholic who has been married since 15 December 1945, and who believes strongly in the marriage concept, but recognises on a Christian basis that some people may not be as happily married as I am.
    Ms. Richardson: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should make a decision tonight, but I do not think that we should have to: I think that we should think about the matter again on another occasion.
    The people who considered this Measure for so many months reached their decision on the basis of deep religious feeling, and it is our job tonight to underwrite and support their decision. I know that many hon. Members believe that marriages are made in heaven, and that everyone who is married should remain married to his or her partner until death do them part. That is fine, but—I hate to say this, and I hope that I do not sound patronising—that suggests that they do not live in the real world. In the real world divorces take place, and for very good reasons. Some of the remarks that have been made suggest that people who divorce do so for not very serious reasons, but if people have decided to divorce we must respect that, and I do not think that they should be penalised as they would be if we voted against the Measure.
    After all, there are only 240 candidates who would qualify for consideration if the Measure were passed, and not all are likely to get through. The Church of England has said that if we pass the Measure, the candidates will be scrutinised by means of the most difficult and obstacle-ridden procedure to ensure that they are fit to be ordained. We are considering only 240 people out of 10,000.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Many hon. Members are very perplexed. The Church of England now says that we can break one of God's tenets—that a marriage should be indissoluble. However, whenever Sunday trading is advocated, every vicar in creation writes to us stating that Sunday must remain a holy day. What matters are holy? Is

    895
    marriage holy? Are Sundays holy? Is Easter holy? What is holy? If we break one tenet, why should not we break them all?
    Ms. Richardson: Perhaps some people break them all. However, I do not intend to follow that line of argument.
    Many hon. Members and people throughout the country believe that marriage should be indissoluble. I understand their point of view. However, that is not possible in the real world for every couple, and we have to make provision for those people. I am not referring to the much-publicised cases that appear in the tabloid press—married people jumping into bed with other partners. I do not think that they, or the press that exploits their stories, are typical—[Interruption.] We are fed on a constant diet—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Ms. Richardson: Most couples divorce because life together has become intolerable. I defy any hon. Member to deny that he or she has been touched to the heart by such cases. Hon. Members must therefore be aware of what happens to a number of people.
    Hon. Members may know of my deep concern for victims of domestic violence. Wife beaters—those who verbally, physically or sexually abuse their partner—are rife in our society, and always have been. A ten-minute Bill on rape within marriage is to be introduced tomorrow by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), which I hope the House will approve. Even the Home Office is now taking that seriously. If the victim of domestic violence finally manages to divorce her violent husband and subsequently remarries, why should the second husband be penalised for his understanding, care and love for someone who has been so cruelly treated?
    In the previous debate on the subject my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked me how we could ensure—[Interruption.]—that the wife beater was not ordained. I said then that the procedure for ordination would be very strict. I cannot imagine that such a person would be ordained. [Interruption.] Perhaps I—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). I am sure that she is nearing the end of her speech.
    Ms. Richardson: It would be lovely if we lived in an ideal world in which marriages were real partnerships, where the husband accepted his responsibilities to his wife and family, with the wife—who usually has to undertake most of the family responsibilities—having a life of her own, with financial independence to exercise her rights within the marriage.
    In the 1990s, more women will be required in the work force. More women today are mature students who are seeking to educate themselves and expand their mind. That is a good thing and some Conservative Members should take note of it. However, that may well cause women to re-evaluate their marriages, their families and their relationships. Some of their earlier mistakes may throw them into deeper and more abiding relationships. Why should the aspirations of those women or the men whom they have married be less important to a partnership than those who feel that marriage is indissoluble? I do not think
    896
    that that is what the meeting together of two people is all about and I hope that the House will listen closely to the debate and vote in favour of the Measure.
    11.10 pm
    Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), who presented important arguments in her usual graceful manner. If I disagree with her, I do so for the same reasons as last time, which have nothing to do with the power of the arguments that she put forward. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) also spoke with great feeling. There is considerable feeling on all sides of the House running just below the surface of the debate.
    Before making one substantive point to ask Members not to approve the Measure before the House tonight, I wish to comment on one issue which has not emerged in the debate. Many people outside consider tonight's debate a trial run for the Measure which will allow the Church to ordain women and which will be supported by substantial majorities in all parts of the House. No one must think that tonight's vote is any guide to that Measure.
    This limited Measure has, however, turned into a partial debate on disestablishment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) feels passionately about that issue, although I find it strange that he should advocate privatisation of this country's first nationalised industry and handing over rights possessed by the state to a sect.
    Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I am a member of the Church in Wales, which is disestablished but not privatised.
    Mr. Field: I hope for the hon. Gentleman's sake that he will depend on more than that argument when he faces the electorate.
    The second argument that has been advanced is that tonight we have a chance to iron out inconsistencies in everyday life.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether our Lord said that the Church had to be part of a national state? Where and when was that written in the scriptures?
    Mr. Field: Our Lord did not directly publish "Faith in the City", but despite that it was a jolly good report, which was attacked by Conservative Members, and so tradition develops.
    I am anxious to move on because the argument about inconsistencies has been presented. At present, if a practising priest decides to divorce he can continue to be a priest and his freehold rights will not be touched, but a person who decides to get divorced before being ordained will face a bar. We have to decide whether life is about ironing out inconsistencies or whether the important things in life cannot easily be fitted into neat categories.
    As I listened to that, I thought of the argument that Aneurin Bevan made as he faced Neville Chamberlain. Having listened to the then Prime Minister, he said, in effect, "Listening to the Prime Minister is like a trip round Woolworth's—everything in its place and nothing over sixpence." Many things in life do not fit into neat little boxes. Sometimes they spill over. In this case we have to make a judgment as to whether it is a matter of neat categorisation or something more.
    Mr. Nelson: I wish to raise with the hon. Gentleman a matter of personal perplexity to me. It may indeed be ignorance which leads me to intervene. The hon. Gentleman spoke of circumstances in which a person sought ordination, having previously been divorced. Will he confirm that there are circumstances, under the law passed by this House, in which a man can be divorced through no wish of his own? After a five-year period of separation, divorce may be imposed on him, even though it may be the last thing that he desires. Yet as a result of that, that law and this House, paradoxically, imposes a law on him saying that he is barred from ordination. Where is the equity?
    Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The bar comes if he remarries after that divorce, not by the divorce itself.
    Mr. Nelson: No.
    Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman may say no, but he asked a specific question and I answered it.
    I am anxious to get to the substantive point of my speech, which is that we must balance the argument, for it is on that balance—not on the high theological points that have been adduced by some hon. Members who oppose the Measure and who will later be in the Lobby with me—that we must make a decision.
    The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) asked whether the debate was about forgiveness. As a collection of individuals, we should thank God that forgiveness is not dependent on any Act of Parliament. Whatever we decide tonight will make no difference to that fundamental issue, but it will make a difference to the conduct of the established Church.
    As those themes have occurred in the debate, I wish to explain why, on balance, I shall vote against the Measure and ask my hon. Friends to support me. I do so not for theological reasons but for arguments about citizenship. We are being asked by the Church today to create two categories of citizenship. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said that some individuals could be divorced and remarried in Church.
    Mr. Stott: As I was.
    Mr. Field: As my hon. Friend was. Some people know how to move around and how t work the system——
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Stott: I rest my case.
    Mr. Field: My hon. Friend may rest his case, but there are people who go to their local priest, who has a strict policy on the matter and refuses, and those people will accept the position. There will be others who know that they can move around and find a priest to perform the sacrament for them. That was the distinction that I was making. Under the existing law, some people will be divorced and remarried.
    Today, however, we are being asked to approve a Measure which says that there shall be a privileged group of people who will be divorced and remarried, or who may have married a divorcee, and they can be ordained. But the vast majority of English men and women will be denied that right—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is the line that most parish priests take. It stems from the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), that that is not the main issue that we are
    898
    considering tonight. We are considering a substantive amendment. The main Measure that the Synod considered was the right of ordinary English men and women who are divorced to remarry in the Church. It refused to pass that measure, but says that it will ordain a category of people—a privileged group—who have divorced and remarried.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked why we are involved. We are involved because we are deciding that rights of citizenship should not be extended to ordinary people and that rules should apply to a special group—priests—but not to ordinary people. So long as such legislation is put forward in this place, I hope that the House will reject it, but not for some of the reasons that we have heard about it being a move one way or another to disestablishment.
    Whether we think that the Measure is only about ironing out inconsistencies, or whether we think that it is a test of the welcome which I hope that the House will give the Measure for the ordination of women in the Church of England, it is about the fundamental rights of English men and women to be remarried in church. The Synod refused to extend that right to the many, but today we are being asked to extend it to the privileged few. For those reasons, I hope that we shall reject the Measure.
    11.2 pm
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I have two short points to offer the House on what I consider to be a difficult issue. The first is based on the concept of fairness and proportionality in law, and the second I venture, rather rashly, to base on theology.
    My first point is a plea for the principle that the consequences of any infringement should be influenced by the circumstances in which it occurs. We have been reminded by my right hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner and by other hon. Members that a priest is not compelled to give up his benefits, let alone his orders, if he remarries within the lifetime of his former wife. I draw attention to that fact not to make the plea suggested by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who made a most impressive speech, but to get rid of any inconsistency. My plea is that we should allow the law of the Church to take account of the circumstances in which an undoubted infringement of the Church's code has taken place.
    It is true that a clergyman does not have to give up his benefits or orders because he remarried after divorce, but the disciplinary legislation and machinery of the Church may remove him if the circumstances of his conduct justify it. The circumstances are taken into account when the Church decides what shall happen to a clergyman, whereas they are not when someone who has divorced and remarried, regardless of how long ago or of the fact that at the time he may not have been a Christian, wishes to be ordained. That absolute bar on his ordination leads me to support the Measure—one of the advantages of speaking later in the debate is that one can cut one's remarks—but that contrast has already been made.
    I should like to establish my credentials with those such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), next to whom I am delighted to be sitting, and against whose views I speak. I stand by the doctrine that, for a Christian, remarriage when his former wife is

    899
    alive is adulterous and therefore a sin, but I hope to see that doctrine tempered by recognition of the need for a careful examination of the circumstances of each case.
    Equally, I very much understand those who stand against what they see as a steady slide in moral conduct, in theology, in the production standards of a factory or in anything else. Some, with justice, perceive a slide. I stand with them against that, but that does not justify turning down the Measure tonight.
    We should address ourselves to whether this absolute and unqualified bar is an unfair and disproportionate sanction to impose on somebody who may fall into the category—I agree that it is extreme, but one can visualise many gradations—that he may, perhaps a long time ago, have divorced and remarried and now wishes to be ordained. It is an unfair and disproportionate sanction, which is inherently wrong. It does not allow the consequences of an undoubted infringement to be varied and tempered by the circumstances.
    I understand those who take their stand on the sanctity of marriage and on the concept that it is for life. I share those views. I do no doubt that those who oppose the Measure believe that it is necessary to do so by reason of their loyalty to that concept. However, I hope that I shall not offend any of them if I suggest that they may, in their opposition, be giving rather less force than they should to two essential concepts, as I understand them, of the Christian faith. The first is forgiveness, and the second is the supernatural power of God.
    It is rash to suppose that it is so serious a sin to remarry after divorce in the circumstances with which we are concerned that it cannot be conceived that God might wish subsequently to call such a man to serve him as a priest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or woman."] Perhaps a woman in future, but let us not enlarge the debate.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
    The Attorney-General: No, as I am anxious to finish quickly.
    Miss Nicholson: It affects women deacons.
    The Attorney-General: I understand that.
    If one is to oppose the Measure, it is necessary to argue that it is inconceivable that God should wish to call a man to become a priest in those circumstances. I do not believe that it is inconceivable. It is argued that to pass the Measure will send out a thoroughly bad signal, and the implication of that argument is that that must be to infringe, and to go against, the will of God. I do not believe that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has already reminded us of the influence of St. Paul. It hardly need to be said that St. Paul persecuted and murdered Christians on a grand scale, yet he was subsequently employed as an apostle. It is then said, "It is inconceivable that anybody could teach persuasively the lifelong purpose and nature of marriage if he himself had remarried in those circumstances." How come? St. Paul had little difficulty in preaching with great sincerity the wrongness of the offences that he, so memorably, had committed himself.
    900
    My conclusion is that we should approach the debate not with a view to ironing out inconsistencies or deciding whether we shall be standing up for marriage, but with a view to ensuring that the law of the Church of England is fair and proportionate, and remembering that the Measure will take account of circumstances and that it will be only the most exceptional circumstances that one archbishop or the other will consider sufficient to warrant a departure from what will remain the general rule and principle. That is central to the Measure and justifies it for me. That is why I shall vote for it.
    11.29 pm
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: When the Attorney-General was speaking as a Back-Bench Member, I went through a great temptation to follow him on the matter of sinning through adultery. In this country, there is an enormous amount of saying one thing and doing another.
    I was reminded that when I first did interviews with an armed detective sitting alongside me, a chap walked in at Holbeck in Leeds, and said to me, "Do you believe in the sanctity of marriage?" I said, "Yes," and he went straight out. The policemen said, "Do you believe that, sir?" I said, "Yes, for myself." He said, "Thank God for that."
    There is a great deal in the debate that should not concern us as Members of Parliament. When I hear theology being talked, it is not for me and it is not for Members in general. I shall vote for the Measure, although as a Nonconformist I have no reason in faith to participate. That is why I was not here last time.
    The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) reinforced my feelings when he raised ecclesiastical points. I simply tell him—and I do not say it with nastiness—that when he goes round the country talking as a Member of Parliament about ecclesiastical points, I feel irritated. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who talked about citizenship. That is a matter for him. It is not a matter for me as a Nonconformist.
    The debate is far wider than the Measure before us. Lose or win, however we all feel, it is one more little movement along the road to disestablishment. When I was Home Secretary, I had to go on an occasional Thursday to see Her Majesty when she created bishops. I read out the oath. I did that as a Nonconformist, but I went along with it. Given the decline in churchgoing, it is no longer relevant. The information on social trends published a few days ago shows what is happening. In those statistics we see that many young people live together but are not married: they are mainly middle class, but I make no point about that. Why are we talking in this lay Chamber about morality, and ecclesiastical morality, in the face of that information?
    It is time we disestablished the Church of England. The Church in Wales is much better for being disestablished. The former Church of England in Northern Ireland, now the Church of Ireland, is much the better for being free of political control. If it means that we have to alter the composition of the House of Lords and that the spiritual bishops are no longer there, so be it. If it means that the cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and others are there instead, so much the better.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will return to the Measure that we are discussing.
    Mr. Rees: The Measure is pushing us along that road. We will vote one way or the other, but it is not our business. 'That is why I was not here last time. I wish I were not here now. If the House is talking about saving marriages, the quicker I get home, the better.
    11.33 pm
    Mr. Hugo Summerson: We have the right to debate the matter; we also have the right to represent our constituents' fears and concerns. There is a feeling of despair among many lay people. I listened with tremendous sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), but the Church of England has gone wrong. It no longer provides the guidance that ordinary people expect. I give, as one example, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. What is the Church's view on that Bill? I do not know whether it knows what its view is, but it has not told me. I have had many letters from various institutions on the Bill but I have not heard a squeak from the Church of England.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Summerson: I shall not give way.
    If the Church trod the path laid down for it nearly 2,000 years ago and preached the timeless gospel of Christ, I should support the Measure that it has introduced today, because I would have trust and confidence that what the Church was doing was right. But I do not. The Church's values today are those of contemporaneous, secular society. I have lost my trust in the Church. I do not believe that its motives are correct, and I believe that the Measure should be rejected.
    11.35 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: When the Ecclesiastical Committee first set out on its deliberations two years ago, I presumed—as, I admit, did some of my colleagues on the Committee—that when the Measure came to be voted on, I should vote against it. However, I did not vote against it the last time that it was debated and I shall not vote against it tonight.
    The reasons why I shall not vote against the Measure, although various, can be summarised relatively briefly. The Church's teaching on marriage is clear. The Church has specific teaching that the leaders of the Church should set a good example and according to Timothy, should take only one wife. There is clear teaching. However, as the Attorney-General and others have clearly said, the Church has equally preached that, for every individual without exception, there is available forgiveness. If we defeat the Measure, one of the effects would be to deny the sacrament of forgiveness to people who are ordained, while the Church offers, and the holy spirit gives, forgiveness to lay members of the Church.
    The Ecclesiastical Committee took a year, spent six sessions, considered evidence and had a joint meeting with the legislative committee of the General Synod before coming to the decision that the measure was expedient. I respect the views of those who have expressed an alternative view this evening. It is clear that, theologically, the matter is difficult, but we should take heed of the
    902
    advice that we have been given by the people who guide us on matters of theology in the Church. They have deliberated and decided by a substantial majority that the matter does not offend against the theology of the Christian Church or against the teachings of Christ.
    In all three Houses there was a majority. It does not matter what our views are on disestablishment. As an Anglican who is in favour of disestablishment, I too wish that we did not have to do this job. However, we must do our job tonight with the best advice available.
    The House could reject the Measure, as it did before, but uniquely, the Church is entitled to send it back when it will. When the Church reconsidered the decision of the House last July, it resolved, by a majority of more than two thirds, that the Measure should come back to the House and should be supported by the Church.
    As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said, the measure applies not only to men but to women. If the Measure is accepted, many women who are waiting to be ordained deacons will be allowed to be ordained, just as the men affected will he allowed to be ordained priests. It would be anomalous if the measure were not accepted. By definition, some people would be prevented from being ordained by faults that were not of their commission and sins not of their making. Some would be prevented by technicalities. Others might be eligible despite the fact that they might have lived with one, two or more partners—just because they had never got married—and some would be prevented because they married somebody who, many years past, had once been divorced. That person would be debarred although he may never have been divorced himself.
    By the present law, we can allow people to be ordained who have been convicted of murder. Are we to deny that to those whose marriage has failed? Perhaps most importantly, is the Church to say that people who have been married and divorced, who were remarried when they were not Christians, but who became Christians later, like Paul and many other cases in the history of the Church, should then be prevented from starting again, as the Church teaches is available?
    I advise the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the rule of the Church that allows priests to refuse requests for marriage is not a parallel, and it is therefore not a good precedent. The Church allows that. It will continue to have that provision, and it is up to the individual priest. The fact that someone may find a priest who is willing to remarry that person in church—as the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) made clear has happened to him—is not an argument for rejecting the Measure.
    Above all, the debate is about whether forgiveness can override the strict interpretation of the law, but it is also about whether this House will leave to the pastors and spiritual leaders of the Church the right to decide that, in an individual case, after close examination, somebody should be allowed to be ordained in spite of what had gone before. If it is a choice between this House barring everybody in all circumstances from being ordained or of leaving it to the Church, I think that we should leave it to the Church.
    11.41 pm
    Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I should like to make two concluding points—one a very narrow point and the other rather broader. On the narrow point, in his impressive speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to the fact that he thought that the General Synod should have had a two-thirds majority vote on the critical point. He drew attention to the fact that a law suit is now in process outside the House to try to decide whether a two-thirds majority should have been applied.
    My right hon. Friend complained about costs in the law suit. I should look at that point carefully and, without commitment, shall do everything that I can to help his side. The Church of England has said that, if the law suit is won by the plaintiffs—his side—it will unequivocally take the canon which will implement the Measure back to the Synod and submit it to the two-thirds majority procedure. There is therefore still a chance for my right hon. Friend's wish to be fulfilled.
    My right hon. Friend was eloquent in urging the vital necessity of upholding the Christian view of marriage. Very few, if any, hon. Members would differ from my right hon. Friend on that fact. Indeed, I doubt whether anybody in the country—certainly nobody in the Church—would differ from him about the need to uphold the highest possible Christian view of marriage. It is precisely because of the overwhelming support for that view—almost monolithic as a feeling in the House, the General Synod, the Church and the country at large—that we can run the risk of allowing this very modest limited degree of exceptional dispensation without shaking the fabric of rigorous popular orthodoxy.
    I pray in aid the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in his eloquent speech—that the debate is about balance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew) hit the nail on the head when he said that the absolute disbarring of remarried, divorced clergy is a disproportionate sanction. We should run the risk of modestly lifting that sanction by endorsing the Measure tonight.
    Question put:
    The House divided: Ayes 228 Noes 106.

    Division No. 87]

    [11.45 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Body, Sir Richard

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Alexander, Richard

    Boswell, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bottomley, Peter

    Allen, Graham

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Boyes, Roland

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bradley, Keith

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

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

    Barron, Kevin

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Battle, John

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Beckett, Margaret

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Beith, A. J.

    Burns, Simon

    Bell, Stuart

    Caborn, Richard

    Bellingham, Henry

    Callaghan, Jim

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

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

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Cartwright, John

    Blunkett, David

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Boateng, Paul

    Clay, Bob

    904

    Clelland, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Cohen, Harry

    Key, Robert

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Kilfedder, James

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Knox, David

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Lamond, James

    Corbett, Robin

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Leighton, Ron

    Couchman, James

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Cox, Tom

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cryer, Bob

    Lewis, Terry

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Livingstone, Ken

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    McWilliam, John

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

    Madden, Max

    Dewar, Donald

    Madel, David

    Dixon, Don

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Doran, Frank

    Marland, Paul

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Mates, Michael

    Eastham, Ken

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Meacher, Michael

    Faulds, Andrew

    Meale, Alan

    Fisher, Mark

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Michael, Alun

    Foster, Derek

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Franks, Cecil

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Fraser, John

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Freeman, Roger

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fyfe, Maria

    Morley, Elliot

    Gardiner, George

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Nellist, Dave

    George, Bruce

    Nelson, Anthony

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Gordon, Mildred

    Patchett, Terry

    Gorst, John

    Pike, Peter L.

    Graham, Thomas

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Ground, Patrick

    Randall, Stuart

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Hannam, John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Hardy, Peter

    Richardson, Jo

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

    Rogers, Allan

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Harris, David

    Rowe, Andrew

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hayes, Jerry

    Ruddock, Joan

    Haynes, Frank

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hayward, Robert

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Sheerman, Barry

    Henderson, Doug

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hinchliffe, David

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Short, Clare

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Soley, Clive

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Squire, Robin

    Howells, Geraint

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Stern, Michael

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Stott, Roger

    Illsley, Eric

    Straw, Jack

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    905

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wilson, Brian

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Winnick, David

    Trippier, David

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Trotter, Neville

    Wolfson, Mark

    Turner, Dennis

    Wood, Timothy

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Wallace, James

    Waller, Gary

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mr. Roger Sims and Mr. Michael Latham.

    Wareing, Robert N.

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Amos, Alan

    Evennett, David

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fallon, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Favell, Tony

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Beggs, Roy

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Bendall, Vivian

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Gale, Roger

    Benyon, W.

    Gill, Christopher

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Buckley, George J.

    Gow, Ian

    Butcher, John

    Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butler, Chris

    Gregory, Conal

    Butterfill, John

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hague, William

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

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

    Durant, Tony

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Hunter, Andrew

    906

    Irvine, Michael

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Jack, Michael

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Janman, Tim

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Jessel, Toby

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Stokes, Sir John

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Summerson, Hugo

    Lightbown, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Lilley, Peter

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Lord, Michael

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    McCrea, Rev William

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Maclean, David

    Thorne, Neil

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tredinnick, David

    Malins, Humfrey

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Mills, Iain

    Ward, John

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Watts, John

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Wells, Bowen

    Neubert, Michael

    Whitney, Ray

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Norris, Steve

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Paice, James

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Mr. Alistair Burl and Mr. William Powell.

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Clergy (Ordination) Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal assent in the form in which the said Measure was last Sessoion.

    Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
    11.56 pm
    Mr. Ken Eastham: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of a constitutent of mine, Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah. I fully recognise that other Members of Parliament have to deal with immigration cases and that it is not possible to raise every individual case in the House as I am doing today. Nevertheless, this case is an exception. I am not seeking privilege for my constituent, but I am pursuing a right to which she is entitled.
    Mrs. Shah has lived continuously in the United Kingdom since 1975 where, other than during a brief period of maternity leave, she has worked for the past 14 years as a machinist for an employer in Manchester. She also holds a British passport.
    As is quite common in her culture, Mrs. Shah took part in an arranged marriage to Mr. Munreed Hussain Shah in Pakistan in March 1985. Since that time, as her Member of Parliament, I have been involved in making representations to different Departments for Mr. Shah to be permitted to reside with his family in the United Kingdom.
    I have in my possession numerous exchanges of correspondence with the Home Office and the Foreign Office dating as far back as July 1985 on this case. Some of the Departments have not always been over-efficient. At times, they came back to me for information which I had already given them. That surprises me, given that nowadays most information is held on computer. No doubt the Minister will have all the answers when he comes to reply, so presumably the computer was working efficiently for the purposes of this debate.
    Mrs. Shah was born in March 1955 and her husband in May 1960. I mention that now just in case the Minister intended to make that point himself. I make the point also that in this country there must be hundreds of thousands of wives who are older than their husbands—and few people would consider that factor as of any importance.
    After returning home from the wedding, in December 1985, Mrs. Shah gave birth to a daughter, Nuissa. She visited her husband in Pakistan in 1986, and subsequently a second daughter, Mariam, was born in the United Kingdom in February 1987.
    No one should attempt to make the case that the relationship is casual. Nor could the marriage be claimed to be bogus. Each time Mrs. Shah wishes to visit her husband in Pakistan, it costs £600 in travel and a further £400 in expenses. On her last visit, in April 1987, she took her youngest daughter, at additional cost. Unfortunately for the family, the father has never seen his second child.
    Mrs. Shah occupies a large, three-bedroomed house which is kept impeccably and has been completely refurbished structurally with the assistance of a housing grant which had strong Government support. Mrs. Shah's aged mother, who lives with Mrs. Shah, is a diabetic and unfortunately suffers declining health.
    I cannot allow this occasion to pass without referring to statements made by the Prime Minister claiming that the Conservative party is the party of the family. Those
    908
    sentiments were echoed by the chairman of the Conservative party in an article in The Daily Telegraph as recently as 31 January 1990:
    "Family values were the key political issue of the 1990s, Mr. Baker, Conservative party chairman, said last night in a fresh assault on the legacy of the permissive society.
    He warned that the erosion of the pre-eminence of the natural family unit of the past 30 years had created serious consequences for the social and moral fabric of the nation." The article went on to note that Mr. Baker had said:
    "Not only is it just that fathers should contribute to the upkeep of their children; it is also crucial that we begin to break the culture which views it as acceptable for a man to walk away from the consequences of his own actions in this way."
    The article continued:
    "underlining the Prime Minister's concern at the growth in the number of single-parent families, which had doubled to more than a million since 1971 and now represents one in seven families, Mr. Baker insisted that nature had intended raising children to be the work of two people"
    That is precisely what this debate is about—it is about a whole family.
    Article 8 of the European convention on human rights states:
    "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life; his home and his correspondence."
    In article 12 the convention states:
    "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right."
    That obviously means nothing if the husband, wife and two children cannot live together.
    We hear so much nowadays about womens' rights and about equal opportunities, but very often that does not seem to work when we make representations on behalf of women against the interests of men. Equal opportunities do not seem to exist when it comes to women's rates of pay and promotion, and I believe that the same is true when the Home Office deals with cases such as the one that I am presenting to the Minister tonight.
    The Shah family are not a drain on state funds. I have in my possession a letter from Mrs. Shah's employer, firmly offering her husband a job when he is given permission to join her. They are a law-abiding family, with no history of any offences whatever, and one could claim that Mrs. Shah has exercised great patience throughout the whole affair, which has lasted five years.
    Therefore, I want to know whether the family has any rights, and I also want to know whether their two young children will he condemned to live their lives fatherless. Those children have lived in the United Kingdom all their lives, growing up with our ways and knowing only our style of living. I find it deeply embarassing when I meet the mother month after month at my surgeries and have to give her the same reply, which causes her great depression, as one would expect.
    The family are entitled to better treatment than they have been receiving, and I call on the Minister to reconsider the case of Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah and her family, who have been making representations for five years. My submission to the House is that they are entitled to much better treatment than they have received from the Government so far.
    12.8 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I listened most carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for

    909
    Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), and I appreciate the reasons for his determination to draw the House's attention to his constituent's case.
    The case concerns a decision to refuse entry clearance to the spouse of a person settled in the United Kingdom—the husband of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah. The application was refused because the Secretary of State was not satisfied, as he must be, that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. Parliament has provided a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities against such decisions. Mr. Shah exercised that right, but his appeal was dismissed first by a single adjudicator and later by the immigration appeals tribunal. He has therefore exhausted the normal processes for contesting an adverse decision.
    I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the distressing situation in which Mrs. Batool Bibi Shah finds herself. While it is impossible not to sympathise with her, the burden of proof as regards satisfying the requirements of the immigration rule in question rests squarely on the applicant—in other words, her husband. As the hon. Gentleman is, I am sure, aware, the independent appellate authorities, after carefully weighing all the evidence, concluded on two occasions that Mr. Shah had not discharged that burden.
    The hon. Gentleman has presented his case very thoroughly, but I am sure that he will not mind if I go over some of the facts that had a special bearing on the refusal of Mr. Shah's application. The application was made barely 12 months after the death of another woman settled in the United Kingdom, whom he had applied to join for marriage and settlement. His engagement to Batool Bibi Shah was arranged little more than six months after his previous fiancee's death, and the marriage took place about three months later.
    Mr. Shah's sister was involved in arranging the engagement. It is, I believe, rather unusual for a sister, herself resident in the United Kingdom, to be charged with arranging her brother's marriage—a social duty normally performed by parents, both of whom were alive in this case. The immigration appeals tribunal also remarked that point, and drew its own conclusions. Another factor that was taken into account at all stages of the case was the wife's professed reluctance to join her husband in Pakistan, and the lack of mutual support and communication. Those and other considerations weighed heavily against Mr. Shah.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the marriage rules, and I am glad of the opportunity to put the operation of the primary purpose rule into context. We are not the first Government to act to prevent the use of marriage as a means of settling in the United Kingdom. The Labour Government, in 1977, introduced the first tests to stop marriages of convenience, which had by then become a real problem. Since 1983, the onus has been on the applicant to satisfy the entry clearance officer that the primary purpose of the marriage, or intended marriage, is not to obtain his or her admission to the United Kingdom.
    It has been suggested elsewhere that that test is too difficult to pass, because it requires the proof of a negative. Practical experience shows, however, that that is not so. In 1988, some 7,300 spouses were accepted for settlement from the Indian sub-continent on the basis of marriage, representing about 15 per cent. of the acceptances for settlement that year.
    910
    Nor do I accept that the test itself is unworkable: it should not be difficult for someone whose marriage was not entered into for the purpose of immigration to explain to the entry clearance officer how he or she met the partner involved, how the marriage was arranged and why the couple propose to live here rather than overseas.
    The test is not intended as an attack on the Asian custom of the arranged marriage; rather, it seeks to expose those who exploit it for immigration purposes. In many such cases, admission to this country is an important factor, as the independent appellate authorities have themselves stated, but there is often objective evidence indicating that the applicant's admission was the primary purpose. That may include—as in the present case—a previous attempt by the applicant to come to this country.
    It is entirely reasonable, surely, that someone claiming an important benefit, such as admission to this country with a view to settlement, should have to demonstrate his eligibility. Under other provisions in the rules—and, indeed, with respect to many other functions of Government—people must show that they are entitled to the benefits they are claiming. We believe that there is a need to guard against the abuse of the marriage rules by those who do not qualify for admission to this country, and who enter into marriages as a device to obtain settlement.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to what is known in legal jargon as "intervening devotion". The primary purpose rule relates to intentions at the time of marriage, but the actions of the couple after the marriage may suggest whether the requirement has been met. For example, a couple who have shown devotion and have what seems to be a genuine and soundly based marriage will probably satisfy the entry clearance officer that the primary purpose of the marriage was not to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. Among the factors taken into account will be the duration of the marriage and any time spent together outside the United Kingdom.
    In this case, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recollect, the question of intervening devotion was fully explored by the independent appellate authorities, but they did not consider that it was sufficiently demonstrated in this case and merited a recommendation to the Home Secretary.
    Let us, however, consider again the question of intervening devotion in this case. Mrs. Shah came to this country from Pakistan in 1975 when she was 20 years old. The way of life in Pakistan is therefore not unfamiliar to her. However, when she was interviewed in January 1987, she said that she was not prepared to join her husband there, even for a holiday. So far as we are aware, she has visited her husband in Pakistan only once since returning to the United Kingdom after their marriage in 1985.
    The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to Mr. and Mrs. Shah's two children. I agree that that is an extremely important aspect that needed to be very thoroughly considered by the appellate authorities. I believe that it was. Despite the children, however, the couple do not appear to have made any attempt to live, even for a short time, as a family unit outside the United Kingdom, apart from the visit in 1987 to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Eastham: I referred earlier to the fact that Mrs. Shah's aged mother still lives in my constituency. She is a diabetic and needs care. Mrs. Shah has also incurred

    911
    certain financial responsibilities. She obtained a Government grant to modernise her home. Is the Minister suggesting that she should walk away from her responsibilities and debts, just to comply with the recommendations?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not suggesting what Mrs. Shah should or should not do. I am suggesting that she failed, because of what she did or did not do, to convince the appellate authorities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that she remained in Pakistan for a considerable time when she married and that she made another visit later. Arrangements must have been made then for her mother. Presumably, therefore, it would be possible, in some way or another, to make similar arrangements now.
    I cannot simply ignore a point that appeared to be in the mind of the appellate authorities. When Mrs. Shah was interviewed in 1987, there was little evidence of any
    912
    communication between her and her husband; neither was providing the other with support. All these factors, taken together, do nothing to strengthen the case.
    I have to repeat that it is impossible not to feel sympathy for Mrs. Shah. I cannot believe, however, that either she or her husband were entirely ignorant of the immigration rules requirements when they entered into the marriage. It is my responsibility to maintain firm and fair immigration control. The majority of spouses who apply for entry clearance to join persons settled in the United Kingdom are able to satisfy those requirements. Mr. Shah has, I am afraid, failed to discharge that burden before the appellate authorities. I regret that nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said persuades me that there are new of exceptional circumstances that would justify my intervention. I am sorry to have to give such a disappointing reply to him.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Airports
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what expenditure his Department will incur in assisting the development of British airports in 1990–91.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department does not pay grant for airport development, but it authorises borrowing for the expansion and development of facilities at local authority airports. For 1990–91 borrowing approvals totalling £59 million will be available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to approve access from the centre of London to Heathrow and Gatwick airports by road, rail and tube;

  (2) what plans his Department has to improve the transport infrastructure serving the airports of London and the south-east in the next five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A number of proposed schemes will improve access to airports in London and the south-east. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to assist the expansion of London as an international hub for airline traffic.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In Heathrow and Gatwick the United Kingdom has the world's two busiest international airports, and BAA plc is currently investing some £400 million in the development of Stansted airport. We have commissioned advice from the Civil Aviation Authority on United Kingdom airport capacity needed through to 2005.

  HGV Drivers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he intends to support the amendment proposed by the French Government to regulation 3820/85 on drivers' working hours;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the contribution of driver fatigue to road accidents; and what steps he is taking to promote drivers' health, safety and welfare in the discussions at the Council of Ministers on amendments to EEC regulation 3820/85.

  Mr. Atkins
  The rules on drivers' hours were agreed in 1986 after lengthy discussions. It is too soon to be considering their amendment. A Council directive aimed at improving arrangements for enforcing the social regulations on drivers' hours and tachographs was implemented last year.

  Most accidents are caused by a combination of many different factors. Studies indicate that fatigue is a contributory factor in between 4 and 11 per cent. of accidents.
  606
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the likely impact on heavy goods vehicle driver employment in the United Kingdom domestic haulage companies of the implementation of the single European market.

  Mr. Atkins
  A study by the Polytechnic of Central London showed that about 1 per cent. of United Kingdom domestic traffic was at risk from caboteurs, but that there were more than compensating opportunities for United Kingdom hauliers abroad.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the ratio between employed heavy goods vehicle drivers and owner-drivers employed in the United Kingdom and between the two categories of heavy goods vehicles drivers in other European Community member countries.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are over 1 million current holders of HGV driver licences. Information is not available on the ratio of employed to owner-drivers, but the latter will represent a relatively small proportion. Likewise, we do not keep information on other European Community countries.

  Road Haulage
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the likely impact on road haulage rates of the implementation of the single European market.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him today about the effect on the domestic market. Road haulage rates in the United Kingdom are subject to market pricing and this should also apply to rates across the liberalised transport services of the single European market.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he has established for monitoring the introduction of the transitional road cabotage system from July for its effects on competition.

  Mr. Atkins
  We want to see United Kingdom hauliers making full use of the available cabotage permits. The Department will monitor applications for permits and the use made of them. The Department will also be liaising closely with industry representatives.

  Each member state is required to send data to the Commission quarterly on cabotage operations carried out by its hauliers. This is to enable the Commission to analyse the overall effect of the trial scheme in preparation for the definitive scheme from 1992.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in achieving harmonisation of the conditions of competition between road haulage companies in the member states of the European Community prior to implementation of the single European market.

  Mr. Atkins
  Agreement has been reached on common social conditions (drivers' hours and tachographs), on rules for access to the profession, on weights and dimensions, and on enforcement. A draft directive on the harmonisation of vehicle taxes for heavy goods vehicles is under discussion.
  607
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safeguards he intends to introduce with the implementation of the single European market to protect the interests of the United Kingdom domestic hire or reward haulage companies against unfair competition by international hauliers.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his previous question. We shall enforce the agreed rules. United Kingdom road hauliers are among the most competitive in Europe and have much experience of operating in a deregulated market.

  Motorway Construction
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current cost per mile of motorway construction.

  Mr. Atkins
  Costs vary so much—because of differences in factors such as the location of the road, the number and design of junctions and structures, and ground conditions—that it is impractical to give an average cost per mile. Recent examples of works costs per mile of motorway schemes are, in outturn prices:

  £ million

  New motorway

  M40 Warwick North

  4·2

  M40 Warwick South

  4·8

  M63/M66 Portwood-Denton

  10·0

  Widening

  M25 Junctions 11–13

  4·5

  M63 Stages 1 and 2 (with Barton Bridge)

  12·0

  Vehicle Speeds Experiment
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department's experiment to ascertain the effect on vehicle speeds of substituting 70 mph road signs for white circles with a black diagonal stripe took place; what the result of the experiment has been; and if he will place the data collected in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  An experiment to test the effect of 70 mph repeater signs has been carried out on a stretch of the M1 and the results are now being assessed. Initial indications are that these signs had no effect on the speed of the majority of vehicles. When a report has been prepared I shall place a copy in the Library.

  A6 Bypass
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the 1989 prices of the modified brown, purple, brown as a public consultation and blue routes on the proposed A6 Disley-High lane bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Preferred Route (modified Brown)

  49

  Brown

  69

  Purple

  52

  Blue

  74

  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he received from British Coal concerning the line of route of the proposed A6 Disley-High lane bypass.
  608
  Mr. Atkins
  British Coal mentioned the existence of shafts and shallow mine workings in the areas. It referred to potential opencast coal reserves along the purple, blue and orange routes and asked to be kept informed of progress on the scheme.

  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he received from the National Trust concerning the line of route of the proposed A6 Disley-High lane bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Trust supported the Department's preferred brown route in so far as it avoided the trust's property at Lyme park. It agreed with the Department's reasons for rejecting the purple route.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action under the control of industrial major accident hazard regulations which came into effect in 1986, his Department has considered with respect to toxic waste and dangerous chemicals that travel through south Yorkshire by road and rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984, as amended in 1988, apply only to fixed industrial installations. The transport of dangerous substances, including toxic waste, by road and rail is fully regulated to ensure maximum safety and the regulations are kept under review.

  Black Cabs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many London black cab taxis are on the road or licensed on any given day.

  Mr. Portillo
  A total of 15,792 licensed taxis are currently available for use in London. Given the flexible nature of taxi operations, it is not possible to estimate the percentage of black cabs which might be operating on any given day.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average income of the London black cab taxi drivers.

  Mr. Portillo
  No figures are available. London taxi drivers are private, often one-man operations and their income derives directly from the number of hours worked which varies considerably from driver to driver.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many copies of the abbreviated report on each of the London assessment studies have been produced and distributed; what languages they have been translated into; and what interpreters have been sent to public consultations.

  Mr. Atkins
  Each of the study consultants have produced some 50,000 copies of their stage 2 report summaries. Of these, between 30,000 and 35,000 have been distributed for each study. The east London assessment study summary has been translated into Bengali. No interpreters have been required to date.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many copies of the full report of each of the
  609
  London assessment studies issued on 14 December 1989 have been made available to hon. Members, local authorities, press and community organisations; and at what cost.

  Mr. Atkins
  Over 1,500 copies of the London assessment studies stage 2 reports have been issued free of charge at a total cost to the Department of approximately £43,000.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters have been received by his Department(a) directly and (b) via consultants acting for him in response to each of the London assessment studies that he announced on 14 December 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  Many letters on the assessment studies are received every day by the Department and the study consultants. Results of the consultations will not be available until after 28 February. Interim counts would involve disproportionate cost.

  Electrically Powered Vehicles
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each year since 1980 the total number of electrically powered road vehicles in the categories of(a) delivery vehicles and (b) passenger vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  The total numbers of electric goods vehicles and passenger vehicles for each year since 1980 are:

  Licensed at end of

  Passenger vehicles

  'Goods' vehicles

  1980

  124

  1

  1981

  138

  1

  1982

  156

  1

  1983

  175

  1

  1984

  189

  1

  1985

  202

  27,905

  1986

  208

  27,401

  1987

  225

  26,792

  1988

  170

  26,110

  19892

  155

  25,138

  1 Figures for goods vehicles are not given for 1984 and before because changes in the way the figures are compiled prevent comparison with post 1984 figures.

  2 At September 1989.

  Note:

  No separate figures exist for delivery vehicles as such it is likely that the large majority of goods vehicles are 'delivery' vehicles.

  The market has not shown any preference for electric passenger vehicles despite the exemption of electric vehicles from vehicle excise duty.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen),Official Report, 8 February, column 782, any high level waste as a constituent component of spent nuclear fuel has been transported by train since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  All irradiated nuclear fuel contains a small non-reusable component. This does not arise as waste until after the fuel has been reprocessed.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr.610
  Cohen), Official Report, 8 February, column 782, what is the basis of his calculation of the date 2005 as the definitive year before which there are no plans to transport nuclear waste through London.

  Mr. Portillo
  UK Nirex Limited is planning to develop a deep repository for the disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes and is also developing the necessary transport system. Nirex aims to start disposing of wastes in the year 2005.

  Travel Information
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet with the Automobile Association to discuss the use of the Automobile Association roadwatch travel information database for the relief of road congestion and the promotion of tourism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I visited the AA roadwatch headquarters on 24 January. The Department regards the provision of travel information as extremely important, and is considering with interested organisations ways of improving the reliability and availability of information through better arrangements for its collection, co-ordination and dissemination.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the hon. Member for Uxbridge concerning the swearing in of special constables in accordance with the Harbours Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On a number of occasions in the past year my hon. Friend has made known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his predecessor the views of the Police Federation about the use of these powers by harbour authorities. We shall shortly let my hon. Friend know the Government's views on the matter in connection with his Harbours Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (Amendment) Bill.

  Channel Tunnel
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish in the Official Report his letter of 12 February to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on the proposed joint venture agreement between British Rail and Eurorail.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Birmingham Airport
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has completed his examination of the question of according gateway status to Birmingham airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The "gateway international airport" was one of four categories of airport conceived in a 1978 White Paper as part of a framework for airports policy; the 1985 airports policy White Paper discontinued the other three categories. In view of the rapid development of international air traffic, including long-haul traffic, since
  611
  1985, and the increasing number of more liberal air services arrangements which the United Kingdom has negotiated, I have decided to discontinue the category of gateway international airport as used in the two White Papers.

  The United Kingdom will continue to seek a balanced expansion of air services arrangements under which additional services will be able to operate from regional airports.

  Roads Report
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the roads report.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I am publishing the report "Trunk Roads, England—into the 1990s" today. Copies have been placed in the Library and are also available from the Vote Office. The report gives full details of our programme for improving the trunk road network in England. It also outlines new proposals for the enhancement of environmental treatment of schemes.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the names of all the private security firms currently employed by his Department, the number of employees for each firm on the contract, the total value of each contract and the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85.

  The Attorney-General
  Neither the legal secretariat to the Law Officers nor the Treasury Solicitor's Department has employed private security firms. The Serious Fraud Office currently employs the firm of Rodway Security. This contract provides for two employees and the value of the contract is £39,312 per year. The Serious Fraud Office engaged the firm of Reliance Security Services Limited from March 1988 to October 1988, the total value of this contract being £13,606·80.

  The Crown prosecution service currently employs Reliance Security Services Limited and Diamond Security Services, the number of employees for each firm on the contract being four and two respectively. The total value of each contract, and the total value of all contracts since the financial year 1986–87 (when the CPS was created) are as follows:

  Reliance

  Diamond

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  1986–87

  9,000

  —

  9,000

  1987–88

  14,360

  —

  14,360

  1988–89

  33,459

  —

  33,459

  1989–90

  54,458

  29,000

  83,458

  Total

  111,277

  29,000

  140,277

  Southwark Crown Court
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of works carried out recently at Southwark Crown court; and if he will describe them.

  The Attorney-General
  The recent alterations to courtrooms at the Crown court at Southwark were as follows:
  612
  Court 2: For a trial which took place between May and August 1989 some fixed furniture was removed and replaced by loose furniture. The fixed furniture was replaced after the trial. In addition storage racks were provided and trunking for electrical cables. The total cost was £7,043. Further alterations which have recently been carried out are expected to cost about £25,000.

  Court 4: For a trial which took place between May and December 1989 loose courtroom furniture and storage racks were provided at a cost of £4,216.

  Court 1For a trial which took place in January 1990 loose furniture which had been used in earlier trials was provided. The cost of adapting the courtroom is expected to be about £2,000.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of works carried out recently to court 2 at Southwark Crown court, number 2; and if he will describe them.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost of the recent alterations to court No. 2 at the Crown court at Southwark is expected to be about £25,000. The work carried out included removal of fixed furniture and its replacement by loose furniture, the supply of storage racking for papers, and the provision of microphones and amplification equipment.

  The Crown court at Southwark has been designated by the Lord Chief Justice as one of a number of Crown court centres at which serious fraud cases may be tried. It is expected that more such cases will be tried there in the near future and that further use will be made of the adapted courtrooms.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the names of all the private security firms currently employed by his Department, the number of employees for each firm on the contract, the total value of each contract and the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Forth
  The private security firms currently employed by this Department, and the number of guards on each contract, are as follows: Thorn Security Services Limited (38 guards), Chubb Wardens Ltd. (21), Centuryan Security Ltd. (15), Group 4-Welsh Guards Limited (10), Shorrock Guards Ltd. (5), Security Express Guards Ltd. (3) and Sterling Guards Ltd. (1). The value of each contract is commercially confidential information. The total value (excluding VAT) of all contracts placed by DTI since 1984–85 is:

  £

  1984–85

  657,000

  1985–86

  778,000

  1986–87

  993,600

  1987–88

  1,165,683

  1988–89

  1,168,813

  1989–90

  11,318,800

  1 Estimated.

  Solvents
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is being taken to encourage manufacturers to produce safe alternatives to solvents which are open to abuse.

  Mr. Forth
  The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act makes it an offence to sell a solvent-based product to a young person if he appears to want it for sniffing. There are already available alternatives to many solvent-based products, which cannot be sniffed.

  South Africa
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage of United Kingdom exports going to South Africa in each of the 10 years ended 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is in the table:

  United Kingdom exports to South Africa

  Year

  Value £ millions

  Percentage of total United Kingdom exports

  1980

  998

  2·1

  1981

  1,217

  2·4

  1982

  1,191

  2·2

  1983

  1,111

  1·8

  1984

  1,204

  1·7

  1985

  1,009

  1·3

  1986

  849

  1·2

  1987

  949

  1·2

  1988

  1,075

  1·3

  1989

  1,038

  1·1

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what paternity leave is allowed to staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  At present, paternity leave is not available to civil servants. The Treasury is, however, finalising arrangements for the introduction of an entitlement to two days' paternity leave.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has for protecting consumers involved in home annuity schemes for setting down guidelines for these schemes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has for (a) controlling the selling of home income annuity schemes, (b) issuing guidance to consumers considering such schemes and (c) requiring a period of consultation and cooling off before such schemes are finalised;

  (3) what proposals he has for requiring special conditions and consumer protection for controls for the roll-up home loan or investments in home loans to pensioners;

  (4) what representations he has received about (a) the effects of home income annuity schemes on the elderly, (b) the need for consumer protection in this area and (c) the dangers of schemes where unpaid interest is rolled up and added to the loan; and if he will make a statement.
  614
  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received only one letter about home income schemes and has no plans for legislation on this matter. Consumers are protected by the Financial Services Act 1986 which applies to the investment element in such schemes and by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which applies to the connected loan.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what proposals he has for reviewing publication of decisions by the Office of Fair Trading that it is minded to revoke licences as moneylenders and for speeding up the procedure of revocation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he asked the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the affairs of Richard Murtagh and Co. and its related companies; when that investigation was completed; when the firms were put out of business and their licences revoked; how many homeowners took out home income schemes with the companies; what interest rates were charged; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Consumer credit licensing is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading and I will ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in the light of the statement by the Director General of Fair Trading that the practices of Richard Murtagh and Co. and its associated companies were deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper but not illegal, he has any proposals for preventing such practices in future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no such proposals. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Director General of Fair Trading has the power to revoke the licence of any trader who engages in business practices which are deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper.

  Home Income Annuities
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what research he has initiated into the effect of falling house prices on home income annuity schemes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will refer home income annuity schemes to the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the scale of any associated problems or dangers arising from such schemes and whether any controls or legislation are desirable.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 it is the duty of the Director General of Fair Trading to keep under review and from time to time to advise my right hon. Friend about social and commercial developments in the United Kingdom relating to the provision of credit and related activities. I will write to the director general to draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's questions.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for requiring registration, training qualifications and insurance funds for estate agents.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no such proposals. The reasons why legislation on these matters would not be appropriate are
  615
  set out in the report published in December 1988 of the Director General of Fair Trading's review of the Estate Agents Act 1979 and in the report published in June 1989 of my review of estate agency.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for bringing estate agents within the terms of the Trade Descriptions Act.

  Mr. Forth
  As I told the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 21 June 1989 at column 333, I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to review the arguments for extending the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to misdescriptions of property. His report is expected shortly.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requirements for registration, professional competence tests and licensing exist for estate agents in(a) France, (b) West Germany and (c) Holland; and what proposals he has for bringing British requirements into line with other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the requirements for estate agents in European Community countries has recently been published by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. I have placed relevant extracts from its publication "1992 A General Practice Guide To the Single European Market" by Michael Treays FRICS in the House of Commons Library. My right hon. Friend has no proposals for introducing such requirements.

  Disabled Staff
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the number of disabled employees in his Department; and what is the applicable statutory quota.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department employs 128 registered disabled staff (1·1 per cent.). We also employ 73 other disabled staff (0·6 per cent.) who have chosen not to register.

  Tampons
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what information he has on health warnings carried on tampons sold in the United States to alert women to the dangers of contracting toxic shock syndrome; and if he will consult manufacturers of tampons with a view to introducing a warning on each package of tampons that use of them can cause toxic shock syndrome and that it can be fatal;

  (2) whether he will consider requiring manufacturers to print an ingredients list on the packaging of tampons;

  (3) whether legislation would be necessary to require manufacturers to carry warnings on tampon packets that the use of tampons can cause toxic shock syndrome.

  Mr. Forth
  In the United States packets of tampons are required to carry a warning about the danger of toxic shock syndrome. In this country the industry labels packets of tampons with information about their use. The industry has been asked to provide in the safety instructions inside the packet, information about toxic shock syndrome and what to look for. The information given by manufacturers about tampons with these 616
  products is kept under review, but I have no present intention to make regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  Birmingham (Overseas Companies)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what interest is being shown by overseas companies in becoming established in Birmingham.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Overseas businesses are currently showing great interest in Birmingham and in the west midlands in general. There are now over 100 overseas companies operating in the Birmingham area and I am pleased to be able to announce that the West German company Keiper Recaro, a leading manufacturer of car seats, is to establish a subsidiary company on the Woodgate business park in my hon. Friend's constituency. This project is forecast to create 96 jobs and an offer of regional selective assistance (of £250,000) has been made towards it.

  This follows the recent announcement by another West German automotive components company, Kirsten Automotive of its plans to establish a facility on the same business park. That project is forecast to create a further 58 jobs.

  We are in discussion with a number of other overseas companies planning to establish their United Kingdom headquarters in Birmingham. Prospects are very encouraging.

  Light Sources
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the potential dangers to health known to his Department from the use of consumer products which can produce flicker or stroboscopic light sources with a flicker rate in excess of five flashes per second; and if he will issue a statement about those potential dangers of such products.

  Mr. Forth
  It is known that the direct exposure to flicker or stroboscopic light can create a susceptibility in a small proportion of the population—about one in 10,000—to flicker sensitive epilepsy. This can occur within a range of frequencies from five to 65 flashes per second which can be generated by television or amateur cine projection equipment. Additionally, of course, there is a physical danger that rotating equipment under stroboscopic light can be perceived to be stationary when it is in fact moving rapidly.

  However, I am not aware of evidence where these effects have become a general threat to safety in the use of consumer products.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those consumer products on sale in the United Kingdom, of which he has knowledge, which are capable of producing a flicker or stroboscopic light source with a flicker rate in excess of five flashes per second.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 16 February 1990]: The information is not available in the form requested but there are two groups of products which are capable of producing regular pulses of light at a frequency greater than five flashes per second. The largest group includes lighting products such as fluorescent tubes or television

  617
  screens where flicker is unintended but nonetheless produces flicker rates varying between 30 and 100 pulses per second, arising from the electrical mains frequency or screen scanning frequency. The second group covers products where the stroboscopic effect is intended, as with equipment for adjusting motor engine timing dynamically, where the strobe frequency is variable in a range upwards of about 10 pulses per second.

  Any piece of continuous lighting equipment can, of course, he made to flash for effect, as in the case of discotheque lighting. Camera equipment normallly used for single flash operation can also create a stroboscopic effect with a series of flashes when used with a film motor drive.

  Eastern Europe (Imports)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which products from(a) Poland, (b) East Germany, (c) Czechoslovakia, (d) Romania, (e) Bulgaria, (f) Hungary and (g) Yugoslavia are subject to any form of import restrictions, including quotas, voluntary restraint agreements and tariffs at either European Community or national level; and if he will set out details.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 14 February 1990]: Details of the products which are subject to such restrictions are too numerous to set out in an answer. Most of them can be found in published sources which are available in the Library as follows:

  Quantitative Restrictions
  List of quantitative restrictions applied by one or more member states are covered by Annex III of Regulation 3420/83, which was last updated and published as Official Journal L217 of 6 August 1987. However, there are no quantitative restrictions on imports from Yugoslavia and on 1 January 1990, quantitative restrictions on imports to the EC from Poland and Hungary were liberalised or suspended. New arrangements for 1990 quotas are currently being considered by the EC Commission and are expected to be published shortly.

  Steel and Textiles
  Bilaterally agreed arrangements in limiting steel and textile imports into the Community from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Yugoslavia are in place. Textile products which are specifically affected by these arrangements are set out in EC Regulations 768/88 (as published in EC Official Journal L84 of 29 March 1988) and 669/88 (covered by EC Official Journal L73 of 18 March 1989). Quotas are operated on ECSC steel products for the GDR under Commission Recommendation 77/328/ECSC. Details of product coverage were last published in British Business magazine of 5 May 1989 and in future will be published in Lloyds List International. Voluntary restraint arrangements which are negotiated annually with the other countries cover most ECSC products and are not published because they are commercially confidential.

  Leather Footwear
  Although there are no formal United Kingdom quantitative restrictions on leather footwear from Eastern Europe, voluntary restraint arrangements have been negotiated by the EC Commission with Romania and Czechoslovakia on our behalf.

  Tariffs
  The EC's 1990 general tariff rates for all products are set out in EC Official Journal L282/89 published on 2 October 1989. Most Favoured Nation rates apply to each of the countries listed except where special arrangements apply. Poland, Hungary and Romania are beneficiaries of the EC's Generalised Scheme of Preferences and products from these countries which benefit from GSP provisions are set in EC Official Journal L383/89 published on 30 December 1989.
  618
  The EC has signed a trade agreement with Yugoslavia which provides for preferential access to the EC market for a range of products from that country. Details of these arrangements for 1990 are covered in EC Official Journal L352 of 4 December 1989.

  Anti-Dumping Duties
  Other EC anti-dumping measures involve the imposition of anti-dumping duties on the following products:

  Product Chemicals

  Country

  Potassium Permanganate

  Czechoslovakia

  Copper Sulphate

  Yugoslavia, Bulgaria

  Light Sodium Carbonate

  Bulgaria, Romania

  Oxalic Acid

  Czechoslovakia

  Dinoseb

  Romania

  Welded Tubes of Iron or non-Alloy Steel

  Yugoslavia

  Sheets of Iron or non-Alloy Steel, Cold Rolled

  Yugoslavia

  Iron and Steel Sections

  Yugoslavia

  Iron or Steel Coils

  Yugoslavia

  Sheets and Plates of Iron or Steel

  Yugoslavia

  Synthetic Textiles Fibres of Polyester

  Romania, Yugoslavia

  Acrylic Fibres

  Romania

  Deep Freezers

  GDR, Yugoslavia

  Electric Motors

  Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary. Poland, Romania, GDR

  In addition the EC operates an anti-dumping voluntary restraint on imports of urea from Hungary, the GDR, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia.

  Other Measures
  Other customs restrictions are also applied to products from third countries by the United Kingdom and other Member States on health, safety and public policy grounds.

  Gas Consumers Council
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total number of complaints and representations dealt with by the Gas Consumers Council and by its predecessors in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Complaints

  Inquiries

  1979–80

  35,300

  —

  1980–81

  28,000

  —

  1981–82

  27,400

  —

  1982–83

  28,200

  —

  1983–84

  27,700

  —

  1984–85

  27,000

  —

  1985–86

  29,000

  —

  1987

  26,400

  64,400

  1988

  27,500

  77,000

  1989

  21,400

  66,000

  Prior to 1987 and the setting up of the new Gas Consumers Council, statistics on the number of inquiries were not maintained. Moreover the statistics on the number of complaints are not directly comparable due to the different recording basis which took effect when the Gas Consumers Council was established.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total cost of wages and salaries and the total budget in each of the last 10 years for the Gas
  619
  Consumers Council and of its predecessors the National Gas Consumers Council and the regional gas consumers councils.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Salaries

  Total budget

  £000

  £000

  1980–81

  831

  1,207

  1981–82

  913

  1,355

  1982–83

  1,075

  1,535

  1983–84

  1,088

  1,585

  1984–85

  1,212

  1,635

  1985–86

  1,294

  1,710

  1986–87

  1,130

  2,050

  1987–88

  1,034

  1,918

  1988–89

  1,078

  2,215

  1989–90

  1,129

  2,212

  The new Gas Consumers Council was set up in August 1986 and additional expenses of £588,000 and £700,000 were incurred in 1986–87 and 1987–88 respectively on setting up costs.

  The total budget figures are not comparable: post 1986 the figures include accommodation costs. Prior to this date such costs were borne on the main departmental account and cannot be identified separately.

  Meat Products
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the companies in the United Kingdom which have been given leave, or have applied, to manufacture blood gel plasma meat products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to his related question.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards ending apartheid in South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We constantly assess policy in the light of developments in South Africa. The release of Nelson Mandela and the other steps announced by President de Klerk on 2 February are a vindication of our policy of contact rather than isolation and of a mixture of persuasive pressure and encouragement.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the South African Government about the present situation in that country.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We maintain regular contact with the South African authorities, both here and via Her Majesty's ambassador.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her 620
  Majesty's Government have invited Nelson Mandela to visit the United Kingdom for talks on the present South African situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 14 February a message was delivered to Mr. Mandela inviting him to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to South Africa over the coming year.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next envisages visiting South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to visit South Africa before long, perhaps at the time of Namibian independence.

  China
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government have taken since the Madrid council to encourage the Chinese authorities to admit independent observers to monitor political trials in China.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Presidency, on behalf of the Twelve, made representations on this subject to the Chinese authorities on 20 July 1989.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will make a statement on initiatives taken by the Government and their European Community partners in the current session of the United Nations human rights commission.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I outlined our priorities at the Commission on Human Rights on 13 February. Mr. Gerard Collins, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, made a statement on behalf of the EC on 2 February. Copies of these statements are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government intend to use the opportunity of the current session of the United Nations human rights commission to condemn human rights abuses in China.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Together with our European partners, we raised our concerns about human rights in China in the opening week of the commission's current session. We intend to do so again under the item of the agenda which concerns situations in specific countries.

  Immigration
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet arrived at a decision on entry clearance for the children of Mr. A. Hussein of Southend-on-Sea, reference GV 100/6751.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in
  621
  immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My hon. Friend will receive a reply from the unit as soon as possible.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which years since the adoption by the United Nations of a resolution on the right to self-determination of the East Timorese in 1975 the United Nations General Assembly has discussed the situation in East Timor; and how Her Majesty's Government voted on each occasion.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Nations General Assembly discussed East Timor at every General Assembly session between 1975 and 1982. We abstained on each occasion.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the number and fate of people arrested, detained or tortured in East Timor since the visit there of Pope John Paul II in October 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We understand that 26 people may still be under investigation in connection with various incidents, including the demonstration after the Pope's mass on 12 October. A number of trials may follow. None was detained following the demonstration on 17 January during the United States ambassador's visit. There have been accusations of torture, but we are not in a position to substantiate them.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the number of East Timorese who have disappeared or died through violence since the Indonesian occupation in East Timor in 1975; and what sources of information Her Majesty's Government have on this area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have access to a range of sources which provide conflicting assessments. Estimates vary from 60,000 to 100,000 fatalities.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government have taken to implement the right to self-determination for the people of East Timor(a) in direct contact with the Indonesian Government, (b) through the European Community, (c) in contact with the Association of South East Asia Nations, (d) at the United Nations and (e) in the inter government group on Indonesia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We consider that the conditions required for a definitive exercise of self-determination can be created only through co-operation between the two Governments directly concerned, those of Portugal and Indonesia. We and our EC partners have therefore sought to encourage such a settlement in contacts with the Indonesians and the United Nations. We are sure that the United Nations Secretary-General, Portugal and Indonesia will be concerned to find a settlement which fully protects the interests of the people of East Timor. We have not raised the issue in the intergovernmental group on Indonesia. ASEAN countries do not regard East Timor as a regional issue for discussion with Her Majesty's Government.
  622
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the inter government group on Indonesia has considered the request of parliamentarians for East Timor that the group discusses the occupation of East Timor by Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The intergovernmental group on Indonesia has not considered this request.

  Turkey (Kurdish People)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Turkey concerning their treatment of the Kurdish people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are in regular touch with the Turkish Government about the human rights of all groups in Turkey, including Kurds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently raised the issue with the Turkish deputy Prime Minister, Professor Ali Bozer on 22 January.

  Polisario Front
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held by officials of his Department of Ministers with the Polisario Front.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No Foreign Office Minister has met a Polisario representative. But there have been occasional informal meetings between Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and Polisario representatives.

  Nuclear Arms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his recent visit to Canada, he raised the issues of(a) the 1970 nuclear proliferation treaty and its forthcoming fourth review conference, (b) prospects for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and (c) the flight testing of missile and aircraft systems.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

ENERGY

  Electricity Imports
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of electricity is now imported from French power stations via the Channel cable.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1989 net imports of electricity from France accounted for 4 per cent. of total electricity available from the United Kingdom public supply system.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has been sent a copy of the dossier "Why We Need Nuclear Electricity", produced by the British Nuclear Forum this year.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of Wordwatch paper 91 "Slowing Global Warming: A Worldwide Strategy" by Christopher Flavin, published in 1989.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A copy of this paper is already held in the Department of Energy library.

  Heat Pumps
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department will(a) be represented at and (b) present any paper to the International Energy Agency conference "Heat Pumps—Solving Energy and Environmental Challenges" to be held in Tokyo on 12 to 15 March.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department's views on heat pumps have been expressed at the two previous IEA Conferences in 1984 and 1987 and have not changed since.

  Hinkley B Power Station
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) for how long both reactors at Hinkley B were without any means of cooling on Sunday 11 February;

  (2) for how many minutes the nuclear reactor at Hinkley B was operating at full load on Sunday 11 February in the absence of any means of cooling;

  (3) if he will instigate a full public inquiry into the incident at Hinkley B power station on 11 February;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the incident which took place at Hinkley B on Sunday 11 February;

  (5) what is the maximum estimated time an advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactor on full load can function without going into melt down in the absence of any means of cooling;

  (6) when he commissioned a report from the nuclear installations inspectorate into the incident at Hinkley B power station on 11 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The matter in question concerned a loss of grid supplies at Hinkley Point B as a result of storms that night. The reactors, however, had already been shut down and were in a totally safe state when disconnection from the grid system occurred. The possibility of such loss of grid supplies was anticipated during the design of the station, which has more than adequate safety systems and back up generation facilities to ensure its safe operation. All station safety equipment functioned correctly. Station staff are trained to deal with this type of eventuality and did so successfully. The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate will follow up the matter as part of its normal inspection duties in order to confirm details.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many people live within(a) 3 miles and (b) 15 miles of Hinkley B power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are 1,700 people living within 5 km (3· miles) and 286,000 living within 25 km (15·5 miles) of Hinkley B power station.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will detail the emergency procedures which exist in the event of a serious incident at Hinkley B power station.
  624
  Mr. Baldry
  Operators of nuclear installations in the United Kingdom are required by Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate (NII) of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as a condition of their licences, to prepare emergency plans which are also subject to approval by the inspectorate. These plans, on which local authorities, police and other bodies must be consulted, are kept under continuous review and are tested regularly in exercises monitored by the NII. They cover both emergency procedures at the site and off-site arrangements to protect the public.

  Detailed emergency plans cover an area determined by the reference accident—that is, the accident which, although very unlikely, has the greatest off-site consequences that can reasonably be predicted, given the design of the plant, its protective systems and its operating limits. The emergency plans can be extended to deal with more serious and therefore, more improbable accidents. In such cases the police, emergency services and local authorities would make use of their general emergency planning arrangments for other accidents. This approach was endorsed by the Layfield report on the Sizewell inquiry.

  In a statement on 12 December 1988, the Prime Minister said that extensive consultations with the emergency services and local authorities have
  "confirmed the availability of contingency plans which would permit an effective response to be made to any nuclear accident, including those with more widespread effects than the specific site and off-site plans are designed to cater for".—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143. c. 391.]

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the effect of sea spray on the insulators in the Hinkley B substation close to the shore.

  Mr. Baldry
  Excessive salt deposition in the 400 KW substation, at Hinkley Point B, can occasionally cause separation from the grid, but in such instances reactors are automatically shut down.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the safety procedures at Hinkley B power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate advises me that it is fully satisfied with the safety procedures at Hinkley Point B.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy under what circumstances generators in advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power plants are switched on to manual overdrive; and under what circumstances they are switched back.

  Mr. Baldry
  Depending on the situation, there is a variety of procedures for switching electrical supplies available to the operators of advanced gas-cooled reactors.

  IAEA Safety Review Team
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency's operational safety review team's visit to Oldbury on Severn will be deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to issue the consultation paper on the proposed new scheme of grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in low-income households.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has today issued a consultation paper on a scheme which, subject to the 626
  approval of Parliament, I propose to introduce under regulations under clause 10 of the Social Security Bill. Copies of the paper are being placed in the Library.

  The paper outlines the type of scheme it is hoped will be introduced, and invites comments from interested parties. Copies are available from the Energy Efficiency Office of the Department of Energy.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Targeting
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are made in the targeting of overseas aid to ensure that the benefits are obtained by the poorest citizens of those countries selected to receive aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The long-term alleviation of poverty requires sustained economic growth. But much can be done directly to help the poor participate in and benefit from the process of development. We therefore consider within all our bilateral country aid programmes the scope for targeting assistance on the poorest groups, as well as

  Gross bilateral aid to poorest 20 countries1

  1979–88

  £ thousand

  Country

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Mozambique

  6,369

  4,629

  5,379

  1,924

  1,805

  4,182

  8,366

  7,424

  22,798

  30,512

  Ethiopia

  2,877

  1,946

  563

  5,645

  3,433

  7,004

  28,058

  9,627

  8,554

  19,174

  Bhutan

  24

  63

  93

  74

  136

  175

  165

  187

  270

  412

  Chad

  45

  26

  35

  360

  156

  31

  1,448

  89

  179

  252

  Malawi

  24,941

  16,543

  15,999

  16,984

  14,620

  12,959

  22,356

  15,346

  24,865

  46,494

  Tanzania

  24,076

  32,119

  30,040

  27,328

  30,384

  33,033

  17,967

  12,715

  28,798

  33,502

  Guinea-Bissau

  173

  56

  739

  244

  105

  16

  —

  62

  30

  51

  Bangladesh

  33,821

  66,190

  33,383

  23,537

  24,728

  35,656

  41,173

  38,321

  34,842

  41,968

  Somalia

  1,311

  2,806

  2,441

  2,528

  2,486

  2,058

  1,737

  3,941

  7,292

  6,675

  Nepal

  11,235

  6,834

  8,035

  9,596

  7,398

  8,580

  9,675

  9,946

  10,044

  10,826

  Zaire

  2,315

  548

  1,685

  317

  2,203

  1,253

  738

  285

  3,112

  595

  Madagascar

  100

  542

  300

  561

  199

  363

  469

  514

  551

  434

  Laos

  29

  13

  80

  —

  1

  4

  —

  6

  64

  104

  Gambia

  2,796

  2,270

  2,321

  2,480

  2,400

  3,638

  3,613

  9,897

  7,197

  6,530

  Mali

  489

  232

  281

  110

  190

  533

  744

  1,188

  982

  1,195

  Burundi

  17

  23

  21

  25

  50

  75

  81

  95

  90

  116

  Burkina Faso

  24

  96

  35

  25

  82

  120

  276

  131

  155

  314

  Sierra Leone

  3,283

  2,843

  3,165

  3,833

  3,199

  2,858

  3,626

  3,845

  2,652

  3,677

  Uganda

  2,212

  2,875

  15,078

  10,647

  6,109

  7,081

  9,171

  8,576

  12,180

  28,589

  Zambia

  5,070

  20,696

  24,119

  14,237

  15,485

  32,901

  25,552

  35,351

  25,349

  16,683

  1 Poorest 20 countries in 1988 obtained from 1989 World Bank. Atlas. Cambodia and Vietnam not included in this table since no precise figures available on GNP per capita.

  source: British Aid Statistics.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 20 poorest nations measured by gross domestic product per head, indicating which of these received regular United Kingdom bilateral aid in the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Figures for 1989 are not yet available. The information for the 50 poorest countries during the period 1979–88 is as follows:

  Percentage of total gross bilateral aid

  Year

  Percentage

  1979

  72·4

  1980

  64·9

  1981

  62·7

  1982

  58·1

  1983

  62·9

  1984

  63·7

  1985

  62·7

  1986

  63·1

  1987

  68·1

  1988

  69·5

  source: British Aid Statistics.
  628
  supporting the growth of the economy generally. We are channelling increasing amounts of aid through non-governmental organisations which are often best equipped to tackle poverty at grass roots level. In 1988–89 £63 million of aid was provided through non-governmental organisations.

  Poorest Nations
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom bilateral aid has been specifically targeted towards the poorest nations, as measured by gross domestic product per head, during each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs Chalker
  The information is as follows:

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the value of British economic and technical assistance to Indonesia since 1975; how much of this aid can be identified as having been used for projects in East Timor; and whether any efforts have been made to exclude aid from being used in East Timor.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain's gross bilateral aid to Indonesia from 1975 to 1988 (the most recent year for which records are available) totals £193,303,000. None of this aid has been used for projects in East Timor.

  Primary Education Aid
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Overseas Development Agency plans to increase the proportion of overall project aid allocated to primary education in developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall first wish to discuss with overseas Governments at the forthcoming world conference on education for all the proportion of our assistance they wish to commit to primary education. We shall pursue these discussions in respect of developing Commonwealth countries at the conference of
  629
  Commonwealth Education Ministers in Barbados later this year and with non-Commonwealth countries as opportunities arise.

  Education Conference
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will be represented at the world conference on education for all in Thailand in March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 13 February at column 132.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to raise the need for increased expenditure on primary education by developing nations at the world conference on education for all.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall discuss with representatives of developing countries at the world conference on education for all the priority which should be given to increased expenditure on primary education. We shall pursue this discussion with Ministers of Education from developing Commonwealth countries at the conference of Education Ministers which is to be held in Barbados later this year and with non-Commonwealth countries as opportunities arise.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Reorganisation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the extent of his powers to modify secondary school reorganisation proposals put to him by local education authorities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is empowered by section 12(6) of the Education Act 1980, after consultation with the local education authority, to approve proposals with such modifications as he thinks desirable. He is not, however, empowered to modify proposals to such an extent as to change them in substance or alter them in such a way as to deprive potential objectors of the opportunity of full and informed consideration of the proposals as a whole.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the need for a better balance between medical research facilities in the north and south of England.

  Mr. Jackson
  None.

  South African Students
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students from. South Africa received tuition in Britain in 1989.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the academic year 1988–89 there were 619 full-time students on higher education courses in British universities, polytechnics and colleges whose country of domicile was recorded as South Africa.

  "Industry Links"
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to which organisation or company public funds have been granted for the making of the video "Industry Links"; how much money was involved; what information he has on which local authorities intend to use it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department of Education and Science has paid £12,000 to the company Dialogue to support the making of the video "Industry Links", slightly less than half the total cost of production. The balance is being met by contributions from Walsall local education authority, local and national businesses, and by sales of the video.

  The video has been very well received. The Department intends therefore to fund its free distribution to every local education authority in England and Wales. The additional cost of this will be £1,924.

  I am informed that the video has been in demand by chambers of commerce, compacts and businesses, and that copies have been bought by officers and advisers in some 30 local education authorities, and by some 70 individual schools and teachers' centres.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to propose limits to numbers in schools(a) to prevent schools maximising numbers and financial support under LMS and (b) to ensure equality between numbers in schools in difficult educational districts.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No. What the hon. Member proposes would run counter to the Government's policy of increasing parental choice through more open enrolment. There is no justification for keeping places empty in popular schools: if the demand is there, a school should be allowed to admit pupils up to its physical capacity.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the amount of total local authority expenditure on education other than higher education in each year since 1979–80 in cash and in 1989–90 prices under the budget heads published in table 11.2 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93", chapter 11, page 3, Cm. 1011.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information requested is shown in tables 1 and 2.
  631

  Table 1

  Local authority expenditure

  £ million cash

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  CURRENT SPENDING

  Schools

  Under-fives

  177

  222

  241

  274

  296

  331

  350

  397

  447

  510

  561

  Primary schools

  1,706

  2,086

  2,258

  2,349

  2,416

  2,485

  2,612

  2,952

  3,331

  3,694

  3,988

  Secondary schools

  2,354

  2,952

  3,304

  3,544

  3,735

  3,858

  3,949

  4,360

  4,694

  5,013

  5,261

  Special schools

  249

  309

  347

  382

  412

  432

  462

  513

  555

  619

  666

  Meals and milk

  422

  397

  396

  411

  426

  428

  436

  457

  443

  403

  404

  Transport

  136

  160

  174

  184

  195

  199

  208

  215

  222

  235

  254

  Non-maintained school fees

  137

  157

  107

  114

  118

  121

  117

  131

  145

  153

  158

  Teachers' centres

  21

  23

  24

  28

  32

  48

  56

  59

  64

  Child guidance

  26

  28

  28

  31

  35

  37

  57

  64

  72

  Pupil support

  24

  26

  27

  32

  35

  39

  42

  44

  47

  Further and continuing education

  Further education

  546

  688

  790

  878

  931

  998

  979

  1,054

  1,148

  1,250

  1,349

  Adult education

  56

  61

  67

  77

  86

  93

  102

  112

  116

  129

  138

  Discretionary student awards and support

  84

  95

  107

  121

  132

  142

  152

  170

  187

  180

  203

  Miscellaneous services, research and administration

  Youth service

  64

  76

  86

  97

  109

  117

  125

  140

  165

  176

  190

  Recreational services and research

  33

  36

  41

  46

  54

  58

  58

  65

  63

  65

  72

  Administration and inspection costs

  298

  367

  405

  435

  477

  503

  537

  608

  665

  746

  862

  Technical and vocational initiative (TVEI)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  22

  33

  61

  51

  76

  100

  Work-related further education (WRFE)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  61

  104

  106

  104

  96

  Mandatory student awards

  534

  663

  770

  669

  734

  744

  710

  703

  761

  808

  897

  Total current spending

  6,795

  8,268

  9,163

  9,658

  10,206

  10,622

  10,993

  12,166

  13,255

  14,329

  15,381

  CAPITAL SPENDING

  Schools

  286

  347

  257

  266

  284

  273

  276

  278

  283

  283

  527

  Higher and further education

  75

  107

  85

  117

  116

  125

  136

  144

  109

  110

  93

  Miscellaneous education services

  Youth service

  7

  6

  6

  12

  10

  12

  11

  11

  12

  10

  17

  Other education services

  5

  12

  13

  18

  15

  13

  9

  9

  23

  20

  26

  Total capital spending

  373

  472

  361

  413

  424

  423

  432

  442

  427

  423

  662

  Total local authority expenditure

  7,168

  8,740

  9,524

  10,071

  10,630

  11,045

  11,425

  12,608

  13,682

  14,752

  16,043

  Table 2

  Local authority expenditure

  Repriced to 1989–90 prices

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  CURRENT SPENDING

  Schools

  Under-fives

  357

  378

  374

  396

  409

  436

  437

  480

  513

  546

  561

  Primary schools

  3,437

  3,551

  3,501

  3,397

  3,338

  3,271

  3,263

  3,567

  3,823

  3,953

  3,988

  Secondary schools

  4,743

  5,026

  5,123

  5,125

  5,161

  5,078

  4,933

  5,269

  5,387

  5,364

  5,261

  Special schools

  502

  526

  538

  552

  569

  569

  577

  620

  637

  662

  666

  Meals and milk

  850

  676

  614

  594

  589

  563

  545

  552

  508

  431

  404

  Transport

  274

  272

  270

  266

  269

  262

  260

  260

  255

  251

  254

  Non-maintained school fees

  276

  267

  166

  165

  163

  159

  146

  158

  166

  164

  158

  Teachers' centres

  33

  33

  33

  37

  40

  58

  64

  63

  64

  Child guidance

  40

  40

  39

  41

  44

  45

  65

  68

  72

  Pupil support

  37

  38

  37

  42

  44

  47

  48

  47

  47

  Further and continuing education

  Further education

  1,100

  1,171

  1,225

  1,270

  1,286

  1,314

  1,223

  1,274

  1,317

  1,338

  1,349

  Adult education

  113

  104

  104

  111

  119

  122

  127

  135

  133

  138

  138

  Discretionary student awards and support

  169

  162

  166

  175

  182

  187

  190

  205

  215

  193

  203

  Miscellaneous services, research and administration

  632 633

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Youth service

  129

  129

  133

  140

  151

  154

  156

  169

  189

  188

  190

  Recreational services and research

  66

  61

  64

  67

  75

  76

  72

  79

  72

  70

  72

  Administration and inspection costs

  600

  625

  628

  629

  659

  662

  671

  735

  763

  798

  862

  Technical and vocational initiative (TVEI)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  29

  41

  74

  59

  81

  100

  Work-related further education (WRFE)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  126

  122

  111

  96

  Mandatory student awards

  1,076

  1,129

  1,194

  967

  1,014

  979

  887

  850

  873

  865

  897

  Total current spending

  13,690

  14,076

  14,208

  13,967

  14,102

  13,982

  13,733

  14,702

  15,212

  15,332

  15,381

  CAPITAL SPENDING

  Schools

  576

  591

  399

  385

  392

  359

  345

  336

  325

  303

  527

  Higher and further education

  151

  182

  132

  169

  160

  165

  170

  174

  125

  118

  93

  Miscellaneous education services

  Youth service

  14

  10

  9

  17

  14

  16

  14

  13

  14

  11

  17

  Other education services

  10

  20

  20

  26

  21

  17

  11

  11

  26

  21

  26

  Total capital spending

  752

  804

  560

  597

  586

  557

  540

  534

  490

  453

  662

  Total local authority expenditure

  14,442

  14,879

  14,768

  14,564

  14,687

  14,539

  14,272

  15,236

  15,702

  15,785

  16,043

  Notes to tables:

  1 The data in table 1 are those shown in table 11–2 of Cm. 1011 and the equivalent tables from previous public expenditure White Papers. Recurrent spending on higher education has been excluded, as has the "polytechnics (repayment of loans)" line from Cm. 1011 and the previous year's White Paper; a single sum is given for capital spending on further and higher education because the higher education element is not easily identifiable during the period in question.

  2 The figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are provisional. Those for 1988–89 incorporate a distribution by sector of total current spending by local authorities based on their provisional outturn expenditure on education. The 1989–90 figures incorporate a provisional distribution by sector of total current spending by local authorities based on their budgets.

  3 Figures for the breakdown of spending between non-maintained school fees, teachers' centres, child guidance and pupils support are riot available for 1979–80 and 1980–81.

  4 The data in table 2 reprice the data in table 1 to 1989–90 prices, using the current gross domestic product deflators.

  5 Some of the columns may not sum due to rounding.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish figures for the amount of central Government-funded current expenditure on schools for each financial year from 1978–79 to date, in cash, and constant prices, and with a real terms index where 1978–79 = 100.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Central Government support local authority current expenditure on schools through specific grants and through general rate support grant (from April 1990, revenue support grant) which is not hypothecated to individual services. The amounts of expenditure local authorities in England have spent on schools between 1978–79 and 1989–90 in the light of the resources available to them are shown in table 1. The figures take no account of the significant fall in pupil numbers over the period. The Government have also directly funded since 1987–88 expenditure on city technology colleges and since 1989–90 expenditure on grant-maintained schools. The current element of this expenditure is shown in table 2.

  Table 1

  Local authority expenditure on schools

  Year

  Cash terms

  Real terms (1988–89 prices)

  Index (1978–79 = 100)

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  4,547

  9,999

  100

  1979–80

  5,181

  9,756

  98

  1980–81

  6,283

  9,997

  100

  1981–82

  6,898

  9,996

  100

  1982–83

  7,335

  9,914

  99

  1983–84

  7,677

  9,913

  99

  634

  Year

  Cash terms

  Real terms (1988–89 prices)

  Index (1978–79 = 100)

  £ million

  £ million

  1984–85

  7,945

  9,774

  98

  1985–86

  8,236

  9,615

  96

  1986–87

  9,149

  10,333

  103

  1987–88

  9,992

  10,717

  107

  1988–89

  10,794

  10,794

  108

  1989–90

  11,475

  10,724

  107

  Notes:

  1 The figure for 1978–79 contains small elements of central Government current expenditure. It is not possible separately to identify this element.

  2 The cash terms figures are those shown in the Department of Education and Science chapters of successive public expenditure White Papers under the local authority schools heading, including expenditure on items such as pupil support and meals as well as direct institutional expenditure. The figures exclude grants paid by the Training Agency to local authorities in respect of the technical and vocational education initiative.

  3 The figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are provisional. Those for 1988–89 reflect a distribution by sector of total current spending by local authorities based on their provisional outturn expenditure on education. The 1989–90 figures reflect a provisional distribution by sector of total current spending by local authorities based on their budgets.

  4 The cash terms data have been repriced to real terms using the current gross domestic product deflators.
  635

  Table 2

  Central Government direct current expenditure on CTCS and GM

  schools

  Year

  Cash terms

  Real terms (1988–89 prices)

  Index (1988–89 = 100)

  £ million

  £ million

  1988–89

  2

  2

  100

  1989–90

  15

  14

  700

  Note: The cash terms data have been repriced to constant terms using the current Gross Domestic Product deflators.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a chart or table showing for each academic year since 1979 the maximum available student grant in cash figures, tabulated alongside the annual inflation rate for each academic year and the percentage increase of the grant for each academic year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The maximum available grant in any given year depends on the individual student's circumstances. The following table shows the information requested for the basic rate of maintenance grant appropriate to students studying outside London.

  Mandatory award holders 1979–80 to 1987–881

  England and Wales

  Full maintenance award (no assessed parental or other contribution)

  Reduced maintenance award

  Nil or minimum2 maintenance award

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Total

  1979–80

  143,902

  39

  197,049

  53

  28,402

  8

  269,353

  1980–81

  151,877

  40

  196,882

  52

  30,648

  8

  379,407

  1981–82

  159,195

  40

  200,730

  50

  39,391

  10

  399,316

  1982–83

  152,394

  37

  216,053

  52

  47,520

  11

  415,967

  1983–84

  137,470

  36

  198,420

  52

  48,731

  12

  384,621

  1984–85

  134,768

  35

  181,580

  47

  71,013

  18

  387,361

  1985–86

  137,751

  35

  167,914

  43

  84,614

  22

  390,279

  1986–87

  145,307

  37

  160,771

  41

  88,188

  22

  394,266

  1987–88

  150,978

  37

  153,273

  38

  100,064

  25

  404,315

  1 The years 1979–80 to 1982–83 include all full-value awards, some of which are local education authority discretionary awards.

  2 Between 1979–80 and 1984–85 all students received a minimum maintenance award. The mimimum award has halved in 1984–85 and abolished from 1985–86. All award holders have their fees paid by the local authority.

  Tampon Education
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the tampon industry's schools education programme; and whether he will consider incorporating information for new tampon users about the danger of contracting toxic shock syndrome into schools' curricula.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Teaching about the use of sanitary protection would normally be covered within a school's programme of sex education. Under section 18(2) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 responsibility for determining an individual school's policy on the content and organisation of sex education rests with the school governors.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report, specifying in each case the local authorities concerned, those schools which, from 1980 to the latest date for
  636

  Academic year

  Maintenance grant

  Increase on previous year

  Inflation (R.P.I.)

  £

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1979–80

  1,245

  13·1

  15·9

  1980–81

  1,430

  14·9

  11·4

  1981–82

  1,535

  7·3

  7·3

  1982–83

  1,595

  3·9

  5·1

  1983–84

  1,660

  4·1

  4·7

  1984–85

  1,775

  6·9

  5·9

  1985–86

  1,830

  3·1

  3·0

  1986–87

  1,901

  3·9

  4·2

  1987–88

  1,972

  3·7

  5·9

  1988–89

  2,050

  4·0

  7·6

  1989–90

  2,155

  5·1

  n/a

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a chart or table showing for each academic year since 1979(a) the numbers of higher education students and (b) the percentage of the total number pf students in higher education receiving (i) no grant, (ii) 1 to 25 per cent., (iii) 26 to 50 per cent., (iv) 51 to 75 per cent. and (v) 76 to 100 per cent. of the maximum grant allowance for that year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available in the format requested. The available data are as follows:

  which information is available, have changed from (a) independent to voluntary status and (b) voluntary to independent.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information held by his Department will be available to community charge registration offices.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Community charge registration officers have no powers to seek information from the Department of Education and Science.

  Welfare Officers
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will detail the number of education welfare officers engaged by local education authorities since 1978–79.
  637
  Mr. MacGregor
  This information is not collected centrally by my Department.

  Graduate Demand
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received the study on graduate demand undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute; what are its conclusions; and when he expects to publish it.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I received this report of some commissioned research recently. I expect to make an announcement about publication and the implications of the report as soon as possible after I have completed my study of it.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when his Department received a copy of the recent NFER survey of school buildings carried out under the auspices of the National Audit Office; if he will now publish the results of the survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department does not have a copy of the NFER survey. It is for the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide what use to make of any survey commissioned by the National Audit Office.

  Student Unions
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he takes to ensure that the accounts of student unions are properly audited; and what legislation governs the auditing and publication of such accounts.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. Auditing and publication of accounts are matters for the relevant university, polytechnic or college. The Department's survey of student unions, published in September 1989, found that in over three quarters of the 71 unions surveyed, union accounts were subject to the approval of the institution involved.

  Grant-maintained Status
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many objections were submitted to him in respect of each of the grant-maintained proposals that have subsequently been(a) approved and (b) rejected; and in each case how many people in total were signatories to such objections.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The number of statutory objections received in respect of proposals for each of the grant-maintained proposals that were subsequently (a) approved and (b) rejected is as follows:

  Number of statutory objections

  Approved

  Audenshaw County High, Tameside

  21

  Bacup and Rawtenstall, Lancashire

  4

  Bankfield County High, Cheshire

  1

  Baverstock School, Birmingham

  3

  Beechen Clifl", Avon

  38

  638

  Number of statutory objections

  Bishopshalt, Hillingdon

  15

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial, ILEA

  11

  Castle Hall Middle, Kirklees

  9

  Claremont High, Brent

  2

  Colyton Grammar, Devon

  2

  Guildford County, Surrey

  2

  Heckmondwike Grammar, Kirklees

  5

  Hendon School Barnet

  6

  Kings School, Lincolnshire

  0

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School, Lancashire

  1

  London Nautical School, ILEA

  6

  London Oratory School, ILEA

  0

  Long Field High, Leicestershire

  22

  Marling, Gloucestershire

  0

  Netherthorpe School, Derbyshire

  14

  Old Swinford Hospital, Dudley

  0

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar, Lincolnshire

  6

  Queen Elizabeth's Boys, Barnet

  4

  Queensbury School, Bedfordshire

  7

  Ribston Hall High, Gloucestershire

  22

  St. Francis Xavier's, Liverpool

  3

  St. James' CE, Bolton

  30

  Skegness Grammar, Lincolnshire

  1

  Small Heath School, Birmingham

  1

  Southfield School, Northamptonshire

  8

  Southlands, Berkshire

  4

  Stroud Girls' High, Gloucestershire

  0

  Watford Boys Grammar, Hertfordshire

  5

  Wilmington Grammar, Kent

  2

  Wilson's School, Sutton

  6

  Rejected

  Blessed Hugh Moor RC, Lincolnshire

  1

  Castlemount High, Kent

  1

  Hindley Park, Wigan

  0

  Kettering Boys, Northamptonshire

  5

  Longlands, Dudley

  1

  Ramsden School for Girls, Bromley

  12

  Simon Digby, Solihull

  1

  Sir James Altham, Hertfordshire

  2

  South Park High, Lincolnshire

  1

  The total number of signatories in each case could not be established without disproportionate expense.

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support his Department is giving this year towards the teaching of Welsh to adults in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In the current financial year, Welsh Office support for the teaching of Welsh to adults is £305,000.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will take steps to ensure that all district, borough and city councils distribute information leaflets on poll tax rebates to all individuals.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Following consultations with the Welsh local authority associations, arrangements were made for all households in Wales to receive, in November 1989, a bilingual Welsh Office leaflet on community charge benefit. Local authorities are free to supplement these leaflets with their own information. Regulations which I
  639
  shall shortly lay before the House will require Welsh charging authorities to include, in the material accompanying community charge demands, information about the availability of community charge benefit and how it may be claimed.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been confirmed to date(a) in the Carmarthen area, (b) in Dyfed and (c) in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Total number of confirmed cases as at 9 February 1990.

  Number

  (a) Old county of Carmarthen

  101

  (b) Dyfed

  330

  (c) Wales

  690

  Uniform Business Rates
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of uniform business rate set for each(a) university college, (b) college of further education, (c) college of higher education, (d) technical college and (e) tertiary college in Wales; and what are the current amounts paid in rates by each college.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The uniform business rate for 1990–91 for each hereditament in the category listed is 36·8p in the pound. Information about the rates currently paid in respect of individual hereditaments is not held centrally.

  Family Law
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representatives his Department has on the family law administration working party; and when those representatives last attended a meeting of the working party.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department is represented on the group of officials currently reviewing adoption law, an important aspect of the work of the family law administration working party. This group last met on Tuesday, 5 December 1989 and is due to meet again on Friday 2 March. Although not represented on the working party itself, we are kept in touch with developments.

  A487
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve the A487 at Dyffryn Goodwick, Pembrokeshire, during the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This road is the responsibility of Dyfed county council.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the publication by the Natural Environment Research Council on acid rain in Snowdonia.
  640
  Mr. Grist
  The scientists carrying out research for the Welsh Office on the effects of acid rain in Wales work closely with the Natural Environment Research Council and have noted the findings publicised by the council at their recent seminar.

  Local Authority Budgets
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those Welsh local authorities(a) with an annual budget of £35 million or less and (b) those with budgets of over £35 million; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The latest budget information available relates to 1989–90. Based on this, all Welsh districts had annual budgets of less than £35 million and all Welsh counties had annual budgets of greater than £35 million.

  Teachers' Pay
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish a table similar to appendix A of Cm. 973 showing the teachers' pay baseline 1990–91 for Wales; and if he will give a breakdown in similar form showing the cost of implementing the recommendations of the interim advisory committee in 1990–91 and in a full year thereafter;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Pontypridd of 9 February, Official Report, column 811, what amount and proportion of the difference between the full £600 million remit given to the interim advisory committee and the £563 million English element of that remit has been included in the education component of total standard spending for authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh component of the total shown in appendix A of Cm. 973 is estimated at £485 million. The breakdown of the pay baseline in the categories set out in Cm. 973 is only available on an England and Wales basis. The cost for Wales of staging the interim advisory committee's recommendation in the way accepted by the Government would be around £37 million in 1990–91 and £44 million in a full year. The remit given to the IAC was allowed for in full in the Welsh local authority revenue settlement for 1990–91. Standard spending assessments are not hypothecated to particular services.

  Community Care
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support he intends to make available to organisations concerned with the needs of(a) elderly people, (b) people with physical, sensory or mental disability and (c) carers in the coming financial year to enable them to participate fully in the planning for, and implementation of, increased care in the community.

  Mr. Grist
  In addition to the sums made available to health and social services authorities for main programme expenditure, Welsh Office support is provided through a number of funding mechanisms including our mental illness and mental handicap strategies and the elderly initiative, the urban programme and grants under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Figures relating to elderly people, people with a physical and or sensory disability and carers are as follows:
  641

  11990–91

  Elderly people

  3,200,000

  People with a physical or sensory disability

  744,000

  Carers

  87,000

  1 Provisional.

  We expect also to allocate, in addition to core funding of voluntary organisations, up to some £2·2 million in 1990–91 towards initiatives proposed both by voluntary and statutory agencies under the mental illness strategy. The strategy was specifically designed to promote the development of appropriate services in the community for those suffering from mental illness and for their carers.

  An announcement will be made shortly in respect of the financial support available under the mental handicap strategy for 1990–91.

  We also intend that voluntary organisations will be given every opportunity to participate in the planning of the new community care framework as outlined in our draft planning guidance issues on 26 January, of which the hon. Gentleman has been sent a copy.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current status of his Department's circular 51/89, also referred to as WO health (89)58 and FP (89)15, regarding services for people with physical and/or sensory disabilities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The circular is a draft issued for consultation. It is intended to publish the final version next month.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to reply to the application of the Alzheimer's Disease Society for funding for the work of the development officer for south Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  We expect to make a decision within the next fortnight upon all those bids for funding under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 that are related to mental illness services; replies will be sent to applicants, including the Alzheimer's Disease Society, shortly thereafter.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money he has made available to governing bodies of sports in Wales, via the Sports Council for Wales in each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90; what information he has on how much of the money in each of those years was allocated to assist(a) administration, (b) coaching and (c) international representation; what figures he will make available in the 1990–91 financial year; and what conditions or guidelines govern the proportion which may be allocated to administration, coaching and international representation, respectively.

  Mr. Grist
  The figures for the relevant years are as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  1531,026

  1988–89

  1687,745

  1989–90

  2667,000

  1990–91

  2680,000

  642
  1from the council's annual reports

  2estimated

  The grants to governing bodies are not allocated by the Sports Council for Wales in the terms requested

  Hospitals
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales over what period the £10 million cash boost for health care in the valleys is to be spent; and how much has been allocated to each hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 12 February 1990.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra money he is allocating to the proposed new hospital for Neath/Port Talbot.

  Mr. Grist
  The responsibility for funding the proposed hospital to serve the Neath/Port Talbot area rests with the West Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he now proposes to reach a decision as to whether to go ahead with a new hospital for Neath/Port Talbot; how much slippage there has been since his last announced date for commencement; and what is the reason for the delay in the progress of this proposal.

  Mr. Grist
  Discussions on technical details of the health authority's submission on this proposal are still proceeding between officials. We shall come to a decision on the scheme once the outstanding issues have been resolved. The health authority will review the projected start date at that time.

  Local Government and Housing Act
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that the time scale for implementation of part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of companies with which Welsh local authorities have an involvement is such as to allow the orderly rearrangement of the companies' structures and other arrangements to comply with the Act and achieve the continuation of their functions.

  Mr. Grist
  The timetable for implementation will facilitate an orderly transition.

EMPLOYMENT

  Gateshead Central Training Unit for the Disabled
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for the future of the Gateshead central training unit for the disabled.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the support under the sheltered placement scheme. The scheme is currently supporting 33 jobs for people with severe disabilities in Gateshead. Nine of these are sponsored by Gateshead metropolitan borough council and 24 by voluntary organisations. I shall be informing sponsors shortly about the level of resource for the sheltered placement scheme in 1990–91.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number, and the relevant percentages, of young people aged 16 and 17 years who are currently(a) on YTS and (b) employed or unemployed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table sets out the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds training under YTS, broken down by employed and non-employed status on 31 December 1989.

  Total employed

  Per cent, of total

  Total non-employed

  Per cent, of total

  Total

  16-year-olds

  29,500

  25·0

  88,300

  75·0

  117,800

  17-year-olds

  54,700

  30·5

  124,500

  69·5

  179,200

  TOTALS

  84,200

  28·4

  212,800

  71·6

  297,000

  Informations laid by factory and agricultural inspectorates under section 137 of the Factories Act 1961

  Area

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986–87

  1987–88

  01 SouthWest

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  02 South

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  03 South East

  1

  2

  1

  2

  3

  04–06 Greater London

  2

  1

  2

  2

  —

  07 East Anglia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  08 Northern Home Counties

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  09 East Midlands

  1

  7

  2

  2

  8

  10 West Midlands

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  11 Wales

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  12 Marches

  2

  13

  2

  3

  3

  13 North Midlands

  3

  —

  3

  1

  —

  14 South Yorkshire and Humberside

  3

  3

  2

  —

  1

  15 West and North Yorkshire

  2

  2

  4

  6

  2

  16 Greater Manchester

  —

  3

  —

  1

  3

  17 Merseyside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  18 North West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19 North East

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  20 Scotland East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21 Scotland West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  21

  33

  21

  20

  23

  Notes:

  1983–1985 Calendar years.

  1986–87 onwards Financial years.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what internal research the Health and Safety Executive has done in the last two years into the proportion of factory premises which are not registered with the factory inspectorate; and if he will summarise the findings of that research in relation to the proportion of premises which are unregistered and the proportion of factory employees who work in unregistered premises.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to state the proportion of premises which are not registered or the proportion of factory employees who work in unregistered premises and there are no current research projects into non-registration. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is aware that some firms have failed to register their manufacturing premises with it as required under section 137 of the Factories Act 1961. HSE's factory inspectorate plans to spend a fixed proportion of its resources each year on the identification and inspection of unregistered fixed workplaces as part of its programme of preventive inspection. HSE also encourages registration through publicity campaigns and publications such as "500 Dead".
  644
  There are also 88,600 trainees in YTS who are over 18 of whom 34 per cent. have employed status.

  Factories (Registration)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many informations were laid against employers for failure to register factory premises with the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last five years and in each Health and Safety Executive area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the number of informations laid by Her Majesty's factory and agricultural inspectorates alleging contravention of section 137 of the Factories Act 1961 (which deals with the requirement to register factory premises with the Health and Safety Executive). Information about the informations laid by other Health and Safety Executive inspectorates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Improvement and Prohibition Notices
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many improvement and prohibition notices have been issued in each of the Health and Safety Executive's areas for the last four quarters for which information is available; and how many of these have been identified as warranting public disclosure.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table gives details of the enforcement notices issued by each area of Her Majesty's factory and agricultural inspectorates for the four quarters of 1987–88. Information about the enforcement notices issued by other Health and Safety Executive inspectorates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Environment and Safety Information Act 1988 requires enforcing authorities to maintain public registers of details of improvement and prohibition notices which have public safety implications. The Act came into force on 1 April 1989 and was not retrospective. Prior to that date, no separate register of the minority of enforcement notices warranting public disclosure was kept.
  645

  Table 1

  Enforcement notices issued by Her Majesty's factory inspectorate and Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate

  HSE area code

  HSE area

  1 April 1987 to 30 June 1987

  1 July 1987 to 30 September 1987

  1 October 1987 to 31 December 1987

  1 January 1988 to 31 March 1988

  Improvement

  Deferred prohibition

  Immediate prohibition1

  Improvement

  Deferred prohibition

  Immediate prohibition1

  Improvement

  Deferred prohibition

  Immediate prohibition1

  Improvement

  Deferred prohibition

  Immediate prohibition1

  01

  South West

  138

  3

  14

  111

  2

  19

  162

  —

  62

  137

  3

  20

  02

  South

  92

  3

  31

  36

  1

  35

  84

  —

  50

  67

  —

  42

  03

  South East

  65

  —

  24

  65

  1

  47

  70

  2

  53

  79

  5

  51

  04–06

  Greater London

  55

  1

  29

  130

  3

  66

  117

  4

  142

  149

  11

  60

  07

  East Anglia

  78

  1

  31

  84

  2

  34

  86

  —

  130

  87

  2

  61

  08

  Northern Home Counties

  56

  —

  66

  64

  2

  99

  62

  —

  60

  67

  3

  50

  09

  East Midlands

  159

  1

  33

  74

  1

  46

  88

  4

  92

  117

  1

  42

  10

  West Midlands

  31

  —

  32

  36

  —

  39

  28

  1

  35

  44

  —

  31

  11

  Wales

  206

  6

  28

  98

  12

  43

  181

  5

  43

  212

  2

  39

  12

  Marches

  102

  2

  30

  122

  2

  60

  133

  3

  76

  134

  —

  56

  13

  North Midlands

  81

  —

  38

  78

  6

  45

  74

  12

  55

  82

  1

  29

  14

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  75

  11

  74

  83

  —

  62

  100

  5

  38

  51

  2

  25

  15

  West and North Yorkshire

  68

  19

  42

  75

  8

  44

  75

  4

  50

  90

  2

  49

  16

  Greater Manchester

  51

  —

  35

  107

  3

  84

  124

  1

  33

  91

  5

  64

  17

  Merseyside

  10

  1

  10

  35

  0

  50

  37

  1

  16

  54

  —

  46

  18

  North West

  74

  1

  28

  71

  —

  28

  47

  —

  125

  99

  —

  187

  19

  North East

  50

  2

  35

  54

  11

  55

  69

  7

  51

  76

  7

  56

  20

  Scotland East

  144

  2

  58

  100

  5

  66

  81

  —

  37

  159

  —

  222

  21

  Scotland West

  51

  2

  109

  59

  2

  109

  60

  1

  137

  71

  1

  84

  Total

  1,586

  55

  747

  1,482

  61

  1,031

  1,678

  50

  1,285

  1,866

  45

  1,214

  1 Reflects the major enforcement initiatives aimed at small construction sites.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to empower magistrates to refer for sentencing to the Crown court cases brought by the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and any of the relevant statutory provisions within the meaning of section 53 of the Act.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Magistrates have existing powers under the Magistrates Court Act 1980 to refer individuals to a higher court for sentencing. This power does not extend to corporations. Any amendment to include corporations would be a matter for the Home Office. However, for

  Enforcement notices issued by health and safety executive inspectorates1

  Number issued

  Result of notice

  Full compliance

  Compliance with extension

  Withdrawn

  Prosecution

  No further action

  Continuing requirement

  Other result

  Result not known

  1985

  Improvement

  5,584

  4,703

  508

  48

  39

  96

  13

  1

  176

  Prohibition:

  Deferred

  248

  203

  10

  4

  1

  2

  16

  —

  12

  Immediate

  2,193

  1,948

  8

  1

  11

  8

  181

  5

  31

  1986–872

  Improvement

  6,575

  5,514

  509

  64

  73

  86

  8

  5

  316

  Prohibition

  Deferred

  195

  147

  5

  1

  —

  —

  21

  1

  20

  Immediate

  2,707

  2,353

  10

  8

  11

  20

  231

  —

  84

  1987–882

  Improvement

  6,629

  5,401

  501

  60

  46

  91

  8

  1

  521

  Prohibition:

  Deferred

  231

  178

  4

  —

  —

  —

  35

  —

  14

  Immediate3

  4,296

  3,903

  15

  5

  14

  14

  217

  1

  127

  646
  serious health and safety cases, health and safety executive inspectors are increasingly seeking to persuade magistrates that such cases should be dealt with in the Crown court.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) improvement and (b) prohibition notices were issued by the Health and Safety Executive in the years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989; to whom they were served; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 14 February 1990]: The table summarises the number of improvement and prohibition notices issued for the calendar year 1985 and the financial years 1986–87 and 1987–88, and their outcome. The figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. The names of those on whom the notices were served could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  647
  1 Her Majesty's Factory, Agricultural, Mines and Quarries, Explosives and Nuclear Installations inspectorates.

  2 Years commencing 1 April.

  3 Reflects the major enforcement initiatives aimed at small construction sites.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if any undertaking to provide employment training courses has been given by skill centres under the privatisation arrangements.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Astra Training Services Ltd. has announced that it intends to consolidate the STA's present position as a major provider of employment training. The other successful bidder for a skill centre, Metel, is already a training manager for ET.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the differences between YTS and youth training which will replace it.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The youth training arrangements build upon the successes of YTS and incorporate major new flexibilities designed to meet a wide range of local needs both economic and individual.

  The key differences are:

  (a) an emphasis on outputs rather than training processes.

  (b) flexible design of individual schemes to achieve outputs instead of a fixed national design structure.

  (c) the two year and one year entitlements of YTS give way to programmes of varying duration suitable for particular types of courses and the types of trainee need involved.

  (d) the promise of courses at a standard of at least level 2 as laid down by the National Council of Vocational Qualifications or at equivalent occupational training or educational standards. In addition, more purchase of training at levels 3 and 4.

  (e) allowances for unemployed trainees based upon age rather than cumulative time in training.

  (f) improved assessment and endorsement procedures for special training needs.

  (g) enhanced training opportunities to help unemployed trainees nearing the end of training to secure jobs.

  (h) extension of the guarantee to include certain groups whose entry into training has been unavoidably delayed.

  (i) more scope for discretionary entry for people not covered by the guarantee.

  (j) greater financial discretion to use YT funds to build up local training arrangements, improve local marketing, and to give specific support for individual young people on assessment, action plans and similar matters.

  Contracts of Employment
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now take steps to transfer the jurisdiction of courts to industrial tribunals, in respect of claims by dismissed employees against employers arising out of alleged breaches of contracts of employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend will be making a statement shortly.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many filled employment training places there are in the Greater Manchester area; and what percentage this represents of the original departmental projections.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 9 February 1990, the latest date for which information is available, there were 9,719 people on employment training in Greater Manchester. Departmental projections are for internal management information purposes only.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places were filled on the Greater Manchester archaeological unit employment training scheme at the time of closure; and what percentage this represented of the original and revised contracted places.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Greater Manchester archaeological unit employment training scheme has not closed. On 26 January 1990, a total of 241 places were filled on the scheme. This represents 80 per cent. of its current contracted capacity and 48 per cent. of its original contracted level.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much public money from the Training Agency has been given to the Greater Manchester archaeological unit employment training scheme; and on what dates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Money advanced by the Training Agency to the Greater Manchester archaeological unit under employment training was in accordance with the terms of the university of Manchester's contract with the Training Agency. The precise terms of this contract are confidential to the parties involved.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the closure of the Greater Manchester archaeological unit employment training scheme; and what is his assessment of the implications of the closure for other employment training schemes in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Greater Manchester archaeological unit of the university of Manchester is still operating in employment training. The university's council of government is to meet on 27 February to consider the unit's future under ET. This has no implications for other ET training managers.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what are the total number of employment training trainees who have(a) successfully completed more than three months' training, (b) obtained a vocational qualification or credit towards one and (c) received a training bonus between December 1988 and December 1989 and the figures for each of the standard regions, Wales, Scotland and Great Britain;

  (2) what was the average length of time a trainee spent at an employment training place in the period December 1988 to December 1989 for Great Britain;
  649
  (3) what was the total number of employment training trainees who have received qualifications in the period between September 1988 to December 1989 for Great Britain;

  (4) what was the total number of positive outcome from employment training leavers who go into (a) further education and training, (b) self-employment and (c) jobs between December 1988 and December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The information requested is not available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure on the £10 employment training trainee allowance in December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Expenditure on the £10 premium part of employment training (ET) trainee allowances in December 1989 is estimated to be over £8 million.

  McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of unemployed receiving enterprise training within employment training between September 1988 and December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: A total of 547,000 people entered employment training between September 1988 and December 1989. Of these about 7 per cent. joined the programme to receive enterprise training.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on health and safety issues arising out of the construction of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Responsibility for health and safety during the construction of the Channel tunnel rests with the employers involved. The Health and Safety Executive will continue to enforce vigorously the health and safety regulations which apply to the construction of the tunnel.

  Radiation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers in the nuclear industry have received, over the past year, exposures to radiation in excess of the new radiation safety thresholds introduced on 5 February; and if he will publish a table showing the source of the radiation, the number of dose units received and the location of the exposure for each case.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No new threshold dose was introduced on 5 February.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve co-operation in bringing about the comprehensive framework for national vocational qualifications.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The NCVQ will be building on the good progress made so far in reforming the vocational 650
  qualifications system and accrediting national vocational qualifications. There is still much to do. The Government will be looking to the NCVQ to carry forward purposefully and harmoniously the reform of qualifications and the need for a more and better qualified work force. There is good will for reform which I want to see skilfully harnessed to this vital work.

THE ARTS

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what paternity leave is allowed to staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  At present paternity leave is not available to civil servants. The Treasury is, however, finalising arrangements for the introduction of an entitlement to two days paid paternity leave.

  The Three Graces
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether all the moneys raised by the Victoria and Albert museum in its efforts to keep in the United Kingdom the statues by Canova, "The Three Graces", will go directly towards paying the purchase price; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The Victoria and Albert museum has advised me that, in the event that it proves possible to make an offer to purchase "The Three Graces" by 12 March, all the money subscribed by the public will be used for the purchase. The cash costs of the appeal have been underwritten by an anonymous and separate donation; there have also been many contributions in kind to the organisation of the appeal. In the event that the appeal does not reach its target, all money subscribed in an identifiable and returnable form will be offered back. Money deposited in cash in collecting boxes will, as a notice beside the boxes clearly states, be put in the V and A central purchase fund and used to support the purchase of other major heritage objects.

CIVIL. SERVICE

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what paternity leave is allowed to staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  At present paternity leave is not available to civil servants. The Treasury is, however, finalising arrangements for the introduction of an entitlement to two days paid paternity leave. In my Department we have made full use of the flexibilities which already exist in the rules on special leave for this purpose.

  House of Commons Disqualification Act
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements are to be made to provide hon. Members with information about the amendments contained in the resolution tabled on 19 February updating schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act.
  651
  Mr. Luce
  A detailed explanatory note is available from the Vote Office.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bed and Breakfast
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures for the number of people living in bed and breakfast accommodation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand from the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that at 8 February 106 households were living in bed and breakfast accommodation secured for them under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

  Local Government Staff Commission
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used to select members to serve on the Local Government Staff Commission.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Local Government Staff Commission is established under the Local Government Act (NI) 1972"for the purposes of exercising general oversight of matters connected with the recruitment, training and terms and conditions of employment of officers of councils and of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and of making recommendations to councils and to the Executive on such matters".

  Membership of the commission is comprised of a chairman and up to 12 other members appointed by the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland after consultation with associations representative of councils or their staffs and any other appropriate association or public body.

  The members of the commission are appointed on the basis that they reflect the interests of local government and that they can contribute to the work of the commission. In view of its wide remit it is also essential to appoint members who can assist the commission because of their skills and knowledge in particular areas. The criteria for selection are members who will represent
  "employee interests, drawn from nominations from trade unions, staff associations etc.;
  employer interests, drawn from nominations from district councils; and
  other interests i.e. those who have a knowledge of local government or whose expertise on such matters as training, personnel, finance etc. will be of help to the commission."

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current composition of the Local Government Staff Commission by name, address and interests represented.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  Chairman

  Professor D. Rea MSc (Econ) MBA PLD, Dip. Soc. Studies—Belfast

  Members representing employee interests

  Mr. W. E. Andrews ACIS—Coleraine:

  —nominated by SOLACE.

  Mr. J. Cooper—Bangor:

  nominated by NIC/ICTU

  Mr. J. Donaghy—Ballymoney

  nominated by NIC/ICTU

  652
  Members representing employer interests

  Councillor J. H. Allen OBE—Antrim

  nominated by Antrim BC

  Councillor P. Brannigan—Armagh

  nominated by Armagh DC

  Councillor F. Cobain—Belfast

  nominated by Belfast CC

  Councillor W. J. Thompson—Beragh

  nominated by Omagh DC

  Members with knowledge/expertise on employment matters

  Mr. D. Clement—Antrim

  financial background

  Mr. T. H. N. Jackson—Belfast

  member of Public Service Training Council with personnel experience

  Councillor Mrs. M. McSorley MBE—Draperstown local government background

  Mr. P. O. Neill OBE—Belfast

  Assistant Director of Personnel in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Mrs. M. S. V. Young BA Hons.—Holywood

  Lecturer with management, industrial relations and personnel background.

  Coleraine Council (Employment Practices)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what steps are being taken by Coleraine borough council to ensure that the current imbalances in employment practices are being rectified;

  (2) what steps are being taken by the Fair Employment Commission to ensure that the current imbalances in employment practices in Coleraine borough council are being rectified.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under Section 12 of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1976 the Fair Employment Agency (now the commission) investigated Coleraine borough council in 1987. The report of the findings of this investigation is still unpublished but the commission has advised that the council accepted all its recommendations for action to ensure that equality of opportunity in employment is afforded, except for signing the declaration of principle and intent and the introduction of work force monitoring.

  The council is specified as a public authority by the Fair Employment (Specification of Public Authorities) Order (NI) 1989 and is therefore deemed to be automatically registered with the Fair Employment Commission to which it will submit annual returns monitoring the religious composition of its work force. The council has indicated that following the introduction of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989 a system of monitoring has been introduced.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by Derry city council to ensure that the current imbalances in employment are being rectified.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1986 at the request of Derry city council, the Fair Employment Agency (now the commission) investigated the council's employee patterns. A report on this investigation (published in 1987) found that the overall employment pattern derived from the analysis suggested that the council's employment procedures provided equality of opportunity in employment.
  653
  Under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989, the council has a duty to submit to the Fair Employment Commission annual returns monitoring the religious composition of its workforce. Until the first monitoring return is received, the commission will not hold up-to-date information on this breakdown.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by Down district council to ensure that the current imbalances in employment are being rectified.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In response to a request from the Fair Employment Agency (now the commission) in 1987, Down district council agreed to participate in a voluntary exercise to monitor the religious composition of its workforce and to submit the information obtained to the agency for consideration.

  The Fair Employment Commission, in consultation with the council, is currently assessing the council's employment composition. This assessment has not yet been completed nor has a final report been sent to the council.

  Under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989, the council has a duty to submit to the Fair Employment Commission annual returns monitoring the religious composition of its workforce. Until the first monitoring return is received, the commission will not hold up-to-date information on this breakdown.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by Newry and Mourne district council to ensure that the current imbalances in employment are being rectified.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under section 12 of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1976 the Fair Employment Agency (now the commission) investigated Newry and Mourne district council in 1987. The report of the investigation has not yet been published but the commission has advised that the council agreed to accept a programme entitled "Future Action" which was included in the report and designed to ensure that equality of opportunity in employment is afforded.

  Under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989, the council has a duty to submit to the Fair Employment Commission annual returns monitoring the religious composition of its workforce. Until the first monitoring return is received, the commission will not hold up-to-date information on this breakdown.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by Strabane district council to ensure that the current imbalances in employment at non-management levels are being rectified.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under section 12 of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1976, the Fair Employment Agency (now the commission) investigated Strabane district council in 1988. The report of this investigation is still

  Administration assistant

  Administration1 officer

  Executive1 officer 2

  Executive officer 1

  Staff officer

  1. February 1990

  Strabane

  13

  46

  15

  4

  2

  Limavady

  8

  29

  10

  4

  1

  Londonderry

  31

  126

  42

  10

  4

  Lisahally (Lisnakelly)

  122

  13

  5

  2

  2

  654
  unpublished but the commission has advised that the council accepted all its recommendations for action to ensure that equality of opportunity in employment is afforded.

  Under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989, the council has a duty to submit to the Fair Employment Commission annual returns monitoring the religious composition of its workforce. Until the first monitoring return is received the commission will not hold up-to-date information on the religious breakdown at non-management or other levels of employees.

  Residents' Parking Schemes
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects his Department to have completed its consideration of residents' parking schemes; when he expects to take powers to implement such schemes; what representations he has had from people and organisations in Northern Ireland about residents' parking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There has been some interest in residential parking schemes in some parts of inner Belfast. There would be problems of financing and policing. Enabling legislation available is not expected before 1993.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his written answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 8 February,Official Report, column 745, what information was discovered regarding the activities of Colin Wallace and his section during the detailed study of the relevant Northern Ireland Office files; and whether any files or their contents were missing.

  Mr. Brooke
  Study of Northern Ireland Office files did not produce any information which would require me to add to the detailed reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 30 January. I am not aware of any missing files or missing contents of files.

  DHSS Officers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) administrative assistants, (b) administrative officers, (c) executive officers grade 2, (d) executive officers grade 1, and (e) staff officers employed in the Department of Health and Social Services offices in (i) Strabane, (ii) Limavady, (iii) Londonderry, (iv) Lisnakelly. (v) Coleraine, (vi) Omagh and (vii) Magherafelt at the present time; and what was the number five years ago.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: The figures requested are:
  655

  Administration assistant

  Administration1 officer

  Executive1 officer 2

  Executive officer 1

  Staff officer

  Coleraine

  13

  54

  20

  5

  2

  Omagh

  13

  47

  15

  5

  2

  Magherafelt

  9

  42

  10

  4

  2

  2. March 19852

  Strabane

  13

  53

  18

  3

  2

  Limavady

  7

  32

  9

  3

  1

  Londonderry

  34

  140

  42

  9

  4

  Lisahally (Lisnakelly)

  77

  8

  3

  2

  1

  Coleraine

  11

  50

  17

  4

  2

  Omagh

  12

  46

  13

  4

  2

  Magherafelt

  8

  41

  11

  3

  2

  1 The grades of administrative officer and executive officer 2 are not used in social security offices. The equivalent grades in those offices are social security officer II and social security officer I respectively.

  2 March 1985 is the nearest comparable date for which figures are available.

  Registration
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to introduce legislation to reform the system for registering births, marriages and deaths in Northern Ireland, along the lines proposed for England and Wales in the White Paper, "Registration: Proposals for Change".

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 February 1990]: Many of the changes recommended for the registration system for England and Wales already apply in Northern Ireland. The Government will consider, in due course, those reforms which may require comparable action here and whether it may be necessary to make changes to the relevant separate Northern Ireland legislation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Commonwealth
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received concerning the Commonwealth.

  The Prime Minister
  I frequently receive representations relating to many Commonwealth issues from hon. Members and from members of the public.

  Sunday Newspaper Editors
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to meet officially editors of Sunday newspapers.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no specific plans at present but I do meet editors from time to time.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she is now in a position to announce details of her proposed visits to east European countries.

  The Prime Minister
  No firm arrangements have yet been made for further visits to east European countries, though I hope to visit a number during the course of this year.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has had any recent discussions with(a) Chancellor Kohl and (b) other European Community state leaders
  656
  concerning the provision of invited official observers, drawn from European Community national legislatures, for the general elections which are to be held throughout central and eastern Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not, though I understand that the IPU is discussing with the east European Governments concerned, the possible provision of observers from this House.

  South Africa
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to provide special assistance in the form of environmental protection expertise and environmental clean-up technology to the Republic of South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  We have received no requests for such assistance.

  Poland
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during the recent visit of the Polish Prime Minister to the United Kingdom either she or other Ministers of Her Majesty's Government discussed with him(a) the forthcoming fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, (b) technological aid to Poland under article IV of the non-proliferation treaty and (c) the availability of pollution abatement and clean-up equipment to assist in the ecological amelioration of Polish industry.

  The Prime Minister
  None of these subjects was discussed.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagemens for Tuesday 20 February.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Jamie Lloyd Stewart
  Mr. Corbyn
  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 action taken following the inquest into the death of Jamie Lloyd Stewart.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The circumstances of Mr. Stewart's death have been investigated by the Metropolitan police under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. The investigating officer's report has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Complaints Authority, who will consider whether there are grounds for taking criminal or disciplinary action against any officers involved.

  Immigration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of arrivals from Jamaica for each month since January 1989 who have been(a) interviewed on arrival or (b) refused entry.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table. All Jamaican citizens are interviewed when seeking leave to enter. Figures for those subjected to further examination are not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Jamaican citizens admitted to, and refused leave to enter and removed from, the United Kingdom

  1989

  Total admitted1

  Total refused leave to enter and removed

  January

  2,600

  75

  February

  1,700

  79

  March

  2,000

  82

  April

  2,200

  71

  May

  2,300

  59

  June

  3,800

  65

  July

  4,500

  75

  August

  3,900

  55

  September

  3,300

  72

  October

  2,400

  58

  November

  1,900

  63

  December

  1,800

  49

  TOTAL

  32,300

  803

  1 Provisional figures.

  Metropolitan Police Funding
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the total cost to public funds of the Metropolitan police in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  As police authority for the Metropolis, I have approved estimates which provide for net revenue expenditure of £1,265·075 million in 1990–91. There will be a cash limit on current expenditure of £1,223·389 million. Capital expenditure is subject to separate controls.

  I have also approved the issue of a precept of £112·79 per head of relevant population for Metropolitan police purposes. This is not the charge levied on individual community charge payers, but will be levied on local
  658
  authorities' collection funds which will derive income from revenue support grant, national non-domestic rates and community charges.

  I have approved an increase of £10·461 million in the cash limit of £1,082·391 million for the current year, which was announced on 14 February 1989. This increase has been necessitated by the 57·5 per cent. increase in the police rent allowance made during the year, which imposed additional spending of £23 million over and above the provision made in the cash limit. The Metropolitan police have succeeded in absorbing about half this sum, but I am satisfied that they could not meet the whole of it without affecting police recruitment plans, and have therefore approved this increase.

  Babies (Abduction)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year and by police authority for the last 10 years, the number of cases of baby abduction that have been investigated.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information relates to children aged under 16 and is published annually, and most recently under offence classification 13 in table S3.1 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables, 1988 Vol. 3", a copy of which is available in the Library. More precise information on the age of victims of these offences could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Grendon Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which period of time Her Majesty's prison Grendon will be closed for refurbishment.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 16 January 1990 at column 176.

  The establishment is likely to remain closed for a further five to eight months while the essential refurbishment work is in hand.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the cost of refurbishing Her Majesty's prison Grendon.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is estimated that £1·335 million will be spent on refurbishing the establishment while it is temporarily closed. This work is, however, part of a wider programme of refurbishment which began in 1986 and is likely to extend over the next eight to 10 years. We expect that the total cost of this programme will amount to £9 million—£9·5 million (at current prices) of which £1 million has already been spent.

  Wellingborough Institution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which period of time the Wellingborough young offenders institution will be used as an adult prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  Her Majesty's YOI Wellingborough was converted to adult use on 27 January. It will remain as a prison until the repairs at HMP Grendon—whose inmates it is temporarily holding—are completed. This is estimated to be in about five to eight months' time. The use to which
  659
  Wellingborough will be put once its current population is returned to HMP Grendon is under consideration as part of a wide-ranging review of the young offender estate.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of modifying Wellingborough young offenders institution to make it suitable for adult prisoners.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest estimated cost is £230,000.

  Everthorpe Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will review his plans to build a new prison facility at Everthorpe in Humberside, in the light of his proposals in the criminal justice White Paper Cm. 965.

  Mr. Mellor
  The need for additional prison places is kept under constant review, in the light of existing or anticipated changes in the level of the prison population.

  The new remand centre at Everthorpe, on which work has already begun, will provide much needed relief to the severely overcrowded local prisons in the area when it opens early in 1992. I do not anticipate that the proposals in the criminal justice White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", once enacted, will remove the need for this particular establishment.

  London Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the inner London borough authorities who will shortly assume responsibility for education in their area, and have prisons within their boroughs, as to how they propose to develop education facilities for inmates within such local prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  Discussions have taken place with the appropriate London boroughs, resulting in agreement regarding the continued provision of teaching staff on secondment to the prison education service in respect of Brixton, Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs prisons, and for the new Belmarsh prison at Greenwich. Negotiations with the London borough of Islington regarding education provision at Holloway and Pentonville prisons have yet to be finalised.

  It is considered that the proposed abolition of the ILEA and the assumption of responsibility for the provision of education facilities by the London boroughs should not lead to any diminution of these facilities.

  Executioners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of qualified executioners at present in the United Kingdom; and how and by whom such people are trained for this work.

  Mr. Mellor
  No one is now employed or trained for this task, and we do not know how many of those who performed it in the past are still alive.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from police forces concerning the effect of the Crown prosecution service on the police's operations.
  660
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Association of Chief Police Officers has made representations about the effect of the Crown prosecution service's requirements as to the content and presentation of paperwork. An interdepartmental group has recently been established to examine this and other pre-trial issues.

  Data Protection Register
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce costs in running the data protection register, in order to bring forward the date of the break-even point; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The registrar's expenditure proposals are scrutinised carefully as part of the process of public expenditure control; and we shall shortly be considering future registration fee levels in the light of the registrar's costs, the expected numbers of registrations and renewals, the impact of the registration fees on those required to register and the need to reach break-even as soon as this can reasonably be managed. The general operation of the Data Protection Act is also under review, but it is too early to say what impact that might have on the registrar's costs and income.

  Independent Broadcasting Authority
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to discuss broadcasting.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on 25 January at column 875.

  Drugs
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research information is available to him relating to the elasticity of demand for cocaine and heroin from their users.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on the elasticity of demand for class A controlled drugs is included in "Managing Drug Use", a report of a study by Whynes et al, financed by the Home Office, which was published in the British Journal of Addiction (BJA (1989) 84, 533–540). The same edition of the journal contains a summary of the report of Home Office research unit study No 95, "Economic Aspects of the Illicit Drug Market and Drug Enforcement Policies in the United Kingdom", by Wagstaff and Maynard (BJA (1989) 84, 461–475), much of which is also relevant. Copies of the Journal and the Home Office research unit study are in the Library.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet fellow European Economic Community interior Ministers to discuss further measures to control drug abuse.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I expect to meet a number of interior Ministers at the world ministerial drugs summit, which will be held in London from 9–11 April.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has commissioned into why individuals take drugs.
  661
  Mr. Mellor
  Although the Home Office has not commissioned specific studies on this aspect of the drugs problem, information on the factors which lead people to misuse drugs is available from research. In its report on prevention (published 1984), the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs discussed the main theories which had emerged from research about causation, and concluded that no single cause, or consistent pattern of multiple causes, had been identified.

  All-seater Stadiums
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support he plans to make available to football clubs converting to all-seater stadiums.

  Mr. John Patten
  None. Responsibility for meeting the cost of safety and improvement of football grounds rests with the ground occupiers.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources are provided to police forces to manage neighbourhood watch schemes through-out the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  In England and Wales resources allocated to the police service—which we have increased substantially—are not dedicated to particular police activities. It is for chief constables to decide on the deployment of police officers and other resources and consequently on the extent to which to offer support to neighbourhood watch, which is essentially a community activity. The position in Scotland is similar. There are no neighbourhood watch schemes in Northern Ireland.

  Some forces in England and Wales have developed ways of supporting neighbourhood watch, which reduces the demand on police officers, including the use of civilian liaison officers; trainees on Government-sponsored employment training schemes during their periods of practical training; and answerphone facilities to pass information and advice to local volunteer co-ordinators.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the amount of overtime worked in the fire service in each of the last four years for which figures are available; if he will publish such information, in summary form, in the Official Report; and if he will make a statement on his proposals to reduce the amounts of overtime worked.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not collected centrally. However, I understand from the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades that the average amount of overtime per firefighter worked over the past 10 years has been of the order of 16 to 20 minutes per week.

  The Government have not proposed a reduction in the amount of overtime worked. The more flexible use of manpower in the fire service, including the use of overtime, is one of a range of issues currently being considered by a joint working party of the national joint council and the Government, chaired by my noble Friend the Minister of State, Earl Ferrers.

  Charities
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the staff of the Charity Commission are employed to investigate charity-related fraud including tax evasion.

  Mr. John Patten
  Forty members of the Charity Commission staff are employed in the monitoring and investigation of charities at risk of abuse, and in dealing with fraud, included tax-related schemes involving charities.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many qualified accountants there are on the staff of the Charity Commission.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are two qualified accountants on the staff of the Charity Commission. In addition, training is provided for staff who do not have accountancy qualifications in posts calling for it. The charity commissioners can also appoint qualified accountants for specific inquiries.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Secretarial and Research Allowances
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the level of secretarial and research allowance available to a Member of (i) the United Kingdom Parliament, (ii) the United States Congress and (iii) the Federal Republic of Germany Bundestag.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 January 1990, c. 183]: Subject to detailed regulations of the House of Representatives, Members of the United States House of Representatives receive two allowances:

  (a) one for "Clerk Hire" or US$441,120 per annum (£261,219) for staff costs; and

  (b) one for office expenses of between US$104,000 (£61,586) and US$302,000 (£178,836) calculated according to the Member's district's distance from Washington. The average is US$146,000 (£86,457).

  Each Member is allowed to hire not more than 18 permanent staff, and not more than four non-permanent staff in his Washington and district offices.

  Members of the Bundestag in the Federal Republic of Germany are allowed to claim up to DM 11,600 (£4,091) per month (DM 139,200 (M9,088) per annum) for secretarial and research help.

  Note: the sterling figures calculated using rates of exchange at the close of business on 13 February 1990.

ENVIRONMENT

  Eriswell
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with Forest Heath district council regarding the impact on Eriswell parish of the loss to its local revenues of the rates previously paid by American service men and their dependants living in that community; what share of Eriswell parish's revenues arose last year from the Americans living there; by how much he expects the contributions of Eriswell's British residents to be increased this year to cover the cost of the same services, that last year were paid for by parish rates paid by Americans and
  663
  British; what steps he is taking to enable Forest Heath district council to offset Eriswell parish's loss of income from its American community from the moneys that he expects to receive from the United States in lieu of community charge payments by its nationals and their dependants living in that district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions he has had with Forest Heath district council regarding the impact on Eriswell parish of the loss to its local revenues of the rates previously paid by American service men and their dependants living in that community; what share of Eriswell parish's revenues arose last year from the Americans living there; and by how much he expects the contribution of Eriswell's British residents to be increased this year to cover the cost of services paid for by parish rates;

  (2) what steps he is taking to enable Forest Heath district council to offset Eriswell parish's loss of income from its American community from the moneys that he expects to receive from the United States in lieu of community charge payments by its nationals and their dependants living in that district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Taylor Report
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange to meet the football authorities to discuss the implementation of the Taylor report.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans at the present time to meet the football authorities but we are willing to consider any request from them for a meeting.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of all the private security firms currently employed by his Department, the number of employees for each firm on the contract, the total value of each contract and the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department currently uses the following firms to guard buildings occupied and managed by the Department's staff:

  Royal British Legion Attendance Co Ltd

  Yeoman Security Ltd

  Centuryan Security Ltd

  Initial Contract Services

  Reliance Security Services Ltd

  Securiguard Services (Northern) Ltd

  A-One Guard Services Ltd

  County Guards

  Compass Security

  The total number of employees is 54. More than one employee may be needed to cover a given post if there is part-time working or if the hours are very long. The total value of the contracts in the present financial year is £590,000. The expenditure in previous years includes elements of the costs for DTp. No separate figures are therefore available for DOE.

  Waste Disposal
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates of all meetings of his Department's working party to examine the feasibility of compiling a register of contaminated land, referred to in his answer of 10 April 1989,Official Report, column 399; and if he will place a copy of the committee's proceedings in the Library.

  Mr. Trippier
  Full working party meetings took place on 7 January and 3 March 1988 and on 21 February and 20 March 1989 with related policy discussions between and since those dates. The next meeting is proposed for 28 February 1990. I expect to receive a report from officials shortly and would want to announce my proposals on the subject as soon as possible. However, it is not our practice to supply records of interim discussions by an internal group preparing proposals for my consideration.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available in the Library work completed under the site survey conducted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in conjunction with local authorities as detailed in his answer of 11 April 1989,Official Report, column 459.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, working with the waste disposal authorities, has sought to survey the likely scale of the potential problem posed by landfill gas. The results of the survey have now been agreed with the waste disposal authorities and the report, which will be published shortly, will be placed in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to provide information on the distributional impact of the poll tax on various household sizes in the same manner that such information was made available during the passage of legislation.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr Thompson) on 15 February.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what criteria he proposes to use in deciding which local authorities to charge cap;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to charge cap those local authorities who propose to levy a community charge that, taking account of any adjustment that may need to be made because of the transitional safety net, is over 15 per cent. higher than what would be needed if authorities spent in line with the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 17 January.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce his decisions as to which local authorities he proposes to charge cap.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  It would not be right for me to speculate on the timetable of any capping scheme we might need to operate for 1990–91.
  665
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the economic consequences of the introduction of a roof tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The principal disadvantages of such a tax include its unfair and arbitrary impact on homeowners and tenants, its discouragement of home improvements and the lack of any clear link between the spending of a local authority and the size of an individual's tax bill.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the current community charge publicity campaign that reference to the community charge rather than poll tax will result in confusion among potential rebate applicants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 16 February 1990]: I have received no such representations.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria for capping that will be applied to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) on 24 January.

  Mr. Paul Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in view of the level of community charge proposed by the finance committee of Southend council, he will make it his policy to charge cap the council.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Selection of authorities for capping has to be on the basis of general principles and it would not be right for me to speculate on whether Southend-on-Sea borough council or any other authority would be capped if I needed to use my capping powers for 1990–91. But I have made it clear that if authorities do insist on budgeting excessively I shall not hesitate to cap them.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to bring forward regulations to enable let holiday cottages to be subject to business rate rather than standard community charge before the owners become liable to pay standard community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Section 66(2B) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, inserted by the Standard Community Charge and Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Domestic Property) Order 1990 S.I. No. 162, laid before Parliament on 9 February, provides broadly that a building is not domestic property if in the forthcoming year it will be available for letting commercially, as self-catering accommodation, for short periods totalling 140 days or more. In such cases business rates will be payable.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each local government housing authority the number of council houses at the latest available date and in 1978, together with the number of adults and children resident therein.

  Mr. Chope
  Information for April of each year has been reported since 1979 by local authorities in their annual 666
  housing investment programme returns (HIP1). The number of dwellings owned by the authority and situated in its own area appears in column B11 of "HIP1 All Items Print (1979)" and for 1989 in column A11 of "HIP1 All Items Print (1989)". In 1989 they also reported any stock owned by the authority but situated ouside its area and this appears in column A16 of "HIP1 All Items Print (1989)". Copies of both documents are in the Library. The numbers and ages of residents in local authority dwellings are not held centrally.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contingency plans exist for interim storage of intermediate-level nuclear waste awaiting encapsulation, should the Nirex repository not come on line by 2005.

  Mr. Trippier
  Intermediate-level radioactive waste can continue to be stored safely at nuclear establishments until a Nirex repository becomes available.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans exist for the placement of the intermediate-level waste produced during the third stage of power decommissioning.

  Mr. Trippier
  Intermediate-level radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of nuclear power plants will be consigned to a deep repository, possible sites for which are currently being investigated by UK Nirex.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statistics he has about the number of elderly people made homeless after taking out home income annuity schemes in which lenders foreclose, making the purchaser homeless; and if he will make a statement on such schemes and the problems of whether those who lose their homes in this way can be construed as intentionally homeless.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities make quarterly returns of the numbers of households for whom they had accepted responsibility for securing accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act. These provide breakdowns of the total number of households accepted as homeless by category of priority need, including "vulnerable due to old age", and by main reason for homelessness, including mortgage arrears, but do not separately identify foreclosure on home income annuity schemes. We have no evidence to suggest that this is a widespread problem but anyone considering such a scheme would be well advised to seek independent financial advice on the scheme most suitable for their needs.

  Standard Spending Assessment, Grimsby
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how he reached a scaling factor of 1·00026898014558 for other education in table C of the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessment; what this means; and what the effect of this scaling factor is on the calculations;

  (2) how he reached a scaling factor of 1·00000302142846 for secondary education in table C of

  667
  the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessment; what this means; and what the effect of the scaling factor is on the calculations;

  (3) how he reached a scaling factor of 1·00000076166512 for children's personal social services in table C of the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessment; what this means; and what the effect of this scaling factor is on the calculations;

  (4) how he reached a scaling factor of 1·0000000836736 for police in table C of the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessment; what this means; and what the effect of this scaling factor is on the calculations;

  (5) how he reached a scaling factor of 0·999210311847682 for fire in table C of the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessment; what this means; and what the effect of this scaling factor is on the calculations;

  (6) how he reached a scaling factor of 0·999455449128694 for elderly residential personal social services in table C of the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessments; what this means; and what the effect of this scaling factor is on the calculations;

  (7) how he reached a scaling factor of 0·999976590394325 for other PSS in table C of the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessment; what this means; and what the effect of this scaling factor is on the calculations;

  (8) how he reached a scaling factor of 0·999997123020877 for post-16 education in table C of the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessment; what this means; and what the effect of the scaling factor is on the calculations;

  (9) how he reached a scaling factor of 0·999997693248915 for elderly domiciliary personal social services in table C of the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessment; what this means; and what is the effect of this scaling factor on the calculations;

  (10) how he reached a scaling factor of 0·999999385376896 for under-five education in table C of the calculations for Grimsby's standard spending assessment; what this means; and what the effect of this scaling factor is on the calculations.

  Mr. Chope
  The scaling factors are calculated as described in paragraph 3.3 of section 3 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) approved by the House on 18 January. None of these factors is used in calculating the standard spending assessment for Great Grimsby since they are used in the calculation of elements for services not provided by Great Grimsby as a non-metropolitan district authority.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how, with reference to paragraph 3.32 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £1,928·93 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials may check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the SSA arrived at for Grimsby;

  (2) how, with reference to paragraph 3.29 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £464·33 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby;

  (3) how, with reference to paragraph 3.29 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England),
  668
  the figure of £7·11 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby;

  (4) how, with reference to paragraph 3.29 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £556·93 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby;

  (5) how, with reference to paragraph 3.29 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £1·37 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby;

  (6) how, with reference to paragraph 3.32 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £4·03 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby;

  (7) how, with reference to paragraph 3.32 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £0·29 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby;

  (8) how, with reference to paragraph 3.32 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £13·05 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby.

  Mr. Chope
  The amounts referred to in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) were arrived at by my right hon. Friend after full consultation with local authority representatives. They have no effect on the SSA for Great Grimsby since, as a non-metropolitan district, Great Grimsby is not responsible for the services to which these indicator weights relate.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how, with reference to paragraph 3.19 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £145·23 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby;

  (2) how, with reference to paragraph 3.23 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figures of (a) £22·86 and (b) £184 are aimed at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of the figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby;

  (3) how, with reference to paragraph 3.26 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £33,771 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby.

  Mr. Chope
  The amounts referred to in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) were arrived at by my right hon. Friend after full consultation with local authority representatives. They have no effect
  669
  on the SSA for Great Grimsby, since, as a non-metropolitan district, Great Grimsby is not responsible for the services to which these indicator weights relate.

  Subterranean Fires
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the locations and types of subterranean fires in England in the period 1985 to 1988 which are referred to in paragraph 5.9 of the memorandum submitted by his Department to the Environment Select Committee on 22 May 1989 during its investigations into contaminated land.

  Mr. Trippier
  Building Research Establishment information paper IP 3/89 set out the distribution of fires by region. I will write to the hon. Member about location. The types of fire were classified as follows:

  Site material

  Number of incidents

  Domestic waste

  27

  Coal or colliery waste

  16

  Peat

  13

  Industrial waste

  6

  Sewage beds

  2

  TOTAL

  64

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the entertainment budgets of(a) the Property Services Agency chief executive and (b) each l'roperty Services Agency regional director for the last three financial years and for the current financial year to date; and if he will itemise the spending of those individual budgets by date, amount, purpose of expenditure, name and organisation of those present.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 February 1990]: The budgets for entertainment are:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  (outturn)

  (outturn)

  (allocations)

  Chief Executive

  1,777

  2,824

  2,250

  Regional Directors:

  London

  —

  7,220

  4,500

  Wales

  —

  1,287

  2,500

  Scotland

  —

  6,220

  7,000

  Midlands

  —

  1,658

  2,500

  North West

  —

  910

  2,500

  North East

  —

  1,415

  2,500

  Southern

  —

  1,506

  2,500

  South East

  —

  3,325

  4,000

  South West

  —

  2,126

  2,500

  Eastern

  —

  2,668

  4,000

  Figures for the earlier years are not readily available. The money is spent on a wide range of activities, including working lunches, light refreshments and the occasional reception for visitors and officials, including clients and those from overseas Governments.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to guarantee a minimum level of Ministry of Defence or Property Services Agency work to the privatised Crown Suppliers.
  670
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 February 1990]: Departments including the Ministry of Defence and the Property Services Agency are free to enter into agreements with the Crown Suppliers on a commercial basis. These may contain certain undertakings about future business levels for a period where it is consistent with EC and GATT rules and to the mutual advantage of customer and supplier.

  Solid Waste Management
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will be represented at the conference on solid waste management in Toronto on 25 to 27 April.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 16 February 1990]: The Department will not be represented at this conference.

  Landfill Gas
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will be represented at the international landfill gas symposium, to be held in Chicago on 27 to 29 March.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 16 February 1990]: My Department will not be represented although I understand that the Department of Energy is considering possible representation.

  Grove Farm, Goring
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what types of(a) toxic wastes and (b) radioactive wastes are deposited at Grove farm in Goring.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Information concerning the disposal of toxic wastes is not held centrally and the responsible waste disposal authority should be consulted. The Department of the Environment has not issued any authorisation for the disposal of radioactive waste at Grove farm, Goring.

  American Forces
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what progress he has made in agreeing with the United States Government the contributions to be made on behalf of the United States to local authorities where United States airbases are located, in lieu of the loss of revenue that results from American airmen and their adult dependants no longer contributing to local revenues via the rates;

  (2) what sums received from the United States are being made available in the financial year 1990–91 to Suffolk county council and Forest Heath district council; and when the cash in question will be received;

  (3) which Suffolk parish councils have indicated to him that they intend to cease providing certain local services on the grounds that the revenues they expect to receive from their British charge payers, following the cessation of rates from American service men, are insufficient.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Waste Disposal
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many landfill waste sites visited under duties provided by section 91 of the Public Health Act 1936 in each of the last three years were found to constitute a statutory nuisance; what action was taken; what action is still outstanding; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has on the number of sites visited in each of the last five years in respect of section 91 of the Public Health Act 1936.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on the number of landfill or other sites visited and on subsequent action taken, under section 91 of the 1936 Act, is not available centrally.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will detail the programme, by date, function, and staff numbers, for transferring work out of the Property Services Agency, Hastings;

  (2) what plans he has to avoid redundancies amongst Property Services Agency staff in Hastings.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 February 1990]: The PSA will do its utmost to avoid compulsory redundancies in Hastings. Principal establishment officers of other Government Departments were invited last October to consider whether they have work which could be transferred to Hastings. We are also considering whether other PSA work might be transferred there and I am writing to other Departments to consider whether any part of their Departments' organisations might be relocated there. Until we have the responses to these invitations we shall not be able finally to work out our own plans for activities now done in Hastings, which will remain the prime focus of PSA's accounting and IT work. Should there eventually be a surplus of staff, the agency's redundancy arrangements, which include the transfer of staff to other Departments wherever possible, will apply.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of the use of waste disposal units in kitchen sinks in(a) reducing problems for waste disposal authorities and (b) increasing problems for water companies in respect of both volumes of water used and type of sewage to be treated.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has in the past assessed the effect of sink grinders both in reducing the weight of domestic waste requiring disposal and in increasing water usage and sludge production. The benefits and drawbacks of grinders are being kept under review.

  Dog Whelk
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last commissioned a study into the dog whelk population; what signs there are that the TBT ban has led to a recovery of the dog whelk; and if he will list those areas where the dog whelk population is showing a substantial increase.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government currently fund three studies of dog whelk populations and their response to 672
  TBT contamination. These are carried out by the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, by the Marine Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and by the Institute of Biology and Marine Conservation Society. They indicate that populations of the dog whelks, which is the most sensitive species to TBT, have been affected to varying degrees in different parts of the British Isles by past exposure. In extreme cases, particularly in sheltered localities, populations can no longer reproduce. The species has only limited capacity to recolonise such areas and it will take some time before the studies are able unequivocally to demonstrate any recovery since the ban.

DEFENCE

  Air Misses
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air misses were recorded in the airspace over and in the vicinity of the Western Isles in each year from 1985 to 1989; and if he will provide a breakdown of these figures into air misses between(a) two civil aircraft, (b) two military aircraft and (c) a civil and a military aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  There were no air misses reported in the airspace over and in the vicinity of the Western Isles between 1985 and 1989.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air misses were recorded within a 10-mile radius of Stornoway airport in each year from 1985 to 1989; and if he will provide a breakdown of these figures into air misses between(a) two civil aircraft, (b) two military aircraft and (c) a civil and a military aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  No air misses were reported within a 10-mile radius of Stornoway airport between 1985 and 1989.

  Military Aircraft (Stornoway)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many practice approaches and overshoots were carried out by military aircraft at Stornoway during 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  A total of 186 practice approaches and overshoots were carried out by military aircraft at Stornoway during 1989.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the use made of Stornoway airport for military exercises during 1989, providing details of the numbers and types of aircraft, durations of their deployments to Stornoway, the titles of the exercises or deployments in each case and the number of aircraft movements carried out during each deployment.

  Mr. Neubert
  Stornoway airport was activated on two occasions for military exercises during 1989. Six RAF Tornado F3 aircraft and one RAF Sea King helicopter were deployed to Stornoway from 22 June to 30 June as part of a joint maritime course exercise (JMC 89/2); and six RAF Tornado F3 aircraft and one RAF Sea King helicopter were deployed there from 7 to 15 September
  673
  1989 as part of Exercise SHARP SPEAR. If takeoffs, landings, practice approaches and overshoots are counted as separate movements, there were 198 movements by aircraft deployed to Stornoway during JMC 89/2, and 167 during Exercise SHARP SPEAR.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Western Isles are included in the revised night low flying system introduced in 1989; and what regulations are in force concerning carrying out of mock attacks or practice approaches at airfields in the Western Isles by military aircraft conducting night low flying in the area.

  Mr. Neubert
  The area of the Western Isles constituency is not specifically allocated for use in the structure of the revised night low flying system but night low flying activity may take place in the area under the same general regulations as apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Pilots wishing to carry out simulated airfield attacks or practice approaches at civil aerodromes, including Stornoway and Benbecula in the Western Isles, must obtain any necessary clearance from the relevant controlling authorities.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the numbers and types of aircraft which will be operating in and around the Highlands restricted area as part of Exercise JMC 90/1 on Wednesday 21 February; what minimum height has been authorised for fixed-wing aircraft taking part in this activity; and how many low-level sorties are planned as part of this activity.

  Mr. Neubert
  On Wednesday 21 February, the highland restricted area (HRA) will be activated as is usual for the purpose of terrain following radar training. Buccaneer, Hunter, Canberra, Falcon, Tornado, F-111, and some air defence and maritime patrol aircraft are expected to participate in Exercise JMC 90/1 in and around the HRA; the exact numbers of aircraft will depend on prevailing weather conditions and operational considerations. Some helicopter activity is also planned. Use of the HRA itself will be allocated as necessary to meet exercise requirements. The minimum height authorised for fixed-wing aircraft over land during the exercise will be 250 feet and some 75 fixed-wing low level sorties are anticipated in the area concerned.

  Aircraft Separation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum authorised separation(a) vertically and (b) horizontally between civil and military aircraft under the "Military Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft" provisions.

  Mr. Neubert
  The term military assumes responsibility for separation of aircraft (MARSA) relates solely to the separation of aircraft within a military formation operating under air traffic control. Under MARSA, the formation leader assumes responsibility for maintaining separation between the individual aircraft comprising the formation.

  In regulated airspace, the normal United Kingdom criteria for separation between aircraft apply between the formation and any civil aircraft. These are a minimum of
  674
  1,000 ft vertical separation when the aircraft are flying below 29,000 ft, and a minimum of 2,000 ft vertical separation when they are flying above 29,000 ft. In the absence of vertical separation, the minimum horizontal separation is normally never less than five nautical miles. The responsibility for ensuring that these criteria are met remains with air traffic control.

  Exercise JMC 90/1
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use will be made of Stornoway airport during Exercise JMC 90/1.

  Mr. Neubert
  Stornoway airport has not been activated for military use during Exercise JMC 90/1, although very occasionally aircraft involved in the exercise may land there to refuel.

  RAF Buccaneer (Emergency Landing)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the extent of the damage to the RAF Buccaneer which made an emergency landing at Stornoway airport on 26 June 1989 following a birdstrike; where the birdstrike occurred and at what height the aircraft was flying at the time; which unit repaired the aircraft; and on what date the aircraft was flown out from Stornoway after repair.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Buccaneer XW 543 was struck by a single fulmar bird while flying at 100 ft above sea level, 100 nautical miles north west of Stornoway, on 26 June 1989. The aircraft landed at Stornoway airport following a satisfactory handling check by the pilot. Ground personnel from RAF Lossiemouth assessed the damage and found a crack in the windscreen quarter-light, a dented right engine intake and skin damage to the fairing between the intake and the fuselage. The aircraft was considered in a serviceable condition to fly back to RAF Lossiemouth for repair, and left Stornoway on 27 June 1989. At RAF Lossiemouth, the aircraft servicing flight replaced the damaged quarter-light and engine intake and repaired the fuselage skin and its supporting frames.

  RAF Tornados (Stornoway)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the visits to Stornoway airport by RAF Tornado GR 1 aircraft on 10, 22, 27, 28 and 29 November 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  On 10 November 1989, an RAF Tornado GR 1 on a routine training sortie landed at Stornoway airport to refuel. During a routine safety check it was found to be unserviceable. The four subsequent visits by Tornado GR 1 aircraft during November 1989 were for the purpose of bringing in spares for the unserviceable aircraft and changing aircrews.

  Woolwich Arsenal
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the historic buildings at the royal arsenal, Woolwich, indicating when each became vacant or its current use.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is as follows:
  675

  Building

  Date of construction

  Category of listing

  Use of date of vacation

  1. Royal laboratory pavilions

  1696

  Grade II

  Last used cl960 as workshops

  2. Royal brass foundry

  1717

  Grade I

  In use as archive store

  3. Academy building

  1719

  Grade II

  In use as mess

  4. Dial square block

  1717

  Grade II

  Last used cl964 as workshops

  5. Verbruggen's house

  1772

  Grade II

  Last used cl975 as offices

  6. Grand store

  1806–1813

  Grade II

  A proportion in use for offices and stores.

  Other offices last used in 1986.

  Remainder last used as stores c1960.

  7. Middle gate house

  1810

  Grade II

  In use as offices.

  8. Riverside guard rooms

  1814–15

  Grade II

  Last used for storage cl978.

  9. New carriage store

  1778

  Grade II

  In use as forms store.

  10. Main guard house

  1788

  Grade II

  In use as pedestrian access and offices

  11. Rifle shell factory gate house

  1856

  Grade II

  Last used cl964 for foundry offices.

  12. Middle gate

  cl850

  Grade II

  Last used as access cl970.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of his plans to redevelop the area of the royal arsenal, Woolwich, declared surplus to defence requirements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A presentation has now been given to the London borough of Greenwich outlining our proposals for the development of the royal arsenal west site, which we intend to vacate during the period 1993 to 1995.

  This is part of a continuing process leading to disposal of the site. We await the council's response to our ideas.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects his Department to(a) start and (b) complete the vacation of the royal arsenal Woolwich.

  Mr. Neubert
  In the spring of 1990 about 50 staff employed on Army publications will move from the royal arsenal to Woolwich common. The major occupier of the royal arsenal, the directorate general of defence quality assurance (DGDQA), is currently scheduled to be transferred progressively to Teesside between mid-1993 and the end of 1994. A number of other branches and organisations also accommodated on the site will need to vacate before DGDQA leaves.

  Classified Documents
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the statement of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the Adjournment debate of 12 February,Official Report, column 116, to whose discretion and at what level the release of classified documents in Northern Ireland is left.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Management of classified documents in Army units in Northern Ireland is the 676
  responsibility of the general officer commanding, who exercises that responsibility in accordance with the manual of army security and Queen's regulations for the Army.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of Defence if he will list the names of all the private security firms currently employed by his Department, the number of employees for each firm on the contract, the total value of each contract and the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following private security firms are employed by the Ministry of Defence.

  Number of Contracts

  Airwork Ltd.1

  1

  C. J. Bell

  1

  Bells (Group Services) Ltd.

  1

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd.

  6

  Centuryan Security Ltd.

  5

  Custodian Security Guards Ltd.

  1

  Chubb Wardens Ltd.

  1

  CSE Aviation Ltd.1

  Grampian Specialist Dogs

  1

  Medway (Chatham) Dock Company Ltd.

  1

  Plessey Assessment Services Ltd.1

  1

  Reliance Security Services Ltd.

  6

  RCO Contract Services Ltd.

  1

  Securiguard Services Ltd.

  9

  Securiguard Services (Southern) Ltd.

  3

  Securi-Guard (South West) Ltd.

  4

  Securicor Ltd.

  2

  Serco Ltd.1

  3

  Shorrocks Guards Ltd.

  2

  1Multiactivity contracts where security is only one element.

  The total value of contracts for each financial year since 1984–85 is as follows:

  £000

  1984–85

  350

  1985–86

  600

  1986–87

  1,100

  1987–88

  1,350

  1988–89

  1,900

  1989–90

  4,418

  We would not wish to give information on the numbers of people employed on each contract, on security grounds. We would regard the value of each contract as commercially-in-confidence.

  Pursuant to my answer to the hon. Member of 14 February, Official Report,column 311, I am afraid that, owing to an element of double counting that was not previously identified, the figure given for the number of private security firms employed at present was incorrect. The true number of firms is 19, not 21. Figures for earlier years may also be affected.

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what paternity leave is allowed to staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  At present, paternity leave is not available to civil servants. The Treasury is, however, finalising arrangements for the introduction of an entitlement to two days paid paternity leave.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing (Greenland)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount and proportion of European Community quotas in Greenland waters was taken by(a) Scottish and (b) English vessels in each year going back to 1976.

  Mr. Curry
  As catches of species other than cod such as Greenland halibut and redfish are minimal, being essentially by catches, the information in the following tables is for cod catches only.

  United Kingdom catches of cod at West Greenland

  Catches by English/Welsh registered vessels

  Catches by Scottish registered vessels

  Year

  Tonnes(live weight)

  Percentage of EC quota1

  Tonnes (live weight)

  Percentage of EC quota

  1976

  155

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1977

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1978

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  United Kingdom catches of cod at East Greenland

  Year

  Catches by English/ Welsh registered vessels

  Catches by Scottish registered vessels

  Tonnes (live weight)

  Percentage of EC quota1

  Tonnes (live weight)

  Percentage of EC quota

  1976

  1,514

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1977

  1,393

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1978

  45

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1979

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1980

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1981

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  66

  0·4

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  1,295

  11·3

  2—

  2—

  1 Prior to 1982 there was no EC quota.

  2 Not yet available.

  n/a = not applicable.

  Source: MAFF

  Eurostat

  Meat Products
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what legislation his Department is considering to ensure that blood gel plasma meat products are adequately labelled before being purchased by the consumer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Should a company decide to use this technique for the preparation of meat products it would need to ensure that the product was safe and labelled in accordance with the Food Labelling Regulations 1984. This would apply equally to home-produced and imported products. In particular, those regulations require that food labels carry details of any process which the product has undergone where the omission of such detail would mislead the consumer, details of any ingredients used in the product which would include blood enzymes, and a name for the food which would distinguish it from any other foodstuff with which it might be confused.

  Misleading labelling of food is an offence under the Food Act 1984. It is not for me to suggest particular forms
  678

  Catches by English/Welsh registered vessels

  Catches by Scottish registered vessels

  Year

  Tonnes (live weight)

  Percentage of EC quota1

  Tonnes (live weight)

  Percentage of EC quota

  1979

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1980

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1981

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  1,174

  1·7

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  —

  2—

  —

  2—

  1986

  —

  2—

  —

  2—

  1987

  —

  2—

  —

  2—

  1988

  858

  12·3

  130

  1·9

  1989

  3,624

  22·7

  3—

  3—

  1 Prior to 1982 there was no EC quota.

  2 1985 to 1987 there was no EC quota because of the poor state of the stock.

  3 Not yet available.

  n/a = Not applicable.

  Source: MAFF, Eurostat.

  of words for labels. A company would need to decide what description of this or any similar process would adequately explain to its intended customers the exact nature of the foodstuff. Trading standards officers are responsible for enforcing the law; I expect that they are already aware of the development of this process but I am drawing the matter specifically to their attention.

  The labelling rules apply equally to catering supplies as they do to retail sales. As part of its current labelling review I have already asked the Food Advisory Committee to look at the difficult matter of information provided to customers in restaurants, cafes or other catering outlets.

  I am not aware of any British company that has decided to use this technique; nor is it my understanding that any such products are currently being marketed in the United Kingdom.

  However, the Department is monitoring developments closely and I will take any further action that seems appropriate in the interest of either food safety or consumer protection.

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep farmers in each of the northern counties of England have flocks of 1,000 or more ewes.

  Mr. Curry
  Information on flock sizes is not available in the form requested.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish his report into the investigation of suspected poisoning of animals by pesticides in respect of 1988 and 1989.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spending on food R and D (at current prices)

  Total food R and D

  of which primary aim

  Expenditure

  Safety

  Quality

  Processing

  £ million

  £ million

  1980–81

  6·5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  9·7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  11·8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  12·0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  13·5

  4·3

  3·1

  6·1

  1985–86

  15·1

  4·5

  4·0

  6·7

  1986–87

  15·0

  4·3

  3·4

  7·3

  1987–88

  15·0

  17·2

  —

  27·8

  1988–89

  15·5

  18·0

  —

  27·5

  1989–903

  16·5

  18·6

  —

  27·9

  n/a Figures not readily available.

  1 change of definition, in 1987–88: aimed primarily at food safety and applied nutrition.

  2 change of definition in 1987–88: aimed primarily at food quality and technology.

  3 Provisional.

  Fungicides
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for the last 10 years what research has been carried out by his Department in respect of crop fungicides alar, mancozeb, maneb and zineb; what results were obtained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department does not generally conduct research into individual pesticides. Stringent evaluations are carried out before products are approved for use, based on criteria laid down by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP). The safety in use of pesticides once approved is ensured by a wide ranging surveillance of pesticide residues in food, and monitoring of incidents involving wildlife, the results of which are published. The ACP reviews approved products causing concern; the substances listed were reviewed by the committee within the last 12 months but found to present no danger to health. The detailed evaluations supporting these findings have been made public.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation his Department has had with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in respect of crop fungicides alar, mancozeb, maneb and zineb; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department maintains liaison with overseas regulatory authorities including the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In the case of daminozide (Alar) and the ethylene bisdithiocarbamates
  680
  Mr. Maclean
  The 1988 report of the environmental panel of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides will be published during the second quarter of this year, while that for 1989 is scheduled for publication during the autumn.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 13 February, if he will list the amount spent by his Ministry in each category given.

  Mr. Gummer
  The table sets out figures showing the expenditure by my Department on food R and D over the last 10 years. Data on expenditure on food quality, safety and processing are not readily available before 1984–85. Figures for research and development separately are not available.

  (mancozeb, maneb, and zineb) all the data which the EPA had studied together with its evaluations were made available for assessment to my Department.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation his Department has had with the World Health Organisation in respect of crop fungicides alar, mancozeb, maneb and zineb; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department is represented on the FAO/WHO Codex committee on pesticide residues which meets annually. This committee considers recommendations for maximum residue levels and acceptable daily intakes, and has discussed the active ingredients daminozide (used in the product Alar) mancozeb, maneb and zineb.

  Helicopters
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department issues on the use of helicopters near horses and other animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware of any particular problems caused by helicopters near horses or farm animals and the Department has not issued specific advice on this issue.

  Pressure Stock Licences
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had any representations about claims by official receivers that pressure stock licences given to individuals under entitlement are company rather than individual assets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have not received any representations in these terms. Fisheries Departments issue licences both to individuals and to companies in respect of named vessels. Most licences are transferable between vessels and between owners, provided that conditions attached to licence transfer are met. Transferable licences thus acquire a financial value and can be either company or individual assets, depending on the particular circumstances.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to review the scope and wording of pressure stock licences.

  Mr. Curry
  The scope and wording of pressure stock licences are kept under constant review.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the legal status of all pressure stock licences; and if he has any further plans to review the future of the licensing regime.

  Mr. Curry
  Pressure stock licences are granted at the discretion of Fisheries Ministers, and within an announced framework of rules, using powers from section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, as amended, and the Sea Fish (Licensing) Order 1989, as amended. The licensing scheme is kept under constant review.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the monetary value of pressure stock licences that his Department assumes when licences are given to or acquired by individuals under entitlement.

  Mr. Curry
  Pressure stock licences acquire monetary value in so far as they are transferable between vessels and between owners. These values are matters for the buyers and sellers concerned and my Department makes no assumptions about them.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what distinction his Department draws between the monetary values of pressure stock licences held by individuals and those by companies; and what assessment he has made of the level of trading in licences which takes place.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his separate question on the value of licences. Under the current rules, licences can only be transferred between owners upon application to the Fisheries Departments when the vessel to which the licence applies is sold. Vessels are regularly traded both by companies and individuals, and the prices set are matters for negotiation between the individuals or companies concerned.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of the farm woodland scheme; and if he will 682
  indicate the area taken into the scheme; expenditure (a) incurred to date and (b) committed for the future; and what is his estimate of common agricultural policy savings resulting from the scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  In the first 16 months of the farm woodland scheme applications to plant a total of 9,740 hectares throughout the United Kingdom have been received. United Kingdom expenditure incurred as at the end of January 1990 amounted to £1,378,000 for planting grants and £240,347 in annual payments. United Kingdom future expenditure commitments in respect of approvals to plant as at the end of January 1990 amount to £6,519,097 for planting grants and annual payments of £1,112,004 per year. An estimate of common agricultural policy savings resulting from the scheme will be made as part of the review of the scheme in 1991.

  Catering Facilities
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of installing(a) a ministerial dining room in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (b) a new kitchen as part of that installation; what company manufactured the kitchen units; and what was their country of origin.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: During refurbishment of the building, one room is being furnished to serve mainly as a conference room and to double as a dining room when necessary. The cost of works and furnishings is approximately £8,500. The kitchen replaces a wholly inadequate kitchen facility. The cost of units. appliances and works is approximately £9,800. The work was carried out by a British firm following competitive tender. All the kitchen units are of British manufacture and mainly of British wood.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Residential Care
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the basic weekly costs of care in a nursing home for(a) the elderly, (b) Alzheimer's disease sufferers and (c) the physically disabled; and what levels of income support are available to people in each of these categories.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that figures are not available in the form requested. The levels of fees charged are a matter between proprietors and residents or their relatives and will depend upon various factors, including the facilities available and the degree of care provided.

  The levels of income support available are dependent on the type of care a person receives and are subject to national limits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 25 October at column 841 the limits to be introduced in April.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received calling for extra Government assistance to be available to income support dependent elderly persons, Alzheimer's disease sufferers and the physically disabled in residential homes where charges are in excess of income support levels.
  683
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have received a number of representations from a variet of interested organisations and individuals.

  National Insurance Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each change in national insurance benefit entitlement since 1979 and the number of claimants affected.

  Financial year change introduced

  Number affected

  UB abatement for occupational/personal pension reduced from age 60 to 55

  1988–89 and 1989–90

  45,000 in a full year

  Weekly earnings rule introduced for UB

  1989–90

  5,000 at any one time

  UB "full extent normal" rule—de minimis provision

  1989–90

  1,000 at any one time

  "Actively seeking work" test for UB

  1989–90

  150,000

  Abolition of pensioners earnings rule

  1989–90

  400,000 approx.

  Widows: revised entitlement conditions for women widowed before April 1988

  1989–90

  20,000 approx.

  1 Includes unemployed people receiving Income Support only.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each change since 1979 in the Exchequer subsidy to the national insurance fund and the annual savings made by each change; and what is the cumulative saving to the Exchequer since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimated reduction in payments from the Consolidated Fund to the national insurance fund as a result of changes in the Treasury supplement for the financial years from 1979–80 to 1988–89 is shown in the table.

  Year

  Per cent.

  Amount

  Notional amount1

  Reduction

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  1979–80

  18

  2,343

  —

  —

  1980–81

  18

  2,848

  —

  —

  1981–82

  14·5

  2,433

  3,020

  587

  1982–83

  13

  2,591

  2,890

  299

  1983–84

  13

  2,807

  —

  —

  1984–85

  11

  2,597

  3,069

  472

  1985–86

  9

  2,163

  2,644

  481

  1986–87

  9

  2,412

  —

  —

  1987–88

  7

  2,135

  2,745

  610

  1988–89

  5

  1,653

  2,314

  661

  1 This is an assumed figure, had the Treasury supplement remained at the level for the previous year.

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what paternity leave is allowed to staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Table 1—Pensioners' Incomes

  1974

  1979

  1987

  real terms increase 1979–87 Per cent.

  real terms increase 1974–79

  Total social security benefits

  45·00

  50·50

  59·20

  17

  12

  Occupational pensions

  11·80

  13·20

  23·30

  77

  12

  Savings income

  10·70

  9·10

  20·90

  130

  -16

  Earnings

  13·60

  9·90

  7·90

  -20

  -27

  Total gross income

  81·10

  82·80

  111·20

  34

  2

  Total net income

  73·80

  75·90

  99·90

  31

  3

  Notes:

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. £s per week at 1987 prices.
  684
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26 January 1989 to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) at columns 712–14, which listed the main changes to national insurance benefits since 1979. The numbers affected by each of these changes could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Further changes occurring since that reply are given in the table.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Paternity leave is not available to civil servants at present. The Treasury is, however, finalising arrangements for the introduction of an entitlement to two days' paid paternity leave.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Greater Manchester area will be eligible for the community charge rebate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that reliable estimates of numbers of recipients cannot be provided on a detailed regional basis. The models used by this Department produce estimates of the numbers of people expected to receive community charge benefit, not of numbers who may be eligible.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures on pensioners' incomes; and what were the comparable figures in 1974 and 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  Detailed analysis, recently completed, of data from the 1987 family expenditure survey shows that the average pensioners' total net income increased by over 31 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1987. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the individual components which contributed towards this increase.
  685
  The analysis also shows that the proportion of pensioners in the lowest quintile of income distribution fell from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 24 per cent. in 1987. Pensioners who receive all of their income from state benefits have experienced a real increase of more than 27 per cent. over the same period. The figures also show that the average pensioners' gross income represented 61 per cent. of the average earnings of all manual workers.

  In 1987 a total of 73 per cent. of all pensioners received income from savings and the average amount that they received was £28·40. Also, 52 per cent. of all pensioners had an occupational pension and the average amount received was £44·80. Table 2 shows the comparable figures for 1974 and 1979.

  Table 2—Pensioners' Income from Savings and Occupational Pensions 1974, 1979 and 1987

  1974

  1979

  1987

  Percentage of pensioners with savings income

  53·0

  62·0

  73·0

  Average amount received from Savings Income (£ per week)

  20·50

  14·60

  28·40

  Percentage of pensioners with Occupational Pensions

  35·0

  41·0

  52·0

  Average amount received from Occupational Pension (£ per week)

  33·70

  32·10

  44·80

  Notes:

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. £s per week at 1987 prices.

  3. Averages are for those who actually received savings income/occupational pensions.

  Computers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what was the date on which the invitation to tender to run the social security computer operation at Norcross, Lancashire was published in the Official Journal of the European Commission;

  (2) what was the date on which the invitation to tender to run the social security computer operations at Livingston was published in the Official Journal of the European Commission.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is not the practice to publish in the Official Journal of the European Commission invitations to tender for service contracts such as those for the area computer centres at Norcross and Livingston.

  Rents
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has about the difference between rent officer determination and market rents since the implementation of new restrictions under the housing benefit regulations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information supplied by rent officers is being collected by the Department of the Environment and will be published in due course.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision exists to ensure that if rents are increased as a result of inclusive private sector rents becoming net rents after the abolition of the rating system such increases are not caught by subsidy restrictions imposed by rent officer determination.
  686
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We intend to introduce arrangements in the 1990–91 subsidy order to allow authorities to receive full subsidy on housing benefit paid in respect of any element of rent which, prior to 1990, was treated as rates. When the rent is next referred to the rent officer in the normal way (after a maximum of 12 months), the rent officer will look at the full charge, and the subsequent position will depend on the new determination.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the income tax yield would be were all incomes below £100 zero rated, and incomes at £100 per week rated at 1 per cent., with each £4 rise in income incurring a further 1 per cent. increase in tax up to a limit of 40 per cent. tax rate for incomes of £260 per week and above.

  Mr. Lilley
  At 1990–91 levels of income, the yield in a full year under the proposed rate schedule would be some £10 billion less than under the 1989–90 income tax rates and allowances indexed by 7·7 per cent. to 1990–91.

  The estimate allows for the start of independent taxation in April 1990. It is based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and is therefore provisional.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families with children are estimated to have taxable incomes below the income tax threshold; and what proportion this represents of all families with children.

  Mr. Lilley
  In 1989–90 it is estimated that some 1·6 million families with children have taxable incomes below the income tax threshold. These represent about 23 per cent. of all families with children. The estimates are based on a projection of the 1987 family expenditure survey and are therefore provisional.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of income tax collected from people resident in Wales during 1988–89, or the latest year for which figures are available; and how much of this arose from payments made at(a) the standard rate and (b) the higher rate of tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest available information covers residents of Wales in 1987–88 and is in terms of liabilities rather than tax collected. Total income tax was about £1·5 billion of which some £65 million was in respect of tax in excess of the basic rate.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the review into the relocation of Customs and Excise activities will be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  At the moment I have nothing to add to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 15 November (Official Report, column 316) but I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families(a) with children and (b) without have lost more as a result of increased interest

  687
  rates since the Budget of 1988 than they have gained as a result of Budget changes made in 1988 and 1989; and what are the amounts by which they are worse or better off at various total income levels.

  Mr. Lilley
  Families will have benefited from many Budget measures since 1988, with the size of the gain depending on a range of other factors as well as total income levels. Many families will also have seen other changes in their circumstances since March 1988. There is thus no satisfactory basis on which to answer the hon. Member's question.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax relief has gone to the BES on residential property; and what his estimate is of the BES tax relief on residential property in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Lilley
  The cost of BES tax relief on residential property in 1988–89 is provisionally estimated as £110 million. Costs in 1989–90 and 1990–91 will depend on take-up.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what areas of activity have been outlawed from BES investments over the last three years; and how much tax was forgone for ongoing BES investment made in these areas in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  Nearly all trades qualify under the business expansion scheme. A trade does not qualify if it consists to a substantial extent of non-qualifying activities; these are set out in section 297 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. No activities have been added to this list in the past three years.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has for each of the years of the existence of BES on the percentage and amount of BES money invested in residential and assured tenancy schemes.

  Mr. Lilley
  The business expansion scheme was extended to include investment in private rented housing in 1988–89 and £350 million was invested. This comprises about 85 per cent. of total BES investment in the year. Information is not available for 1989–90.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has for each of the years of the existence of BES of(a) the cost of BES to the Exchequer, (b) the percentage of investments made by high rate taxpayers, (c) the cost to the Exchequer divided into top rate and other taxpayers and (d) the number of net new jobs created as a result of BES.

  Mr. Lilley
  The estimated cost of BES tax relief for 1983–84 to 1989–90 is as follows:

  £ million

  1983–84

  50

  1984–85

  75

  1985–86

  85

  1986–87

  95

  1987–88

  110

  11988–89

  130

  1 Provisional.

  688
  A forecast of £60 million for the cost of relief for the business expansion scheme in 1989–90 was published in the Government's expenditure plans, 1990–91 to 1992–93 (chapter 21, reference CM1021, appendix F), but no information is yet available centrally from official sources to provide a reliable estimate of the outturn.

  Information is not available on the percentage of investments made by higher rate taxpayers, the cost to the Exchequer divided into top rate and other taxpayers, and the number of net new jobs created as a result of BES.

  Taxation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average individual cumulative gain(a) in current prices, (b) in 1988–89 prices and (c) in 1990–91 prices to those earning £5,000, £10,000, £15,000, £20,000, £25,000, £30,000, £40,000, £50,000, £60,000, and £70,000 as a result of changes in taxation and national insurance since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates of the annual change in liability resulting from the changes in income tax rates, allowances, and thresholds and national insurance contribution rates and limits are in the table. All estimates are based on a provisional 1989–90 income base projected from the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes. The 1978–79 income tax regime has been indexed to 1989–90 levels by reference to the statutory formula and national insurance contribution limits have been indexed by the change in the RPI between October 1977 and October 1988. The post-October 1989 NIC rates are used for 1989–90.

  For the purposes of these calculations, the indexed regimes of 1978–79 are directly applied to the income base of 1989–90. In practice, retention of these regimes, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Average reduction in income tax and National Insurance contributions per tax unit1 in 1989–90 compared with 1978–79 indexed regimes

  £ per annum

  Range of total income in 1989–90 (£)

  At 1988–89 prices

  At 1989–90 prices

  At 1990–91 prices

  Under 5,000

  140

  150

  160

  5,000 to 10,000

  290

  310

  320

  10,000 to 15,000

  510

  550

  590

  15,000 to 20,000

  680

  730

  780

  20,000 to 25,000

  960

  1,030

  1,090

  25,000 to 30,000

  1,360

  1,470

  1,550

  30,000 to 40,000

  2,070

  2,220

  2,360

  40,000 to 50,000

  3,860

  4,150

  4,400

  50,000 to 60,000

  6,390

  6,870

  7,280

  60,000 to 70,000

  9,540

  10,260

  10,870

  Over 70,000

  29,970

  32,220

  34,150

  Total all incomes

  870

  930

  990

  1 Married couples and single people paying either income tax or NIC under the 1978–79 indexed regimes.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the reduction in annual liability to(a) capital gains tax and (b) capital transfer tax in 1989–90 and 1990–91 as against the 1979–80 indexed regime, specifying in each case the total and average reduction per taxpayer as well as the number of taxpayers in each year;

  (2) what is the reduction in annual liability to (a) capital gains tax and (b) capital transfer tax in

  689
  1989–90 and 1990–91 as against the 1978–79 indexed regime specifying in each case the total and average reduction per taxpayer as well as the number of taxpayers in each year.

  Mr. Lilley
  Latest available estimates for 1989–90 and for 1990–91, based on the 1989–90 regime with statutory indexation, are as follows:

  Head of tax and regime for comparison

  Capital gains tax

  Capital transfer tax/Inheritance tax

  Indexed 1978–79

  Indexed 1979–80

  Indexed 1978–79

  Indexed 1979–80

  Reduction under present regime in:

  Total liability (£ million):

  1989–90

  1,400

  1,450

  680

  820

  1990–91

  1,350

  1,400

  650

  780

  Average liability1 (£):

  1989–90

  2,100

  1,950

  8,900

  10,100

  1990–91

  2,450

  2,300

  9,400

  10,400

  Taxpayer numbers (thousands)

  Indexed regime:

  1989–90

  670

  730

  77

  81

  1990–91

  550

  600

  68

  75

  1 The reduction in the average liability is calculated using estimated numbers of taxpayers under the indexed 1978–79 or 1979–80 regime.

  The numbers of taxpayers based on the tax regimes in force in 1989–90 and in 1990–91, assuming statutory indexation of the 1989–90 regimes, are:

  Total investment income and earned income

  (£ billion)

  Group of income taxpayers

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Investment Income

  Earned Income

  Investment Income

  Earned Income

  Top 1 per cent.

  4·5

  14·7

  5·8

  16·2

  Top 5 per cent.

  9·1

  43·2

  11·6

  47·7

  Top 10 per cent.

  11·9

  68·6

  15·6

  75·5

  Top 20 per cent.

  15·8

  107·6

  20·8

  118·5

  Top 25 per cent.

  17·2

  124·2

  22·7

  136·8

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  9·8

  119·4

  12·6

  131·9

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  6·2

  69·9

  7·9

  77·1

  All taxpayers

  28·1

  259·0

  36·9

  285·2

  Privatisations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the maximum number of individuals who have owned shares in each of the privatised companies; and how many individuals currently hold shares in those companies.

  Company

  Date of Privatisation

  Size of share register

  Initial

  Highest since Privatisation

  Current1

  British Petroleum

  2December 1977

  67,750

  6,212,000 (December 1988)

  British Aerospace

  3February 1981

  155,000

  120,200 (December 1986)

  105,800 (December 1988)

  Cable and Wireless

  4October 1981

  26,000

  211,000 (March 1986)

  170,146 (March 1989)

  Amersham International

  February 1982

  63,760

  8,601 (January 1982)

  5,584 (January 1989)

  Britoil

  5November 1982

  37,257

  241,000

  —

  690

  thousands

  Capital gains tax

  Inheritance tax

  1989–90

  180

  26

  1990–91

  150

  22

  The figures for capital gains tax exclude capital gains realised by companies and taxed within corporation tax. For each tax, the 1989–90 and 1990–91 tax bases are taken as given. It is not possible to determine to what extent changes to the taxes between 1978–79 or 1979–80 and the present may have affected the levels of transfers arid disposals. The above comparisons can therefore be regarded as no more than indicative of the orders of magnitude involved.

  Incomes
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the investment income and earned income in 1988–89 and 1989–90 of(a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 20 per cent., (d) the top 30 per cent., (e) the bottom 70 per cent., (f) the bottom 50 per cent. of taxpayers and (g) all taxpayers.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates are given in the table. They are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. All estimates are subject to a large degree of uncertainty since some investment income on which tax is deducted at source is not reflected in the survey.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information the hon. Member requested is as follows. Information for the 10 water companies is not yet available. The latest Treasury stock exchange survey showed that in 1989 there were 9 million individual shareholders in the United Kingdom, three times as many as in 1979.
  691

  Company

  Date of Privatisation

  Size of share register

  Initial

  Highest since Privatisation

  Current1

  Associated British Ports

  6February 1983

  37,205

  12,321 (July 1989)

  Enterprise Oil

  June 1984

  13,700

  14166 (January 1985)

  9,553 (December 1988)

  Jaguar

  July 1984

  125,000

  64,126 (November 1984)

  42,000 (March 1989)

  British Telecom

  November 1984

  2,051,373

  1,649,722 (November 1985)

  1,203,243 (March 1989)

  British Gas

  December 1986

  4,407,100

  3,100,000 (July 1987)

  2,661,018 (January 1989)

  British Airways

  February 1987

  1,100,000

  450,000 (July 1987)

  338,350 (May 1989)

  Rolls Royce

  May 1987

  2,000,000

  925,000 (December 1987)

  846,950 (December 1988)

  BAA

  July 1987

  2,187,500

  1,064,815 (January 1988)

  889,067 (January 1989)

  British Steel

  December 1988

  650,000

  400,000 (January 1989)

  1 Figures taken from the latest available reports and accounts.

  2 Three further sales in November 1979, September 1983 and October 1987.

  3 There was a second issue in May 1985 with 260,000 successful applications.

  4 Two further issues took place in November 1983 and December 1988.

  5 Second issue in August 1985 with 241,000 successful applicants. Became a BP subsidiary in 1988.

  6 A sale of the residual shareholding took place in April 1984.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much corporation tax was collected between 1984 and 1988 as a result of major public companies selling their leasing subsidiaries; and how many of these arrangements are monitored by the special investigations section.

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

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of energy costs allowed against United Kingdom companies' liability to corporation tax in each of the last five financial years.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are currently taken by the Inland Revenue to check that company expenditure offset against corporation tax as general company expenses is not being used to fund donations to political parties or organisations.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue takes the same action in relation to political donations as to any other expenditure not allowable for tax purposes.

  Companies (Leasing Subsidiaries)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax has been(a) assessed and (b) collected from those financial institutions that funded the purchase of major public companies' leasing subsidiaries between 1984–88, in respect of these arrangements.

  Mr. Lilley
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  692
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of the Inland Revenue towards the sale by public companies of their leasing subsidiaries between 1984–88 and towards the scope for tax avoidance afforded the purchaser; and what assessment, in these circumstances, the Inland Revenue makes of the true value of the transaction.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue examines such transactions to ensure that they are dealt with properly for tax purposes.

  Leasing Schemes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of the Inland Revenue, in assessing leasing schemes for tax relief, in respect of establishing that the taxpayer has, in fact, completed meetings and signed documents on the dates claimed; and what are the Inland Revenue manpower considerations involved.

  Mr. Lilley
  As in other areas of investigation, whatever steps seem appropriate in individual cases are taken to verify the facts where there are doubts about the true sequence of events. It is not possible to isolate the manpower costs associated with such verifications.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of staff in the Inland Revenue have been disciplined for breaching internal regulations on the disclosure of personal data within the last five years.
  693
  Mr. Lilley
  During the years 1985 to 1989 inclusive, nine Inland Revenue officers have been formally disciplined for improperly disclosing confidential taxpayer information.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the procedure within the Inland Revenue for authorising transfers of personal data to other Government Departments; and at what level such decisions are authorised.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Revenue's procedure is to refer all requests for disclosure of personal data to a nominated officer at not less than grade 7 in the Revenue's head office. As regards the arrangements for local exchanges of information between the Revenue and Customs and Excise, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, then Financial Secretary, gave on 8 March 1988, (Official Report, column 128), to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin).

  Statute

  Recipient

  Nature of disclosure

  Section 129 Land Registration Act 1925

  Land Registry

  Particulars of land and changes.

  Section 9 Charities Act 1960 as amended by Section 33 Finance Act 1986

  Charity Commissioners

  (a) Information to establish charitable status; purpose of the institution and details of the trusts under which it is regulated.

  (b)Information on non-charitable activities and non-charitable applications of funds

  Section 58 Finance Act 1959

  Department of Employment (which is authorised to pass information also to other Departments and various local bodies)

  Names and addresses of employers operating PAYE schemes. Number of employees in each scheme.

  Section 816 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

  Foreign treaty partners

  Details required under dual taxation agreements.

  Section 127 Finance Act 1972

  Customs and Excise

  Anything required to assist in performance of Customs and Excise duties.

  Section 77 Finance Act 1978

  EEC tax authorities

  Information required by treaty.

  Section 1 Tenants' Rights, etc. (Scotland) Act 1980

  Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Housing Corporation

  (a) Information to determine status of housing associations.

  (b) Whether charitable exemptions under Section 505(1), Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 have been refused.

  Section 25 Social Security and Housing Benefit Act 1987

  Department of Social Security

  Information under Schedule E (as for Section 59 Social Security Act 1986).

  Section 26 and Schedule 7, Paragraph 12, Finance Act 1982

  Department of Environment

  Information regarding option mortgages.

  Section 62 Housing Associations Act 1985

  Department of Environment

  Information to determine whether housing associations qualify for DOE grant in respect of certain tax liabilities.

  Section 59 Social Security Act 1986

  Department of Social Security (and Department of Employment as their agent for Unemployment Benefits)

  (a) Information on Schedule E Income Tax and Class I National Insurance Contributions paid.

  (b) Dates of start and cessation of businesses chargeable to tax under Case I or II of Schedule D.

  Section 8 Parliamentary Commissioner 1967

  Parliamentary Commissioner (Administration)

  Any information required by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the purposes of his investigations.

  Section 8 National Audit Act 1983

  National Audit Office

  Any information required for the purposes of National Audit Office's examinations.

  694
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what grounds decisions are taken to transfer personal data held by the Inland Revenue to other Government Departments;

  (2) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from the Inland Revenue to other Government Departments; and how many such transfers take place each year;

  (3) what kind of personal data held by the Inland Revenue, whether on computer or manually, are transferred to other Government Departments;

  (4) what records are kept of transfers of personal data from the Inland Revenue to other Government Departments; and whether the Data Protection Registrar has access to the relevant records.

  Mr. Lilley
  Personal data held by the Inland Revenue are not disclosed to other Government Departments except as required by statute. Many routine exchanges of information under statute are made on a day-to-day basis and not recorded for statistical purposes. The legislation under which disclosures to other Government Departments are made is as follows:
  695

  Statute

  Recipient

  Nature of disclosure

  Section 17 Protection Act 1984

  Data Protection Registrar or Data Protection Tribunal

  Any information Data necessary for discharge of their functions under the Act.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from the Inland Revenue to the police; and how many such transfers take place each year;

  (2) what kinds of personal data held by the Inland Revenue are transferred to the police; and whether records are kept of such transfers.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue discloses personal information to the police under the following sections:Section 27, Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986—Information relevant to investigation of an offence under the Act (by order of Circuit Judge/Sheriff).
  Section 17, and Schedule 7, Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989—Information relevant to investigation of offence under the Act (by order of Circuit Judge/Sheriff or Secretary of State for Northern Ireland).

  There were 107 disclosures in 1988–89 under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has only recently come into operation.

  In all other cases the Revenue claims immunity from disclosure on grounds of public interest unless the police are acting on the Revenue's behalf or the police inquiries are directly relevant to the investigation of the serious crimes of murder or treason. There is no record of the number of such disclosures.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what internal guidelines covering the transfer of personal data to other Government Departments are available to staff in the Inland Revenue; and whether he will place a copy of any such guidelines in the Library.

  Mr. Lilley
  Detailed instructions are incorporated in numerous manuals dealing with each of the Revenue's areas of work. A notice reminding all staff of their personal responsibility was issued recently. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans exist in the Inland Revenue for the transfer of personal data via the Government data network; and what new procedures have been adopted to prevent unauthorised transfers of such data.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue at present transfers large quantities of personal data over a private network of lines leased from British Telecom. These transfers take place solely between Inland Revenue offices. There are plans to absorb the whole of this existing network into the Government data network and to validate these plans a pilot operation is currently running in the Greater Manchester region. The stringent controls which already exist in the Revenue network to prevent the unauthorised transfer of personal data will remain in force when the network becomes part of the Government data network and no new procedures are envisaged or thought necessary.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether records will be kept of all personal 696
  data, transferred from the Inland Revenue to other Government Departments via the Government data network.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are no plans to transfer any personal data from the Inland Revenue to other Government Departments via the Government data network.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the rules governing the transfer of personal data from the Inland Revenue to other Government Departments are the same for data held manually as for data held on computer.

  Mr. Lilley
  Yes.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts would be payable each month at today's interest rates and at the lowest interest rate in the last three months on a standard repayment mortgage which was adjusted in line with the change of interest rate and repayable over 25 years of(a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £30,000, (d) £40,000 and (e) £50,000.

  Mr. Lilley
  The monthly mortgage interest payments after deduction of basic rate tax relief for an endowment mortgage are given in the table, based on a 14·5 per cent. mortgage interest rate and on the 13·5 per cent. rate which existed until November:

  Mortgage (£)

  Monthly payment (£)

  13·5 per cent, interest rate

  14·5 per cent, interest rate

  10,000

  84·38

  90·63

  20,000

  168·75

  181·25

  30,000

  253·13

  271·88

  40,000

  365·63

  392·71

  50,000

  478·13

  513·54

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount payable in mortgage interest each year since 1979 as a percentage of(a) disposable incomes and (b) consumer expenditure.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest estimates are as follows:

  Mortgage interest payable as a percentage of

  Personal disposable income

  Consumer's expenditure

  (a)

  (b)

  1979

  3·5

  4·0

  1980

  4·4

  5·1

  1981

  4·4

  5·1

  1982

  4·9

  5·5

  1983

  4·5

  5·0

  1984

  5·3

  5·9

  1985

  6·7

  7·4

  1986

  6·6

  7·1

  1987

  7·0

  7·4

  1988

  7·3

  7·6

  Energy Management
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the cost in 1988–89 of increasing the investment allowance on contract energy management schemes from 25 to 40 per cent. per annum;

  (2) what was the investment level in, and value of tax allowances given on investment by business in energy-saving equipment and schemes during 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information needed to answer these questions is not available.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the Inland Revenue has(a) assessed, (b) collected, (c) written off following settlement or other reasons and (d) still to collect from taxpayers who engaged in corporate tax avoidance schemes involving section 64(11) type leases where banks claim allowances on assets leased to local authorities.

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

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the Inland Revenue has(a) assessed, (b) collected, (c) written off following settlement or other reasons and (d) still to collect from taxpayers who engaged in corporate tax avoidance schemes known as film schemes and structured in such a way as to exploit capital allowance legislation by enabling companies to buy in tax losses artificially.

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

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the Inland Revenue has(a) assessed, (b) collected, (c) written off following settlement or other reasons and (d) still to collect from taxpayers who engaged in corporate tax avoidance schemes known as funded lease schemes involving hire purchase and leaseback. and other schemes along similar lines.

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

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the Inland Revenue has(a) assessed, (b) collected, (c) written off following settlement or other reasons and (d) still to collect from taxpayers who engaged in corporate tax avoidance schemes along the lines of film schemes.

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

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend section 20 of the Taxes Management Act to cover those who are actively promoting tax avoidance schemes.

  Mr. Lilley
  Amendments to section 20 made in the Finance Acts 1988 and 1989 already cover this matter.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to prevent tax avoidance promoters from exporting key documents required by the Inland Revenue to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or other offshore tax havens.
  698
  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to section 145 of last year's Finance Act.

  Advisers and Banks
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to extend section 20 of the Taxes Management Act to cover professional advisers and banks located in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Gibraltar.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. Those territories have their own tax administrations.

  Mr. Patrick Taylor
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider amending section 20 of the Taxes Management Act in the light of the Revenue's legal cases with Mr. Patrick Taylor.

  Mr. Lilley
  An appeal is pending in this matter and comment would be inappropriate.

  Overseas Trusts
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation requiring the trustees and settlers of overseas trusts to appear before the appropriate tax authorities and the courts.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are existing powers enabling the general and special commissioners to summon any person (other than the appellant) to appear before them and give evidence.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to enable the Inland Revenue to freeze the activities of overseas trusts pending the trustees and settlers' co-operation with the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not clear what activities the hon. Member wishes to freeze.

  Residential Property
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the average ratio of capital values to rateable values of freehold residential property in each region in 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  This information could not be produced without a disproportionate expenditure of time and resources.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide a breakdown on a regional basis for the 1988 public sector figures in table 15.3 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1989", distinguishing:(a) freehold and (b) leasehold residential properties sold to (i) individuals and (ii) others.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that reliable information is not available at the level of detail requested. Available information is in the tables:

  Property sales in 1988 by the public sector

  Number

  Value

  (000)

  (£ million)

  A. By Region

  North

  11

  189

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  216

  699

  Number

  Value

  (000)

  (£ million)

  East Midlands

  12

  306

  East Anglia

  7

  259

  South East

  40

  1,643

  Greater London

  29

  1,763

  South West

  17

  449

  West Midlands

  19

  382

  North West

  15

  337

  Wales

  10

  158

  England and Wales

  171

  5,703

  B. By type of property

  Residential freehold

  130

  2,501

  Residential leasehold

  31

  619

  Land

  6

  1,311

  Other freehold

  2

  759

  Other leasehold

  3

  511

  All types of property

  171

  5,703

  C. By type of buyer

  Individuals

  164

  3,080

  Property companies

  3

  1,518

  Public Sector

  1

  109

  Financial Institutions

  1—

  243

  Others

  3

  754

  All buyers

  171

  5,703

  l— = less than 500.

  Source: Survey of Conveyancing 1988.

  Housing (Essex)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide for the districts of Basildon, Harlow and Thurrock the number and rateable value of houses and so on, with a rateable value not exceeding £100 and by(a) £50 steps to £400, (b) £100 steps to £800, (c) £800 to £1,000, (d) £1,000 to £1,500 and (e) over £1,500.

  Mr. Lilley
  This information could not be produced without a disproportionate expenditure of time and resources.

  Age Allowances
  Mr Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes there have been in policy on the award of age allowances.

  Mr. Lilley
  Under independent taxation, which starts on 6 April 1990, the present single and married age allowances will be replaced by age-related levels of the new personal and married couple's allowances. A wife aged 65 or over will be entitled to an age-related personal allowance in her own right, if her own income is below the income limit for the higher allowance levels. She will be able to set her personal allowance against any kind of income. As a result of this and other changes introduced with independent taxation some three quarters of all elderly married couples who currently pay tax will pay less tax, and some 180,000 will be taken out of tax altogether.

  Retail Sales
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the basis upon which the Central Statistical Office calculates the monthly retail sales figures; upon how many returns from retailers these statistics are 700
  based; and what types and sizes of retailers are represented in the sample to ensure that the sample is a true reflection of the overall structure of the retailing industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  The monthly retail sales figures are based on a voluntary inquiry which collects figures of turnover from a sample of 3,500 retailers covering about 60 per cent. of total retail sales. Provisional estimates of the monthly index are based on nearly 2,000 returns; the final index incorporates about 2,800 replies. All types and sizes of retailers are included in the sample. The method of calculation of the index uses information on the overall structure of retailing and is designed to ensure that the index is a good measure of changes in total retail sales.

  Further details of the survey are given in "Monthly Retail Sales Inquiry: Summary of Principles and Procedures", a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Third-world Debts
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of tax relief banks receive when setting aside money as a provision for non-payment of Third-world debts; what is the time limit on this tax relief; and whether banks can retain this relief indefinitely or use this money for purposes other than writing off debt payments.

  Mr. Lilley
  Banks are entitled to make a deduction from their profits for tax for provisions they make against non-payment of loans, including loans to sovereign debtors, to the extent that the loan is estimated to be irrecoverable. The amount estimated to be irrecoverable has to be agreed with the Inland Revenue. Once a deduction has been agreed, there is no limit on the time a bank may retain the provision, but if the debt is repaid, or if prospects for recovery improve, the tax relief is clawed back. The making of provisions reduces a bank's profit or creates a loss, it does not provide money for other purposes.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution his Department will make to the NATO exercises due to be held in Norway during March.

  Mr. Ryder
  None.

  Hong Kong (United Kingdom Assets)
  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what calculations he has made of the value of United Kingdom assets in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Major
  Information is available only for certain categories. The latest information for direct investment is for end-1987 when the book value of United Kingdom direct investment in Hong Kong was £1,924 million. There is no information on United Kingdom portfolio investment by country. Information is available on external assets and claims on Hong Kong by banks and other financial institutions in the United Kingdom. (See table 14 of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin.) At end-September 1989 United Kingdom liabilities to Hong Kong were £18,781 million whilst United Kingdom claims on Hong Kong were £18,446 million.

  Import Duties (Brize Norton)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the sum collected at RAF Brize Norton by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in import duties for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ryder
  Revenue collected at RAF Brize Norton for the financial year ended 31 March 1989 totalled £62,300. Separate figures for VAT, Customs and Excise duties are not available. No anti-dumping duties or agricultural levies were collected.

  Tax and National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount collected in tax and national insurance contributions by central Government as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year since 1977–78; and what is his estimate for 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  From 1977–78 to 1988–89 available information is included on the CSO database in the following series (identified by their database codes):

  Total CG taxes and NICs

  (GTEA-ADAB)

  GDP(A)

  (CAOB)

  On the basis of the Autumn Statement forecast, the percentage for 1989–90 is 33·2.

  Rateable Values, South-West
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide for the districts of Plymouth, Bristol and Kingswood, the number and rateable value of houses etc. with a rateable value not exceeding £100 and by(a) £50 steps to £400, (b) £100 steps to £800, (c) £800-£1,000, (d) £1,000-£1,500 and (e) over £1,500.

  Mr. Lilley
  This information could not be produced without a disproportionate expenditure of time and resources.

  Poultry Statistics
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds 10-day import/export figures have ceased to be made available to the poultry industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The 10-day information contained provisional, unverified data which could be misleading and it was therefore decided that as from February 1990 only verified monthly statistics would be published.

HEALTH

  City and Hackney District Health Authority
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit City and Hackney district health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  I hope to visit St. Bartholomew's and Homerton hospitals in the next few months.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the selective reductions undertaken at Humana hospital have been registered as abortions.
  702
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This hospital is approved under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967. The abortion notification forms completed by operating practitioners cover the method used to secure termination but do not require the practitioner to specify whether the termination has been a selective reduction.

  Hospital Medical Staff
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the contents of the interim report on patterns of hospital medical staffing.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the contents of the interim report on patterns of hospital medical staffing.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the contents of the interim report on patterns of hospital medical staffing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The report contains some useful information, but it covers the period before we launched two initiatives on junior doctors' hours of work in 1988 and 1989. It cannot, therefore, be expected to reflect the considerable progress made since then. That is not to say that I am complacent about some of the issues contained in the report and I have called all the interested parties together to discuss what solutions can be found jointly to reduce the hours our junior doctors have to work.

  Income Generation Schemes
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has as to the amount likely to be raised in income generation schemes by the National Health Service in 1989–90.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  A total of £28 million.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received regarding the implications of shortages of local authority social workers.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received regarding the implications of shortages of local authority social workers.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received regarding the implications of shortages of local authority social workers.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received regarding the implications of shortages of local authority social workers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have had a number of representations about the problems faced by some local authorities, particularly in London, in attracting and retaining suitably qualified social workers.

  Resource Management Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether further progress will be made with the resource management initiative in the coming financial year.
  703
  Mr. Freeman
  The National Health Service Management Executive has been discussing with the National Health Service details of the programme for the coming financial year for which the Government have made available an additional £78 million. Fifty more hospitals in England have been chosen to prepare and implement the main resource management programme in 1990–91. Since my announcement last March about the extension of the programme a total of 100 hospitals have been selected to implement the main resource management process. We are proceeding at a pace that the service can sustain in setting up project management teams and purchasing computer equipment. This is backed-up with guidance from the Management Executive on the best way to proceed.

  Medical Audit
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give further details of the recently announced £31 million allocation for medical audit.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Most of this money—£24 million—is being allocated to regional health authorities to help doctors in hospital and community health services set up new systems of quality control of clinical services known as medical audit. In addition, about £5 million will be used by family practitioner committees to further the development of medical audit in general practice and £2 million will be used to fund audit initiatives proposed by the medical royal colleges and other professional bodies.

  Drug Budgets
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Health Reform Group to discuss the proposals relating to the management of indicative drug budgets.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I last met the Health Reform Group formally on 9 January 1990 and had a wide-ranging discussion on our proposed National Health Service reforms which it warmly supports.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the proposed indicative drug budgets.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received 766 representations specifically referring to the proposals on indicative prescribing budgets. In addition we have received some 14,000 representations about the White Paper proposals in general, many of which have raised questions about, amongst other things, indicative prescribing budgets. Many of the letters concern the availability of medicines under the new system. As representations of the profession accept general practitioners will be able to continue to prescribe all the medicines which individual patients might need.

  Stone House Hospital
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding proposals to change the status of the Stone House hospital at Bishop's Castle.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am aware of only five inquiries, in the form of letters received direct from members of the public.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I met members of the general medical services committee on 14 February when the report of the doctors and dentists review body and the pay of doctors and dentists were discussed.

  Carers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the need for carers to be able to request an assessment under the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In practice requests for local authority services will often, as at present, come from carers rather than from people who are being cared for. We want carers to play an active part in the assessment process and have already made clear that assessments should take account of their own needs, their preferences and their ability to go on providing care.

  Primary Health Care
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the report on primary health care in Wolverhampton.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The report on primary health care in Wolverhampton contains, for the most part recommendations which are for the local FPC and DHA, in collaboration, to implement. I have asked both authorities to proceed with implementing them and I have now written in more detail to my hon. Friend. We are most grateful to Sir Michael Drury, professor of general practice at Birmingham university, for his report.

  Community Care
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage the development within the community of alternatives to the use of institutional care for elderly and disabled people.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage the development within the community of alternatives to the use of institutional care for elderly and disabled people.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage the development within the community of alternatives to the use of institutional care for elderly and disabled people.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage the development within the community of alternatives to the use of institutional care for elderly and disabled people.
  705
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's White Paper "Caring For People" published in November 1989 included as a key proposal that domiciliary, day and respite services should be developed to enable people to live in their own homes for as long as possible. Existing funding structures have worked against the development of home based services. The Government seek to establish the right financial and managerial framework to help local authorities to provide the services that are needed. That objective is central to the new community care arrangements in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently before the House.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision he is making to take back into psychiatric hospitals those patients released into the community who have not succeeded in establishing themselves there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Where it seems likely to a consultation psychiatrist that a patient discharged from hospital would benefit therapeutically from readmission, it is open to the consultant to propose, and if the patient agrees, seek to arrange, readmission.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to visit Birmingham to discuss community care.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to make an official visit to Bromley to discuss community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I recently visited both Bromley and Birmingham as part of a series of visits planned to see how community care services are being developed and improved at a local level. The visits are proving highly informative and have provided valuable insights into how the Government's proposals for the future organisation and management of community care can be implemented successfully.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the Government's proposals for community care.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the Government's proposals for community care.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the Government's proposals for community care.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the Government's proposals for community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to my replies on 23 January at column 663. We have received further representations from voluntary organisations and others on the Government's proposals for community care and will be taking careful note of them as part of our preparations for implementation of the main proposals in the White Paper "Caring for People".
  706
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is being made to provide community facilities for the mentally ill and handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  It has long been policy for health and social services to collaborate to provide such facilities as resources allow. As a consequence there has been substantial growth in places in local authority, voluntary and private homes; day centres, day hospitals; mental health centres and in the number of community psychiatric nurses.

  I refer my hon. Friend, for statistics on the growth of community facilities, to statistical bulletin 3(2)90 "Personal Social Services Provision for Mentally Handicapped People in England 1978–88" and statistical bulletin 3(4)89 "Personal Social Services Provision for Mentally Ill People in England 1977–87". Copies are available in the Library.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the family planning services.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the family planning services.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the family planning services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) earlier today.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current number of patients is who annually seek doctors' advice on family planning matters.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available in precisely the form requested.

  Figures are recorded on the number of patients in respect of whom a fee is payable to a general practitioner for providing contraceptive services, and the number of people attending family planning clinics. For 1987–88, the latest year available, the information is shown in the table.

  Family Planning Services (1987–88—England)

  Thousands

  Patients seen by GPs

  2,554·9

  Persons attending Family Planning Clinics

  1,352·0

  Hospices
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on funding for the hospice movement.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will give more details of the £8 million funding for the voluntary hospice movement.

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

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospice projects have now been assisted directly with resources provided by his Department.
  707
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Two projects for people with AIDS, the London Lighthouse and the Mildmay Mission, currently receive direct assistance from the Department, and from health authorities. The funding of individual projects is otherwise a matter for discussion between the health authorities and the organisations concerned. Authorities will receive an additional allocation of £8 million for 1990–91 to enable them to increase their existing contributions to the voluntary hospice movement.

  NHS (Patient Involvement)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to increase the involvement of patients in the running of the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie), for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), for. Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott) on 23 January at column 662.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to specify the core services provided by National Health Service trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans for the core or "designated services" provided by an NHS trust to be specified routinely by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Designated services are simply those which need to be provided locally and can be provided only to a defined population by a particular hospital, which has become an NHS trust. Designation becomes relevant if the trust does not wish to provide those services. The NHS and Community Care Bill provides for powers of direction by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to achieve provision of designated services by NHS trusts as a last resort. The responsibility for identifying services which need to be designated for a particular population will rest with the DHA concerned.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about feasibility studies being carried out by hospitals considering opting out of health authority control.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18 January at column 402.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was his Department's total expenditure on the meetings on National Health Service trusts held on 23 and 24 October 1989, 14 and 15 December 1989 and 22 and 23 January.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These were internal management meetings with senior NHS managers. It is not our practice to disclose such costs.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health up until what stage a potential self-governing trust's application for self-governing hospital status may be withdrawn; up to what date new applications may be submitted; and if he will list those which have been withdrawn to date.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Formal application for NHS trust status may be made only after Parliament has 708
  approved the necessary legislation. Applications may, thereafter, be submitted at any time. They may be withdrawn at any time before the order establishing a particular trust is laid.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the need for a ballot to take place before hospitals opt out of the existing National Health Service management structure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  One letter has been received since the beginning of the year.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have now shown an interest in self-government; and what is the precise method for doing this.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 191 units have, to date, expressed an interest in NHS trust status, including a number with more than one hospital. For the precedure for registering an interest in NHS trust status, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 17 January at column 277.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from district health authorities on his proposals for self-governing hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received representations from a wide range of individuals and representative bodies, including district health authorities, on the NHS review proposals over the past year. These have included representations on our proposals for NHS trusts.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the new system of distributing resources to regional health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 23 January at columns 673–74.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes have been made in the provision of training for nurses and midwives since 1978–79.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. There have been important and far-reaching changes over this period.

  The Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979, in setting up the United Kingdom Central Council and four national boards, one for each country in the United Kingdom, introduced a unified statutory structure for the nursing, midwifery and health professions. Under this Act, the council is responsible for establishing and improving standards of training for the nursing professions.

  In January 1987 the council presented to the four Health Departments proposals, known as Project 2000, for a major reform of nurse education and training. These proposals, designed to secure a more appropriately prepared profession better able to meet future health

  709
  needs, have been largely accepted by the Government. By April 1990, a total of 13 Project 2000 schemes will have started in England. We hope to announce further sites shortly.

  The past decade has also seen the development of a variety of links between schools and colleges of nursing and further/higher education establishments. There has been a growth in the number of degree courses in nursing and associated degree courses combined with registered nurse training. Several chairs of nursing have been established within universities, to enhance developments in nurse education and practice.

  Curricula for pre-registration nurse education have developed to ensure that all nursing staff are able to meet changing demands in health care. In particular there has been a growth in post-registration courses in high technology areas to meet advances in medical technology.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes to make any additional resources available to reduce hospital waiting lists in the current year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have made £31 million available through the waiting list fund in 1989–90. This will enable health authorities to treat over 100,000 additional in-patients and day cases and 90,000 out-patients from the waiting lists. A further £33 million is being allocated in 1990–91. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir N. Macfarlane) on 6 December 1989 at columns 280–81.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now meet representatives of ambulance staff.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now meet representatives of ambulance staff.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now meet representatives of ambulance staff.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now meet representatives of ambulance staff.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 23 January at columns 655–56.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Health Service management board has any plans to meet representatives of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel to discuss the current ambulance dispute.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. The board would not expect to have meetings with any trades union on disputes about pay and conditions for any group of staff. Negotiations of pay of Whitley council groups is for the relevant Whitley council.
  710
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his current estimate of the costs arising out of the ambulance dispute.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is too soon to form a clear estimate of the costs arising out of the dispute. The cost of military involvement to the end of December 1989 was £1.8 million, although there will of course be offsetting savings on salaries and fuel costs from the normal service. Figures for assistance provided by the police have not yet been assessed by all the authorities concerned.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning the ambulance workers' dispute.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received numerous recent representations concerning the ambulance workers' dispute.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the ambulance workers' dispute.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present situation concerning the ambulance dispute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the dispute in the ambulance service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  NHS management has always wanted to have further talks with the unions on the basis of its final offer, provided the unions changed their position and did not simply repeat their demands for a high pay increase and a pay formula. I am pleased that the two sides are meeting this afternoon at ACAS. I hope that today's talks will bring about a swift resolution of this dispute.

  NHS Administrators
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions are placed on administrators in the National Health Service from working part time for any form of private trust to facilitate opting out by National Health Service hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities are responsible for determining the detailed terms and conditions of employment of NHS administrators. Any decision to place restrictions on outside activities by administrators would be a matter for the health authority concerned.

  Drug Misusers
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many injecting drug misusers are known to have been infected by HIV; and how many of them are known to be still alive.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table shows the cumulative totals of HIV anti-body positive reports, up to the end of December 1989, and AIDS cases, up to the end of January 1990.
  711

  AIDS cases

  HIV anti-body positive

  (United Kingdom figures)

  (United Kingdom figures)

  Men

  Women

  Total1

  Men

  Women

  Total2

  TOTAL

  2,803

  117

  2,920 (1,660)

  10,204

  1,251

  11,676

  Injecting drug misusers

  66

  20

  86 (38)

  1,145

  551

  1,727

  Injecting drug user/homo/bisexual

  39

  —

  39 (19)

  92

  —

  92

  1 Deaths shown in brackets.

  2 Includes small numbers where sex not specified.

  Day Nurseries
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from the Royal Berkshire hospital concerning day nursery provision in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since opening the rainbow nursery at the Royal Berkshire hospital on 22 January I have received no representations.

  Emergency Calls
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of people who have died where there was delay in response to an emergency call by the ambulance service; and if there has been any monitoring of the recent position in regard to response times.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No reasonable estimate can be made on the effect that industrial action is having on patient care, but plainly the unions are organising activities which are designed to reduce and delay the service to patients. I have no evidence yet that the unions' industrial action has definitely caused the death of anyone.

  Ambulance services continue to monitor their own response times, even where the service is disrupted by industrial action, though the data may then be less reliable.

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much will be spent on the health authority capital programme in the next financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Total gross spending on the hospital and community health services capital programme in 1990–91 is planned at £1,377 million.

  NHS, Cornwall
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the proposed reorganisation of the National Health Service in Cornwall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no proposals to reorganise the National Health Service in Cornwall. Four units have expressed an interest in becoming NHS trusts. Subject to parliamentary approval, applications for formal NHS trust status will be invited later this year and it remains to be seen whether the expressions of interest already received will be taken further.

  Social Work Training
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of social work training.
  712
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of social work training.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of social work training.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of social work training.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on 16 January at column 195.

  National Health Service and Community Care Bill
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent so far by his Department, by district health authorities and family practitioner committees to prepare for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent so far by his Department, by district health authorities and family practitioner committees to prepare for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent so far by his Department, by district health authorities and family practitioner committees to prepare for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) earlier today.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the need to ensure good quality service provision under the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The need to provide good quality services was a primary consideration in drawing up the proposals to improve services contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Our proposals will ensure high-quality, value-for-money services.

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairman of the South East Thames regional health authority; and what was discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairmen of
  713
  regional health authorities, including Sir Peter Baldwin, on 17 January. The main topics discussed were implementation of "Working for Patients" and "Caring for People", and the ambulace dispute.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state those local authorities that presently make payments direct to disabled people to make their own care arrangements; and if he has considered proposals for ensuring such arrangements are made more widespread.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to enabling local authorities to make payments directly to disabled people to make their own care arrangements.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 15 January at column 83.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on making arrangements for local authorities to make payments direct to disabled people to make their own care arrangements.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None other than parliamentary questions and an amendment to the NHS and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on when implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 is likely to be fully implemented.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on when the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 is likely to be fully implemented.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since the beginning of this year hon. Members have addressed five parliamentary questions on this issue to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. In addition an amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was put down in Committee, the effect of which would be to implement remaining sections of the Act. The Department has received no letters on this subject in this period.

  Corneal Transplants
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many corneal transplants took place in each of the last five years in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Accurate statistics are not available on the number of corneal transplants performed in the 714
  National Health Service. The United Kingdom transplant service estimates that the United Kingdom total is in the region of 2,000 transplants per annum.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the results of his Department's monitoring of the effects of the introduction of charges for eyesight checks.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the results of his Department's monitoring of the effects of the introduction of charges for eyesight checks.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the results of his Department's monitoring of the effects of the introduction of charges for eyesight checks.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the results of his Department's monitoring of the effects of the introduction of charges for eyesight checks.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 23 January at columns 654–55.

  Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy towards the long-term development of psychiatric services and care.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's position is set out in chapter 7 of our White Paper "Caring for People".

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are employed in the National Health Service at present; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) on 23 January at column 678.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will outline the mechanism by which family practitioner committees will be allocated moneys to pay general practitioners for conducting health screening and promotion clinics under the new general practitioner contract; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the moneys allocated for family practitioner committees to pay general practitioners for conducting health screening and promotion clinics under the new general practitioner contract will be sufficient to cover clinics in addition to those specifically mentioned in the contract;

  (3) if the moneys allocated for family practitioner committees to pay general practitioners for conducting health screening and promotion clinics under the new general practitioner contract will be a separately devoted budget.
  715
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  General medical practitioners will from 1 April 1990 be able to claim fees under the statement of fees and allowances (a copy is in the Library) for providing health promotion clinics. Family practitioner committees have discretion under paragraph 30.2 of the statement to decide which clinics qualify for payment. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supply estimates, claims which are accepted for payment will be met from a non-cash limited vote incorporating provision for the general medical services. Individual FPCs will not be allocated separate budgets for such fees.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the benefits of the new general practitioner contract for elderly people.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The new GPs' contract to be introduced with effect from 1 April, is to be more performance-related than the present arrangements. GPs are encouraged to meet the needs of particular patient groups. Elderly patients will benefit from these new arrangements. The annual payment to a doctor for each patient over 75 on his list will increase from 1 January 1991 to £31·45. This illustrates the importance the Government attach to the care of these patients. This compares with a payment of £12·40 for those under 65. Family doctors will offer an annual check-up and a home visit to those over 75 with a view to maintaining the quality of life as far as possible.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to make it easier for elderly people to be accepted on to a general practitioner's list.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The procedure for registering with a family doctor is unchanged; it involves the individual patient asking if the doctor will accept him or her as a patient. We have, however, made it easier for people of all ages to change doctors if they wish. In recognition of the additional care and attention that elderly patients sometimes require, the capitation fee for patients aged 65 and over and aged 75 and over are higher than the standard fee for those aged under 65. Under the new contract the capitation fee for the over-75s is to be increased considerably and will be some 2·5 times the fee for the under 65s.

  From 1 January 1991 the capitation fee for those over 75 will be £31·45. For those under 65 it will be £12·40.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will next meet the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority to discuss the funding needs of health authorities in the region and the effects of population bias toward the elderly living in rural areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has at present no plans to do so.

  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the West Midlands health authority plan.

  Mr. Freeman
  Matters that have been discussed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the chairman of the West Midlands regional health 716
  authority have included the regional health authority's plans for Birmingham which were the subject of preliminary local consultation last year. Revised proposals were issued for further local consultation on 30 January, and will be carefully considered as and when they are approved by that authority for submission to Ministers.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit St. George's hospital, Tooting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit St. George's hospital.

  Health Authorities (Maintenance Backlog)
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total figure for the estimated maintenance backlog for health authorities.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total figure for the estimated maintenance backlog for health authorities.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total figure for the estimated maintenance backlog for health authorities.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total figure for the estimated maintenance backlog for health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) on 23 January at column 656.

  National Health Service Consultants
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there has been a change in the number of consultants employed in the National Health Service since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes, the number of consultants has risen from 12,361 in 1979 to 14,950 in 1988; an increase of 21 per cent.

  Clinical Research
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations or individuals have expressed concern that the reorganisation of the National Health Service will damage clinical research and training; and what replies he has sent.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received various representations concerning the effect of our proposals for improving the National Health Service on clinical research and training. In response we have explained the steps we are taking following our commitment in "Working for Patients" to maintain the quality of medical education and research.

  GP Contracts
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor the impact of the new general practitioners' contracts.
  717
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor the impact of the new general practitioners' contracts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 13 February at column 160.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the implications of the new general practitioner contract and his proposals for practice and drug budgets for doctors working with AIDS/HIV patients and drug misusing patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The GPs' new contract is intended to raise standards and extend services and will therefore benefit all patients, including those receiving care and treatment for AIDS and drug abuse. Under both the fund holding and indicative drug budgets schemes general practitioners will be able to prescribe for their patients all the medicines they need.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual percentage increase in each of the past five years for(a) staff nurses, (b) consultants, (c) ambulance men of five years' service, (d) hospital administrators and (e) regional health officials.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Data are not available for three of the five groups over the period requested. Staff nurses ceased to exist as a separate pay grade on 1 April 1988. Hospital administrators were replaced by general managers from 1984 onwards. Regional health officials is a diverse category of staff with a number of different pay determination arrangements. The table shows settlements of the other two groups.

  Percentage settlements in pay years (1 August to 31 July)

  Years

  Consultants

  Ambulancemen

  1984–85

  6·2

  17·8

  1985–86

  9·5

  6·0

  1986–87

  8·2

  5·0

  1987–88

  8·1

  25·4

  1988–89

  8·0

  3—

  1 A salaried pay structure was introduced on 1 March 1986. The level of increase assumed that all productivity increases were achieved.

  2 In addition the standard working week was reduced by one hour from 40 to 39 hours.

  3 The management side has offered 9 per cent, over 18 months. Staff in the London ambulance service would receive increases ranging from 10·9 to 12·1 per cent, and some 2,000 staff with extended training to NHSTA standards and who are required to use paramedical skills would receive an additional £500 per annum.

  Prescribing Costs
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will clarify how prescribing costs will be monitored.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Prescribing costs will be monitored by means of simple monthly statements sent to general practitioner practices, family practitioner committees and regional health authorities by the Prescription Pricing Authority. These statements will show how much of the budgets have been taken up and project the likely end of year outcome. This will allow practices to monitor 718
  their own costs without needing to set up their own information systems and will enable regional health authorities and family practitioner committees to monitor the operation of the scheme.

  The monthly statements will be in addition to the more detailed PACT reports which will continue to be issued quarterly as at present.

  Women's Health Care
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policies on health care for women.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made in the provision of health care for women in the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are proud of our record on women's health. Government policies over the last 10 years have brought enormous improvements to the health and well-being of the women in this country.

  We have implemented screening programmes for breast and cervical cancers to reduce the number of women who die each year from these diseases. Between 1978 and 1988 deaths from cervical cancer in England and Wales fell by 10 per cent. to under 2,000 women per annum and the death rate per million women aged 20 to 74 years fell by 16 per cent.

  There have been great improvements in maternity care and a range of new services, such as prenatal screening for inherited genetic disorders, is widely available. Between 1979 and 1988 perinatal mortality in England fell from 14·6 to 8·7 per 1,000 births; between 1978 and 1938 the maternal death rate per 1,000 total births in England and Wales fell from 0·11 to 0·06.

  Since 1986 one of the Ministers within the Department has taken a special responsibility for women's health. We regularly meet representatives from women's voluntary organisations and this year are helping to support over 30 such organisations by way of the section 64 scheme. The Department also funds research, study days and courses on different aspects of women's health.

  Our proposals for the National Health Service of the future will also ensure that the choice of health care services available to women will be extended and that greater attention will be focused on the quality of this care.

  Invoice Settlement
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has issued any guidelines to local health authorities about the settlement of invoices from suppliers.

  Mr. Freeman
  Specific formal guidance has not been issued to health authorities, but the Treasury publication "Government Accounting" is published by HMSO and contains guidance of general applicability to all bodies under ministerial control. We continue to expect health authorities to meet their obligations within a reasonable time in accordance with contractual requirements and responsible practice, and have sent the Department of Employment booklet "Prompt Payment Please" to all health authorities.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects of the introduction of charging for dental inspections.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects of the introduction of charging for dental inspections.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) earlier today.

  Immunisation
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of children aged five years or under who are known to have received some form of immunisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available. However, for the year 1987–88, the percentages of children in England who were born in 1985 and had completed their immunisations by the end of March 1988 were;

  Percentage

  Whooping Cough

  73

  Measles

  76

  Diphtheria, Tetanus and Polio

  87

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further funding he will provide for research into Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health has recently commissioned a research project to review the incidence, prevalence and trends of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There are no plans, at present, for the Department to fund further research into this disease.

  Capital Charging
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress of the capital charging initiative.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Inland Revenue is currently undertaking a valuation of the National Health Service estate, and the results of this exercise will be available in the Library from April 1990. Health authorities are making good progress in preparing registers of their capital assets, which will enable them to calculate estimated capital charges during the period of shadow operation in 1990–91 described in the working papers Nos. 5 and 9. These estimates will be reviewed before the scheme is fully implemented in April 1991.

  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what implications there will be for hospital nationalisation schemes of his proposal for capital charging.

  Mr. Freeman
  From April 1991, health authorities will be expected to include the effects on capital charges of their proposals for hospital rationalisation schemes in the 720
  submissions they make to the Department of Health. This will enable better informed decisions to be taken, as full consideration will be given to the recurring costs of using assets over a future period, and not just to the capital outlay involved.

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest annual figure for the number of children in the United Kingdom who were born either mentally or physically handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  The third report from the OPCS on disability in Great Britain "The Prevalance of Disability Among Children", published last year following surveys in 1985 and 1988, estimated that there are some 360,000 children in Great Britain under 16 with one or more disability. The definition was wide enough to include most children usually considered to be physically or mentally handicapped. It is not possible to distinguish the number of children who were born either mentally or physically handicapped from those who acquired a disability later since the surveys did not publish information on whether disabilities existed at birth. A copy of this report is in the Library.

  NHS (Service Quality)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on action being taken to improve the quality of service being given by the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper reforms aim to provide a better National Health Service with more attention to quality of care and customer service flowing from greater devolution, the separation of the purchaser and provider functions and introduction of contracts, wider choice and the extension of medical and clinical audit. These proposals are being reinforced by a series of initiatives to make the consumers' interest more central to the management and delivery of health care.

  North West Thames RHA
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority to discuss the allocation of funds to the region's district health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I met the chairman of North West Thames regional health authority, together with a number of other colleagues, on 17 January to discuss allocations of districts. My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairmen of all the regional health authorities regularly.

  Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider the creation of a special health authority to supervise the management of the Royal National orthopaedic hospital, Stanmore, Middlesex.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not consider the creation of a special health authority for the Royal National orthopaedic hospital is the best way forward.
  721
  North East Thames and North West Thames regional health authorities issued proposals last August to transfer the management of the Royal National orthopaedic hospital (Stanmore) from Bloomsbury district health authority to Harrow district health authority as the most effective arrangement for securing the future of the hospital. No definitive proposal has yet been put to Ministers.

  I discussed options for the hospital's future management with my hon. Friend when he led a delegation from the hospital to see me last week. I plan to visit the hospital shortly.

  Infertility Treatments
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the range and availability of infertility treatments.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the range and availability of infertility treatments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 23 January at columns 660–61.

  Northumbria Ambulance Service
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure has been incurred in pursuing the opting-out proposals for the Northumbria ambulance service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over £85 million has been made available this year for the implementation of the NHS review proposals. Of this, £35 million has been allocated to regional health authorities to enable them to develop the finance and personnel functions, to strengthen the public health function, to prepare for the introduction of capital charges and medical audit, and to create new consultant posts as promised in the White Paper, Northern RHA has been allocated £2,478 million. No additional resources have been made available specifically for the preparation of NHS trusts. However, all authorities including those with units considering this option will benefit from the overall strengthening of key management functions.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on implementation of the National Health Service reforms.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the implementation of the proposed reforms of the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are making good progress in putting into action the changes outlined in the White Paper "Working for Patients". We are confident that the NHS will be ready to implement the basic elements of the new and better systems of matching growth and resources with expansion of patient services by April 1991 once Parliament approves the necessary legislation. We have 722
  made £85 million available to finance progress towards implementation this financial year and more than £300 million will be available in 1990–91.

  We have issued detailed guidance on many subjects including the education and training of non-medical staff. Guidance on the principles of the new contracting system was issued in September and further guidance on additional aspects of the contracting system will be issued shortly.

  We have published a GP fund holder programme which gives details about the operation of a GP practice fund. There has been an encouraging level of interest in the proposed scheme in all regions in England.

  A new working paper, the 11th in the series, has been published, called "Framework for Information Systems: Overview". This working paper covers two documents issued for consultation, looking at the way ahead for information and information technology and concentrating on action in preparation for April 1991.

  We intend to publish a further working paper on indicative prescribing budgets within the next few weeks.

  We have launched a project to support district health authorities in detailed work in developing the key role which DHAs will have under the new system of identifying and obtaining the best pattern of services which will most effectively meet all the health needs of the population they serve.

  We have received 190 expressions of interest from potential NHS hospital trusts, 80 of them are proceeding towards being the first wave of applicants for trust status within the NHS in April 1991. Subject to progress in Parliament, we expect many more to be ready for later waves of applicants in future years.

  We have made £2 million available for implementation of medical audit this financial year, and a further £26 million has been allocated to hospital and community health services for the development of medical audit in 1990–91. A £4·5 million scheme has been launched to develop information technology skills. Demonstration projects, aimed at improving the quality of care and services to patients, have been announced for five out-patient departments. The principles of general management are being introduced into the family practitioner committee system.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has invited the medical and nursing royal colleges and the statutory bodies concerned with clinical issues to early talks on how, if necessary, clinical standards can be reinforced after the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill are implemented.

  Good progress is also being made in relation to medical education and research. As my right hon. and learned Friend explained in a speech on 10 July 1989, since sent to all hospital doctors, we intend to take powers to ensure, for example, the continuation of high standards of undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing education and research in all National Health Service hospitals. We will also ensure that postgraduate training posts are provided in National Health Service hospital trusts in accordance with the national objectives set out in "Achieving a Balance". Medical education and research will be further enhanced by the proposed increase in the service increment for teaching (SIFT) to meet 100 per cent. of the median excess costs of teaching hospitals. This will be distributed by regions in consultation with universities.
  723
  The National Health Service and Community Care Bill is now before the House.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a pamphlet summarising the implications for patients of the Health Service reforms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A leaflet (reference HSR1) setting out the implications of the proposed reforms for patients was published together with the White Paper "Working for Patients". We will consider further the need for additional public information.

  Operating Theatres
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any steps are being taken to ensure that operating theatres are utilised effectively.

  Mr. Freeman
  In December 1989 a report by the Department's value for money unit on the management and utilisation of operating departments was issued to health authorities. This made a number of recommendations concerning the efficient utilisation of operating theatres, and suggested a target planned level of utilisation of 90 per cent. should be achievable. The Department is currently consulting health authorities and others about guidance following the recommendations made in the study report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Model Contracts
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate when guidance will be published on model contracts for use in 1991–92.

  Mr. Freeman
  We expect to publish this guidance shortly.

  Hospital Services (Islington and Bloomsbury)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take to ensure there are no further cuts in hospital services in Islington and Bloomsbury if the health authorities are required to merge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A consultation document on the proposal to merge Islington and Bloomsbury health authorities was issued at the end of last year. Comments have been requested by 12 April 1990. Until the outcome of the consultation is known it would be inappropriate for Ministers to comment on any aspects of the merger.

  Eye Consultants
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has regarding the number of referrals by opticians to eye consultants in the periods 1 April to 31 December 1988 and in the same period in 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not collect this information. Opticians normally refer patients to their general practitioner if, as a result of an eye examination, they suspect disease, abnormality or injury. The general practitioner may then refer the patient on to the hospital eye service, if appropriate.

  Capital Expenditure (Bury)
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the figures for capital expenditure in the Bury health authority in the years 1979–80 and 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The capital expenditure figure for Bury health authority is shown in the table:

  Total expenditure (in cash terms)

  1979–80

  1,539,000

  1988–89

  1,484,000

  These figures do not represent the trend, as expenditure has fluctuated during the intervening years.

  Birmingham General Hospital
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in respect of the proposed closure of the general hospital, Birmingham.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since the West Midlands regional health authority first published its preliminary proposals for the reorganisation of Birmingham's health services in April 1989 the Department has received a number of inquiries about the future of the general hospital from right hon. and hon. Members and direct from members of the public.

  Voluntary Organisations (Consultations)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from voluntary organisations on the need to ensure service users and providers are consulted as part of an ongoing process under the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill; and if he will ensure local authorities establish an advisory body to do this.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received representations on this from several voluntary organisations. Ministers and officials meet regularly with national organisations to discuss such matters of common concern. The White Paper makes it clear that local authorities, when drawing up plans for community care, should consult interested agencies. We believe that they should determine for themselves the most appropriate way of doing this.

  Nurses (Regrading)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the regrading of nurses has now been completed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The new clinical grading structure for nursing and midwifery staff was implemented during 1988, with staff concerned being informed of their new grades by the end of October that year.

  Royal College of Nursing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met the general secretary
  725
  of the Royal College of Nursing on 1 February when he informed representatives of nursing and midwifery staff and the professions allied to medicine of the Government's decision on the 1990 review body reports.

  Patient Services
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what experience there has been within the National Health Service of using contracts for patient services.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 12 December at columns 843–44.

  GP Lists
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are on the average general practitioner's list at present; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  At 1 October 1988 (the latest year for which figures are available) the average list size in England was 1,999 compared to 2,286 at 1 October 1979—a decrease of about 12·5 per cent.

  Rural GPs
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the future of general practice in rural areas under his proposed changes and under the new contract.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Patients living in rural areas will benefit from the changes to the GPs' contract. In particular the new contract encourages more minor surgery and child health surveillance in general practice, extra services for elderly patients, greater cover for childhood immunisation and more screening for cancer of the cervix, more health promotion advice for all adults and more professional staff in the surgery such as nurses, counsellors and chiropodists.

  GPs working in rural areas sometimes experience difficulties due to the scattered nature of their practices. In consultation with the BMA's general medical services committee, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office are reviewing the present arrangements (in England and Wales) for paying these GPs a rural practice payment. In doing so, full account will be taken of changes that are taking place in rural practice.

  Cornwall Air Ambulance
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the 1990–91 financial allocation to the South West regional health authority includes an element for public funding of the Cornwall air ambulance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The Cornwall air ambulance is a local service and funding is a matter for the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority.

  Nurses
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the nurse in-patient ratio in 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.
  726
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Manpower statistics cover staff working in hospitals and are collected at a particular point in time; they do not show what activities within the hospital the staff are engaged upon—for example, whether they are providing treatment to in-patients, out-patients or accident and emergency patients. By contrast, activity statistics show the number of cases treated during the year in National Health Service hospitals. It is possible, however, to give a ratio in terms of the population being served. At 30 September 1979 the number of qualified nursing and midwifery staff, measured in whole-time equivalents, was 438·6 per 100,000 population for England. At 30 September 1988 the number of qualified nursing and midwifery staff, measured in whole-time equivalents, was 508·9 per 100,000 population. These ratios have been adjusted to take account of the change in nurses' working hours (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week) during 1980–81. The average number of in-patients treated in a week was 103,848 in 1979 and 126,654 in 1988.

  Press and Publicity
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each health authority the amount of money spent on press and publicity in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information specifically requested is not collected centrally. However, the summarised accounts of health authorities in England record in total the following categories of revenue expenditure:

  Advertising

  Public relations

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (cash)

  1986–87

  14,089

  1,297

  1987–88

  19,021

  2,174

  1988–89

  22,363

  2,690

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on advertising relates primarily to staff recruitment while that on public relations includes all pay and other costs incurred on public relations departments.

  2. The annual figures for each category are not necessarily mutually exclusive being derived from separate analyses of total revenue expenditure within the accounts.

  Preventive Health Care
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners are currently meeting the targets for preventive health care to be brought into effect by the new contract.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1987–88, over half of all district health authorities (DHAs) had exceeded 90 per cent. coverage levels for diphtheria, tetanus and poliomyelitis. The national average was 87 per cent. in the same year the average for measles was 76 per cent. and for whooping cough 73 per cent. This is above the lower target of 70 per cent. for childhood immunisation.

  Data for individual general practitioners are not collected centrally.

  St. Catherine's House
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to enable applicants in person for copies of birth certificates and so on at St. Catherine's house to make only one visit both to record the intention and to collect the certificate.
  727
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 1 February at columns 354–55 about the publications of a White Paper "Registration proposals for change" (Cm. 939). This includes proposals for changes to the present arrangements for issuing birth, death and marriage certificates at St. Catherine's house, including the introduction of a one-day search and collections service.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the figures by year and in total for the number of hospital posts notified to his Department in which the job description included a duty to advise, undertake or participate in abortions from 31 December 1983 to the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the total number of such posts vacant in each year and in total for(a) psychiatry, (b) anaesthetics and (c) obstetrics and gynaecology.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Shropshire Health Authority
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the national average and (b) the sum for Shropshire of expenditure per patient for family practitioner committees.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 12 February, at columns 28–30.

  Doctors (Training)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current cost of training a doctor; how many doctors have left the National Health Service to join private health organisations; and how many doctors have been trained by private health organisations at their own expenses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Undergraduate education is provided at universities with medical schools and, for the clinical part of the course, in association with the NHS. The public expenditure cost associated with that process is of the order of £130,000. The cost of subsequent postgraduate training varies according to the speciality and may take an additional four to nine years.

  Although some data are held centrally on the number of National Health Service leavers, these are not complete, and it is not possible to identify those who have left to join private health organisations.

  Postgraduate training of qualified doctors is carried out almost entirely in the NHS and universities.

  Electoral Rolls
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of voters for each shire county and former metropolitan county on the electoral rolls effective from 16 February.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 1990 electorate statistics are still being collected from local authorities. Following the usual timetable, figures will be published in "OPCS Monitor" E1 90/1 at the end of April. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mink
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the health implications of the recent invasion of the Hertfordshire and Essex hospital in Bishop's Stortford by mink.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is for the local health authority, which I understand has dealt with the matter.

  Homeless People (Storm Shelter)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is making any arrangements to safeguard the health of people sleeping rough in central London in the event of severe weather by providing some form of temporary shelter.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the event of exceptionally cold weather I have prepared contingency plans for temporary shelters to be provided by certain health authorities, local authorities and voluntary organisations. The estimated total cost of this service for this winter, if the scheme is activated, is £450,000. Parliamentary approval to expenditure by local authorities on this new service will be sought in a supply estimate for the Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England vote (class XIV vote 3). Pending that approval urgent expenditure estimated at £40,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the currently available figure for the shortage of kidney organs for transplant.

  Mr. Freeman
  The shortage of cadaveric kidneys available for transplant is conveniently measured by the waiting list held by the United Kingdom transplant service. The United Kingdom waiting list on 8 February 1990 comprised 3,485 patients.

  Calderdale Hospital
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed new Calderdale district hospital is subject to the Government's review of new capital projects.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no Government review of capital projects in the National Health Service.

  Visual Handicap
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions his Department has had with local authority associations on the training of specialist workers with visually handicapped people;

  (2) what progress has been made to remedy the deficiency in training of workers with blind and visually handicapped people, identified in paragraph 181 of the social services inspectorate report, "A Wider Vision".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has not discussed this subject specifically with the local authority associations. Following the publication of "A Wider Vision", the social services inspectorate organised a number of seminars aimed at senior managers in social services departments and involving national voluntary
  729
  organisations, covering a wide range of issues arising from the report. Discussions are in progress with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and others to consider how developments in social work education can incorporate the training needs of staff working with people in visual handicap.

  Airports
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he is giving to local health authorities with hospitals in the vicinity of, and servicing, airports.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. When drawing up plans for dealing with major accidents and other contingencies, district health authorities take account of such factors as airports in their locality.

  Chipboard Factories
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of any potential health hazards resulting from emissions to the air from chipboard factories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Environmental pollution is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I understand that emissions to the air from chipboard factories are controlled by the local authority, under public health legislation. The Department of Health would, on request, provide medical and toxicological advice on specified substances emitted.

  General Acute Hospitals
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the principle of a minimum size for future general acute hospitals, adopted by East Anglian regional health authority, has been accepted by his Department; and if he will be making any observations to the regional health authority on this policy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The appropriate basis on which to plan future general acute hospital provision is a matter for local decision, in the light of judgments about priorities and resources.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received representations from a number of organisations about implementation of the Children Act 1989 for which the target date is October 1991. We will be consulting representatives of practitioners, local authorities, voluntary organisations and court and legal interests on the content of regulations and guidance.

  Severn Trent Water Authority
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Burton on 15 February, if he will publish the full indemnity for the Severn Trent water authority in the Official Report; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am placing in the Library copies of the statutory indemnity provided on 21 November 1989 to 730
  Severn Trent Water by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health under the provisions of section 172 of the Water Act 1989, together with copies of the non-statutory indemnity issued on 22 December 1989 in accordance with the minute which was laid before Parliament by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 23 November 1989.

SCOTLAND

  Rural General Practitioners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the criteria for eligibility for financial support to general practitioners who practice in less densely populated country areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Financial support for general practitioners who practice in less densely populated country areas is provided through the long-standing and well-targeted Scottish rural practices fund. In addition, on 11 December 1989, my right hon. and learned Friend said that he intended to fulfil the undertaking given in chapter 10 of "Working for Patients" by funding, on a long-term basis, a further scheme to safeguard the position of such doctors. Details of this scheme, which is to be administered by the Scottish rural practices fund committee, will be set out shortly in an amendment to the statement of fees and allowances.

  Roof Tax
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will undertake an assessment of the effects on the elderly of a roof tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following the introduction of the community charge, it was estimated that 85 per cent. of single pensioners in Scotland would be better off than under domestic rates. The replacement of the community charge with a roof tax would mean a return to the anomalies of domestic rates including those of a single pensioner having to pay as much tax as a pensioner couple or even a family of working adults living in identical housing—anomalies removed by the community charge.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will undertake an assessment of the implications of the introduction of a roof tax on the Eastwood constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposed roof tax would reintroduce anomalies and unfairness associated with domestic rates and would seriously reduce the democratic accountability of local government both in Eastwood and in the whole of Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the economic consequences of the introduction of a roof tax in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The introduction of such a tax would increase the cost of occupying houses and therefore reduce the effective demand for housing and the value of domestic property. Apart from the effects this would have on individuals it would tend to reduce demand on the construction and related industries.
  731
  Mr. Allen Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the effects on the construction industry of the introduction of a roof tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposed roof tax would increase the costs of occupying property and reduce the effective demand for housing with consequential reduction in demand for investment in housing. This would in turn lead to lower output by the construction industry on housing.

  Mr. Allen Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the effects on the do-it-yourself industry of the introduction of a roof tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As a roof tax would relate people's tax bills to the value of their property, it would act as a disincentive to people to make improvements to their homes which increased their value and could therefore reduce the demand for do-it-yourself goods and services.

  Mr. Allen Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the implications of a roof tax for council tenants who have exercised their right to buy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Council tenants who have exercised their right to buy and been eligible for a discount on their house must be expected to have their liability to pay the roof tax assessed on the full value of the property.

  Mr. Allen Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of adults who would be required to pay a roof tax in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The introduction of a roof tax would be a return to a system similar to domestic rates. About 1·8 million people paid domestic rates, compared with 3·9 million who are liable for the community charge. Actual numbers paying would depend on the extent of exemptions or reliefs given but must be expected to be well below half the number of those liable to pay the community charge.

  National House Condition Survey
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the nature and content of the sample he proposes to take for the national house condition survey; what methods he will employ to ensure its accuracy; whether it will be compulsory; and what kind of refusal rate he is building into the survey.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish national house condition survey, which will be conducted by Scottish Homes, is being designed to provide an achieved sample of 15,000 dwellings. Scottish Homes is currently investigating the most effective way to obtain a sample which is representative of all the major Scottish housing tenures and which is statistically significant down to a Scottish Homes's regional level. The survey will not be compulsory, and Scottish Homes will be taking account of likely refusal rates in their sample design.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have not paid the poll tax; and how many people are in arrears.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures for the number of people who have paid the community charge are not held centrally but we understand that in most regions 85 per cent., and 95 per cent., of chargepayers have made some community charge payment, with a figure of 98 per cent., in one area. While no overall figure is yet available, it would appear that the proportion of people in arrears with their community charge payments is broadly the same as under the rating system last year.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a complete list of subsections of sections and paragraphs of schedules to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987 which have been amended, substituted or inserted by later legislation, including those themselves the subject of further alteration and those which it is proposed to amend; and if he will provide the derivation and the date of the coming into force of each alteration listed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The amendments and repeals which have been made to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987 are as follows:(1) Schedule 12 Part II, paragraphs 15–38 and schedule 13 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The dates from which these provisions took effect or will take effect are laid down in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 Commencement (Scotland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1456);
  (2) section 140, subsections 1 and 2; section 141, subsections 1–4; sections 142–145 and schedule 6, paragraphs 10–15 and 20–28 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The dates from which most of these provisions took effect or will take effect are laid down in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1989 (SI 1989/2180). Section 141 of the 1989 Act will be the subject of a separate commencement order in due course;
  (3) paragraph 4 of schedule 1 A to the 1987 Act (which was inserted by the 1988 Act) was amended by regulations 3 and 4 of the Personal Community Charge (Exemption for the Severely Mentally Impaired) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/2234) which came into force on 24 December 1989.

  There are no immediate plans to make further amendments.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution his Department will make to the NATO exercise due to be held in Norway during March.

  Mr. Rifkind
  None.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of decrees of sequestration registered annually by the Accountant of Bankruptcy in the year to 1 April and the total gross payment made under the provisions of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 to trustees in sequestration from public funds in the financial year 1989–90.
  733
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is estimated that during the year ending 31 March 1990 there will be approximately 2,500 awards of sequestration and that the gross payments from public funds will be about £6 million.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what average hourly rate is applied by the Accountant in Bankruptcy for the remuneration of trustees in sequestration in(a) small asset cases and (b) other cases.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no fixed rates for the remuneration of trustees. The Accountant in Bankruptcy, in discharging his statutory duties to determine the appropriate level of payment, has regard in both types of cases to the rates published by the Law Society of Scotland in respect of charges by the legal profession for similar work.

  Free School Milk
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children are receiving free milk in schools within Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  From a census undertaken in January each year 67,813 children were receiving free milk in 1989. the figure for 1990 is not yet available.

  Fishing Vessels (Licensing)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has received on the DAFS consultative paper studying the United Kingdom licensing system for fishing vessels.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Thirteen replies have been received by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland from organisations based in Scotland in response to the consultation paper issued in November 1989 on changes to the United Kingdom's licensing system for fishing vessels. Representations have also been received by other Fisheries Departments from organisations based in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many full-time jobs have been created in Scotland for(a) males and (b) females aged 16 years to 25 years in each year from 1980;

  (2) how many part-time jobs have been created in Scotland for (a) males and (b) females aged 16 years to 25 years in each year from 1980.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: There is no information available in the form requested on the number of jobs which have been created in Scotland. The table shows the estimated total number of employees in employment in Scotland in each year since 1980, separately for all men and for women working full-time and part-time.

  Employees in employment in Scotland

  Thousands

  September

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1980

  1,178·5

  558·9

  331·5

  1981

  1,113·3

  534·2

  337·8

  1982

  1,083·5

  508·1

  340·4

  734

  September

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1983

  10,58·2

  503·6

  336·8

  1984

  1,052·8

  505·1

  346·0

  1985

  1,043·6

  506·9

  356·8

  1986

  1,018·4

  503·8

  353·7

  1987

  1,009·6

  508·8

  362·3

  1988

  1,026·6

  534·0

  361·8

  1989

  1,031·1

  547·3

  350·7

  Source: Department of Employment.

  Note: Information on the number of men working part-time is available only from the censuses of employment in 1981, 1984 and 1987. The numbers were 59,600 men working part-time in 1981, 60,800 in 1984 and 70,200 in 1987.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many part-time jobs have been created in Glasgow for males and females aged 16 years to 25 years in each year from 1980.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Information on the number of jobs created is not available in the form requested. The table gives the number of employees in employment of all ages in Glasgow district in 1981, 1984 and 1987 as estimated by the census of employment in each of these years. Separate estimates are provided for men and women and for those working full-time and part-time. The census of employment does not gather information on the ages of employees.

  Employees in employment in Glasgow district

  Thousands

  September

  1981

  1984

  1987

  Male full-time employees

  196·3

  177·2

  171·2

  Male part-time employees

  8·9

  8·7

  10·0

  Female full-time employees

  110·8

  101·5

  104·8

  Female part-time employees

  61·9

  60·0

  62·6

  Clothing Factory, Denny
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland whether he will intervene to stop the threatened closure of James Seddon's clothing factory in Denny; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: James Seddon (UK) Ltd. went into receivership on 12 February. The future of the Denny factory is a matter for the receiver who is, I understand, exploring the prospects for disposing of the company as a going concern.

  House Prices
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will commission research into house price movements in each local authority ward in the Eastwood constituency over the past five years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will commission research into movements in house prices in each local authority area over the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: I have no plans to commission such research.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on movements in house prices in Scotland over the past five years; and if he will make a statement.
  735
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Average Scottish house prices rose by 53 per cent. between 1984 and the third quarter of 1989.

  TVEI
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current plans for the administration of the technical and vocational education initiatives after the implementation of the Scottish Enterprise proposals.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: As my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State, announced on 26 July 1989 the technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI) in Scotland will become the responsibility of the Industry Department for Scotland.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what date he expects drinking water in Scotland to meet the standards laid down in the water regulations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Programmes for meeting the standards set in the regulations are currently being prepared by the water authorities and will be submitted for approval by the Secretary of State shortly. Target dates by which individual supply zones will be expected to comply with the various standards have yet to be agreed.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will be applying to the European Economic Community for additional article 9 derogations for Scottish water supplies which currently fail to meet the aluminium standard of 200 ug/1 but are not the subject of a permitted delay.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Derogations under article 9 are granted by member states and require to be notified to the European Commission only if they relate to water supplies of more than 1,000 cu m per day or serving over 5,000 people. A small number of additional derogations for naturally occurring aluminium may have to be notified.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Scottish water supplies which currently fail to meet the aluminium standard of 200 ug/1.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer that I gave to him on 15 November 1989 at columns 363–65 to a similar question.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the supplies by name which have been notified to him by the regional water departments for authorised relaxation of the water regulation standard on aluminium; and whether in each case he proposes to give consent.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Water authorities are preparing details of supply zones for which application will be made for authorisation to relax standards set in the regulations. No formal applications have yet been received by the Secretary of State. Authorisations to relax the aluminium standard will be considered only if the aluminium occurs naturally in the source water.
  736
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to offer the Scottish water authorities a green dowry similar to that offered to the English and Welsh authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The green dowry for English and Welsh water authorities was part of a financial restructuring necessary prior to privatisation; there are no plans for the privatisation of water services in Scotland.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds article 9 derogations for water standards are given; and how these criteria were applied in the case of each derogation for aluminium standards in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Derogations in respect of aluminium were given, on application by water authorities, as permitted by article 9.1(a) of the drinking water directive (80/778/EEC) for situations arising from the nature and structure of the ground, but not constituting a public health hazard. Applications were required to state average and maximum concentrations expected and derogation was conditional on averages not exceeding the value stated.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what budget he has allocated for a phased programme of investment in Scottish water to minimise delays due to the shortage of suitably qualified contractors;

  (2) what funds he proposes to make available to assist in bringing Scotland's drinking water into line with the current European and United Kingdom standards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The programming of investment is a matter for the water authorities who have adequate flexibility to phase their capital expenditure to suit varying circumstances. The Government have made increased capital expenditure allocations to authorities for their water and sewerage programmes. These were announced on 15 February 1990. For 1990–91, the allocations have been set at £137·5 million rising provisionally to £159·6 million and £182·0 million in 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively. The need to comply with EC and United Kingdom standards for drinking water quality, and the ability to undertake works, were factors taken into account in setting the increased capital allocations.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he anticipates that the supplies in Scotland which have delays for aluminium due to expire in 1990 will meet the 200 ug/1 quality standard in the current year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Meeting the standard for aluminium is largely dependent on the water authorities concerned completing the required improvement works by the due date. I have no reason to believe that this will not be achieved.

  Schools (Assisted Places)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list the schools in Scotland which participate in the assisted places scheme; what is the
  737
  number of places and the money paid for each school for each financial year since the scheme began; and what are the dates of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools inspections at each school since the scheme began.SchoolDate of school inspection at each school since the scheme began.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is collected on a school year basis and is set out in the tables. All independent schools are inspected before final registration and are subject to further visits by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools on a continuing basis thereafter. The dates given are for full formal inspections; those carried out after 1983 resulted in a published report.

  School

  Date of school inspection

  Albyn

  —

  Belmont House

  —

  Craigholme

  —

  Dollar

  —

  Edinburgh Academy

  —

  Fernhill

  —

  Fettes College

  1981

  Fort Augustus

  —

  George Heriots

  —

  Glasgow Academy

  —

  Glenalmond College

  —

  Gordonstoun

  —

  Hamilton College

  —

  High School, Dundee

  —

  High School, Glasgow

  1989

  Hutchesons Grammar

  1981

  Keil

  —

  Kelvinside Academy

  —

  Kilgraston

  1987

  Kilquhanity House

  —

  Lomond

  —

  Loretto

  —

  Merchant Company

  1988 and 1989

  Merchiston Castle

  1984

  Morrisons Academy

  —

  Oxenfoord Castle

  1984

  Rannoch

  1989

  Robert Gordons College

  1983

  Rudolf Sterner

  —

  St. Aloysius College

  1984

  St. Denis and Cranley

  —

  St. Georges

  —

  St. Hilary's

  —

  St. Leonards

  1987

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  —

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  1989

  St. Margarets Convent

  —

  Strathallan

  —

  Wellington

  —

  West of Scotland College:

  Laurel Bank

  —

  Westbourne

  1983

  Park

  1984

  St. Columba's

  —

  Preparatory Schools1:

  Aberlour House

  —

  Ardvreck

  1986

  Beaconhurst Grange

  —

  Belhaven Hill

  —

  Blairmore

  —

  Butterstone House

  —

  Cargilfield

  1985

  Clifton Hall

  —

  Craigclowan

  —

  Crawfordton House

  —

  Croftinloan

  —

  Drumley House

  —

  Lathallan

  —

  New Park

  —

  738

  School

  Date of school inspection

  Park Lodge

  1988

  St. Mary's

  —

  1 The preparatory schools listed joined the scheme in 1989–90 school session.

  School

  1981–82

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Albyn

  4

  4,056

  Belmont House

  3

  4,021

  Craigholme

  8

  8,001

  Dollar

  22

  17,581

  Edinburgh Academy

  9

  14,556

  Fernhill

  5

  5,235

  Fettes College

  8

  19,255

  Fort Augustus

  9

  14,177

  George Heriots

  48

  51,441

  Glasgow Academy

  11

  12,974

  Glenalmond College

  7

  10,222

  Gordonstoun

  6

  12,630

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  High School, Dundee

  63

  52,690

  High School, Glasgow

  17

  16,782

  Hutchesons Grammar

  82

  50,880

  Keil

  11

  17,734

  Kelvinside Academy

  27

  25,540

  Kilgraston

  4

  3,950

  Kilquhanity House

  —

  —

  Lomond

  8

  10,184

  Loretto

  5

  8,367

  Merchant Company

  194

  205,911

  Merchiston Castle

  8

  16,630

  Morrisons Academy

  39

  31,744

  Oxenfoord Castle

  —

  —

  Rannoch

  5

  6,891

  Robert Gordons College

  11

  5,753

  Rudolf Steiner

  6

  5,068

  St. Aloysius College

  51

  35,978

  St. Denis and Cranley

  5

  6,644

  St. Georges

  —

  —

  St. Hilary's

  6

  4,858

  St. Leonards

  2

  3,198

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  2

  2,277

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  10

  9,715

  St. Margarets Convent

  5

  5,133

  Strathallan

  —

  —

  Wellington

  —

  —

  West of Scotland College:

  Laurel Bank

  21

  21,649

  Westbourne

  30

  32,243

  Park

  19

  23,226

  St. Columba's

  19

  21,829

  School

  1982–83

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Albyn

  6

  6,546

  Belmont House

  3

  4,475

  Craigholme

  23

  17,187

  Dollar

  30

  26,811

  Edinburgh Academy

  20

  34,367

  Fernhill

  13

  14,731

  Fettes College

  18

  39,740

  Fort Augustus

  14

  26,701

  George Heriots

  95

  108,647

  Glasgow Academy

  20

  24,668

  Glenalmond College

  13

  33,046

  Gordonstoun

  8

  20,213

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  High School, Dundee

  106

  110,612

  High School, Glasgow

  30

  32,411

  Hutchesons Grammar

  103

  86,933

  Keil

  18

  28,005

  739

  School

  1982–83

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Kelvinside Academy

  39

  39,209

  Kilgraston

  10

  11,415

  Kilquhanity House

  7

  7,637

  Lomond

  13

  18,600

  Loretto

  11

  22,594

  Merchant Company

  362

  449,158

  Merchiston Castle

  18

  41,492

  Morrisons Academy

  86

  74,684

  Oxenfoord Castle

  —

  —

  Rannoch

  11

  16,710

  Robert Gordons College

  20

  17,831

  Rudolf Steiner

  22

  24,583

  St. Aloysius College

  102

  87,715

  St. Denis and Cranley

  7

  9,822

  St. Georges

  —

  —

  St. Hilary's

  —

  —

  St. Leonards

  6

  10,636

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  4

  4,788

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  18

  23,777

  St. Margarets Convent

  9

  10,282

  Strathallan

  7

  13,371

  Wellington

  3

  2,742

  West of Scotland Co:

  Laurel Bank

  39

  48,347

  Westbourne

  67

  76,135

  Park

  35

  48,159

  St. Columba's

  34

  43,705

  School

  1983–84

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Albyn

  9

  10,060

  Belmont House

  2

  2,930

  Craigholme

  27

  23,140

  Dollar

  35

  35,032

  Edinburgh Academy

  22

  36,956

  Fernhill

  22

  25,902

  Fettes College

  20

  50,401

  Fort Augustus

  27

  49,720

  George Heriots

  142

  172,549

  Glasgow Academy

  34

  46,380

  Glenalmond College

  23

  60,467

  Gordonstoun

  12

  32,279

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  High School, Dundee

  126

  142,685

  High School, Glasgow

  35

  38,621

  Hutchesons Grammar

  133

  117,366

  Keil

  41

  63,646

  Kelvinside Academy

  36

  40,819

  Kilgraston

  26

  34,555

  Kilquhanity House

  11

  13,161

  Lomond

  20

  25,632

  Loretto

  22

  38,676

  Merchant Company

  390

  528,924

  Merchiston Castle

  25

  63,293

  Morrisons Academy

  120

  120,955

  Oxenfoord Castle

  —

  —

  Rannock

  16

  29,402

  Robert Gordons College

  39

  35,160

  Rudolf Steiner

  36

  40,980

  St. Aloysius College

  128

  128,323

  St. Denis and Cranley

  11

  14,838

  St. Georges

  7

  9,951

  St. Hilary's

  —

  —

  St. Leonards

  14

  23,120

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  8

  8,037

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  41

  50,868

  St. Margarets Convent

  10

  12,584

  Strathallan

  12

  30,188

  Wellington

  18

  19,784

  West of Scotland College:

  Laurel Bank

  51

  71,483

  Westbourne

  72

  93,199

  740

  School

  1983–84

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Park

  44

  65,359

  St. Columba's

  33

  46,961

  School

  1984–85

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Albyn

  10

  14,703

  Belmont House

  5

  7,164

  Craigholme

  24

  23,982

  Dollar

  41

  49,500

  Edinburgh Academy

  30

  56,385

  Fernhill

  30

  37,739

  Fettes College

  20

  55,085

  Fort Augustus

  33

  75,730

  George Heriots

  184

  237,383

  Glasgow Academy

  41

  58,644

  Glenalmond College

  31

  92,503

  Gordonstoun

  18

  53,433

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  High School, Dundee

  139

  185,286

  High School, Glasgow

  51

  67,565

  Hutchesons Grammar

  139

  145,719

  Keil

  53

  89,564

  Kelvinside Academy

  45

  66,860

  Kilgraston

  35

  45,588

  Kilquhanity House

  13

  19,928

  Lomond

  35

  50,660

  Loretto

  22

  54,650

  Merchant Company

  455

  663,598

  Merchiston Castle

  33

  88,882

  Morrisons Academy

  139

  159,754

  Oxenfoord Castle

  —

  —

  Rannoch

  18

  38,132

  Robert Gordons College

  55

  52,979

  Rudolf Steiner

  51

  61,338

  St. Aloysius College

  133

  149,494

  St. Denis and Cranley

  16

  21,663

  St. Georges

  10

  16,935

  St. Hilary's

  —

  —

  St. Leonards

  21

  39,575

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  14

  14,704

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  48

  64,389

  St. Margarets Convent

  13

  17,815

  Strathallan

  21

  60,751

  Wellington

  27

  37,419

  West of Scotland Co:

  Laurel Bank

  47

  74 662

  Westbourne

  84

  119,304

  Park

  47

  75,199

  St. Columba's

  34

  53,797

  School

  1985–86

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Albyn

  10

  14,481

  Belmont House

  11

  16,394

  Craigholme

  25

  27,663

  Dollar

  52

  73,363

  Edinburgh Academy

  42

  82,777

  Fernhill

  40

  51,703

  Fettes College

  26

  75,426

  Fort Augustus

  39

  94,679

  George Heriots

  221

  315,382

  Glasgow Academy

  44

  69,250

  Glenamond College

  34

  104,790

  Gordonstoun

  20

  66,019

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  High School, Dundee

  159

  235,525

  High School, Glasgow

  57

  80,585

  Hutchesons Grammar

  150

  166,283

  Keil

  57

  101,903

  Kelvinside Academy

  50

  87,338

  Kilgraston

  48

  73,296

  741

  School

  1985–86

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Kilquhanity House

  17

  29,537

  Lomond

  37

  63,696

  Loretto

  22

  58,547

  Merchant Company

  548

  853,818

  Merchiston Castle

  46

  131,780

  Morrisons Academy

  165

  209,433

  Oxenfoord Castle

  —

  —

  Rannoch

  25

  49,794

  Robert Gordons College

  57

  65,429

  Rudolf Steiner

  56

  80,013

  St.Aloysius College

  141

  176,376

  St. Denis and Cranley

  18

  32,495

  St. Georges

  13

  23,898

  St. Hilary's

  —

  —

  St. Leonards

  22

  40,532

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  14

  18,526

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  54

  88,436

  St. Margarets Convent

  8

  9,670

  Strathallan

  32

  93,130

  Wellington

  39

  55,446

  West of Scotland Co

  Laurel Bank

  52

  94,672

  Westbourne

  88

  152,174

  Park

  44

  84,865

  St. Columba's

  37

  68,110

  School

  1986–87

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Albyn

  16

  23,200

  Belmont House

  15

  22,037

  Craigholme

  25

  34,044

  Dollar

  52

  84,220

  Edinburgh Academy

  38

  92,105

  Fernhill

  45

  61,516

  Fettes College

  28

  83,265

  Fort Augustus

  43

  111,336

  George Heriots

  224

  353,230

  Glasgow Academy

  38

  70,723

  Glenalmond College

  33

  111,574

  Gordonstoun

  21

  73,417

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  High School, Dundee

  165

  270,669

  High School, Glasgow

  61

  95,600

  Hutchesons Grammar

  143

  183,088

  Keil

  56

  105,449

  Kelvinside Academy

  52

  99,939

  Kilgraston

  49

  90,430

  Kilquhanity House

  16

  30,091

  Lomond

  40

  80,848

  Loretto

  23

  74,226

  Merchant Company

  543

  1,006,057

  Merchiston Castle

  47

  149,477

  Morrisons Academy

  154

  238,430

  Oxenfoord Castle

  —

  —

  Rannoch

  26

  63,169

  Robert Gordons College

  53

  75,857

  Rudolf Steiner

  56

  91,274

  St. Aloysius College

  139

  212,434

  St. Denis and Cranley

  18

  40,677

  St. Georges

  16

  27,446

  St. Hilary's

  —

  —

  St. Leonards

  21

  49,451

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  14

  17,883

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  56

  102,787

  St. Margarets Convent

  —

  —

  Strathallan

  33

  113,944

  Wellington

  40

  66,763

  West of Scotland Co:

  Laurel Bank

  56

  113,962

  Westbourne

  77

  154,015

  Park

  49

  94,875

  St. Columba's

  45

  91,642

  742

  School

  1987–88

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Albyn

  15

  26,852

  Belmont House

  17

  30,926

  Craigholme

  30

  42,158

  Dollar

  57

  99,923

  Edinburgh Academy

  38

  94,858

  Fernhill

  42

  64,669

  Fettes College

  26

  93,060

  Fort Augustus

  43

  110,700

  George Heriots

  221

  397,293

  Glasgow Academy

  42

  79,471

  Glenalmond College

  35

  124,965

  Gordonstoun

  22

  82,204

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  High School, Dundee

  170

  309,400

  High School, Glasgow

  58

  100,843

  Hutchesons Grammar

  148

  205,125

  Keil

  57

  117,456

  Kelvinside Academy

  54

  112,809

  Kilgraston

  51

  98,374

  Kilquhanity House

  17

  34,354

  Lomond

  43

  88,898

  Loretto

  23

  81,711

  Merchant Company

  560

  1,054,024

  Merchiston Castle

  49

  167,206

  Morrisons Academy

  156

  267,297

  Oxenfoord Castle

  —

  —

  Rannoch

  25

  68,081

  Robert Gordons College

  53

  79,362

  Rudolf Steiner

  58

  98,283

  St. Aloysius College

  137

  231,765

  St. Denis and Cranley

  20

  41,471

  St. Georges

  16

  31,512

  St. Hilary's

  —

  —

  St. Leonards

  22

  53,692

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  13

  23,404

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  54

  107,711

  St. Margarets Convent

  —

  —

  Strathallan

  34

  122,736

  Wellington

  41

  72,949

  West of Scotland College:

  Laurel Bank

  60

  128,202

  Westbourne

  71

  151,647

  Park

  55

  116,530

  St. Columba's

  47

  97,841

  1988–891

  School

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Albyn

  16

  31,242

  Belmont House

  18

  36,917

  Craigholme

  31

  51,960

  Dollar

  64

  117,095

  Edinburgh Academy

  43

  109,185

  Fernhill

  39

  62,186

  Fettes College

  25

  102,211

  Fort Augustus

  38

  108,229

  George Heriots

  228

  432,739

  Glasgow Academy

  38

  71,156

  Glenalmond College

  36

  143,777

  Gordonstoun

  23

  92,517

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  High School, Dundee

  166

  340,000

  High School, Glasgow

  46

  88,849

  Hutchesons Grammar

  143

  223,837

  Keil

  57

  130,246

  Kelvinside Academy

  53

  119,440

  Kilgraston

  54

  112,251

  Kilquhanity House

  19

  38,925

  Lomond

  42

  96,847

  Loretto

  24

  93,451

  Merchant Company

  536

  1,077,155

  Merchiston Castle

  49

  177,432

  Morrisons Academy

  171

  293,972

  Oxenfoord Castle

  —

  —

  743

  1988–891

  School

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Rannoch

  26

  81,535

  Robert Gordons College

  60

  94,381

  Rudolf Steiner

  59

  110,072

  St. Aloysius College

  139

  258,398

  St. Denis and Cranley

  25

  56,261

  St. Georges

  18

  37,231

  St. Hilary's

  —

  —

  St. Leonards

  23

  63,587

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  13

  24,235

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  58

  121,447

  St. Margarets Convent

  —

  —

  Strathallan

  35

  135,607

  Wellington

  42

  87,048

  West of Scotland College:

  Laurel Bank

  60

  148,665

  Westbourne

  63

  151,095

  Park

  61

  142,675

  St. Columba's

  36

  82,836

  1 Provisional figures.

  School

  1989–901

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  Albyn

  16

  34,945

  Belmont House

  18

  40,352

  Craigholme

  31

  60,675

  Dollar

  63

  128,724

  Edinburgh Academy

  43

  126,380

  Fernhill

  29

  47,549

  Fettes College

  29

  117,309

  Fort Augustus

  31

  91,078

  George Heriots

  231

  476,653

  Glasgow Academy

  41

  89,288

  Glenalmond College

  31

  135,432

  Gordonstoun

  22

  102,303

  Hamilton College

  11

  12,591

  High School, Dundee

  177

  379,169

  High School, Glasgow

  38

  67,409

  Hutchesons Grammar

  139

  255,950

  Keil

  62

  148,247

  Kelvinside Academy

  56

  134,977

  Kilgraston

  50

  122,937

  Kilquhanity House

  18

  41,146

  Lomond

  43

  107,455

  Loretto

  21

  103,274

  Merchant Company

  508

  1,106,500

  Merchiston Castle

  52

  205,101

  Morrisons Academy

  171

  331,000

  Oxenfoord Castle

  5

  12,667

  Rannoch

  25

  93,904

  Robert Gordons College

  51

  99,008

  Rudolf Steiner

  56

  120,186

  St. Aloysius College

  148

  282,572

  St. Denis and Cranley

  26

  60,626

  744

  School

  1989–901

  Number of pupils

  Amount paid

  St. Georges

  16

  38,833

  St. Hilary's

  —

  —

  St. Leonards

  24

  73,764

  St. Margarets (Aberdeen)

  15

  30,335

  St. Margarets (Edinburgh)

  59

  135,903

  St. Margarets Convent

  —

  —

  Strathallan

  40

  186,000

  Wellington

  43

  96,903

  West of Scotland College:

  Laurel Bank

  54

  149,718

  Westbourne

  49

  120,071

  Park

  59

  151,017

  St. Columba's

  40

  95,020

  Preparatory Schools2:

  Aberlour House

  4

  14,344

  Ardvreck

  1

  2,777

  Beaconhurst Grange

  1

  1,668

  Belhaven Hill

  4

  11,989

  Blairmore

  1

  3,726

  Butterstone House

  1

  3,859

  Cargilfield

  2

  6,085

  Clifton Hall

  4

  9,529

  Craigclowan

  6

  10,839

  Crawfordton House

  5

  11,743

  Croftinloan

  4

  13,350

  Drumley House

  3

  7,567

  Lathallan

  6

  16,874

  New Park

  3

  7,888

  Park Lodge

  1

  1,809

  St. Mary's

  2

  6,030

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 The preparatory schools listed joined the scheme in 1989–90 school session.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy on admission to the assisted places scheme of schools which use corporal punishment.

  Mr. Lang
  Section 48A of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 rules out the use of corporal punishment for assisted places pupils. The use of corporal punishment for other pupils in an independent school is not a criterion for determining participation in the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have reported any incidence of the use of corporal punishment in any schools which participate in the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Water Charges: Proposed Increases
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria were used in calculating the proposed increases in charges limits for statutory water companies, announced by the Minister of State for the Environment on Wednesday 7th February (HC Deb. col. 640).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, in calculating the proposed charges limits Ministers were bound by the duties imposed on them by Section 7 of the Water Act 1989, principally the duty to ensure that companies can finance the proper carrying out of their functions as appointed water undertakers.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if one takes the figure that the Minister is allowing, plus inflation, which is not contained in that figure, on those criteria the increase for people in the Bournemouth area over the next three years will be in the region of 70 per cent. to 80 per cent.? Where is the protection for the consumer that the Minister in another place promised during the passage of the Water Bill in order to justify that privatisation measure which they forced through this House and another place?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that it is well worth remembering that an amendment from the Benches opposite was carried in your Lordships' House last summer and constant demands were made for ever tighter standards. The costs that will be burdened on the consumer are those that are required in order to raise and achieve the standards that were so manfully defended and sought by those on the Benches opposite during the debate on the Bill in your Lordships' House before it became an Act.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as chairman of a statutory water company—the Newcastle and Gateshead water company—I am more than fully conscious of the long and arduous discussions that have taken place between the water companies and the Government on price increases? Does he accept that company chairmen like myself appreciate to the full that every criterion had to be justified before a price increase was granted? In my opinon the very last thing that this Government could ever be accused of is not supporting the well being of the water consumers of this country.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, of course I stand in the shadow of my noble friend who is an acknowledged expert on the industry. I can assure your Lordships' House that his point is very well made. There have been long and very complicated negotiations to achieve that fair balance.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister understand that when over the next three years the water consumers in, for instance, the Colne Valley, are faced with a 50 per cent. increase, and those in the Lee Valley with a 45 per cent. increase, they have to translate those increased costs for water into their wage applications with its impact on the inflation policy of the Government? Does the Minister understand that the Government ought to tell the whole story to the consumers and come clean, and make sure that every consumer understands that the cost of his water is being inflated as a direct result of government policy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asks the Government to come clean. The Government are coming clean by insisting on cleanliness in water. It is worth remembering that an average bill is currently some £57 per annum.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that part of the problem is that historically consumers have had water somewhat on the cheap for quite a long time and that we are just beginning to catch up?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the truth of the matter is that there was severe underfunding of the investment in the infrastructure and because of privatisation we have been able to rectify that. That is why the consumer is now having to pay for the increases in standard and quality that we all want.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, although there may have been underfunding, is the Minister aware that my water rates in London increased by over 10 times in the 10 years before nationalisation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the figures prior to nationalisation but if I can add to the remarks of the noble Lord I shall write to him.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the Minister aware that London water is considerably cheaper and cleaner than Perrier water?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have always been an enthusiast for the tap.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, there have been increases for almost a year now. When will the standards about which the Minister speaks be achieved?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, they are being achieved and will be achieved. There are various different standards as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. They will be achieved within the timescale that we set out and agreed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this morning Thames Water announced an increase of 12.2 per cent. in its prices? Is this the pattern of things to come from the privatised water authority?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, for the noble Lord, Lord Williams—who is a member of the Front Bench opposite which insisted on improving standards—to come to the Dispatch Box and ask me why, when those standards and costs are reflected in a rise in charges I find slightly curious.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that I did not ask him why? I asked whether that is the pattern of things to come.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is the very nature of improvement in an infrastructure that it will cost money.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that figures that were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for the Newcastle authority will mean that users of the water in that area over the next three years will face an average increase of 15 per cent? That is twice the amount of the present inflation figures. As my noble friend Lord Williams on the Front Bench has asked, what will the Government do when the new massive private companies start to levy their charges? Will all water users be faced with an increase of upwards of 15 per cent? If so, what will become of the Government's fight against inflation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think it is worth remembering that we are actually talking about an increase over the years ahead of some 23p per month. If that is the price of achieving the highest water standards in the world, I do not believe that it is too high a price to pay.

Weather Forecasts and Storm Warnings
2.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the international services providing weather forecasts and storm warnings have improved since October 1987.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, there are no international agencies providing weather forecasts and storm warnings. However, the Meteorological Office provides forecasts for shipping and civil aviation in fulfilment of its obligations under certain international conventions and agreements. While warnings to ships and aircraft in October 1987 were timely and adequate, these recipients too will have benefited from the general improvements effected following the Swinnerton-Dyer-Pearce Report on the 1987 storm.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply, which is satisfactory because a few hours' warning of gales enables basic precautions to be taken. However, since flooding has been the worst effect of recent bad weather, is it possible to forecast conditions which cause this; for example, very heavy rainfall and snow melting on hills?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can inform my noble friend that the National Rivers. Authority is committed to a policy of providing and operating flood warning systems and that it keeps them under constant review. Moreover, as new technologies, such as rainfall radar, are developed they are incorporated into those systems.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider the fact that when British television companies broadcast their weather forecasts the forecaster sometimes brushes his hand over an area representing 500 or 600 square miles and people are not always quite sure about which area he is talking? Therefore, would it not be possible for them to illustrate the different parts of the country and the weather that is affecting them by indicating the number of towns involved; for example, by mentioning Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham and Cardiff as well as London?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the BBC and ITN, along with the Meteorological Office, are considering ways of reinforcing procedures in order to enhance the impact of broadcast information in severe weather conditions. As regards the particular points he raised, I shall ensure that these are brought to the attention of those concerned.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that two or three years ago the European Parliament urged that a system of co-ordination be looked at within the EC? Can he tell us what steps the Government have taken to encourage an EC-wide weather forecasting organisation? Further, can he tell us what steps this country takes to alert other countries when bad weather which is affecting us is moving in their direction?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, international co-operation in meteorology is very extensive, ranging from meteorological research to the exchange of observations and forecasts several times every day. The WMO's global telecommunications system connects the national meteorological services of some 160 member states. Moreover, where services are required on an international basis, current procedures and agreements work well.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Meteorological Office is totally incompetent when compared to a Jewish forecaster who lived over 2, 000 years ago who was able to advise the Pharaoh that there would be seven good years followed by seven bad ones?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think that we have been successful in updating a more reliable system since that time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is not present in this Chamber today?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is always a shame when my noble friend is not present in your Lordships' House.

Mr. Salman Rushdie: Death Threats
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the letter in the Independent of Wednesday 7th February signed by the president, chairman and members of the Council of the Royal Society of Literature, what action they are taking to deter continuing threats to the life of Salman Rushdie.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we deplore Iran's continuing incitements to murder a British citizen and Iran must lift the threat to the life of Salman Rushdie. Mr. Rushdie continues to receive the police protection he has had since the threat to his life was first made in February 1989.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Is he aware that the Government are to be congratulated for preserving Mr. Rushdie's life so far? However, perhaps he can give us further information on the matter. The Question tabled yesterday was concerned with the past, but this one is concerned with the future. Can he tell us how long this situation will continue? Further, have the Government any plans to bring it to an end?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords; it will be continued so long as it is considered necessary by the police, having regard to all the circumstances involved.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House whether there have been any arrests by the police of those people who march on our streets calling for the murder of Mr. Rushdie? Is that not a criminal offence?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if the noble Lord refers to a demonstration that took place on Saturday, I can inform your Lordships that according to the police about 200 people attended an assembly organised by the Young Moslem League to protest against The Satanic Verses. The demonstration was generally orderly. When the youths tried to burn an effigy of Mr. Rushdie, the police took it away from them. About 20 police officers were deployed and only two arrests were made, for public order offences.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell us when it will be possible to conduct Question Time without mention of this author on the Order Paper?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot help my noble friend. It is up to me to answer the Question.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, do the Government realise that the kind of question which has just been asked is undesirable? Is the noble Viscount aware that this is a clear case of international terrorism by Iran? As long as some of us are Members of this House, we shall raise the issue of threats made to the life of a British subject.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that this is quite despicable. In my original Answer I said that we deplored the stance that Iran has taken and we look very firmly to Iran to change its mind.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the Moslem community itself seems to be divided on the issue of the death threat to Salman Rushdie, is it appropriate at this stage for Her Majesty's Government to arrange a meeting with selected leaders of the Moslem community? They would do so with a view to obtaining a clear and unequivocal statement from that community to its followers that they should observe the laws of this country while they remain in Britain.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it would be quite wrong to castigate the British Moslem community on the basis of the actions of an extremist few. Many Moslems are British citizens; many have been born in Britain. We value the contribution which they have made to this country.
As for the point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the Government consider that remarks made by Dr. Siddiqui at a meeting in East London on 18th February appear to advocate the upholding of British law. I shall of course bear in mind the further remarks made by the noble Lord to see whether anything else can be done.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, would a way out of this miserable dilemma be for the Government to consider amending the law of blasphemy so that it covered insults to the Moslem religion? Then the Moslem community would have some other recourse—a non violent recourse—to satisfy their outraged feelings.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that there is to be a judicial review later this month. Obviously we shall wish to consider the outcome. A minority of the Law Commission recommended extending the scope of the blasphemy laws in 1985. Apart from obvious difficulties in deciding where to draw the line between religions deserving protection and extremist cults, to change the law in this way might encourage a flurry of prosecutions which would be damaging to relations between members of different faiths.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, would it not be far better if the ancient and obsolete laws of blasphemy were removed altogether? Every religion should be allowed to take criticism like every other organisation. If it is strong enough to exist as a religion then it has nothing whatever to worry about.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I feel that that matter is outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that here it is important to lower the temperature and not to give any opportunity to martyrs in the matter? Surely one way is to treat this fatuous fatwa with the ridicule it deserves. Does the noble Viscount also agree that people sometimes get steamed up and make statements which appear to be violent but which, in practice, are not? For instance, did not the highly distinguished father of the noble Earl, Lord Russell once sit down in Trafalgar Square? Although no doubt he was hoping to be arrested, the police wisely did not arrest him.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think that we should pay some regard to the remarks made by the noble Lord. For my part, I hope that these demonstrations will soon cease. However, I fear that there is a requirement that Iran should play a part in this matter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not part of the truth about the matter that there ought to be brought home to Moslems who support this fatwa the immense amount of harm they have done to Islam throughout the civilised world? They have not only made an unreadable book a bestseller, but they have also brought contempt upon one of the three great world religions which derives from the life of Abraham.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the remarks of my noble and learned friend. I should be surprised if those who are demonstrating have actually read the book.
Lord Monson: My Lords, if a group of non-Moslems were to make precisely the same threats against an individual of whom they disapproved, couched in identical terms to the threats directed against Salman Rushdie, would they too escape prosecution?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is entirely up to the police and the prosecuting authorities to take action if the evidence justifies it, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said yesterday.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, indeed, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said yesterday, this is a matter where the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered all the evidence and, to date, has decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute for incitement to murder. I wonder whether the noble Viscount could find some way of communicating to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—it should not be too difficult at
142
this moment—the report in the Guardian of yesterday? It stated that at the meeting held on Sunday night addressed by Dr. Siddiqui, he ridiculed the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions,
"not to prosecute him for incitement to murder on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence as an example of the 'dishonesty and duplicity' of the establishment".
Has not a limit been reached when either our law must show itself capable of dealing with such matters or it will be brought into ridicule?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are serious. I shall certainly bring them to the attention of my noble and learned friend in order that they can be examined once more.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for these answers. Will he take note of what has been said on all sides of the House on this matter, and see whether the Government can devise some means of improving the situation created by this difficult problem?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords.

Education: HM Inspectorate Report
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take any action following the annual report of Her Majesty"s Inspector of Schools that the accommodation of the youth and adult education service is "old, drab, badly maintained and inappropriate for its purpose.".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for 1990–91 £485 million is available in annual capital guidelines for capital expenditure on local authority maintained institutions. This compares with only £352 million under the old system of allocations for 1989–90. It represents an increase of nearly 40 per cent. It is for local education authorities to decide how to divide their capital resources among schools, colleges, adult education institutes and youth services.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response. Does she agree with the report that demands are increasing on both adult education services as a consequence of changes in demography and the changes in Government policy relating to Care in the Community; and on the youth service because of the way in which it is responding to the needs of the disadvantaged among our young people? In view of that does not the Minister agree that resources are needed in that area to provide adequate accommodation for those essential services?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I certainly agree that demand for that service is increasing. However, it is reasonable to say that it is for local education authorities themselves to determine priorities. They have annual capital guidelines but they are able to

143
supplement that with capital receipts and also with revenue taken from the community charge. They can levy the community charge to increase revenue in this area. It is very much a matter for local education authorities to determine priorities for their own areas.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that every time we ask these questions we are told that it is a matter for the local education authorities? The adult education service and the youth service need some statement from the Government to show that they believe in them and they want to help them. The shift in funding policies as regards the Workers' Educational Association, extra-mural work and local management in schools all make the future of the adult education service and the youth service look uncertain. We should like some statement of commitment from the Government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the point about uncertainty. This is a difficult time for local education authorities and for the youth service. However, it is very much up to LEAs to determine their own priorities. The party of the noble Baroness has said many times that we at central level should not be prescriptive about how local authorities spend their money. Therefore, it is very much for local authorities to respond to the needs in their local areas.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the noble Baroness who is speaking on behalf of the Government aware that the DES itself has identified a backlog amounting to £3 billion in repairs to school buildings? In those circumstances does she not agree that the additional amount of money for capital that has been identified is far too small? Will she tell the House whether the DES will be asking for new money for capital in the light of the HMI report?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, certainly a backlog has been identified, but I must refer to my original Answer which displays the Government's concern about the need for extra capital expenditure, which is up from £352 million to £485 million. It is also fair to say that LEAs can supplement that expenditure by using capital receipts. The way in which capital receipts work now for local authorities means that they can spend 50 per cent. on capital projects and they can use the other 50 per cent. to reduce debt which in turn releases revenue to be spent on capital projects.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is great scope for savings on this issue? In the county in which I live there is a private school and a state school. The private school had its sports hall burnt down and the state school had its refectory burnt down. Both acts were committed by the same arsonist. The private school has now been completely repaired but, because of bureaucratic delay, the bulldozers have not even started to move into the state school to start clearing up the rubble of the refectory. That delay is unnecessarily costing the state money. It is also imposing an unnecessary
144
charge on community charge payers and children are being deprived of proper education. This is a case of incompetence rather than lack of money.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot comment on the specific problem that my noble friend raises. However, I can say that paragraph 86 of the report states that there is a need:
"To improve the management, monitoring and evaluation of existing provision".
It is also true to say that LEAs can respond to their needs in a variety of ways. There are some exciting and innovative ways of responding to those needs through using village halls, school buildings, higher education buildings, further education buildings and through involving the community itself. There is a variety of responses to meet this excessive need.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, my noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lady David have sought assurances. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the money is there but that is not true because the money is spread over such a wide area that there is insufficient left for the services referred to in the Question. The essential services need that money; therefore there is insufficient money left for adult education and the youth service.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot agree with the premise of the comments made by the noble Lord. I have given the figures for the money that is allocated from the Government. Those figures have increased year on year. It is very much a matter for local education authorities to determine how that money will be spent and to determine their priorities. In some areas the money will be used within the local community and in other areas it will be used for local schools. Therefore I cannot agree on a particular mechanism. An alternative would be for the Government to prescribe how the money should be spent. I do not think the noble Lord would agree with that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, did the noble Baroness mean to say that in the end the Government really do not care how local authorities spend money? The Minister seemed to be saying that the Government were perfectly happy to let authorities spend the money in any way they wished. Does the Minister not find it paradoxical that she has a totally laissez-faire attitude to local education authorities as regards the adult education service but that she is perfectly happy to provide central government funds for city technology colleges which no one wants at all?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government take a laissez-faire attitude or that they are not concerned about the quality of education. The very fact that the report exists is indicative of the Government's concern. It is this kind of report which makes local authorities reconsider the way in which they provide services. The hope is that every education authority will look at the report and make some evaluation of the service it provides in the light of the report.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, although the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is entitled to say that he does not like city technology colleges, it is a bit much to say that no one likes them? I have a great deal of evidence to show that they are widely appreciated.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, city technology colleges are another matter. However, I think the noble Lord will know that I am an enthusiast of this innovative educational experiment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness accepts that I do not wish to have a debate with her and her noble friend Lord Beloff. However, the point I sought to emphasise is that there is no doubt whatever about the enormous public support for the youth and adult education services in this country. Is she not aware that many people will look askance at the fact that the Government do not appear to think that that service is worthy of the highest priority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not accept that. I believe that the Government are concerned about youth and adult education. It may be appropriate for me, in reply to this point, to say that the Department of Education and Science is developing a policy on the youth service in partnership with LEAs and voluntary organisations through a series of national conferences. The first of these on the theme of a youth service curriculum was addressed last December by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State from the Department of Education and Science. There will be other conferences.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the report of the chief inspector is to the Secretary of State? Therefore, would it not be appropriate for him to make some comment on the areas where he feels there is a shortfall in the service?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the use of the report will be widespread throughout the education service. It may be appropriate for me to point out that the quote in the Question asked by the noble Baroness comes from paragraph 13. It does not refer to the youth and community service at all.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, has the Minister not looked at page 3, paragraph 13, which refers quite specifically to the youth and adult services? That paragraph describes the accommodation for that service as:
"old, drab, badly maintained and inappropriate for its purpose".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important to read out the whole sentence which states:
"Accommodation in further education varies markedly within and between colleges—"
Baroness David: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Baroness.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, The sentence continues:
"Some teaching areas are well designed and modern while others are old, drab and in need of refurbishment".
That refers to accommodation for further education but it refers only to some accommodation.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have had a pretty good go round the course. If the House wishes, perhaps we should go on to the next business.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I must say that there is always one difficulty for noble Lords and noble Baronesses which is that they need to make themselves heard. To make themselves heard they must have the sympathy of the House. We have spent 12 minutes beyond what the House itself believes is right for the length of Question Time. I suggest that if your Lordships wish, we should pass to the next business.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for approximtely an hour and that during that adjournment the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, the Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1990, the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1990 will be taken.

Business: Education (Students Loan) Bill
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a business question. He will be aware that the student loans Bill is down for Second Reading today week. I understand that that Bill has not yet been received from another place. I should therefore like to know how the Government propose to comply with Standing Orders which stipulate a minimum interval of two weekends between the introduction of a Bill or the date on which a Bill is brought from the Commons and the Second Reading. How has that situation arisen? It will cause great inconvenience to many noble Lords if it is necessary to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the time of arrival of a Bill from another place is a matter for another place. However, in arranging for Bills to be taken in your Lordships' House sometimes the usual channels have to make a prediction as to when a Bill will arrive in order to give noble Lords a date for consideration on Second Reading. I believe that that is the more important when, as in the present case, a Bill is expected to be of interest to many of your Lordships.
In the present instance I regret that we guessed wrongly. Nevertheless I believe that it is for the convenience of your Lordships that, having informally advertised the date for Second Reading as next Tuesday, 27th February, we should stick to that date. When the Second Reading is put on the Order Paper this evening the entry will be marked according to the convention as being an item of business which is set down within the minimum intervals recommended in the Companion to the Standing Orders. If the noble Lord opposite wishes to make representations that the Second Reading be postponed beyond that date I shall be only too happy to discuss the matter with him.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer the second part of my question as to how the situation has arisen when another place finished with the Bill last Thursday evening.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I believe that it would be improper for me to comment on what is very much the prerogative of another place. We can receive the Bill only when it is sent from another place. We have not had it yet.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the mimum intervals in this House are very important. They were arrived at on a recommendation of the Select Committee on practice and procedure. In a previous existence I was able to make representations to that Select Committee and suggest that minimum intervals should be enforced. The reason was the quite intolerable way in which the previous Administration, the one before 1979, treated this House, which I am pleased to see the party opposite now implicitly regards as totally wrong.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Chief Whip will excuse me if I say that his last remarks are not particularly helpful to achieving a sensible arrangement in the circumstances. We all understand that the pigeons which produce documents from pigeonholes at the other end of the building have somehow gone lame and are taking rather longer than normal to bring the Bill forward for First Reading in this House.
It is true that noble Lords have in their diaries a date for the Second Reading of the Bill. I believe that noble Lords on all sides of the House would wish to be accommodating in the matter. However, it seems that the First Reading is not yet imminent. Although I understand the difficulty of the noble Lord the Chief Whip in predicting what may happen in another part of this building, try as we may, our patience may be tried beyond measure if the matter is delayed much later today.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, spoke in a very patient tone of voice. I hope that that patience will not be abused and that lame pigeons, however lame they may be, will manage the 150 yards down the Palace of Westminister rather sooner than we feared might have been the case.
3.14 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, by way of clarification and for the record, I should like to say that, while I agree entirely with what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said about the time taken on Questions today, my noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lady David rose merely to correct the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who referred to paragraph 13 of the report and not to paragraph 15, which was the paragraph referred to by my noble friends.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I have done an injustice to either noble Baroness I apologise. However, they will bear in mind that Question Time is for seeking information and not for giving it.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Noble Lords: Oh!

Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Allocation of business between High Court and county courts]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("Without prejudice to the generality of section 84 (2) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that the amendments in my name are all starred. The reason is that there was so little time between my receiving on Monday a letter which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wrote to me between the Committee and Report stages. I also wanted to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's amendments, most of which were put down only on Friday.
Most of the amendments relate to an attempt to shorten the Bill by removing unnecessary material. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor kindly said that he would discuss that and other matters with me. Under those circumstances I do not propose to move the amendments.
There is an extremely important amendment to come later relating to what is called the cab rank rule. It is of high constitutional importance, and it is most desirable that your Lordships should be able to pronounce on that amendment at a reasonable hour rather than in the early hours of the morning, as has been our custom during the passage of the Bill.
Under those circumstances I shall not move Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("An order under this section") and insert ("Any such order").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 6 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 15.
The purpose of the amendments is to clarify, in accordance with the undertaking I gave at Committee stage on 16th January, that the only part of Clause 1 which confers powers on the Lord Chancellor to make orders is subsection (1).
Subsection (1) gives the Lord Chancellor power by order to extend the jurisdiction of the High Court and the county courts. In Committee, a number of those who spoke, including my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and my noble friend Lord Renton, had clearly understood the clause as conferring separate order-making powers in subsections (1) and (4). I undertook to look again at the drafting, to see whether all possibility of misunderstanding could be removed, and these amendments are the result.
One by-product of the amendments will be to remove any residual doubt there may have been about whether subsection (4), which contains the power to amend primary legislation, albeit in the limited and consequential ways that I have described, will be subject to affirmative resolution. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the amendments of my noble and learned friend now clearly bring the clause into line with what he understood it to mean before it was amended. One need not then go into the difference of opinion in Committee which was very clear. I merely say that I welcome the amendments and am grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as we too sought clarification, perhaps I may from these Benches thank the noble and learned Lord for his gracious way of dealing with the matter. He promised at Committee stage that he would look into it, he has done so and we now find the wording quite satisfactory.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. As noble Lords will see as we proceed, I have endeavoured to carry out as fully as possible in the time available the various undertakings that I made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("made by or under any enactment") and insert ("falling within subsection (4A) and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already explained the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
(" (4A) A provision falls within this subsection if it is made by any enactment other than this Act or made under any enactment.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment to clarify the difficulties that were found in Committee in Clause 1. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have only one question to ask. It relates to a number of the other amendments of my noble and learned friend. The amendment incorporates the words,
"made by any enactment other than this Act or made under any enactment".
Am I right in thinking that the word "by" refers to the text of a statute and that the word "under" refers to subordinate legislation under a statute, so that
"any enactment other than this Act",
means that the Henry VIII clause does not operate with regard to this Act, although it may operate with regard to subordinate legislation under this Act or any other Act? I ask my noble and learned friend whether I have understood that point correctly.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords. The aim is to make it clear that the provisions of the Act cannot be affected by an order made under that section, but that any other enactment can be and that any subordinate legislation made under the Act can be. My noble and learned friend has therefore understood the effect of the amendment as I intend it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("order under this section") and insert ("such order").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 2, line 40, after ("No") insert ("such").
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("under this section").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert —
(" (8) The Lord Chancellor shall, within one year of the coming into force of the first order made under this section, and annually thereafter, prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report as to the business of the High Court and county courts.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I want to deal with this amendment rather fully. At Committee stage there was a good deal of discussion about questions of resources for the courts and about the way in which the courts might respond to the effects of the statute. I undertook then to consider whether the concerns might be met by putting an obligation on the Lord Chancellor to place before Parliament a report on the court business.
The Lord Chancellor's Department already prepares such a report which is circulated to those who are thought to be interested, such as the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society. However, in view of the general interest in this matter, the suggestion was made, principally by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but agreed and supported by others, including my noble friend Lord Renton. I have therefore concluded that it would be right and would help noble Lords to continue an informed interest in these matters after the Bill has, I hope, become law and been put into effect, to see how matters arise.
On the question of the court service, although I accept that there are problems in particular courts from time to time, the work of the courts has, generally speaking, been done extremely well in the years at which we are looking. Perhaps the most interesting fact that I should mention in that connection is that, because of its existing powers, the High Court is already able to send down a considerable number of cases to the county courts. In 1987 just over 9, 000 cases were transferred down to the county courts under that power. In 1988 the number had increased to over 12, 500 cases and in the first eight months of 1989 the figure was over 10, 000 cases. The county courts are therefore already coping, under the exercise of powers by the judges of the High Court, with many of the kinds of cases which would be allocated to them under the arrangements possible as a result of the new powers under the Bill.
Generally speaking, those arrangements are being handled successfully with reasonable waiting times in the county courts. One of the important consequences is that waiting times in the High Court have been significantly improved. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice referred to some figures of that kind in the early summer. The result has been an increase in the availability of justice and a considerable decrease in the delay required in order to obtain it.
Another factor that I have not mentioned on previous occasions is that, in the financial year 1984–85 for example, there were 353 circuit judges. That figure rose to 393 at the beginning of 1987–88 and to 408 at the beginning of this financial year. Gross expenditure on the court service, excluding legal aid and the court building programme, rose from £145 million to £210 million, and to an estimated £261 million in the last of those years. I mention those figures in order to illustrate the kind of material that will be covered in the report which the Lord Chancellor will have a statutory obligation to lay before Parliament if the amendment is accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we are moving with commendable speed. I do not in any way intend to slow down the pace. I want to thank the noble and learned Lord for having accepted both in spirit and in fact the amendment that I moved at Committee stage with support from various parts of the Chamber.
I have one difficulty. After Clause 13 of the Bill I have tabled an amendment which seeks to deal with standards to be kept up in the court administration. That amendment contains a provision to require an annual report. I believe that that requirement belongs more suitably to that amendment. My difficulty is that if, by some mischance, that amendment were not carried, the requirement that there should be this desirable annual report will not be in the Bill.
I feel that the sensible course is to express my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord for this amendment, to say that the amendment ought to be accepted at this stage and to see what happens to the later amendment. Then, if I am still caught in the same difficulty, I shall try to do something about it at Third Reading. At the present stage I definitely feel that the amendment should be supported and I again thank the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too accept the amendment and am most grateful to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Trade marks: county court.
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall by order made by statutory instrument designate at least one county court as a trade marks county court and confer on it jurisdiction (its "special jurisdiction") to hear and determine such descriptions of proceedings —

(a) relating to trade marks, or

(b) ancillary to, or arising out of the same subject matter as, proceedings relating to trade marks, as may be specified in the order.

(2) The special jurisdiction of a trade marks county court is exercisable throughout England and Wales, but rules of court may provide for a matter pending in one such court to be heard and determined in another or partly in that and partly in another.

153
(3) A trade marks county court may entertain proceedings within its special jurisdiction notwithstanding that no pecuniary remedy is sought.
(4) An order under this section providing for the discontinuance of any of the special jurisdiction of a trade marks county court may make provision as to proceedings pending in the court when the order comes into operation.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the ordinary jurisdiction of a county court.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with the leave of the House and in order to expedite matters I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 199 and 20 and refer to two formal amendments, Amendments Nos. 217 and 218.
As is well known, trade marks are a very important factor in trade both within the United Kingdom and beyond. More recently trade marks, or brand names as they are often called, have been recognised by large companies and their valuation, as has been indicated in the press, will now have to be shown in their balance sheets and may amount to hundreds of millions of pounds. It is anticipated that there will be considerable litigation.
I put forward these amendments on behalf of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents, of which I am an honorary associate member. The noble and learned Lord will be familiar with the general wording of Amendments Nos. 17 to 20. It appears in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in so far as it relates to patents. Here the words "trade marks" have been substituted for "patents".
Perhaps I may briefly indicate the scope of these four new clauses. The first sets up a trade mark county court. It is recognised as in the public interest that there should be a reduction of the workload in the High Court in order to give speedier and less expensive justice. I understand that there have already been general discussions with the office of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with regard to setting up a trade mark county court as well as a patents county court, as for some time has been the intention.
The clause covered by Amendment No. 18 indicates the special jurisdiction of a trade mark county court. I need not read it out. For instance, it deals with the question of transfer of proceedings from or to the High Court.
Amendment No. 19 inserts another new clause indicating that the county court is designated as a trade mark county court. It is intended that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor,
"shall nominate a person entitled to sit as a judge of that court as the trade mark judge".
It is in the public interest that the person presiding over such a tribunal should have had some experience in dealing with trade marks and therefore should be designated as the trade mark judge having regard to his experience.
Amendment No. 20 inserts an important new clause. It indicates that,
"A registered trade mark agent may do, in or in connection with proceedings in a trade mark county court which are within the special jurisdiction of that court, anything which a solicitor of the Supreme Court might do".
Those rights have already been included in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act with regard to a patent agent. This clause is intended to bring similar rights to registered trade mark agents. As that clause mentions registered trade mark agents, perhaps I may draw to your Lordships' attention the two formal amendments, Nos. 217 and 218. Amendment No. 217 merely defines the words "intellectual property" which occur generally in relation to trade mark matters. Intellectual property means:
"invention, design, technical information or trade mark, and any rights under common law in relation to passing off"
Amendment No. 218 merely defines what is known as a registered patent agent and a registered trade mark agent. A registered trade mark agent means:
"a person whose name appears on the register established under section 282 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988".
It was rather curious to note that as the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 went through this House there were occasional references to trade marks and there was a reference made in the Act to the register of trade mark agents. I attempted to alter the Title of one Bill so as to make it clear that that Bill involved some matters of trade marks, but I failed in that attempt. The whole object of these amendments, as I said, is to set up a trade mark county court.
I fully realise that this is a matter which is still under discussion with the office of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Therefore I do not propose to divide the House in relation to these amendments. I should like to say that perhaps discussions could continue and the matter might be brought up more formally at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Cawley: My Lords, it has always rightly been held that a registered trade mark is quite as important as, or more important than, a patent. It is a part of intellectual property. It gives me great pleasure to support in principle the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I do not know whether these provisions will find favour with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor but certainly I am very much in favour of them in principle.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, these amendments cover a subject matter which I do not think we discussed particularly at Committee stage. At the outset I should like to say that so far as I know the department has not yet been approached with proposals along these lines. We have been considering questions of changing the ministerial tribunal under the Trade Marks Act 1938. There have been discussions on that but on this matter no discussions have so far taken place. That does not preclude our having discussions now. Obviously I accept that this is a matter of importance.
These amendments would oblige the Lord Chancellor to establish a county court jurisdiction in trade mark matters roughly along the lines of that set up for patents by Part VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred. Indeed, as he explained,

155
he has borrowed most of the wording of the relevant sections for the purpose of carrying this particular subject. Part VI of that Act was enacted before an allocation power of the kind contained in Clause 1 of the Bill was available. Moreover, it was enacted only after detailed and wide consultation led by the Oulton Committee on patent litigation, which was chaired by the then Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department and reported in November 1987. This report was in its turn preceded by the White Paper Intellectual Property and Innovation in 1986, Cmnd. 9712.
It will already be possible for orders under Clause 1 to confer jurisdiction on the county courts in trade mark matters. It is therefore unnecessary in any event to provide for such jurisdiction on the face of the Bill. What I consider should be possible—I should like, if I may, to check this and come back if necessary at a later stage of the Bill with an amendment—is to confer particular jurisdiction—for example, in respect of trade marks—on a limited number of county courts or perhaps a particular county court. This would enable these specialist cases to be concentrated on those courts. It might be desirable for a degree of specialisation to be built up. That is the pattern of the patent county court which has been proposed. I welcome further discussion on this matter.
As to Amendment No. 20 and also formal Amendments Nos. 217 and 218, I do not think it would be right to make separate statutory arrangements for trade mark agents in county court proceedings, given the new general arrangements for legal services in Part II of the Bill. When the corresponding section of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was enacted there were no such arrangements. The only way in which the result could be achieved was somewhat on the lines of the provision in Section 292. But the arrangements that we now have in Part II would enable this matter to be considered fully by the advisory committee and under the machinery that is proposed.
In the light of that way forward, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, supported by my noble friend Lord Cawley, may feel able to withdraw the amendment and leave the matter for further discussion, realising that, subject to the one point I made about concentrating jurisdiction on a particular county court, the objects that he has in mind could be achieved, if they are found desirable on consultation, by the arrangements already in the Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, who I have known for many years as a distinguished member of the patent Bar, for his support in principle of the amendments. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having indicated that he would be prepared to consider further representations in regard to these matters. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Transfer of proceedings between courts]:
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("procedure provision") and insert ("provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (8) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27. These are drafting amendments designed to take account of criticism from my noble friend Lord Renton and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale about the phrase "procedure provision" as it was used in the clause as originally drafted. In considering the matter I thought that it was possible to improve the situation with the help of parliamentary counsel. These amendments are the result. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 22: Page 3, line 12, leave out ("procedure") and insert ("such"). On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 20, leave out from ("considers") to end of line 21 and insert ("appropriate, having taken into account the convenience of the parties and that of any other persons likely to be affected and the state of business in the courts concerned.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposed an amendment to amend the original draft of the new Section 40 (4) of the County Courts Act 1984 which would be inserted by Clause 2 of the Bill. As it stood, it provided that proceedings transferred under this section —that is, from the High Court to the county courts—should be transferred to such county court as the High Court considered convenient. My objective, as I explained to the Committee, was not to prevent the courts from taking account of the convenience of the parties, but to ensure that wider factors—especially of course the convenience of parties to other cases —could also be taken into account. There was, I think, little or nothing between my aim here and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I therefore accepted his amendment to require the court to take its decision having taken into account the convenience of the parties.
I said at the time, however, that I would hope to be able to come back if on reflection it appeared that the phraseology was perhaps not the most expedient, and that is why I invite the House to consider this amendment. It is designed both to render the section a little more elegant and to set out explicitly the other factors which will have to be considered when the High Court decides to which county court to transfer a particular case. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 27:
Page 3, line 44, leave out from (" (8) ") to ("made") in line 45 and insert ("The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are any").
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("procedure provision") and insert ("provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (7) ").
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("procedure") insert ("such").
Page 5, line 5, leave out from (" (7) ") to ("made") in line 6 and insert ("The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are any").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 with Amendment No. 21. With the leave of the House, I propose to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Remedies available in county courts]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 10, leave out from (" (7) ") to end of line 11 and insert —
("No such statutory instrument shall be made unless a draft of the instrument has been approved by both Houses of Parliament." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment fulfils the undertaking which I gave in Committee, when we debated what is now Clause 84, that I would ensure that the affirmative resolution procedure is adopted in this Bill wherever the power to amend primary legislation is conferred upon regulations or orders. Clause 3 provides that regulations restricting the remedies available to the county courts may make necessary or expedient consequential amendments to other enactments. It is appropriate therefore that this power should be made subject to affirmative resolution. This is in accordance with the undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Rippon.
Perhaps I should take this opportunity to say that my statement in Committee towards the end of a fairly long Committee stage was intended to apply to this Bill as a general principle in deciding the various matters that might arise in the Bill. It was not my intention—I am sure my noble friend will understand this—to say that in all legislation for the future this would necessarily be the rule. I was making it my principle to apply throughout the whole of this Bill so as to render it unnecessary to discuss these matters in relation to each individual clause. I beg to move.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble and learned friend has done and I appreciate his explanation that it was an undertaking in relation to this specific Bill. I may have gone a little too far in the debate the other day in saying that it was a precedent for all occasions. However, I hope that it will be found to be a useful precedent for future Bills.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will know that many members of the legal profession are still somewhat unhappy that the remedies available in the county court should be capable at all of being restricted by regulation. This view was expressed in Committee. Nevertheless, if it is to be inserted in the Bill, as appears to be the
158
case, then naturally we should prefer the affirmative procedure. For that we are grateful.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble and learned friend. I share the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I could not pick up this amendment in my amendment that was discussed in Committee at a quarter past two in the morning, so I wrote to my noble and learned friend. I am most grateful to him for having picked it up now.
I was a little disturbed to hear my noble and learned friend say that his comments about Henry VIII clauses and affirmative resolution apply only to this Bill. He was speaking on behalf of the Government. I fully understood that during the last Session and this Session the recommendations of the Donoughmore Report were accepted; that only in exceptional circumstances should the Executive arrogate to itself the power to legislate in the way which traditionally has been the function of Parliament.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, indicated, if there is to be such use of Henry VIII clauses, the least that can be done is to bring forward an affirmative resolution so that Parliament can be given an explanation. That should apply not only to this Bill but to all legislation brought forward by the Government.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wished to clarify my undertaking and that I have done. As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, one must adopt a somewhat evolutionary approach. We are making considerable changes in relation to the county courts and concern has been expressed about both granting powers which are too wide and also restricting powers. I thought it right to have a machinery under which the matter could be considered. Any concerns on the lines expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, can be taken into account in deciding what is to be done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Costs]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, leave out lines 30 to 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is too good to miss because I find myself lined up with my noble and learned friends Lord Ackner and Lord Simon of Glaisdale —
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it has not caused me to reconsider the correctness of the amendment but it has been a complete fortification of the fact that I have it right. The amendment deletes the detail which we suggested in subsection (4) of the new Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 in attempting to distil the cases. Having heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, my noble and learned friends Lord Ackner and Lord Simon and others, I decided that it was wise to

159
return to the words of generality originally contained in the law. The position is helped by the amendment to the general law proposed in relation to rights of appeal, and that may well be helpful in matters of cost. The amendment carries general agreement and I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I do not want my noble and learned friend's cup to overflow completely but I wish to indicate my support for his amendment. In Committee I said that the subsection as drafted would not cover the case in which a defendant is supported. It provides for the "bringing of the proceedings". Our case is that where a defendant is supported by an outside person it may be desirable to order him to pay costs. That is achieved indirectly by my noble and learned friend's amendment and I am happy to add my support.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the practice as to costs is well understood and worked out by the judicial decision. In Committee a general feeling was expressed that the matter should be left to the discretion of the judge. I considered that subsection (4) (d), to which I have tabled an amendment, was particularly dangerous and it also came under the baleful glance of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
In my opinion, what has been done by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is preferable. It is to remove the whole subsection and, in the exercise of discretion as to costs, leave the matter to the existing practice, which is firmly based on the interests of justice.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wish to voice my appreciation for the fact that my suggestion has been accepted. It is most satisfactory to find myself sitting next to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor once again. For reasons which I have explained many times and shall explain again, my only wish is that he had never left us.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure how to take the last compliment. I am particularly grateful that my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce also supports the amendment. I had in mind the point that he raised and realise that my proposal achieves that. I am grateful for his support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No. 31 has been pre-empted.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert —
(" (10A) No such statutory instrument shall be made unless a draft of the instrument has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is of the same type as that which we discussed in Committee and I need explain it no further. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Exchange of witness statements]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Evidence given in arbitrations on small claims]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Restrictions on appeals to Court of Appeal]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 13. leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 40. Noble Lords will see that the amendment provides that there should be no requirement to obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the case of judicial review proceedings.
Noble Lords may remember that during Committee I made a plea—unfortunately, it was not successful—that there should be no requirement to obtain leave in order to go to the Court of Appeal. The answer I received—and it was a respectable argument —was that often the Court of Appeal finds that it is dealing with frivolous and hopeless cases which stand no chance of success. Therefore, it is out of mercy to the litigant that the leave must be obtained.
That argument cannot possibly apply in the case of judicial review because in order to make one's case for judicial review one must first obtain leave. One comes before the court, which is most circumspect to ensure that no hopeless, silly or vexatious case ever gets further than the application for leave. On many occasions in your Lordships' House admiration has been expressed for the evolution of the remedy of judicial review. Some people have called it the "citizens' charter". Others have called it the "heralding of the liberty of the subject" because the Excecutive can be challenged if it moves in an improper, unreasonable way.
That is the remedy about which we are speaking. Bearing in mind that one must go through the whole gamut of obtaining leave—that is explaining one's case to the court—before one can obtain a hearing of judicial review, should it not be the right of the citizen to say, especially in regard to this precious remedy, "Judges are but human. They are not infallible by any manner of means. I want to have this matter tested. I have been given leave and, therefore, I have a reasonable case". Why should that citizen then be faced with a leave to appeal application? I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support this amendment. There are two reasons which I do not believe were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which I put forward in support of it. First, the Court of Appeal has played an important part in the evolution of the law relating to judicial appeal. Therefore, we should not be deprived of any opportunity of carrying on that good work.

161
The other point is a narrow one and relates to this Bill; namely, that the opportunities for judicial review will necessarily be rather frequent under the Bill. Therefore, as we are considering this matter in relation to that I believe that we should particularly welcome the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is a layman's reaction to what could flow from this. By and large the ordinary citizen who must tolerate the results of these decisions feels that there are occasions when a matter should be brought to an end. There is a feeling that it has been examined in detail, impartially and objectively, and that a judgment has been given but that if a way can be found of extending the matter further then it goes on and on. One sees many examples of that within the American system where sometimes cases continue for years. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of people accepting what is sound judgment.
While I do not pretend to argue the details behind this amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, or my noble friend Lord Renton, I feel that there is a risk that we are extending this to such a point that we are avoiding bringing something to an end which should be brought to an end and justice would still be done.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will withdraw this amendment, which I respectfully believe is wholly misconceived. Under the existing law the public law court, as we sometimes refer to the Crown Office list dealing with judicial review, is already subject, as has been mentioned, to the unique requirement that there must be leave before you can even begin the proceedings. It is also subject to another requirement which is almost unique; namely, that subject to extensions of time, the proceedings must be brought within three months of the complaint arising.
The reason for those two provisions were stated by Lord Diplock in O'Reilly v. Mackman when he said:
"The public interest in good administration requires that public authorities and third parties should not be kept in suspense as to the legal validity of a decision the authority has reached in purported exercise of decision-making powers for any longer period than is absolutely necessary in fairness to the person affected by the decision".
It is the third parties who are affected by the decision, more than the authorities, with which I am concerned. You challenge a local authority or a national authority decision, as can be done. There is a superficial attractiveness to the challenge and leave is given. Then everything is if not at a standstill at any rate in doubt in the public administration. When the matter has been looked into by the judge following the giving of leave, one hopes that he will reach a clear decision one way or the other. If he does not reach a clear conclusion there will be no obstacle to the matter going to the Court of Appeal.
However, he reaches a conclusion knowing far more about the matter than was the position when leave was given, probably on an ex parte basis. That is the time at which the interests of third parties
162
once again have to be taken into consideration. The Court of Appeal and the judge should have an opportunity of saying, "There really is nothing further to look into and nothing further to be considered. It is no longer right that that decision should continue to be under a cloud".
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that it was terribly important that the Court of Appeal should be able to develop the law of judicial review. He will not expect me to disagree with him about that. Indeed, that is one of the more enjoyable activities in the Court of Appeal. However, he seems to overlook the fact that if the rules committee so desires, the most that it can do is to say to the Court of Appeal, "Nobody shall come to you unless you want them to come to you". Therefore, I do not believe that development will be in the least stultified and I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I made clear in Committee, the purpose of this clause is not to shut out people who have a case from the Court of Appeal, but in the interests of the court, in the interests of the administration of justice and also in the interests of litigants who have a hopeless case, the Court of Appeal should have the power to tell them that at an early stage. Accordingly, in my submission this amendment is not directed to securing justice but rather to doing harm to a general power which the rules committee should have on the lines of this clause.
I believe that your Lordships will accept the view that my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, as president of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, would be most unlikely to wish to do anything which would restrict the power of that court to develop that every important remedy of judicial review which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, very correctly said, has been carefully developed by the courts over the years.
One of those who took a great part in that development was Lord Diplock. One of the factors about the jurisdiction of the court is that it has been developed with due regard to all the interests affected by the exercise of it. The interests of third parties are extremely important in that connection, as the quotation made by my noble and learned friend shows.
I should have thought that on this amendment the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls were correct and that your Lordships should feel, while understanding perfectly that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wished to distinguish between judicial review and other cases, that the power to the rules committee should be a general power. It will no doubt have regard to special considerations in its decision under this power.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, on this point. My initial reaction was to be in favour of the amendment. However, when I look back at my experience of judical review, one often has leave from the original judge and finds that by the time one reaches the actual hearing circumstances have changed enormously because affidavits have been

163
filed and what seemed prima facie to be a very good case is often found to be a non-reviewable case. The clients in such cases are often local committees which are raising money to try to prevent the closure of a hospital or a school or something along those lines. They feel very strongly about the point and feel, often correctly, that the merits are entirely with them.
However, a point has to be established at which it is possible to say that there has been bad administration and so on. There must be a reviewable point. It is often terribly difficult to explain that although the original judge had given leave, you cannot advise that the case should continue. Therefore, the filtering effect referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is not really a safeguard. I believe that it is in the interests of justice generally that if litigants wish to proceed further on a difficult and non-reviewable case, they should seek leave and there should be a further filter in the Court of Appeal.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may give an example of when it is appropriate for leave to speak and leave to appeal should be heard. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, ought to take note since at Report stage the debate closes except for the mover of the amendment. Nevertheless, the House was pleased to hear the application for leave to appeal by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, even though it extended the length of the proceedings, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
I will not spend a lot of time on this amendment. The cause is a worthy one because this is such a special remedy. If I may say so, freedoms—and judicial review is a very precious one—are not embedded in the decisions of committees, even the sacrosanct committee which deals with rules of procedure. Freedoms are sacrosanct and, indeed, inscribed in our statutes and in our common law. I should have loved this freedom to appeal, without the need to ask for leave in the case of judicial review, to be embedded in statute even though the noble and learned Lord says that the things which I and other noble Lords have spoken about will be considered by the rules committee in due course.
I do not believe I have sufficient support in your Lordships' House to proceed further than to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 14, after ("such") insert ("class of).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 36 I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39.
These amendments do two things. First, they fulfil the undertaking which I gave in Committee to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the Court of Appeal may always be petitioned for leave to appeal even where that leave can also be granted by the court of first instance. I regard this as being of great importance. However well intentioned, the court of first instance may not on occasion be able to be
164
entirely disinterested in assessing its own decision, and it is right therefore that it should always be possible to seek leave from the Court of Appeal itself. This amendment assists in ensuring that Clause 7 is a measure not to restrict the right to have a case considered by the Court of Appeal, but simply a method of rendering the hearing more efficient by weeding out the obviously hopeless cases, both in the interests of the efficiency of justice for others and also in the interests of litigants who may be, however ill-advised, pursuing a hopeless case.
Secondly, the amendments effect a minor drafting change by referring to classes of cases rather than merely to cases. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 15, after first ("Court") insert ("not being a case where the liberty of the subject is concerned").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a very small amendment. It is holding on to a situation which has existed for many years; namely, that where the liberty of the subject is at issue leave to appeal is not required and the right to appeal is absent.
I do not wish to reiterate what was so movingly said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his reply on judicial review. This is an a fortiori situation. Of course, the filter system —which is what is now being imposed —of requiring the leave of the tribunal or the Court of Appeal is a desirable one, but it is often open to consideration as to whether it is a fallible one. Where it makes an error in relation to the liberty of the subject then it is a disastrous error.
Judicial time must of course be spared whenever possible, but the courts are there to serve the public. An attempt in this clause is successfully being made to make justice less available, which is apparently contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill. It is justified in a manner which was spoken to by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls on the last occasion and it has now been justified again. I do not think the justification is adequate where the liberty of the subject is concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment. I came into your Lordships' House specifically to do so. It is wholly right that the liberty of the subject should be safeguarded in this way. My hope is that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will take this one on board. I know that there is the argument that there is the rules committee, the Court of Appeal, the filter system and "We have no need to worry; everything will be all right". However, everything is not all right. Where the liberty of the subject is concerned it is not worth taking a risk.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, perhaps I may say that we certainly support this amendment and I need not add to the arguments advanced in its favour.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I appear to be the odd man out. I do not oppose this

165
amendment with any fervour, but I think it wants looking at. In the Court of Appeal we, the judges, attach the greatest possible importance to any appeal where the liberty of the subject is involved. For that reason there are standing instructions that they are to have almost absolute priority. By that I mean that if an appeal is entered this afternoon, the likelihood is that it will be heard at 10.30 tomorrow morning, even if other appeals have to be shifted to make that possible.
Against that background it might well be that the rules committee think that there is a special case and that leave to appeal should not be required. Certainly there is no administrative problem from our point of view because there are very few of these cases. Almost all of them relate to cases of contempt of court where sentences of imprisonment have been imposed by judges in the court below.
I bring to your Lordships' attention one point which would have to be taken into account by the rules committee if it were to contemplate refraining from making a rule requiring leave in these cases, and it is a point your Lordships should take into account. We are speaking here about the civil division of the Court of Appeal. Sitting next door, further up the corridor, is the criminal division of the Court of Appeal. If—perish the thought—any of your Lordships were sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment instead of three months or one month, which is what we are mostly concerned with, it would be found that there was no unfettered right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Leave of the judge would have to be obtained. It may be that the criminal fraternity would find it a little surprising that there was such consternation in your Lordships' House at the suggestion that there should be any imposition of a screen in the way of appealing against short sentences when they have to go through the hoop if they want to appeal against a long sentence.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may say with deep respect to the Master of the Rolls that I find it somewhat surprising to hear the comparison, or rather the similarity, argued between our civil courts with civil litigants and those who appear in our criminal courts. We are dealing with civil litigation where, for some reason, the liberty of the subject becomes involved. There ought to be, as we say in this amendment, automatic right of appeal where that liberty becomes involved in civil proceedings. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I only ask for the deletion of the words "a fortiori" when he compared his argument with mine.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the provisions that we are discussing will enable the rules committee to make the detailed rules. I should have thought that that was the right course to take.
The point made by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls of comparison between the civil division and the criminal division of the Court
166
of Appeal strikes me as absolutely compelling. I cannot see how one can compare a necessity for leave from the criminal division of the Court of Appeal where one may be subjected to anything up to life imprisonment, and necessity for leave in the civil division where, in the nature of things, the infringement of individual liberty is often very small by comparison.
Where leave is required in the criminal division the person applying has the right to apply to the full court for leave. That would be an aspect of the rules that could be made here, distinguishing the case of liberty of the subject from other cases. So it is perfectly possible within the framework of the powers that are being provided under the Bill to deal with the matter; but one must keep a proper relativity in these matters. What possible justification can there be for requiring as an absolute rule that the Court of Appeal should as of right be available to someone in a civil case where the liberty of the subject was at issue, when the other part of the Court of Appeal —not necessarily equal in terms of numbers—that is the criminal division, operates under a system where leave is required whatever the sentence and however long the sentence that is involved may be? Of course the same applies to every aspect of the matter.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said that the Court of Appeal is not infallible. All of us must accept that no human court is infallible but, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, there has to come a time for determination of such matters. I should have thought it right to leave this as a matter for the rules committee to deal with. Where the liberty of the subject is concerned they might perfectly appropriately think that the rule should be especial in some way; for example, on the lines that I have just indicated. But I do not believe it would be right to exclude altogether the power of the rules committee to make a rule requiring leave to be obtained where the liberty of the subject is concerned in a civil appeal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether, arising out of what he wisely said about the difference in general between civil and criminal cases, he would not consider that where habeas corpus is concerned some special rule might be feasible?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords., yes, that is precisely what I said. The rules committee may well think it right to make a special rule in that connection. All we are doing is giving the rules committee power to deal with this. I do not wish to elaborate the argument because I know we want to get on —and I am very much in favour of that —but the situation is that as we have seen already, and as my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls pointed out when this clause was discussed in Committee, if too much rigidity is imposed on the rules committee anomalies are apt to develop which cannot be put right unless there is further primary legislation. This is a matter essentially to be dealt with by rule. Accordingly, I would ask your Lordships not to accept the amendment. I hope that

167
my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I shall not press this to Division. However, I think that the analogy with the criminal situation is a false one. If it were not a false one, it is remarkable that this particular provision in an Act of Parliament has existed for so many years in one form or another. It is a false analogy for the following reason. When it is a question of sentences there are tariffs. It is not difficult to see whether a sentence is way outside the tariff or reasonably within it. When there is a point of law, however dud the point of law may seem, there is an absolute right of appeal in all criminal cases.
What I face inevitably, as one always does with this sort of situation, is the open and shut argument. I reject it in the same way as Mr. Justice Megarry did. I quoted him recently, but he is worth quoting again. He said, in the case of John v Rees in 1965:
"As anyone who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the Law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which somehow were not, of unanswerable charges which in the event were completely answered, of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained, of fixed and unalterable determinations that by discussions suffered change".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend withdrawing the amendment?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am withdrawing it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, no.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 133.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Addington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Airedale, L.

Cross, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

David, B.

Amherst, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Attlee, E.

Ennals, L.

Aylestone, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Beloff, L.

Ezra, L.

Birk, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Greenway, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Grey, E.

Byron, L.

Hacking, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Chorley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

168

Howie of Troon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hughes, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hunt, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Renton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lawrence, L.

Seear, B.

Leatherland, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shackleton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stedman, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Templeman, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Molloy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Norrie, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L

Williams of Elvel, L.

Parry, L.

Willis, L.

Peston, L.

Winstanley, L.

Phillips, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wrenbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Marylebone, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allerton, L.

Havers, L.

Alport, L.

Hayter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Annaly, L.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Auckland, L.

Holderness, L.

Balfour, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L

Bauer, L.

Hood, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Ironside, L.

Birdwood, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Joseph, L.

Blyth, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boardman, L.

Killearn, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kitchener, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Knollys, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Knutsford, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Caithness, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Lyell, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Asbbourne, L.

Manton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Melville, V.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mersey, V.

Elibank, L.

Middleton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Milverton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Erne, E.

Morris, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Foot, L.

Moyne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Newall, L.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Goodman, L.

Pender, L.

Goold, L.

Pennock, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

169

Platt of Writtle, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Polwarth, L.

Pym, L.

Strathspey, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Reay, L.

Suffield, L.

Renwick, L.

Swansea, L.

Rochdale, V.

Swinton, E.

Rodney, L.

Teviot, L.

Roskill, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trumpington, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Tryon, L.

Seebohm, L.

Ullswater, V.

Shannon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wynford, L.

Strange, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.35p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 8, line 16, after ("of) insert ("the Court of Appeal or"). Page 8, line 17, leave out ("case") and insert ("class").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 with Amendment No. 36. With your Lordships' leave I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 8, line 17, at end insert —
(" (4) In section 54 (4) of the Act of 1981 (cases in which court is duly constituted when consisting of two judges), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (a) —
" (aa) hearing and determining any application for leave to appeal; ".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in response to a suggestion made by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls in Committee, I agreed to consider whether it would be appropriate in certain circumstances to allow two judges to hear applications for leave to appeal. I agree that it will be helpful for judges faced with a particularly difficult decision to be able to sit with one other colleague; at present they have to choose between sitting as a full court of three or hearing the application alone. I therefore commend the amendment, which would permit two judges to hear applications for leave.
That does not mean that two judges only can hear applications for leave; it means that the choice is left open to the rules committee of allowing one or two judges or the full court. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. I question whether there was a slip of the tongue when there was a mention of the rules committee. Is this not a primary power?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, indeed it is, but the whole clause is governed by the powers of the rules committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.)
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of Court of Appeal to award damages
7A.—(1) In this section "case" means any case where the Court of Appeal has power to order a new trial on the ground that damages awarded by a jury are excessive or inadequate.
(2) Rules of court may provide for the Court of Appeal in such classes of case as may be specified in the rules, to have power, in place of ordering a new trial, to substitute for the sum awarded by the jury such sum as appears to the court to be proper.
(3) This section is not to be read as prejudicing in any way any other power to make rules of court.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment adds a new clause which enables the Supreme Court Rules Committee to extend the powers exercisable by the Court of Appeal when the court allows appeals against awards of damages made by juries. In cases where the court has power to order a new trial, on the ground that the jury award was excessive or inadequate, the court may be empowered to substitute its own award, which it cannot now do unless all the parties agree.
The problem caused to litigants by the Court of Appeal not having power to revise the amount of damages which should be paid has been recognised for many years. It was recognised by the Porter Committee on the law of defamation, whose report was presented to Parliament as long ago as 1948, and by the Faulks Committee on defamation whose report was presented in 1975. Both those committees recommended an extension of the powers of the Court of Appeal.
The amendment would allow the Supreme Court Rules Committee, to make new rules providing for the Court of Appeal to have that further power when it is setting aside an award made by a jury. It will be for that committee to decide in which class or classes of case the court should have that power.
The clause has been drafted so that the power could be made exercisable, not only in defamation actions, but also in other classes of case. The great majority of civil cases which are heard with a jury are those in which libel or slander has been alleged. In most defamation cases a party has a statutory right to have the action tried with a jury. The statutory right applies also to some other kinds of actions; in particular, those involving claims of malicious prosecution or false imprisonment. The court also has a discretion, not often exercised, to order trial by jury in any other kind of action. The amendment will enable the rules committee to decide in which of those cases the power should be exercisable.
The power is a useful addition to the powers available to the Court of Appeal. I do not believe that I can be accused of coming forward with the amendment too soon, seeing that it was first suggested in 1948. That suggestion was reinforced in 1975. Both those committees suggested a rather wider formulation than this rule. It is within the recommendation but it does not go quite so far. On the other hand, it may be wise to allow the juries to fix damages in the first place. The difficulty of the previous formulations was to see on what grounds it would be right to allow the Court of Appeal to

171
interfere in a jury's verdict. That is not being touched by the amendment. It deals only with the consequences of the Court of Appeal coming to that conclusion. I believe that it is a useful although not a major change in the law. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 43, Amendment No. 44:
Line 9, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 43. Amendment No. 44 is part of the series to remove unnecessary words from the statute book—indeed in this case, as in a clause which we have just passed, in my respectful submission, absurd words. Presumably my noble and learned friend does not agree. I know that he does not agree in respect of the earlier case.
Noble Lords will probably think that it is not an issue which can be profitably pursued on the Floor of the House and decided by a majority. My noble and learned friend has been good enough to say that he will discuss all these matters with me between Report and Third Reading, when we hope that there will be an opportunity. In those circumstances, I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 44 to the amendment not moved.]
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the whole of the legal profession has read with considerable interest a recent press statement that came from the noble and learned Lord's department in regard to a recommendation that the Court of Appeal, in regard to defamation damages, should have the right and power to review, as against ordering a new trial, unless the parties consented to the jurisdiction. I can only tell the noble and learned Lord that among those practitioners with whom I have mixed his statement has been welcomed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is a wise and timely initiative on the part of my noble and learned friend. I gladly support it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful for the way in which Amendment No. 43 has been received. The press statement was based on an answer given in this House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Representation in small claims and certain other cases]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 19, leave out ("at any time direct") and insert ("by order provide").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 45 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 51 to 53, and 55. In response to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee, I agreed to consider the use of a statutory instrument in Clause 8 rather than directions. Directions were the method available under previous legislation. Having done so, I can
172
say that I have no objection to such a course if your Lordships consider it appropriate. I am therefore bringing forward these amendments to convert Clause 8 from a power to make directions into a power to make orders. I believe that it may also give if some additional flexibility. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, once more I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 21, after ("proceedings") insert ("in a county court").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 46 I shall speak to Amendment No. 49. There was some confusion in Committee whether Clause 8 could apply to proceedings other than those in county courts of the kind specified in subsection (2). If there is any ambiguity here I wish to remove it. My intention is that the power given in Clause 8 should be restricted to specified proceedings in the county courts. These amendments are designed to make that clear. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, indeed, this need for clarification was made clear at Committee. The noble and learned Lord has been gracious in seeing that that is the situation. We are grateful to him for the clarification now in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 49:
Page 8, line 22, leave out ("direction") and insert ("order").
Page 8, line 23, leave out ("give a direction") and insert ("make an order").
Page 8, line 24, leave out ("in county courts").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 with Amendment No. 45, and Amendment No. 49 with Amendment No. 46. With your Lordships' leave, I propose to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 8, line 26, at end insert—
(" (aa) for the enforcement of any judgment or order of any court or the recovery of any sum due under any such judgment or order;
(ab) on any application under the Consumer Credit Act 1974; ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I undertook in Committee to consider further the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, to add to the categories of cases listed in Clause 8 (2) —that is, those where there may be no restriction on rights of audience in the county courts. Having done so, I am in agreement with him that it would be appropriate for the powers to remove the restriction on rights of audience to extend to enforcement proceedings and matters arising under the Consumer Credit Act. These categories will include proceedings of the minor and domestic nature in which Recommendation 48 of the Civil Justice Review intended members of the public to

173
have complete freedom in their choice of representative. I also agree that they would not be covered by the existing list in subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we believe that this is a completely correct amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 53:
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("a direction is given") and insert ("an order is made").
Page 8, line 39, leave out ("direction") and insert ("order").
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("a direction") and insert ("an order").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 with Amendment No. 45. With your Lordships' leave I propose to put them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 8, line 45, at end insert —
("5A) Before making any order under this section the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Senior Presiding Judge.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed this clause in Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner suggested that it might be appropriate for the Senior Presiding Judge to be consulted before any direction under the clause was made. This clause is concerned with removing all restrictions on rights of audience for certain specified proceedings in the county courts. My noble and learned friend pointed out—and I cannot do better than quote his words—that the Senior Presiding Judge is the conduit pipe for consultation here, as he is the person who has at his finger tips the respective knowledge from the circuits. I entirely agree that it is wise to recognise the importance of consulting the Senior Presiding Judge in the statute and that is what the amendment does.
I should make it clear that I always had the intention that he should be consulted, but I think that it is right in the circumstances of this clause that that should be put in. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 9, line 3, leave out subsection (7).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Penalty for failure to warn that hearing will not be attended]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 9, line 21, at end insert —
(" (4A) Before deciding whether or not to impose any such penalty, the court shall consider the extent to which (if any) the person concerned will, or is likely to —

(a) suffer any financial loss (by way of a reduction of costs or otherwise); or

(b) be subject to any disciplinary action, as a result of his failure.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed Clause 9 in Committee, I made it clear that I regarded the power in Clause 9 to impose a penalty where a party to proceedings fails to give any warning that a hearing will not be attended as being an important measure in implementing court control. The Civil Justice Review suggested that this was necessary if civil cases were to proceed at a reasonable rate. But I also emphasised that while I regarded this as a proper power for the courts to have, I intended that it should be used very sparingly.
Many of your Lordships raised points on this clause in the debate. I have in mind in particular the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in support of his amendment. My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, my noble friend Lord Coleraine, and others, also contributed to the debate. In the light of the arguments put forward I am persuaded that it is appropriate to clarify the inter-relation between this clause and orders for costs and professional disciplinary action.
Neither an order for costs to compensate a party which turned up in anticipation of a hearing, nor disciplinary action by the professional body of which the legal representative is a member, will always be satisfactory alternatives to a penalty under Clause 9. However, there may be occasions when the question of compensating public funds does not arise. Therefore, I think that it is right to put at the forefront of Clause 9 the considerations mentioned in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend said, this matter was discussed in Committee. I opposed the inclusion of this clause, with some support from the Benches opposite, on the grounds that it is really for the court to organise its business and to ascertain whether people will attend. It is really quite inappropriate to erect a heavy-handed structure of administration of fines, hearings, enforcements and so on in a civil case.
However, had I realised that I would be able to attend here today I think that I would still have proposed the elimination of this clause. It will save some 30 lines in the statute book. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord has offered a crumb of comfort by way of Amendment No. 56 and a still smaller crumb by way of Amendment No. 57. Therefore, as I have not tabled an amendment, I think that it would right for me to accept his crumb without feeling at all comforted by it. However, I do so reluctantly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am instructed that the Law Society regards this as a crust of comfort rather than a crumb.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I should like to reinforce what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said. I should certainly have liked to see this clause removed from the Bill. However, I am sorry to say that I feel I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the views expressed by the Law Society, as I regard this concession as a crumb. But, nevertheless, a crumb is better than no bread.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must gratefully accept the views which have been expressed. I therefore hope that your Lordships will agree to the insertion of this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 9, line 22, leave out subsection (5).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which gives effect to a powerful speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He referred to this as a particularly heinous clause. Having reconsidered the matter, I propose that the clause be deleted. I hope therefore that your Lordships will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Administration orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 10, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert —
(" (2) Where an order restricting enforcement is made, no creditor specified in the order shall have any remedy against the person or property of the debtor in respect of any debt so specified, without the leave of the court.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is purely a drafting change aimed at improving subsection (2) of the new Section 112A of the County Courts Act 1984 and making its intention clearer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 59:
Page 10, line 38, after ("satisfied") insert ("that").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 60 and 62. They are very obvious amendments, but unless my noble and learned friend indicates that he is prepared to accept them without question, it would be better, and consistent with what I have done thus far, if I were not to move them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I should say that I would be most happy to discuss the matter with him as part of the general discussion and to put the points he raised to parliamentary counsel for advice. Therefore it would be consistent if my noble and learned friend did not move the amendments.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("but") and insert ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 to 68. The amendments effect a change of form rather than of substance. They provide for the incorporation of composition provisions—whereby the total debt made the subject
176
of court administration is reduced—into administration orders, rather than being, as presently drafted, an alternative form of order. It is intended to make clear that this provision will operate in entirely the same way as administration orders do at present. The statutory reference is important in order to emphasise the existing power to reduce the total debt contained in Section 112 (6) of the County Courts Act 1984. That follows the recommendation of the Civil Justice Review at paragraph 645. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 68:
Page 10, line 41, leave out ("a composition order") and insert ("the addition of a composition provision").
Page 10, line 43, leave out from ("make") to end of line 44 and insert ("an administration order subject to such a provision.").
Page 11, line 2, leave out from ("force") to end of line 3.
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("make a composition") and insert ("add a composition provision to that").
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("order") and insert ("provision").
Page 11, line 16, leave out ("order") and insert ("provision.
(5) Where a composition provision is added to an administration order after the order is made, section 113 (a) shall apply as if the addition of the composition provision amounted to the making of a new administration order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 61. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I propose to move these amendments together. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 11 [Assessors]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 69: Page 11, line 40, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the subject of this amendment is an old favourite. However, there will be later opportunities to discuss the matter. Therefore, under those circumstances, I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Goods which may be seized in execution]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 12, line 1, after ("12.") insert —
("—(1) In section 138 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (effect of writs of execution against goods), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3) —
" (3A) Every sheriff or officer executing any writ of execution issued from the High Court against the goods of any person may by virtue of it seize any of that person's goods except —

(a) such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to that person for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation;

(b) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of that person and his family."

(2) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in the course of public discussion on this Bill it has been suggested to me that while updating the lists of goods exempt from execution in the county courts we should do the same for the High Court. That seems to me to be desirable and it is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Promoting efficiency of courts
.—(1) In discharging his functions under the Courts Act 1971, the Lord Chancellor shall ensure that reasonable standards are set for the unified administrative courts service with a view to promoting efficiency and avoiding delays in the work of the Supreme Court and county courts.
(2) The standards referred to in subsection (1) are standards of performance and service including targets for the time within which any functions or duties will be discharged.
(3) The Lord Chancellor shall set the standards after consultation with the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar and such organisations representing the interests of consumers as he thinks fit.
(4) The Lord Chancellor shall lay an Annual Report before Parliament on the work of the court service which shall describe the standards which have been set, and the performance which has been achieved towards meeting them.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, amid the rush which has occurred so extraordinarily at Report stage—that is, as distinct from that which occurred in Committee—perhaps your Lordships will pause for a moment and consider what I believe to be a rather important amendment. However, that does not mean that I intend to make a long speech. But, nevertheless, I want your Lordships to appreciate what is intended by the amendment. It is raised against the background of the whole of the object of Part I of the Bill.
Those of us who approved the intention and general principle of the Bill, which is to speed up justice and make it more economical and accessible to all our citizens, regardless of their means, have been very concerned about this—and, that obviously includes the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and have realised that to legislate is one matter but to carry out practical provisions is another. Our concern is derived from our own knowledge—that is, those of us who practise the law in the courts of this realm —of the very sorry state which exists in many parts of the country in regard to the county courts.
Your Lordships will remember that Part I of the Bill achieves that very desirable principle by transferring to the county court jurisdiction which formerly belonged to the High Court. The hope is expressed —and, I underline the word "hope" —that the county courts, among other courts in our realm, will be able to deal efficiently and economically with a large burden of litigation which they previously did not have. Many of us were conscious of the Bill, now the Children Act, that was piloted through this House with such ability by the noble and learned Lord. That too cast upon the county courts very serious and important powers and jurisdictions.
So we come to the position where this Bill may shortly leave your Lordships' House. The concern has been expressed, "Will the county courts be able to do all this? Will the standards be maintained? Will there be a duty upon the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whoever he may be? Will there be a duty cast upon others who have to supply the money for all this to see to it that standards are maintained?" If this is not done, I say with every sense of responsibility to your Lordships, that we shall not have done our duty. We shall have passed a measure which does not stand a chance of achieving its high aims.
What does the amendment say? I ask for your Lordships' patience while I deal with the four separate paragraphs in the amendment. The first subsection says:
"the Lord Chancellor shall ensure that reasonable standards are set for the unified administrative courts service with a view to promoting efficiency and avoiding delays in the work of the Supreme Court and county courts".
I have mentioned the Supreme Court. I wish to take this opportunity of apologising to your Lordships for a remark that I made at the Committee stage in regard to the delays in the hearing of cases which were occurring in the High Court. I quoted a serious case in which I said that even though the action had just been set down, it was not possible to have a hearing date before the middle of 1992. That information had been given to me and I thought that it was completely reliable. The person who gave it to me had made a mistake. It was mid-1991, not mid-1992.
I have taken the opportunity to write to those who participated in the debate in which I made that remark, to put my error right. I thought it only proper, even though I have said, and I believe that your Lordships agree, that mid-1991 is not an acceptable date in the circumstances. Nevertheless, we are all interested in seeing that the statements which we make in the House are accurate and that nobody is misled by them. I take this opportunity to put the record right.
I turn to subsection (2):
"The standards referred to in subsection (1) are standards of performance and service including targets for the time within which any functions or duties will be discouraged".
That subsection is there to meet the criticism that might arise if one merely read general words in an amendment which dealt with standards. The question would arise, "What standards are you talking about? Define your standards. Then we shall know where you are and we shall know what to do when we either agree or disagree with the amendment". I have tried to meet that criticism in subsection (2):
The third subsection says:
"The Lord Chancellor shall set the standards after consultation —"
I should have thought that this could not be objectionable—
"with the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar and such organisations representing the interests of consumers as he thinks fit".
We have been emphasising throughout our debates that the legal profession has a duty to look after the

179
members of the public; the judges and the courts exist for the benefit of the public. It is the consumer, the client who has to be taken very much into account. That interest is protected under subsection (3).
We now come to subsection (4). I am sure that I echo the views of the representatives of the Bar, the Law Society, the Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Council. They attended on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, by invitation, only last week in order to discuss this and other clauses which have been mentioned. The noble and learned Lord could not have been more courteous and helpful. However, I believe that I am right in saying that he took the view that he was helping towards the objective of such an amendment by agreeing that there should be an annual report. He felt that that was a good idea. It would be made and then considered by Parliament. It was his view that that went far enough to meet the matters that are part and parcel of the amendment.
We are grateful for his agreement to the annual report provision. It was a separate amendment moved at Committee stage, and the noble and learned Lord was good enough to say that he would put it into the Bill. Indeed, he did so, as we noticed earlier in the proceedings today. The place where this provision ought to be inserted is where we put it in subsection (4), in my respectful submission. The amendment says:
"The Lord Chancellor shall lay an Annual Report before Parliament on the work of the court service which shall describe the standards which have been set, and the performance which has been achieved towards meeting them".
So we have the annual report in this context; we have a duty to maintain standards. If that is in the Bill, then we know that Part I is not just an ephemeral dream which has such worthy targets and objects, but which is not likely to be achieved unless the standards that we have mentioned in the amendment are maintained.
My last observation is that it may be asked, "Is this really necessary? Can you imagine that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, now sitting on the Woolsack, or any successor of his sitting on the Woolsack, would not have these standards well in mind?" We are all cognisant that even with the high position of the Lord Chancellor, when the queue assembles before the Treasury door it is not always the courts of justice and the administration of justice that are asked to take the first place in the queue. If there is a statutory duty, the Lord Chancellor, present and future, will have the right to say to the Treasury: "I hold this high position; I have this statutory duty in regard to the standards of the courts. I, or my predecessor, took a Bill through Parliament in many ways revolutionising the jurisdiction of various courts, in an effort to make justice more efficient and economical. I did it because I said to Parliament that standards would be achieved. But now I come to you with a statutory duty in regard to those standards. I claim if not to be the first in the queue —" this can be the remark to the Treasury—"at least to have a higher position
180
in the queue than I would otherwise have". I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I too was part of the delegation that the noble and learned Lord so courteously saw last week. I hope that he will judge that my intervention in support of this amendment shows no lack of gratitude for, first of all, his courtesy in having such a full discussion with us and, secondly, his willingness to table his Amendment No. 16.
What we are seeking to achieve is a mechanism under which the resource—that is, the number and quality of staff and other such matters —meets the needs of the court user. We are seeking more precisely a mechanism under which payments by the court user—that is to say the income of the court —are used not as money going off the Consolidated Fund but in order to fund the court's resources. Therefore, when the court needs more resources it can increase as necessary its fee income.
In considering resources we are not only concerned with clerical work and the processing of proceedings, important though that is, but we are also attempting to deal with the question of whether there are sufficient conference facilities for private consultations in the court complex and whether there are adequate services and facilities for the judges as regards the typing of judgments. We are also concerned with the availability of law reports and textbooks. We are even seeking to tackle the matter of whether the waiting rooms are clean and pleasant and whether there are sufficient telephone facilities.
In order to achieve all of that with the unhappy background that your Lordships are wholly familiar with we argue that more needs to be provided than the annual report proposed by the noble and learned Lord. That is why I support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in saying that the annual report does not deal with the statutory obligation which we wish to put in place to help the noble and learned Lord in his consultations with his colleagues. Our provision would enable him to tell his ministerial colleagues that he is under a statutory duty and that is the reason why he needs additional funds.
We believe that the other lacuna in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord is that there is no mechanism for a consultation process between the providers of the court services and the users of them. The users' committees in the High Court, the Commercial Court Committee and the Official Referees Court have been particularly successful in providing a contact point between the providers and the users of services to the public benefit. That is why I still hope that the noble and learned Lord can be persuaded that these amendments have been tabled to assist him. It would be helpful if he would consider these matters a little further.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this amendment deals with an important matter but it raises two separate or, it seems to me, separable issues. The first issue is the present state and condition of much of our legal system and particularly the state of the

181
county courts. Your Lordships will recall that at earlier stages of the Bill we heard dramatic, perhaps slightly overdramatic, accounts of the disorder, disrepair and general mess and muddle in which the county court system finds itself. Certainly if what was then said by some noble and learned Lords is borne out in fact it is a highly disturbing picture. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will take advantage of the opportunity which the discussion on this amendment gives him to say how he views the present condition particularly of the county courts and particularly with reference to the major proposal in the Bill for the transfer to them of further business and of their ability to cope with that further business if it is so transferred. I hope my noble and learned friend will be able to say something about that.
The second, different issue is the attempt to enshrine the standards that are sought in fairly strict statutory provisions. The noble Lord who has just resumed his seat openly admitted that one of the reasons for the amendment was the desire to ensure that some priority in public expenditure was given to the legal system by statute over other necessary provisions made by the state. I think that is a rather dangerous line to follow. It must be the case that when the finances of the year are looked at by those responsible in the Government they must have a considerable measure of freedom to decide which in the circumstances of that time are the most crying and important demands. There have, for example, been times in our history when it has been perfectly obvious that the calls of defence were far more important from the national point of view than any other. There have also been times when social security and the relief of poverty has seemed, at any rate to many of us, to have a priority claim.
The attempt therefore to entrench one form of government activity, however important, behind statutory defences and to give it in that way priority for all time over other claims on the national purse seems to me to be dangerous. Moreover, that goes beyond the normal way in which our system operates. It is obvious, particularly in the light of this important Bill being carried into law as I hope and believe it soon will be, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be answerable to this House and to public opinion for the effectiveness of the operation of the Bill and therefore for the capability of the legal system to implement it. He will have to answer questions from any of your Lordships on any day. He has a responsibility as a very senior Minister of the Crown to answer to Parliament for the working of the activities for which he holds responsibility. That seems to me the right way for your Lordships to secure that high standards are maintained. The erection of an elaborate statutory mechanism either designed to give an artificial priority to one area of public expenditure or to put the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in a different position to that of his colleagues in their responsibility to Parliament seems to me a mistake.
I therefore suggest to your Lordships that this amendment, with the exception of subsection (4), is one that should not be accepted. Subsection (4) taken
182
by itself seems a sensible provision and I see no reason why an annual report should not be made. If an annual report is made and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is responsible for that report and for answering questions about it, that very much diminishes the need for the previous three subsections of the amendment. I hope therefore that your Lordships will not accept the amendment as a whole although I hope that perhaps a kindly eye may be turned on subsection (4), perhaps at a later stage.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government must be assumed to give some priority to this matter by bringing forward Part I of the Bill at all as Part I is manifestly useless unless the Government are prepared to provide the resources necessary to bring it into effect. I am bound to say that I am not wholly enamoured of annual reports as a means of dealing with such matters. I have known it to happen often in the past that Ministers will confess and avoid by promising an annual report. However, if there is to be an annual report as my noble and learned friend has promised, I do not see why it should not be buttressed in some way by the kind of amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has proposed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, always puts his case with great cogency and it was cogently supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. However, I venture to deprecate the insertion of a statutory provision with the object of arming a Minister in the queue at the door of the Treasury, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so picturesquely put it, to elbow other departments out of the way. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made that point very well. There is always great competition for public funds. The Treasury tries to attain the right priorities. If there is a disagreement the matter goes to a Cabinet committee and, nowadays, if necessary to the committee that is known as the Star Chamber.
In my respectful submission it is quite wrong to insert a provision in a statute in order to arm a particular Minister to gain priority over other departments. Moreover, it would be self-defeating because other Bills will include the same provision for other departments' interests and we shall be back at the beginning, except for those unfortunate departments which do not have a Bill before Parliament.
Although I fully agree with the earlier part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I hope that my noble and learned friend will look with some disfavour on the attempt to arm him with statutory elbows to push other departments out of the way.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, following the contributions of the three noble Lords who have just addressed your Lordships' House, perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that when replying to various amendments in Committee which addressed the resource issue he was good enough to say:
"It is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility, dischargeable to Parliament, to obtain the necessary resources. I am engaged on

183
doing just that. I have made arrangements under which no change will be made without the necessary resources". — [Official Report, 16/1/90; col. 572.]
That was an encouraging assurance.
The noble and learned Lord was also good enough to say that he was entirely at one with the principle of certain of the amendments; namely, the necessity of arranging proper resources. However, he said that that aim should be achieved by accountability to Parliament. I understand that in bringing forward the concept of an annual report the noble and learned Lord intends that annual report to be the vehicle of accountability. Amendment No. 16, which has already been passed by your Lordships' House, read:
"The Lord Chancellor shall, within one year of the coming into force of the first order made under this section, and annually thereafter, prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report as to the business of the High Court and county courts".
I believe that it would assist the House if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in replying to the discussion, could indicate how he contemplates that his annual report will address the resource issue, which was the subject of so much concern expressed from so many parts of the House. For example, to what extent does he envisage that his annual report will deal with the issue of his making orders to hive down business to the county courts under Clause 1? Will it deal with the point that in making those orders he was satisfied that sufficient resources to offer a reasonable level of service to litigants were available at the time when the order came into effect? Will his report state what his grounds for that satisfaction were?
On the basis that he is resistant, on the grounds expressed by certain noble Lords, to a statutory duty being placed on him to set standards, will his report state what standards of performance he has set for the unified administrative court service so as to give consumers of legal services reasonable satisfaction from the services that they receive from the court? Will his report state to what extent he believes that those standards that he is bound to set in practice—although that may not be pursuant to a statutory duty —are being achieved in the context of the resources available?
I feel that if the noble and learned Lord is resistant to the amendment it would assist the House to know what meat he intends for his annual report.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the kind of annual report I have in mind is similar to the present report for the court service, which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, may have seen through the Bar Council's facility. I should be happy to make it available to any noble Lord who wants it.
I should like to say a few words in response to what has been said about the courts. I mentioned some of these points earlier today but perhaps it is as well to repeat them.
Last year certainly produced some difficulties for the courts, in the county court primarily because of the increase in the volume of work. In 1989 the Crown Court disposed of 101, 232 cases committed
184
to it for trial. In doing so it succeeded by the end of the last year in reducing the average waiting time for custody cases in London to a figure lower than that at any time during the last eight years. That is hardly the record of a court in serious difficulty. I should like to see the waiting times reduced even further. Those waiting times take account of the circumstances of particular cases. Many of the weeks of waiting are due to the state of a particular case or to the fact that a particular witness is unavailable. The court statistics that I am using are based on average waiting time.
In the county court in 1989 over 2 million summonses were issued and dispatched; 1–25 million warrants were dealt with and 180, 000 divorce petitions were issued. Perhaps even more important in the context of the discussions on this Bill, almost 50 trial centres have been established during the year with another 25 or so in the pipeline. Those are centres at which facilities for continuous trial are available. One of the difficulties in the past in the county courts was that if a case lasted for more than a day or did not finish at the end of a day it was difficult to continue it without a considerable interval elapsing. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham saw when the matter was considered, one of the important points was to produce facilities for continuous trial. We are now reaping the fruit of his work in that there are about 50 trial centres operating and there are another 25 or so in the pipeline.
It is important that trials take place in centres where more than one judge sits so that when cases are settled, as they often are, at the last minute there is another case available to put in their place. The more judges there are sitting and the more trials going on together the more likely it is that the statistical average will be attained on any one day. If there is only one, even if half the cases are settled, one day two cases will be dealt with if two have been put down for the day and the next day there will be none. Therefore the more courts there are together the better it is. That is why we have concentrated on trial centres.
As I said earlier —all noble Lords were not present at the time—it is an important fact that an increasing number of High Court cases have already been transferred to the county courts under Section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984. In 1987 just over 9, 000 cases were transferred. In 1988 the number had increased to over 12, 500 cases and in the first eight months of 1989 the figure was more than 10, 000 cases. Those are cases sent down by judges of the High Court considering the High Court list for trial in the county court. About 10 per cent. of those cases result in trials—around 1, 500 a year. The county courts are therefore already coping with many of the kinds of cases which would be allocated to them under the arrangements possible with the new powers in the Bill.
Moreover, a number of circuit judges are already sitting as deputy High Court judges under Section 9 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and, under the new arrangement, it is likely that that work will simply be transferred to them in the county courts. Those arrangements are being handled successfully, with

185
reasonable waiting times in the county courts. The number of cases which will transfer once the order under Clause 1 is made will depend on the levels of cases to be heard in the High Court and the county courts, but, using Civil Justice Review figures, I would not expect the number of trials to increase by more than about 1, 500.
In consequence of those actions taken by the judges in the High Court, the waiting times in the High Court have been significantly improved. The delay in obtaining a hearing time in the High Court has fallen from about 421 calendar days in November 1987 to about 375 calendar days at the beginning of 1989. The result is that the present position in respect of, for example, the Queen's Bench Division in London, is that cases which do not require a fixed date are being given hearing dates within about 10 weeks of being set down, while cases requiring fixed dates are being given hearing dates of between nine to 12 months. The position in many county court trial centres for county court cases, including transferred cases, is even better; for example, eight weeks in Newcastle and Nottingham; only three to four weeks in Sheffield; and between five and seven weeks at Westminster County Court, to which many High Court cases are sent.
Turning to the office work in the county courts, at the end of 1987 only about 55 per cent. of the main office work —for example, originating process and the production of orders of the court—was dealt with within five working days of receipt. That figure rose to about 80 per cent. in the first quarter of the present financial year.
Considerable additional resources have been devoted to the courts. For example, there were 353 circuit judges in post at the beginning of 1984–85. That figure rose to 393 at the beginning of 1987–88 and to 408 at the beginning of this financial year. I need hardly remind noble Lords that the Top Salaries Review Body suggested an improvement in the remuneration of county court circuit judges which the Government have indicated will be put into effect in stages. The number of days sat by circuit judges, recorders and assistant recorders in 1984 was nearly 95, 000. It rose to about 99, 500 in 1987 and to over 104, 000 in 1988.
Gross expenditure on the court service, excluding legal aid and the court building programme, rose from £145 million in 1984–85 to £210 million in 1987–88 and to an estimated £261 million in the current financial year. Those significant increases are ahead of the increase in public expenditure generally.
I mentioned earlier the computerised summons production centre which has already begun operations. In nine weeks the county courts will substantially reduce their involvement in the handling of suitors' cash. Those are significant changes of the kind which have not previously occurred and over the next 18 months will together produce the equivalent of over 350 additional staff. They will be additional to the further 350 staff whom I hope to be able to recruit in respect of existing commitments, and up to a further 100 or so in respect of the new initiatives.
186
The process of streamlining procedures and developing the use of centralised computer systems will continue. After years of unaltered procedures and work methods, major changes and improvements are taking place. Those changes form part of the wider tranche of reforms, many of which are contained in the Bill. As I have already said, it is my intention to phase the introduction of fresh work into the courts at a pace that the system will stand; they will not just happen in a haphazard way. For example, the jurisdictional changes in the Bill are not planned to be implemented until early 1991, by which time the county courts will have benefited from the considerable increase in resources to which I referred.
The performance of the courts depends on all those who serve the courts. The Law Society has adopted a helpful and positive approach to elimination of unnecessary duplication of effort at counters in the county courts, which sometimes happens if the document produced is not quite right the first time.
There are of course others involved in the court service. It is most important that I should say how much we owe to the judges at every level in the courts—in the Supreme Court and the circuit courts—for the way in which they conduct their business. The court service for which I am responsible is there in order to support the judges. The judges are responsible for giving the judgments which it is the courts' function to give. The administrative staff in the courts seek to support the judges at every level. It is my responsibility to do that to the best of my ability. I believe that, considering the difficulties, what I have said indicates that that duty is being performed reasonably.
I am certainly not complacent. There is always room for improvement. In our interesting discussion to which the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hacking, referred, many proposals of a practical kind were made which I shall follow up. I should mention one of those proposals; namely, that the representatives of the General Council of the Bar pointed out that, if one places too much emphasis on routine work, one might find difficulty in giving the necessary priority to a hearing which is taking place. Too rigid emphasis on administrative standards, as the amendment perhaps contemplates, might therefore not be the best way forward in every case. Co-operation at local level between court users and the courts is important. It is being developed where it does not exist and is extremely useful where it does exist, and that will continue.
Noble Lords have accepted my amendment requiring the Lord Chancellor to report annually on the court service. As I said, that will contain the kind of information—a fairly full report on the court service —which we presently prepare. It will be more widely distributed as a result of the amendment. I shall consider with alacrity any details on the presentation of the report which any noble Lords or any of the organisations with an interest in the courts suggest to me.

187
In giving statistics about the court service, one must remember that the needs of litigants and the circumstances of litigants and witnesses must be taken into account. Statistics do not always discriminate between, for example, delays due to the parties and their convenience on the one hand and those due to the court's inability to provide facilities at a particular time.
I believe that my amendment, which noble Lords have accepted, is the proper way forward in this matter. For the reasons that have already been advanced, it would not be appropriate for me to agree to accept the first three subsections of Amendment No. 71. Subsection (4) is rendered unnecessary by the amendment which I have already proposed. I hope that, in the light of those explanations, noble Lords will feel that we should not give effect to the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who moved the amendment so eloquently, may feel that the purpose for which he brought it forward has been achieved and that he may be able to take credit in the future for even better service from the courts than that to which he has been accustomed in the past.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is hard to resist those gracious words. I believe that the noble and learned Lord knew how hard it would be to resist them when he uttered them.
The amendment was designed to help. It was designed to carry out the principle of Part I of the Bill to which we all adhere. If noble Lords take it for granted, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that our courts' administration has the proper priority with the Treasury and that all is well with the Treasury when one goes for the funds that are necessary to make our courts and our court procedures respectable —I put it no higher than that—I must point out that that has not been the experience of many who have contributed to our debates.
Your Lordships may remember the account given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, of a state of affairs where, because there was not sufficient money to pay for a hotel bill, a case had to be dealt with in a way that none of us would have wanted. I know that it is the responsibility of the Home Office and not of the noble and learned Lord, but do noble Lords know —and the noble and learned Lord is talking about a complete change of affairs presumably by 1991 —the state of affairs that exists in 1990? Do they know the state of our magistrates' courts throughout the kingdom, with no proper toilets and arrangements which are literally a disgrace?
Did noble Lords read the Written Answer to a Question which was addressed to the noble and learned Lord about how correspondence was dealt with in some of our county courts? I know that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying so, but I thought that it was a somewhat proud reply to say that correspondence was dealt with in the county courts in respect of which the Question was asked on an average within seven weeks of receipt
188
of letters. We are in 1990, and the average time it takes to reply to correspondence is seven weeks! If we conducted our own practices and businesses in that way I do not believe that any of us would have left any clients or customers. That is the situation.
It is not very easy for me to give way on an amendment which would have ensured that proper standards in regard to our administration of justice, especially with these reforms, have to be observed and the Government of the country must know that that is a duty. I regard respect for justice as possibly the basic foundation for the life that we are privileged to have in this country. If it cannot be given even respectability, let alone efficiency and economy, it is not a very happy situation in which to pass reforms, as we are doing in Part I of this Bill.
However, the noble and learned Lord has spoken. He thinks that it will be sufficient to rely upon the matters about which he has been good enough to tell us, by way of the resources that he has managed to secure. The noble and learned Lord hopes —I believe in one year—to obtain a type of official, in the county courts for example, who will be able to carry out such work. I tell him very solemnly that at the present moment such people are not there. He knows that they are not there. He knows about the competition from the outside world. The legal profession competes for those officials and does it on an unfair basis, which I admit completely.
If the report is to be the substitute for an amendment which gives a statutory duty, so be it. I hope that in those last gracious words the noble and learned Lord will have been a prophet and that in 1991 he will be able to issue a report that will make this amendment seem unnecessary. In those circumstances, and with that hope, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Investigations by Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5 of and paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, the discharge of all or any functions or duties of any kind whatsoever by officers and other staff appointed under section 27 of the Courts Act 1971 shall be subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when this amendment was called in Committee it was past 11 p.m. and the noble and learned Lord, in responding to my short statement, said that he would kindly use his persuasion through the usual channels to try to ensure that on the next occasion that this amendment was brought forward it would be taken at a time when there was greater attendance in the Chamber. I therefore wish to start my current submissions by thanking the noble and learned Lord for his persuasion through the usual channels. I say that in front of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Perhaps I may call upon his kind services again to obtain an excellent attendance in your Lordships' House for such important matters.
When the noble and learned Lord addressed the Committee he said that he would use his best endeavours to bring forward at Report stage an amendment to deal with the problem that my amendment addresses. Thus far it appears that the noble and learned Lord has not brought forward his own amendment. Therefore in moving this amendment my primary purpose is to ask him whether he will kindly give a progress report on his proposed amendment.
It may be of assistance to noble Lords to know something of the background to this amendment. There have been a large number of complaints —some 30 or more —received by the Law Society from solicitors giving instances of where their clients have suffered financially and otherwise because of errors made by the county court staff. Those errors most frequently related to listing but also included such matters as a mislaid file, the court closed, no judge or registrar available, the defendant not served and a third party notice issued in error.
In most cases an application for compensation has been made to either the Lord Chancellor's Department or the local circuit administrator. The standard response explains that the matter complained about is the responsibility of the judiciary rather than the Lord Chancellor's Department or its officials and that the Lord Chancellor is only prepared to consider claims for compensation where loss is sustained through any negligence of court officials in matters for which he is reponsible.
I submit that this is untenable. The aggrieved client is invariably left without any remedy at any time and usually the money is wasted. In my submission, complaints of maladministration by court officials should be subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. I appreciate the difficulty exercising the mind of the noble and learned Lord; namely, the dividing line between the judicial and the administrative exercise of function. I appreciate that difficulty. That is why the prime purpose of my amendment is to ask the noble and learned Lord for a progress report upon his amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to suggest that I had achieved for him what he wanted in the way of timing. I think that there may well have been factors other than my persuasion involved. Circumstances beyond my control may have contributed to the apt timing of this amendment.
I said in Committee that I hoped to bring forward an amendment at Report stage to deal with this matter. As has been mentioned, there has been a wide area for discussion affecting this matter for some considerable time. It has not been found easy over the years to solve the problem. However, I have endeavoured to do so and have been working at the preparation of an amendment on the lines that I indicated in Committee.
It appears to me that such an amendment would come more fittingly into the closing parts of the Bill rather than at this stage because it is not just related
190
to this particular type of provision. Therefore there may well be an opportunity for an amendment to be brought forward timeously so that it may be considered on the last day of the Report stage, which I understand is likely to be a week on Thursday. I believe that the progress that we have made is sufficient to enable me to hope that I shall still be able to bring forward the amendment before the Report stage is completed and at a time which will enable noble Lords to consider it properly as part of the concluding stages on Report.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his progress report. In particular, I was pleased to hear that he still has hope of bringing this matter before us at Report. We have had to consider a great number of matters at fairly short notice. We understand the difficulties in which he found himself but it is a matter that I believe your Lordships will want to consider as soon as possible. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [The statutory objective and the general principle]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 73:
Page 12, line 35, at end insert ("and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing by providing that persons other than barristers shall have a right of audience and that persons other than solicitors shall have the right to conduct litigation, in relation to matters in respect of which such persons are specifically qualified.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 73 relates to legal services associated with trademark matters. With the leave of the House, I should like to refer to three other amendments relating to trademark matters, Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 95. In view of the helpful observations made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when I moved Amendment No. 17 earlier today in regard to the proposal for a trademarks county court, and having regard to a letter which I received from the noble and learned Lord relating to the advisory committee, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 73 at this stage, nor will I be speaking to Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 95 at a later stage. I shall reserve the right to raise these matters at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.)
Lord Alexander of Weedon Lord Alexander of Weedon moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. The substantive amendment is, as your Lordships will instantly appreciate, Amendment No. 75. Equally, as your Lordships will also appreciate, the purpose of the amendment is to establish within the Bill one simple ethical principle which we suggest is fundamental if we are to secure that everybody has proper access to advocacy services. The principle is that those who

191
gain extended rights of audience should accept the obligation to argue cases without regard to the popularity or unpopularity of a cause and that they should not decline to accept a case because payment is to be made by the legal aid fund rather than out of a more ample private purse. Those proposing the amendment, as noble Lords will see, come from all parties in the House and from the Cross-Benches.
Many noble Lords will recollect that we debated this issue in general terms in Committee and that the proposal we then put forward received widespread support from almost all those who spoke at that stage. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor acknowledged that the basic rule we suggested was important but he expressed concern that the amendment we then presented would not leave sufficient scope for the machinery of the advisory committee to shape the details of the rule and to make appropriate exceptions. We have sought to meet this concern by the form of amendment we now put forward which is in different form and seeks to give clear scope for any appropriate flexibility. I hope your Lordships will consider it proper that we should debate this issue again in order to decide whether we have successfully met the Government's reservations.
Why is the principle important? More than two centuries ago the great advocate, Sir Thomas Erskine, established the duty of an advocate not to discriminate between the causes he accepted according to his personal or public sympathies. Since then the rule has been accepted by those who have practised as advocates in the higher courts both in England and in Scotland. Indeed my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when commenting on the position in Scotland when he gave evidence to the Scottish Royal Commission some years ago, said:
"This obligation is an important constitutional guarantee from the point of view of a citizen's freedom of access to the courts. As an advocate he has to represent people even though he does not like their views and whether they have legal aid or not".
These cogent words are of general application and they have as much force in this country in the experience of many of us as they do in Scotland. It is precisely because the principle with which we are concerned is, as my noble and learned friend described it, a constitutional guarantee that it ought to be recognised in legislation.
It is also a principle that has been recognised by this House sitting in its judicial capacity. In the Appellate Committee in 1969 the Law Lords considered the nature of the duty of advocates and recognised that a barrister has for centuries been bound to accept a brief. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, said in his judgment:
"It is easier, pleasanter and more advantageous professionally for barristers to advise, represent or defend those who are decent and reasonable and likely to succeed in their action or their defence than those who are unpleasant, unreasonable, disreputable and have an apparently hopeless case. Yet it would be tragic if our legal system came to provide no reputable defenders, representatives or advisers for the latter, and that would be the inevitable result of allowing barristers to pick and choose their clients".
He agreed with Erskine that it would cause irreparable injury to justice if advocates could pick and choose.
I do not need to labour examples of the kind of cause which may from time to time be unpopular. I think of treason trials and trials for a particularly repellant murder or brutal rape. In all such cases it has rightly been considered that the advocate's personal view of the merits of a case or of the defendant should not deter him or her from acting. This is not a matter of mere gallantry or generosity by barristers. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, said in our earlier debate:
"The rule is not one which is accepted by the Bar in its own interests. Indeed, no barrister derives, or has ever derived, any advantage from it. It is imposed in the interests of justice and is part of the price—and this is most important—that the Bar has paid for its monopoly of rights of audience in the superior courts."—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1197.]
It is in other words a corollary of that monopoly to which solicitors are, rightly in certain circumstances, as we have accepted, being granted admission. There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, said in our earlier debate, a public expectation that a man who is going to court must have access to the best advocate available. The public expectation should be placed on the face of the Bill. That is all we seek to achieve.
Perhaps I may try to allay any anxiety, which I hear has been expressed on behalf of some within the Law Society, that this clause is directed against solicitors. There are some of us who during the course of the proceedings on the Bill have consistently recognised that there should be extended rights of audience. We have also sought to ensure that the strength of the solicitors' profession is not diminished by changes in the law with regard to conveyancing. It is in the same spirit that our proposal now transcends professional sectional interests and is meant as a bulwark for the citizen. It was for this reason that I was very glad, although it was not more than I expected, that our proposal last time was supported in the Division Lobby by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He as an experienced advocate as well as a solicitor who has briefed other experienced advocates recognised that those who seek the privilege of extended rights of audience should accept the wider obligation to serve the public.
Nor can we take it for granted that in the absence of legislation the principle will necessarily be accepted by all. I have read only recently that two leading London legal aid firms have refused to take the case of a man accused of raping his girlfriend. These are firms of standing which unlike many other firms are prepared to accept the burden of legal aid work. But nevertheless they reserve the right to express a general unwillingness to act for defendants in rape cases. That is their right in regard to the preparation of cases. But if this approach were extended to advocacy, is it not easy to see the danger for those accused of a crime and yet not found guilty in securing proper representation? This episode highlights why we should enshrine the rule as part of our law.
It was perhaps not surprising, given the importance of the obligation, that it was so widely supported on the last occasion when it was before your Lordships. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House why the Government were unable to accept it and indicate the way we seek to meet their objection. Our earlier proposal would have made the rule in effect an absolute rule. This led my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to say in response:
"I take the view that it would be very desirable to impose some form of cab rank rule on anyone who has rights of audience in superior courts … However, the rule will need to be specified in considerable detail".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1207]
My noble and learned friend went on to say that the circumstances of solicitors might require a different rule from those applying to barristers. He indicated that we might safely leave the matter to detailed consideration by the machinery which the Bill establishes. I hope that I have fairly summarised the objections put forward on the last occasion.
Noble Lords will see from the present form of amendment that we seek to take full account of the Government's reasons for declining to accept the earlier amendment. The present provision achieves that in two ways. First, it provides that there may be any appropriate exceptions which ought to be made to the general rule. Secondly, it indicates that the rule should not apply in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to require the advocate to have regard to it. We suggest that that strikes the appropriate balance and removes the concerns expressed by the Government. It includes on the face of the Bill a principle which for centuries everyone has considered to be of high importance. It enables those involved in extending rights of audience to operate that in a way which accords good sense and proper public expectation.
In the Bill we in this House are committed to extending rights of audience where that should properly take place. Many details of standards and qualifications must be worked out. It is no exaggeration to say that the way ahead is fraught with difficulty and certainly uncertainty. Is it not important that at such a time we should make unequivocally clear the fact that there are some basic ethical rules, rights and obligations which are not fragile and not open to doubt and which we as a House positively reassert? I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, from these Benches I support the amendment, not for any partisan reason as a member of the Bar but because I believe it to be of great value to the consumer and of major constitutional importance.
When the amendment was moved in Committee on 25th January noble Lords on these Benches supported it. I should like to express briefly my reasons for supporting the amendment. First, there is the consumer. The consumer values highly the quality of his representation in court. Nothing will persuade him that the quality of his representation does not affect whether he wins or loses.
194
A duty on practising advocates to accept instructions from anyone within their field of practice enhances access to justice. It means that advocates cannot pick and choose between the difficult and easy cases; the likely winner and the likely loser; the popular case and the unpopular case. Therefore, when the cab rank rule applies the consumer can have greater confidence that his access to justice is real and not second class. The point is that the consumer has access to the advocates whom he regards as best and whom informed advice tells him are best. He does not have to rest content with the assignment of the lawyer by a professional body as he might if the advocates of his choice were not bound by a cab rank rule. Secondly, consumer confidence is enhanced by knowing that the cab rank rule applies equally to legal aid cases.
Thirdly, there is the constitutional point. It is of constitutional importance that no advocate should be entitled to say, "I will not represent you because I am hostile to your case"; or, "I am hostile to the kind of person I believe you to be". It is the duty of the advocate to appear for the Yorkshire Ripper or any other defendant against whom there may be a hostile climate of public opinion. In civil cases it is also his duty to appear not only for a particular interest group with which he might prefer to identify but for every interest group; for plaintiffs or insurers in personal injury cases; for employers or trade unions in labour law cases; for the citizen or the state in judicial review cases. The advocate is not entitled to don the mantle of the judge or jury and refuse instructions because of his belief as to the likely outcome. Nor is he entitled to say no to a client becuase he may abhor his political or other beliefs.
I believe those principles to be important for the effective protection of the rights of the subject under the law. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, there is a great deal of common ground between those on both sides of the debate. Those who may not support the amendment are, nevertheless, fully sympathetic to the principle which lies behind it. All noble Lords will agree that it is right that there should be a competent advocate able to represent any citizen regardless of the issue. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will agree that, as far as possible, advocates, whether solicitors practising in the higher courts or members of the Bar, should work according to the same rules and that there should be a level playing field.
Perhaps it is worth noting as a side issue that the amendment and the whole of the debate relates to rights of audience in a superior court. Rights of audience in the lower courts are not affected. It is also worth recalling that the Bar's cab rank rule has applied to all courts during all the years to which my noble friend Lord Alexander referred. However, it has not applied at any stage to solicitors, who are the main practitioners in the lower courts. I know of no complaint that clients requiring representation in the lower courts have been unable to obtain it.
It is worth inquiring into the cab rank rule. There is a tendency for some people to believe that it

195
is entirely comprehensive and that automatically a member of the Bar of the client's choice will be available. The rules which have recently been published by the Bar Council, and which come into effect at the end of March, rightly contain proper restrictions on the operation of the cab rank rule. I make no criticims of that. They state that a practising barrister must not accept any brief or instructions if he lacks, for example, experience or competence or if, having regard to other professional commitments, he does not have adequate time and is unable to prepare that which is required of him.
As regards availability and fees, provisions are laid down in paragraph 502. It states that a barrister in independent practice is not obliged to accept a brief or instructions requiring him to do anything other than during the course of his ordinary working year; that is, during the legal terms. Solicitors are not in the happy position of having such an abbreviated working period.
Rule 502 also provides that a barrister is not requried to accept a brief other than at a fee which is proper having regard to the complexity, length and difficulty of the case and to his ability, experience and seniority. Those are all absolutely right and proper and I make no criticism of them. However, the matter should be put to the House so that there is an understanding that the cab rank rule is not as comprehensive as some noble Lords may have assumed. I have gleaned that not from speeches made by my noble friend or by the noble Lord opposite but from what I have read about the cab rank rule in the press.
The rules are not particularly onerous; they are perfectly reasonable. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask the question: why should they not apply to solicitors who are given the right to practice advocacy in the higher courts? The first objection is the form in which solicitors practise; that it, in a partnership. That was accepted by the Bar Council in its response to the Green Paper which originally raised the issue. In its response the Bar Council stated that practice in partnership is incompatible with the cab rank rule. I shall not go into the reasons why that should be so but there are many of them. I am sure, for reasons which I shall come to in a moment, that that should be something for consideration at a later stage in a different forum.
The National Consumer Council opposes this amendment. I am somewhat surprised that in talking about the consumer cause noble Lords opposite have not recognised the objections put forward by the National Consumer Council to it. There is one essential difference between the position of a member of the Bar and a practising solicitor. The lay client goes directly from the street to the solicitor. The lay client does not have access to a member of the Bar. He can only be referred to a member of the Bar through the solicitor. Therefore, the lay client is screened before he gets to the Bar. The instructions come from the solicitor to the barrister, those instructions having been accepted by the solicitor.
There is no requirement in this amendment or elsewhere that a solicitor must be bound to accept
196
instructions. However, a solicitor who is not authorised to practise in the higher courts can—and no doubt most will —continue to receive instructions from clients and will pass on those clients with a brief to a member of the Bar for the advocacy required. Therefore, I believe that that is a major difference between the position of a solicitor in practice whose clients come off the street and the position of a member of the Bar to whom cases or clients will only be referred through a brief delivered by a solicitor.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon referred quite rightly to a case which received some publicity recently where a firm of solicitors announced that it would not take instructions from defendants in rape cases. I should have thought that even under the cab rank rule to which I have just referred it would be open to a member of the Bar and indeed a solicitor in authorised practice to say that there are certain cases in which they do not claim to have expertise or do not wish, because they do not have the competence to deal with the case efficiently, to take on a certain class of case. I believe that that would be a reasonable exception which would probably come within my noble friend's amendment.
However, as far as I am aware and as far as the Law Society has told me it is aware, there has never been a case for which it has not been possible to find a competent solicitor to take instructions, who would no doubt be able to provide the advocacy if necessary and if that were authorised. I understand that the Law Society accepts the responsibility of ensuring that there is always a suitable solicitor provided if required by the client or indeed by the court because there have been such cases.
I suggest that it is best to leave the matter there. If it is necessary to place a statutory duty upon the Law Society to accept that obligation, that is something which my noble and learned friend may wish to consider. However, in all the years in which the Law Society has been in operation I am assured that there has never been a case for which a suitable solicitor cannot be provided if required.
This is essentially a matter which should be kept under review by the advisory committee in the years ahead. Circumstances may change. As time goes by I believe that it would be right for the advisory committee to see how the matter develops and what are the problems of solicitors and partnerships and so on. For that reason I hope that my noble friend will not press this amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as someone from outside the legal profession, I am much concerned that the ordinary person seeking representation should have the best possible opportunity of doing so. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that if the existence of partnerships is an obstacle to the operation of the cab rank rule, perhaps it is the partnership and not the cab rank rule which is at fault.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, while supporting this amendment unreservedly, I seek to

197
deal with some of the anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lord Boardman. This amendment is limited in scope to the superior courts. Those courts do not include, for example, the magistrates' court, as I understand it. I am relieved to hear that the amendment does include the Crown Court. If that is so, then the examples of criminal cases given by my noble friend Lord Alexander are of course entirely correct.
One of the reasons that I support this amendment is that it affords fair terms of competition in the new regime as between all those who have rights of audience. Surely that must be the proper approach to a competitive regime; namely, that everybody should compete on more or less fair terms.
It is in the interests of the consumer, in the interests of justice and, as has been said, a public expectation that the standards should be maintained. My noble friend Lord Boardman seemed to be concerned about the position of accepting instructions. I have always understood the cab rank rule to be not exclusively—and it has never been codified —but primarily concerned with the request: "Will you take my case and fight it?" In other words, it is concerned with advocacy and not so much an advisory role or whether one is instructed for this or that. Although that has never been codified, that is my personal understanding of the cab rank rule from my experience at the Bar.
If that is right, then the anxieties of my noble friend are with respect, to some degree misplaced. I suppose a solicitor can say, "I do not want to accept instructions to prepare a will", I suppose he can say that if he has no expertise to prepare a will. Surely that is covered by the very careful drafting of my noble friend Lord Alexander:
"in the circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to require him to do so."
If somebody presented me with a tax case, I should refuse to conduct that. I am wholly incompetent to do that because I have never conducted a tax case, and I hope that I never shall. However, within that broad remit of it being unreasonable to do so, surely we can satisfy the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Boardman and accept the broad principle as an important principle primarily in the interests of the consumer.
Baroness Phillips: my Lords, I am interested in what my noble friend on the Front Bench and other noble Lords have said in suggesting that this is in the interests of the consumer. Your Lordships will know that that is my particular interest. I have been approached by consumers organisations and they do not seem to think that this provision will help the consumer.
The Bar's cab rank rule may be appropriate for barristers because that is a referral profession. That is the point which we must take on board. No one can have access to a barrister without first briefing a solicitor. I understand from my friends at the citizens' advice bureaux that when a client seeks legal representation and telephone calls are made, for some strange reason the first inquiry is whether the client is legally aided. If a cab rank rule is
198
operated why should that question be asked? It should be assumed automatically that the case will be taken.
Solicitors are not in a referral profession. Clients go to them directly off the street. I ask why the Bar wants this provision in legislation. Perhaps I am unduly suspicious. It is only in their rules at present. Do they wish to force this provision on to solicitors, for whom it would be very inappropriate, in order to make unworkable solicitors' rights of audience?
The only point of substance for the public is that those who have a monopoly of rights of audience or the right to undertake litigation should ensure that no one is denied access to justice as a result. One must exercise great care when saying that this is in the interests of the consumer. So far the consumer does not seem convinced that it is.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as another possible consumer I would not venture to be as categorical as the noble Baroness, but I should like to ask for some explanation. Let us take the current situation of someone who is possibly involved in litigation and who goes to a solicitor. The solicitor tells him that he requires a barrister to be his advocate in court. The barrister is then bound by the cab rank rule, however interpreted or modified. The proposed amendment does not, as far as I can read it though I am not a lawyer, impose a duty on a solicitor to look into my case as a potential litigant. All it says is that if I insist that the solicitor himself acts as my advocate, he is entitled to refuse to do so.
The proposed amendment would remove that option. I would be able to go to a solicitor—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and say that I admire his golden voice and insist that he takes my case before a higher court. If the amendment is not passed, would I not still be in the current position—that is to say, that the solicitor I go to would be able to go to a barrister of his or my choice who would still be bound to act as advocate? It seems to me that one could argue that the profession of barrister might possibly gain by the absence of a cab rank rule for the solicitors' profession or for any other profession which is given the right of advocacy because barristers would be able to say 'You are not getting a reasonable deal from non-barristers, but here we are with our historic duty to support your interests by advocacy in a court".
I should very much like to have this process explained. Does the proposal mean that every solicitor has to accept a case which might seem to him rebarbative in some way or does it refer only to solicitors exercising a right of audience—in which case, what is lacking in the continued presence of an independent Bar bound by the cab rank rule?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, by direct reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in the last debate. He said at the outset:
"As an individual Member of this Committee what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said is completely acceptable as a principle; namely, that if a solicitor advocate, presumably wearing his wig and gown, stands by the side of his barrister colleague similarly attired, as a principle they should be bound by precisely the same rules of conduct". — [Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1194.]

199
What the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, seems to have omitted to appreciate is that no solicitor is obliged to apply for rights of audience beyond those he has at present, but if he seeks to have those rights of audience then he should follow the philosophy so admirably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, who has been quoted, said this, which was not quoted:
"We should not have merely the Bar's internal arrangements. Secondly, the amendment would cut the ground from under the feet of any barristers who felt that they were in some way going to be at a disadvantage in the handling of cases in the courts compared with advocates drawn from other professions".—[Col. 1198.]
One also had the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who said:
"The cab rank rule seems to me so fundamentally sound and good that it would be wrong if there were not exactly the same rules for solicitors who advocated as advocates" —
that is what I stress—
"as those that apply for any other kind of advocate, especially the Bar advocates".
He added, and I stress:
"If we depart from that principle, we shall produce two classes of advocates, one of which can pick and choose, and one of which cannot. That cannot be right for either justice or equity".—[Col. 1204.]
He was of course referring to the higher courts. That led irresistibly to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor saying:
"I take the view that it would be very desirable to impose some form of the cab rank rule on anyone who has rights of audience in superior courts, for the reasons indicated by my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. However, the rule will need to be specified in considerable detail".—[Col. 1207.]
There was the unanimity and, as far as I can see, the absence of any real problem. The solicitor can stay as he is now, enjoying the rights of audience he has now with none of the restrictions of the cab rank rule round his neck. However, if he aspires to do the same work as the Bar at present has the monopoly to do, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says, they should stand shoulder to shoulder.
The other matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, which seemed to me to be wholly fallacious, was the proposition that the examples cited, which were in the newspaper, relating to two well-known firms of solicitors specialising in criminal work were somehow a permissible omission from the cab rank rule if it bound them. It was exactly the opposite.
Here are two firms of solicitors specialising in crime, specialising in cases as serious as rape, and both firms saying, "We act only for the prosecution because if we did not we would offend our clients"—organisations mainly of ladies who are, as we all are for that matter, fiercely opposed to the crime of rape. Because of the harm it would do to their practice, and for no other reason —not for any lack of expertise on the subject of rape; you do not get specialists in the knowledge of how to defend or how to prosecute that particular crime —they opted not to act for defendants. They are entirely permitted
200
to do so, but no barrister would be entirely permitted to do so; on the contrary.
I hope that that has answered the points raised. The matter was put very shortly by Lord Reid in the same case in the House of Lords, just to show that there is total harmony on both sides of the Border. He said:
"It has long been recognised that no counsel is entitled to refuse to act in a sphere in which he practises, and on being tendered a proper fee, for any person however unpopular or even offensive he or his opinions may be, and it is essential that that duty must continue: justice cannot be done and certainly cannot be seen to be done otherwise".
Throughout that case—one or two other noble and learned Lords apologising for repeating—was the reference, which has been referred to though not in terms, to what Lord Erskine said in his justification for the unpopular defence of Tom Paine. It is right that the words should be before the Committee. He said:
"From the moment that any advocate can be permitted to say that he will or will not stand between the Crown and the subject arraigned in the court where he daily sits to practise, from that moment the liberties of England are at an end".
That is why this is a point of great constitutional importance, and when we come to my noble and learned friend's amendments to Clause 17 (which will need, certainly in subsection (b), a little explanation), if it is right to lay down principles of that character for the guidance of the advisory committee then —if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will forgive the phrase again—a fortiori this is such a case.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate. I was not present in the Chamber at the time when a similar amendment by my noble friend Lord Alexander was debated. Hence, when the Division was called I proceeded—albeit uneasily, but nevertheless obediently—into the Government lobby. I have since had the advantage of reading the discussion which took place at that time, and I have also had the advantage of listening to your Lordships today. I conclude that beyond any doubt the balance of the argument is with the amendment so eloquently moved by my noble friend.
There are two quotations which weigh with me, the first from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver:
"The cab rank rule is the reverse side of the coin of monopoly".—[Official Report, 25/1/90, col. 1197.]
That is the first argument which seems to me to be summed up with admirable brevity in one sentence.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, used the following words:
"As I understand it, within the limits of human endeavour, the object of justice is twofold: first, to be fair, secondly, to be consistent. It follows from that that everybody engaged in carrying out the various tasks of justice must operate under the same ethical rules, the same rules of conduct and the same disciplines". —[Col. 1203.]
I put this briefly and carefully: I yield to no one in my respect for the way in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has piloted this

201
Bill through your Lordships' House, but at the end of the debate at Committee stage he said:
"I take the view that it would be very desirable to impose some form of the cab rank rule on anyone who has rights of audience in superior courts".—[Col. 1207.]
I was encouraged to read that, but then my noble and learned friend went on to say that the fact that the rule was elaborate, the fact that it was lengthy and the fact that there were many provisos, were fatal flaws in the argument for the amendment. If those were fatal flaws in the argument, then much of the legislation which goes pouring through your Lordships' House would have been carried through in some receptacle or other, but it would not have reached the statute book.
Finally, by what he said at the end of his speech on that occasion, my noble and learned friend gave me the impression that we should be content to leave this important matter to the advisory machinery which was going to be set up. I am bound to say that in my view we do not suffer from any shortage of advice. Nor do we suffer from any shortage of organisations dreaming up further supplies of that commodity, and so far as I am concerned I do not look for them.
For the reasons that I have briefly stated and which have been so much better stated by others, on this occasion I shall repent and vote in a different way from that which I did previously, and I shall support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and like the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, I am sympathetic to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I can say that in the 13 years I have practised at the Bar and in the 13 years that I have subsequently practised as a solicitor, so far as I know I have never refused a client (I rarely did that anyway, I was always in need of them) in any circumstances which have breached the cab rank rule. I can tell your Lordships that I have appeared in relation to some pretty unpopular causes on both sides of the legal profession.
It is important to put the amendment in its proper context. It is not an amendment which goes to the conduct of advocacy in the court; nor is it an amendment that goes to the conduct of litigation in or out of the court. It goes no less and no more to the circumstances in which an advocate should accept or reject instructions to appear in court. As such, so far as my side of the profession is concerned, it goes to the structure of that profession. This is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, seized upon.
Therefore, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, this is not an amendment which has anything to do with advocates appearing in court under different rules or less shoulder-to-shoulder. To take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, far from promoting competition it could result in putting solicitors into a position where because their professional rules may not be able to comply with the cab rank rule—I put it no higher than "may" —they are not offering services or are unable to offer services which otherwise they would be willing and able to do. In
202
that sense this amendment is restrictive of their competition.
It is also not an amendment concerning whether the Bar should operate the cab rank rule for all the meritorious reasons that have been put forward. The question before your Lordships is whether that cab rank rule should be imposed upon others, including, I assume, lawyers from the European Community who seek to exercise rights of audience under the higher diploma and legal services directives.
I have no difficulty in stating that the circumstances in which solicitors receive instructions are different fom those in which members of the Bar receive instructions. I concede that it is difficult for us to apply the cab rank rule, not simply because we are in partnership but because we offer wider services to our clients, such as providing financial references. The new and ever-searching audit requirements that are placed upon us in turn put us in a position of fiduciary relationship with third parties which could work only on a basis of trust between us and our clients.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I believe that it is right to remind the noble Lord—it could shorten the matter—that the amendment refers to rights of audience.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, indeed. If the noble Lord had allowed me to finish the sentence he would have heard me say that if that trust does not exist it would be proper for members of my side of the profession to refuse to act, even as an advocate, in litigation. I therefore find the position of the Bar somewhat puzzling.
Being less bold than the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I do not suggest that in tabling the amendment, the Bar has been motivated to protect its rights of audience in the High Court. Such words do not fall from my lips. However, why is it necessary to impose that rule on others? Why cannot members of the Bar turn that rule to their advantage? Why cannot they say to members of the public, "We have this rule; it benefits you; it places us in a position of particular integrity; it enables us truly to say that we have experience in advocacy on all sides of the process of litigation, whether it is for plaintiffs or defendants, landlords or tenants, criminals or police, or husbands or wives"?
I have every confidence that the Bar will survive and prosper. I see the wish of the Bar to spread the cab rank rule outside its own ranks as something that does not run to its advantage. For the reasons that I have advanced, it runs to its disadvantage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned my name. Perhaps I may ask him, does he seriously suggest that advocates conducting advocacy—having rights of audience—should compete on unequal terms?
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am not suggesting that. I thought that I put that point most plainly in my submission to the House.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, it has always seemed to me that the justification for the cab rank rule is that it is a guarantee of the advocate's integrity. It governs the court's reception of his role. Judges and juries are used to the role of the advocate in the highest spheres and they know that he operates against the background of the cab rank rule. It affects his performance in many ways. He knows that the judge and jury do not identify him with his client's case or the views that he is expressing on behalf of his client.
I was always brought up to believe that the advocate's duty was to represent his client's interests as the client would had he the advocate's skill, experience and knowledge. The cab rank rule applies to the advocate in his role as advocate only. I believe, and I share the views expressed by Erskine two centuries ago, that it is one of the great guarantees of liberty in this country. I know that it is the guarantee of the advocate's integrity.
Perhaps I may be allowed to be anecdotal for a moment. The cab rank rule is more embarrassing to the political barrister than to anyone else. When I had been a silk for about four or five years, I was retained to defend in the Moors murder case. The announcement was made just before the general election. I did not know the case existed until a reporter asked me about it. Some of my political opponents—not the candidates—could not resist using that fact against me in the election campaign. I had to explain in detail on the platform the nature of the cab rank rule and the duty involved. It was not the first time that the rule had effected me. I was always a circuiteer. I had to prosecute the Welsh language conspiracy case. I was hanged in effigy outside the court every day as I went out. I see someone suggesting the perhaps it should have been done properly.
The existence of the rule guaranteed the integrity that I hoped I brought to my performances. I have always believed that in a system of justice that depends upon the adversarial role of the advocates, where the adversaries clash and the judge and the jury have to discriminate between them to decide who is right, it is a tremendous support for them to know that the advocates' profession is based upon the cab rank rule.
In my 40 years' experience on my circuit, I have never known a member of the Bar not to accept the cab rank rule. I have known that people have not done so once or twice in London. In recent years especially I have heard young advocates say that they do not want to prosecute and will not prosecute, and yet they are criminal practitioners. I have heard people who, although they conduct criminal defences, have said that they will never defend an alleged rapist. I have even heard silks say that they will not do a legal aid case. All that is wrong, and I was glad today to hear that the Bar Council reiterates the cab rank rule.
We are concerned about the quality of British justice. We are not having the reform because people have pinpointed a great evil or fault in the system. We have heard praise for the legal system from all sides of the House. It is meet that we ask ourselves:
204
how does that reputation come about? What has brought it about? Among other things, the cab rank rule has contributed to it.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I speak with trepidation, but your Lordships must recollect the point of extending rights of audience. It is that people should have a greater choice of advocate. I understand the high ideals of the Bar. I understand my noble friend Lord Alexander referring to the cab rank rule as a simple ethical principle. I see how barristers identify with the rule with regard to their integrity and how that integrity helps the court. I understand all that; but there is a practical point.
In opinion polls the public have expressed the view that they would like to have solicitor advocates. They would like to have a wider choice. The Bill tries to provide the framework for that system to operate. Given the nature of the cab rank rule, and all that we have heard about it, it seems to me that it would conflict with what the people who want recourse to the law want from their solicitors. Not every solicitor will be a solicitor advocate. They will do other work. They will be solicitor advocates for part of the time, and at other times they will have days full of appointments with clients about many matters.
It will not be much fun for the clients if they receive a postcard saying that their solicitor will have to appear unexpectedly in court because of the cab rank rule. If the rule operates as it does for barristers, solicitors will not have to do that except during the law term. They will not have to do it if it seems to them that the fee is inadequate. That point will apply to barristers, and I am sure that it will also apply to solicitors. Nevertheless, if there is a cab rank rule, in reasonable circumstances within the law term they will have to go regardless of what their clients require of them in other respects. It seems to me that such a measure simply conflicts.
I can understand the feeling that in order to have the privilege of being a barrister and undertaking what a barrister does one submits to the cab rank rule, as it has been expressed, and therefore why should not solicitors also submit to it? But if it will not work for the public there is very little point. The present arrangement by which the Law Society ensures that there will be a suitable, appropriate solicitor to do a job is very much better than that which is proposed.
It is very easy to be carried away with the idealism of the profession of the barrister which I admire greatly and which benefits people enormously. The Labour Front Bench is taking the opposite view from that taken by its colleagues in Scotland. I am not sure why that is. However, our Scottish system is different; perhaps that explains it. But barristers on both sides of the Border have such idealism. I admire it. It should continue. I find no fault with the cab rank rule. But do not let us spoil the Bill for the public by imposing such a rule on solicitors.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I had not intended to say a word in this debate. I shall say only about two, and those are in consequence of what has fallen from my noble friend who has just spoken.
Let me make two or three points. The noble Baroness seemed to think that the cab rank rule would be adverse to the interest of the lay client. I wonder what she thinks the lay client would say if the person she wanted to act as an advocate, being a solicitor, said to her, "I am not going to appear for you because the man on the other side is a most valuable client of mine". That is not an imaginary circumstance.
Let me refer noble Lords to one historical incident. Lord Brougham, defending Queen Caroline, had to act adverse to his sovereign the King. That is what he was doing. He was punished for it for years by the King, who deprived him of his silk gown for doing so. The cab rank rule is a protection to the advocate because it is a protection to the public.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that the advocate of whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke seemed to receive a great deal of advertisement out of acting for the Queen at that time! I do not suggest that that is the reason he accepted the brief.
1 rise only because of a remark that was made by the noble Baroness about the attitude of this front Bench. Perhaps I may make it perfectly clear that there is nothing political in the amendment. I know of no Conservative Party, Labour Party or Liberal Democrat Party view. In this debate, which is very important, one speaks as a matter of individual conscience and as one sees the matter in perspective. I do not know, frankly, whether or not it would be better for this to be dealt with by the advisory board, or whether it should be put into a statute.
I wish to say only this, and briefly. Being a proud member of a profession which has on occasions been most unfortunately divided in the course of discussions on the White Papers and Green Papers, and Part II of the Bill, in a way which has not enhanced that profession in the eyes of the public, I believe that a principle is involved, whether it be considered by an advisory body or by this House. It is that if one asks for a privilege which is equal to the privilege granted to others in the past, one accepts the burdens that have been borne by those who had that privilege in the past, and one accepts those burdens proudly.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the speeches of those opposing this matter seem to have failed to take into account the revised words of the amendment as now proposed. The amendment expressly states the principle that the advocate practising in a superior court is under a duty to act except in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to require him to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said that solicitors are in a different position because they are in partnership. The rules will be able to cover that. If one of the partners is acting for the other side, it will almost certainly be thought that it would not be reasonable to require him to act against his partner.
206
If, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, suggests, there are rules of the Law Society which prevent the cab rank rule as applies to the Bar being applied absolutely, the rules for the cab rank rule as applied to a solicitor advocate will be appropriately adapted to cover that. If, as suggested by the noble Baroness. Lady Carnegy of Lour, there is a solicitor in a small practice who practises partly as a solicitor and as a solicitor advocate who is asked to undertake a three-week case as an advocate which will mean abandoning all his present obligations to his other clients, obviously that will be a valid excuse for not undertaking that case.
The measure does not require one to drop all one's other obligations to clients and to rush off to do something at five seconds' notice. It has always been a reason for not accepting a brief that one has existing commitments which are incompatible because one cannot be in two places at once. The two places do not have to be, with regard to a solicitor, two courts. One may be sitting behind a desk dealing with matters that have to be dealt with by the end of the week.
Those are the only objections that are being put forward and they can all be dealt with in the rules. The only other suggestion that is put forward is that in some way consumers do not think that it is in their interests. But we have never had explained why the consumers do not think that it is in their interests. Cogent reasons have been advanced as to why it is. I give way.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I raise one other matter of important objection. It is that lay clients of solicitors come to them off the street. Clients of members of the Bar are referred to them by firms of solicitors. There is a complete contrast in the circumstances in which the customers come.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, insofar as the solicitor will undertake conventional solicitor work, his freedom to pick and choose is not being affected. It is only the question of whether he or some other partner in his firm, or some other partner in some other firm of solicitors, will undertake the advocacy. Therefore the question of coming off the street has nothing to do with advocacy. Those circumstances relate to the preparatory work, not to the brief.
7 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, as my name is to the amendment, I wish to speak for only two minutes, and to bring the matter back to its basic, total simplicity. What is the cab rank rule? The cab rank rule is that a person should have the advocate of his choice, whatever his case may be. It is the simplest possible rule. There is no question of barristers against solicitors, or against anybody else. The amendment is stating that anybody who wishes from now on to be an advocate must surely obey that rule. It is the basic rule of advocacy.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble and learned Lord that during the debate on the Scottish Bill the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble and learned

207
Lord, Lord Emslie, who is the most distinguished lawyer in Scotland, both expressed their concern about this under the new legislation. They both asked what would happen to the cab rank rule in Scotland.
I have one last point to make. It concerns an aspect mentioned by the noble and learned Lord in Committee, and the noble Baroness also referred to it today. If solicitors can practise in the magistrates' courts without the cab rank rule, why can they not do so in the superior courts? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, made special reference to the matter in the Scottish debate on 30th January at col. 184 of Hansard. He said:
"It would be a mistake to assume that there is no material difference between the standard of pleading in the sheriff courts and that in the Court of Session and the High Court. Experience of a lifetime in the law of Scotland at all levels, including the sheriff court, has convinced me that the difference is real and striking".
He continued thereafter to elaborate the differences. However, the difference is total. It is in advocacy in the higher courts, dealing with all the pressures in criminal courts, where it is really of crucial importance because liberty of the subject is the essence of the matter. It is in serious crime where the cab rank rule is absolutely essential. The fact that solicitors do not obey it in the magistrates' court adds nothing to the point.
I should point out to your Lordships that the cab rank rule is, as has already been said, the very basis of advocacy in this country. Where the liberty of the subject is at issue, the cab rank rule underlines the fair and proper administration of justice and is the very basis of this Bill, which is access to justice for all.
This is the one amendment put forward during the passage of the Bill which puts legal aid to the front. Moreover, it is the one amendment which has been put forward with the intention of helping the most disadvantaged in our society.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I am in a somewhat privileged situation because I happen to receive briefing material from the Bar and from the Law Society. The first briefing I do not read and the second one I read not as thoroughly as I should. However, it is the view of solicitors that amendments such as these seem at first sight to be attractive. It is argued that the cab rank rule ensures that all advocates in the higher courts are subject to the same rules and thus it provides a level playing field. But it is also argued that it ensures that legally-aided litigants are properly represented.
However, on more careful analysis it is clear that the rule is not necessary to ensure proper representation. Further, to apply it to the solicitor's profession would put undesirable restrictions on the form in which solicitors could practise if they wished to exercise rights of audience.
We have heard a good deal about standards being maintained, especially from those Members of this House who are members of the Bar. We have also heard about the pressures which attend upon those who undertake highly responsible court appearances.
208
I practised as a solicitor in private practice for 36 years. Moreover, I expect that I am the only lawyer in this Chamber who was asked to prosecute a case of mutiny in the armed forces during the war. I knew how to behave. I did not ask that the maximum penalty should be exacted. I undertook a fair amount of mitigation because I saw this as being in the line of duty. The net result was that several of those members of the armed forces received 10 years' imprisonment. Of course, it might have been far worse for them. I think I can say that I handled myself fairly well.
I am also possibly the only lawyer in this House who advised on a charge of treason. However, that matter is by the way and is past history. I do not believe that anyone ought to talk seriously about the maintenance of standards in an argument where matters such as these are being debated.
In short, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Boardman on the basis that someone may be forgiven—indeed, an impartial observer may be forgiven—for suspecting and fearing that the cumulative effect of such an amendment may be to frustrate the general aim of the Bill. That is something which I think solicitors may reasonably fear.
The Bar need never fear for its future interests. Its future interests are safe in the competent and capable hands of those members of the Bar who have spoken during the proceedings on the Bill. However, it is not the interests of the Bar or those of solicitors which should occupy us; it is the interests of the consumer. Consumers made it plain in a Gallup poll conducted during March and April 1989 that they think solicitors should have the right to have more opportunities to represent clients. For those reasons I ask that this amendment should not pass.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I do not wish to keep the House for more than literally a minute or two. However, there is something I must say. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord said:
"I take the view that it would be very desirable to impose some form of cab rank rule on anyone who has rights of audience in the superior courts, for the reasons indicated by my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton".
I agree with him on that point.
He then went on to say:
"However, the rule will need to be specified in considerable detail". — [Official Report 25/1/90; col. 1207.]
Again, I agree with him. For that reason I and, I assume, the noble and learned Lord also, did not wish to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, on the last occasion. It seemed to me that it would be impossible to accept what was proposed and for the procedure in Schedule 4 to operate in such a way as to fine tune the rule when applied to the rules of a particular professional body.
However, the amendment put forward on this occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is of a different character. It upholds the great cab rank rule with which my noble and learned friend agreed wholeheartedly. Moreover, it gives sufficient flexibility for it to be applied in real-life

209
circumstances. after full discussion and consideration, because of the inclusion within its body of the words:
"in appropriate terms, and with any appropriate exceptions … except in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable".
Given that change in the form of the amendment, I hope that every one of your Lordships will support it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to begin by referring to the reference by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil to the concluding part of my speech in Committee. When I talked about the machinery I was not referring only to the advisory committee. He said that there is plenty of advice available and I suppose, therefore, that it is a question of distinguishing between what is good and what is bad. I was thinking of the full machinery, which includes consent to the rules by the four designated judges, the Heads of Division and the Lord Chancellor. I took the view that it was appropriate for the rules to be settled in that machinery. For that reason, I advised your Lordships—and I am glad that my noble friend took my advice on that occasion—not to support the amendment then proposed.
Some reference has been made to what I said in giving evidence to the Royal Commission on Legal Services in Scotland as long ago as 1977 or 1978. I stand by what I said then. This is an important rule, it is a rule which requires to be spelt out in considerable detail, as my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls has just said. It is a rule which I believe requires to be tailored to the particular circumstances. The rule which the Bar is proposing to adopt in this connection spells out these circumstances.
It is useful to say a little about that. The fundamental principles as applicable to all barristers arc set out in Rule 201, which I do not need to read. Rule 202 says:
"A barrister in independent practice must make his practice in England and Wales or in the Courts of the European Community his primary occupation and must hold himself out as being and must be willing at all times in return for the payment of fees to render legal services to the public generally in England and Wales.
"203. A barrister in independent practice must comply with the 'Cab-rank rule' and accordingly except only as otherwise provided in paragraphs 501 502 and 503 he must in any field in which he professes to practise and irrespective of whether his client is paying privately or is legally aided or otherwise publicly funded:

(a) accept any brief to appear before a court in which he professes to practise;

(b) accept any instructions;

(c) act for any person on whose behalf he is briefed or instructed;

and do so irrespective of … the party on whose behalf he is briefed or instructed … the nature of the case and … any belief or opinion which he may have formed as to the character reputation cause conduct guilt or innocence of that person".
There follow a considerable number of qualifications in Rule 501:
"A practising barrister must not accept any brief or instructions if to do so would cause him to be professionally
210
embarrassed and for this purpose a barrister will be professionally embarrassed:

(a) if he lacks sufficient experience or competence to handle the matter;

(b) if having regard to his other professional commitments he will be unable to do or will not have adequate time and opportunity to prepare that which he is required to do;

(c) if the brief or instructions seek to limit the ordinary authority or discretion of a barrister …

(d) if the matter is one in which he has reason to believe that he is likely to be a witness or in which whether by reason of any connection of his with the client or with the Court or a member of it or otherwise it will be difficult for him to maintain professional independence or the administration of justice might be or appear to be prejudiced;

(e) if there is or appears to be some conflict or a significant risk of some conflict either between the interests of the barrister and some other person or between the interests of any one or more of his clients;

(f) if the matter is one in which there is a risk of a breach of confidences entrusted to him by another client or where the knowledge which he possesses of the affairs of another client would given an undue advantage to the new client;

(g) if he is a barrister in independent practice in a privately funded matter if the brief or instructions are delivered by a solicitor or firm of solicitors in respect of whom—"

there has been a withdrawal of credit —
"unless the brief or instructions are accompanied by payment of an agreed fee …

(h) if he is a barrister in independent practice in a Direct Professional Access matter or an Overseas matter unless he has previously—"

given certain information. These are examples of the details which are spelt out in the code of conduct of which the Bar has just revised and which, quite shortly, I understand it expects to be its new code.
That indicates the nature of the rule. The rule has quite a large number of exceptions. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Alexander makes it quite plain that exceptions may be required. This is in accordance with what I said on the last occasion. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, did not start quite soon enough when reading out the amendment, because it provides:
"that body's rules of conduct include provisions embodying in appropriate terms, and with any appropriate exceptions, the principle that",
and so on. The exceptions are made from what is suggested as the principle. That demonstrates beyond all doubt that this is properly a matter for the rules. This is a rule. I think I am right in saying that it was so described in the quotation from my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton to which I particularly referred when I spoke at the Committee stage. I believe that it is a rule, one which requires to be laid down in considerable detail according to the particular circumstances.
We have a principle in the Bill which is universal, a universal principle to which there are no exceptions. I refer now to Clause 14 (1), and then particularly to subsection (3):
"As a general principle the question whether a person should be granted a right of audience, or be granted a right to conduct litigation in relation to any court or proceedings, should be determined only by reference to—

(a) whether he is qualified in accordance with the educational and training requirements appropriate to the court or proceedings;

211

(b) whether he is a member of a professional or other body which —

(i) has rules of conduct (however described) governing the conduct of its members;

(ii) has an effective mechanism for enforcing those rules of conduct; and

(iii) is likely to enforce them; and—" this is the important provision—

" (c) whether that body's rules of conduct are, in relation to the court or proceedings, appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice".
That is the principle. That is the test. If that test requires a particular rule for the Bar then that rule will be laid down. If that test requires a particular rule for solicitors in relation to rights of audience, that rule should be laid down. But, in my submission to your Lordships, it is very unwise to derogate from the universality of a principle by trying to suggest that there is another one which is subject to appropriate exceptions. That is necessary, I agree, but it demonstrates that this is not a principle but a rule. It is a rule which depends on the particular circumstances. The principle applied to the circumstances may well give rise to the rule. The general principle that I referred to applied to the circumstances may well give rise to the rule. But in other circumstances it may give rise to a rule differently expressed, as the amendment of my noble friend makes perfectly clear.
For reasons which have been explained and into which I shall not go, I think I am right in saying that the Law Society have expressed this. They have expressed the view that this amendment might be inimical to the interests of solicitors obtaining rights of audience. I do not wish to take a position upon that because as at least one of those designated who have the responsibility for approving the rules, together with my colleagues, I wish to reserve my final position until all the matters are fully discussed. However, I have fully expressed my personal view in the debate in Committee. I believe that a rule which comes under a general description, such as the cab rank rule, may well be appropriate. It may well be possible to express it in circumstances which would fit solicitors' practices. That is something I should like to take forward. However, I do not believe it would advance the interests of justice for your Lordships to include the provision that is proposed here, which is really a rule, alongside the clear, agreed, cogent statement of principle that we have in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon referred to two solicitors' firms which had indicated that they were not prepared to accept legal aid to defend people who were alleged to have raped their girlfriends. That is how I understand the case. That is a matter which I should certainly like to consider. However, this amendment would not deal with that case at all because it deals only with the rights of audience in the superior courts. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner appears to have some doubt about that but I believe it is plain that this amendment deals only with rights of audience in the superior courts. Therefore it would not affect the right of solicitors to conduct litigation. I believe that
212
was the matter at issue in the solicitors' statement when they said they would not act in the sense of conducting litigation on behalf of people accused of rape in the circumstances referred to. That is how I understood the matter. If I am wrong about that, no doubt I shall be corrected.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, if that is an invitation to speak I rise to it. The solicitors involved are not yet able to apply for rights of audience in the higher courts. That was merely an example of how, as the situation stands at the moment, solicitors pick and choose and how undesirable it would be if they were entitled to advocacy in the higher courts while they still maintained that philosophy.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is precisely what I had understood to be the position. I do not regard that situation as satisfactory at present. I do not believe that this amendment would deal with that situation because it deals only with rights of audience in the higher courts. It suggests that the rule is appropriate only in relation to rights of audience in the higher courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, referred to the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie on the Scottish matter. The context in which he made reference to that suggested that there were differences between the sheriff court and the higher courts. I think everyone would agree with that. However, if one takes the statements of principle which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner took from the Appellate Committee of this House in the case referred to, one can see that they are very general statements. To the Bar's credit it must be said that as I understand it, the Bar's rule at the present moment applies to the Bar in every court and not just in the superior courts. That is an important point. Justice is just as important in the magistrates' court as it is in the superior courts. If the provision is a fundamental rule for justice, it ought not to be restricted only to the superior courts. Surely we are in the business of providing justice at every level and not just in the superior courts.
The amendment makes it plain that it concerns the rights of audience in the superior courts. Therefore the rule it proposes is appropriate for those circumstances. However, I am saying that the general principle that we have here is a general principle of universal application to which there are no exceptions. I hope that we shall have the chance as the Bill develops, and as it is put into practice when it becomes law through the advisory committee and the designated judges, to see the rules of justice and the principle of the proper and efficient administration of justice apply in all courts at all levels. There should be a reference in the rules to the rules for conducting litigation as well as to the rules of rights of audience in the superior courts.
I entirely agree that this is an appropriate rule to consider as regards advocates in the superior courts. However, I say to your Lordships that the rules are the rules. The general principle dictates what the rules should be. Your Lordships would be well advised to leave that matter to the delicate but effective machinery which the Bill has provided and

213
on the general principles of which I believe your Lordships are now substantially agreed.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I thank most warmly all noble Lords who have taken part in or listened to the debate. I shall begin by referring to two points which my noble and learned friend made towards the end of his response. The first concerned those firms of solicitors which refuse to represent rapists. As I understand it, he regards that as something that may have to be looked at. The point I was making was that if and in so far as that attitude was extended to advocacy in the superior courts it would be undesirable. My noble and learned friend appears to accept that. He accepts that we need justice in all courts. Therefore I ask your Lordships quite simply this evening why we should not then begin with regard to the superior courts tonight.
I shall now move on to deal with the other point which my noble and learned friend made. I believe it was the only other point he made. He stressed that we were discussing a rule and not a principle. In his response he made that point many times. However, he also said that he stood by every word of what he had said when he was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in 1977. That is not in the context of a principle of centuries so long ago. My noble and learned friend described then what he now describes as a rule—I hope he will forgive me for saying so—as a constitutional guarantee. To my mind a constitutional guarantee is a matter of principle.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that on that occasion I said that this rule was a constitutional guarantee. However, I may be wrong about that.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, what I am sure about is that my noble and learned friend, whether he then described it as a rule or not, undoubtedly mentioned the words "constitutional guarantee". Why should we not elevate a constitutional guarantee into a principle? That is what I always thought constitutional guarantees were, even if they could also be described as rules.
I wish to refer to another point which has crept into this debate. I believe that my noble friend Lord Hacking raised it. It was suggested that the Bar would prosper in certain circumstances. If I may use the vernacular, who gives a damn whether the Bar will prosper? Who gives a damn whether the measure is inconvenient to solicitors? What matters is the point that my noble friend Lord Irvine made, which is that this matter concerns the interests of the public. We should all forget which side of the profession would benefit from this and decide the issue as one of principle.
I shall deal briefly with the arguments raised against the measure. I say with respect to my noble friend Lord Boardman that I found some difficulty with his argument. He accepted that the rules could be flexible under the terms of our amendment. We are agreed there. I believe he also accepted that it was desirable that the same principle should apply
214
to all advocates. We agree there, too. However, he then went on to suggest that the same rules should not apply to solicitors. I find difficulty with that suggestion with great respect to my noble friend. What concerns me is that reputable solicitors have, in contributing to this debate, suggested that the rule cannot apply to them. It appears that solicitors are reluctant to accept the extension of the monopoly with the corollary of the obligation to the public.
When I referred to solicitors I did not mean all solicitors as there is no more experienced solicitor advocate in this Chamber than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He spoke for the principle as eloquently as anyone in this House has done. In regard to the reservations that were expressed on a previous occasion, the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, with his responsibility for the development of the solicitors' profession, accepts that this principle could be enshrined in legislation. I take comfort from that.
I now turn to one final issue. I make the following remarks with a little trepidation but I do so with regard to the sense of this debate. My remarks are prompted by what was said by my noble friend Lord Peyton. I believe he said that on the previous occasion that this matter was debated he had not heard the debate, yet with some unease but obediently—we all seek to behave obediently in appropriate circumstances—he voted for the Government; now that he has heard the arguments, he repented.
My noble and learned friend speaks with all the authority of the Woolsack. The noble Lord the Leader of the House, who has been present during most of the debate—and we thank him for that—is known to be sensitive to the wishes of Members of the House. Bearing in mind the sense of the debate on the two occasions, I ask whether the Government want, if by any chance there are some of their troops within this House who have been unavoidably prevented from hearing the debate, to take them into the Lobbies against us on what has been described on all sides not as a political issue but as an issue of conscience. If, even at this hour and having heard what has been said, my noble and learned friend will not accept the principle of the amendment and bring the matter back at Third Reading I shall seek to take the opinion of the House.
Before I do so, perhaps I may say that I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord for indicating, in regard to what he said on the last: occasion, that what we had said as to the ability of the advisory committee to frame rules met anxieties. In the course of his speech he referred to the details of the Bar Council's rules. With great respect to him, that has nothing to do with our present debate. The details of the rules can be worked out in due course. We believe that those involved will do so. However, if we had a principle that would show that in this period of alteration—which can be made to work—when we are committed to extending rights of audience we are committed to doing so according to principle, according to standards that have stood for centuries, and according to standards which I now invite this House once again to reassert.
7.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lowry, L.

Airedale, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barnett, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Meston, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Mishcon, L.

Brandon of Oakbrook, L.

Monson, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Morris, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Nicol, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Pender, L.

Carnock, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cross, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Pym, L.

Denman, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rees, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Dormer, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Erroll, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Roskill, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Galpern, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Sherfield, L.

Grey, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Strabolgi, L.

Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Templeman, L.

Hanworth, V.

Terrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Vinson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Winstanley, L.

Knutsford, V.

Wynford, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Ampthill, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Annaly, L.

Brookes, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Byron, L.

Balfour, E.

Caithness, E.

Bauer, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Bessborough, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Blatch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Blyth, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boardman, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elibank, L.

216

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mills, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Milverton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Fisher, L.

Mountevans, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Munster, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Goodman, L.

Orkney, E.

Goold, L.

Phillips, B.

Greenway, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hacking, L.

Polwarth, L.

Hayter, L.

Raglan, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Henley, L.

Reay, L.

Hesketh, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hives, L.

Renwick, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hooper, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Joseph, L.

Stedman, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strange, B.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Swinton, E.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Tonypandy, V.

Margadale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Trumpington, B.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Alexander of Weedon Lord Alexander of Weedon moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 13, line 4, at end insert ("; and
(d) whether, as regards rights of audience in any of the superior courts other than those exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as solicitors) immediately before the 7th December 1989, that body's rules of conduct include provisions embodying in appropriate terms, and with any appropriate exceptions, the principle that, except in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to require him to do so, an advocate practising in any of those courts is under a duty to act for any client (whether legally aided or not) in cases within his field of practice, ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we heard the argument for Amendment No. 75 with the argument for Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Alexander of Weedon Lord Alexander of Weedon moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 13, line 5, at end insert—
(" () In this section "the superior courts" means the Supreme Court, the House of Lords and the Judical Committee of the Privy Council.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again at 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
7.40 p.m.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
Brought from the Commons.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. — (Lord Denham.)
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may say how pleased we are to see the Bill finally arrive here with that one-footed pigeon that has been on its way since the day before yesterday. I am sure that noble Lords will now give the Bill a First Reading.
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990
7.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order consolidates the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and subsequent amending enactments relating to liquor licensing in Northern Ireland. When it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, described it as consolidation which is useful rather than exciting. It is, in a word, a piece of pure consolidation legislation and makes no change to the existing law. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has explained that the order is purely a consolidation measure. I assume from that that the licensing law in Northern Ireland works pretty well and that there is no mischief that needs to be addressed in legislation.
I shall detain the House for no more than a moment or two. I note from a cursory examination of its articles that it replaces the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 1971, the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, the Licensing (International Airports) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 and the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 in their entirety. In addition, it repeals prohibitions to be found in 13 other pieces of legislation enacted since 1968.
Licensing law is a narrow, technical branch of the law, but, as we have seen, it has grown in bits and pieces almost year by year since 1968. In the result, consolidation was desirable. I am sure that the order will be welcomed by the courts, the legal profession and business. For all that, we must thank the draftsman and his team who have worked hard to produce the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1990
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order is presented in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947.
First, a brief history of the HDC and of the review process which has led to the draft amendment order may be helpful to your Lordships. The council was set up in July 1986 under the Horticultural Development Council Order with the primary function of commissioning research and development in horticulture on the industry's behalf. It is empowered, subject to approval of Ministers, to collect for that purpose a levy of up to ¼ per cent. of the value of growers' sales of horticultural produce, excluding potatoes, apples, pears, hops and, until now, mushrooms. Growers with annual sales of produce in excess of £25, 000 are liable for the levy and must register with the council. All 20 members of the council are appointed by Ministers.
Under Section 8 (3) of the 1947 Act, Ministers are required, not later than three years after the coming into effect of the development council order, to consult the council and organisations representative of substantial numbers of people trading and working in the industry as to whether the council should continue in being and whether any amendments to the order are necessary.
The Government have been most anxious at every stage to give the horticultural industry what it requires in terms of a development council. Prior to formal consultations, Ministers set up a joint working party of industry representatives and officials to consider whether changes in the organisation and functions of the HDC were needed to enable it to continue operating successfully. The resulting recommendations were put to representative organisations for them to consider in making their response to the formal review. The organisations consulted in May last year were the National Farmers Unions, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Horticultural Trades Association, the Transport and General Workers Union and the HDC itself. All of them were in favour of the continuation of the council. As a result, Ministers announced in July last year that the HDC would continue, provided that it had the support of individual growers themselves. Their support was to be tested through a poll.
As I said, mushrooms were not originally covered by the HDC. However, the Mushroom Growers Association passed a resolution at its 1987 AGM in favour of joining the HDC, subject to a poll of individual mushroom growers.
Both polls were held last October and the results were announced on 7th November. The result of the HDC poll was positive. Ministers confirmed their original decision that the council should continue, subject to the approval of Parliament. Mushroom growers also voted in favour of joining the council

219
and their inclusion will make the body even more comprehensive.
Turning to the order which is before us, the main amendments now proposed were included in the prospectuses issued in conjunction with both polls and so have been approved by those growers who voted positively. I shall now deal with the principal amendments.
As I have already mentioned, Article 3 extends the definition of "grower" to include mushroom growers. It also extends the definition of "relevant accounting year" to make provision for an assessment period for the annual levy to be imposed on mushroom growers.
The table in Article 2 (2) of the 1986 order is replaced by Article 4. That sets out the period during which the charge is to be levied and the assessment period on which that charge is to be based. It now refers to mushroom growers.
The number of HDC members representing the interests of growers is increased from 14 to 16 in Article 5. Ministers will appoint two members to represent the interests of mushroom growers with effect from the commencement of the order. Article 6 amends the registration provisions, merely to include mushroom growers.
Article 7 of the order raises the maximum rate of levy on growers, other than mushroom growers, from ¼ per cent. to ½ per cent. of the value of his sales. However, the existing rate of ¼ per cent. will be retained in the 1989–90 levy period and the new rates will be phased in by charging ⅜ per cent. in 1990–91 and ½ per cent. in 1991–92. It also imposes a charge at a maximum rate of 7 pence per litre of mushroom spawn from mushroom growers whose annual puchases exceed 700 litres. The levy will initially be charged at 5 pence per litre. Since other growers are levied on the basis of annual sales, I should perhaps explain why a separate framework for the collection of levy from mushroom growers is being introduced. That is because it takes advantage of the centralised arrangements for the distribution of mushroom spawn to facilitate levy collection. It also has the advantage of being readily identifiable and should minimise levy avoidance.
An amendment is made in Article 7 (2) to clarify that costs of haulage and packing materials should be deducted from sales figures for purposes of assessing a grower's levy. Provision is also made for the deduction of costs associated with produce prepared for market in rateable packhouses. Both the measures avoid growers having to pay too high a levy in relation to their turnover.
Provision is made in Article 8 for the levy of fines in subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) of Article 12 of the 1986 order to be amended to bring them into line with the Criminal Justice Act 1982. At present level 3 on the standard scale is £400.
Finally, provision has been made in Article 9 for a revised Schedule 1 which lists those products coming within the scope of the order to include mushrooms and trees for sale for amenity purposes. Both products will now benefit from HDC research.
It also defines that grapes should be excluded on the grounds that grapes grown in the UK are generally sold only in processed form as wine and it would be impossible to assess the levy. Conifers and Christmas trees have been removed from the list of products defined as being horticultural produce. This means that forest trees will no longer fall within the scope of the HDC. Research on such trees is carried out by the Forestry Commission.
It is proposed that the order should come into force on the day after it is made to allow arrangements for the collection of the levy on mushroom growers to be set in hand as soon as possible. In accordance with the terms of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, a further review of the council's activities will be undertaken in five years' time. It only remains—the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be glad to hear—for me to commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee] .— (Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for detailing the order in the way that she has done and for putting us so firmly in the picture regarding the inclusion of mushroom growers in this order. We on this side of the House are in support of the order if only because it partly closes a gap in research funding for horticulture arising from reductions in government support attributable to near market research. We understand, for example, that the Ministry of Agriculture's spending will be down from £18 million in 1988–89 to some £10 million in 1991–92, which of course is a considerable reduction in its own right and even more so in real terms.
The horticultural industry is to be congratulated. It does not have the benefit of Community regimes which support prices for its products. Competition in horticulture is very intense and has become particularly so after the accession to the market of Spain and Portugal. Undoubtedly it will become even more intense post-1992. That emphasises the vital importance of research for horticulture. The £2–5 million which the levy is scheduled to produce is a very valuable token of the industry's commitment to research at the present time.
I noted that the British Society for Horticultural Research, for which MAFF is the lead department but which is to be tripartite, comprising three representatives from MAFF, three representatives from the Department of Education and Science and three representatives from industry, is to be based at the East Mailing Research Station. I know East Mailing principally as a centre for apples and pears, which are of course excluded from the order as defined in Schedule 1. In the light of that I wonder about the choice and whether it presages a merger with the Apple and Pear Development Council, recently established.
In another place when the order was discussed, in response to a query the Minister mentioned the fact that apropos the Brogdale fruit collection, constructive discussions were taking place with the

221
Swale District Council. The Swale District Council was bitterly disappointed first of all at the decision to close Brogdale, which is in its area. It was even more disappointed at the decision to transfer Brogdale to Wye College. We are all grateful to learn that discussions with the district council are constructive. However, I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to say tonight how constructive the discussions currently are and whether there is likely to be a conclusion which is acceptable to the Ministry on the one hand and Swale District Council on the other.
We welcome the order and the adherence of mushroom growers to it. I sincerely hope that the research that it funds will prove useful to the industry in tackling the problems that it undoubtedly will face in the years ahead.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I wish that I too could welcome this order. It first appeared in the Minutes on 7th February that this Motion was to be moved this evening. Reference was specifically made in the Minutes on 7th February to the 8th Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as is required. That reference to the 8th report has been repeated every day in the Minutes since 7th February. The report of the joint committee was ordered to be printed on 6th February.
Last week I applied to the Printed Paper Office for a copy of the 8th report. It was not available. At 9.30 this morning I applied again. It was not available. I was told that if I came back at 10.30 a.m. some document might be available. It was. It is a document bearing on its front a rubber stamp stating: "Extract from uncorrected proof. I do not call that very courteous to this House.
The 8th report was critical of this order. It found it to be in some respects retrospective, although it is fair to say that the department has given an assurance that no use is to be made of the retrospective powers, which should not have been sought. Members and others interested in horticulture tend to live in the country. I do not suppose that there is the slightest hope that anybody living in the country could have had sight of a document which became available in uncorrected proof in the Printed Paper Office at 10.30 this morning.
I wonder why this Motion is moved this evening. It is only a draft order. There is no urgency about it so far as I know. I detected no note of urgency in the voice of the noble Baroness when she moved it. I ask her to withdraw the Motion this evening and to ensure that the 8th report of the committee is expedited. I do not suppose it matters whether it appears in typescript or print but I think we want a proof corrected copy. We want it to become available and for a decent interval to elapse so that noble Lords—in particular those living in the country —can read it, consider it and have it debated in this Chamber at some future date when those who are interested can come and discuss it.
In the circumstances of this case it is simply not good enough that this order should proceed this evening. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it and reintroduce it after there has been a fair chance to read the 8th report to which we have been referred.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will forgive me if I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will be aware that it is for the usual channels to arrange when an order in my name is to be debated. Standing Order 69 governs the debating of Motions for affirmative resolution. The relevant provision of the Standing Order provides that:
"No Motion for a resolution of the House to approve an Affirmative Instrument shall be moved until.… there has been laid before the House the Report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments".
My understanding is that for those purposes a report from the joint committee is laid before the House on the day on which it is made and entered in the Minutes of Proceedings—not on the day on which it is published. In the present instance the Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order was reported on 6th February. To that extent therefore I cannot accept that it was in any way improper or inappropriate to debate this Motion this evening.
The noble Lord has made the common sense point that there is little advantage in a committee of your Lordships' House considering and reporting on an instrument unless your Lordships have the benefit of that report in any debate. I am, however, given to understand that it has been a long-standing practice that where a report has not been published in time for a debate, the appropriate extract from the report is made available in the Printed Paper Office on the day of the debate. This was done, I am informed, by 10.30 this morning. In short, the report is, for all relevant purposes, available to Members of the House for the debate. I would, however, add that, following informal representations by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on this point earlier today, the procedure for making an extract of the report available has been changed slightly to the extent that this will in future be done on the day before a debate.
In the present instance the usual channels considered whether the Motion on the order should be postponed from this evening because of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. In the event it was decided that this should not be done, simply because it is, by and large, for the convenience of your Lordships that business should not be changed at short notice. I hope that this answers the noble Lord's concerns.
I shall now turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. He asked me about talks with Swale Council. I am fully aware that Swale was extremely disappointed when the National Fruit Collection did not remain at Brogdale. It was an extremely difficult decision for me to make. No final decisions on the site have yet been made. The conversations are extremely promising in regard to its continuing role. We are finding out exactly what Swale wants to do. Good progress is being made and I very much hope that a fruitful —if that it not the wrong word to use —end will result because it would be complementary in many ways to Wye.
The noble Lord asked about the merger of the APRC and the HDC. The apple and pear growers felt that they needed a separate council. They are a

223
rugged bunch and great friends of mine. I have been working on this matter for two years and I am extremely pleased that the order is now coming through. They prefer to go it alone at the moment. Perhaps at some future date when there is another review they will change their minds. But it is their own affair.
With regard to the centre for the BSHR, the principal site for horticultural research and development will be at Wellesbourne, not at East Mailing. East Mailing's offer to house the BSHR has been most gratefully accepted. That will be valuable.
I hope that I have answered most of the noble Lord's questions. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked about the retrospective nature of the order. As the House will know, we have great respect for the joint committee's views, and we have considered its comments carefully. But we cannot agree with it that the order contains a retrospective element in the true sense of the meaning, or that its meaning is unclear. The 1947 Act gives Ministers power to alter the maximum rate of levy that can be charged by an amending order. By simply increasing a levy which already exists, we are not imposing any new obligation to pay on the grower. Nor by increasing the maximum are we authorising an increase in the actual amount charged this year.
If no demand had already been made by the HDC it is true that Ministers would in theory approve a levy based on the new maximum. But the demand has already been made. Because of this the terms of the 1986 order would prevent the council from levying a supplementary increase. In our view therefore there is no question of the increase being retrospective. Indeed, the joint committee has already pointed out that this issue is an academic one. As my honourable friend in another place has already made clear, we have no intention of applying an increased rate until the levy period beginning 1st October 1990. I am delighted to be able to repeat those assurances here today.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I am much obliged to her but does she really believe that, on a matter concerning the country and country people, one day's notice is sufficient for noble Lords to grasp the matter and take part in the debate one day later?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I feel sure that the usual channels which arrange these matters will take note of the noble Lord's views. If they do not, he must press them there himself.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1990
8.7 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committees].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to qualify slightly the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. Although subject access—that is, the right of people to see personal information held about themselves in computerised form—is a central pillar of the Data Protection Act, that Act allows certain exemptions. For example, data held for the purposes of the assessment and collection of taxation are exempt if disclosure to the subject would be likely to prejudice those purposes. Parliament also foresaw that it might be necessary to make further exemptions in the fields of heath, social work and financial services, and data protected from disclosure by other enactments; and it accordingly provided the Secretary of State with order-making powers.
Under this power the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987 was made on 9th November 1987. As your Lordships may remember, it was one of those debated on 5th November 1987 at cols. 1124 to 1132 of the Official Report. The Order designated certain functions conferred by or under statute relating to, among other things, the regulation of financial services. The order prevented data subjects from using subject access to discover what information regulators held about them as it could have prejudiced investigation and prosecution of malpractice.
The order now before the House amends the 1987 order in ways which we consider are necessary following the enactment of the Companies Act 1989. First, this Act extends investigatory powers from departmental officials by allowing the Secretary of State to bring in the expertise of other competent persons and this will help him to cope more flexibly with changes in the departmental workload. Secondly, it enables him to assist overseas regulators in the company law, financial services and insurance spheres by investigating in the United Kingdom on their behalf. Regulators need to be able to trace transactions, which may be in breach of a law, to all the countries involved. Markets are increasingly international and complex and the new power will protect United Kingdom investors who may be damaged by those who, undetected, would otherwise be able to continue investment into or in the United Kingdom. At the same time, the new power should help our own investigators secure reciprocal assistance from overseas regulators, especially those who already have compulsory investigation powers which can be used on behalf of foreign regulators; for example, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The third set of changes which I wish to mention are the amendments made by the Companies Act 1989 to the Financial Services Act 1986. Most of these relate to the powers of the Securities and Investments Board, and various self-regulating organisations recognised under the Financial Services Act, to regulate the conduct of investment business. All that will provide the primary regulator with more flexibility in regulating the carrying on of investment business. In particular the amendments confer new powers to issue statements of principle and codes of practice, to designate rules as applying

225
directly to members of a self-regulating organisation recognised by the Securities and Investments Board and to use the enforcement powers in the Financial Services Act to assist an overseas regulator.
In the case of all these powers brought in by the Companies Act 1989, we consider that the right of subject access to personal data might prejudice the discharge of the functions of the regulatory authority. I therefore recommend to your Lordships that subject access should be denied. This is but a small qualification to the general principle of subject access which derives from the European Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, and is given statutory form in the Data Protection Act. It is, I believe, necessary in the wider public interest.
As the Act requires, the Data Protection Registrar has been consulted about the exemptions for which the order provides, and he is content. The order has been approved by affirmative resolution in another place and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved. [8th Report from the Joint Committee.] —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing the order which is a matter of substance and importance. I am pleased to be able to address many noble Lords on the opposite Benches and make my points with my customary trenchancy!
The Data Protection Act guarantees certain fundamental freedoms; that is, subject to the exemptions mentioned by the noble Viscount, the ability for individuals to know what information is stored in computer records about their characteristics, qualities and so forth. As the Data Protection Registrar has said on a number of occasions—and most recently in his report—we must try to strike a balance. We accept the fact that there will be exemptions. Nevertheless, we shall grant those exemptions grudgingly. I believe that that is the right balance to strike.
In the order introduced by the noble Viscount there appeared to be two major problems. The first concerns overseas regulatory authorities. We recall that Section 30 of the Data Protection Act limits exemptions to cases in which the proper discharge of certain functions is likely to be prejudiced if no exemption is granted. The question we must ask about overseas regulatory authorities is: in their case is the exemption necessary? After all, the Companies Act 1989 granted extensive facilities to overseas authorities and made available to them privileges which we hoped would be helpful in pursuing international fraud, particularly in securities dealing. However, it goes a little against the grain to say that, in addition, we should prevent private individuals within the United Kingdom jurisdiction from having access to information about them which may be stored in a computer and which may be passed to overseas authorities. I should like the noble Viscount to comment on that problem.
226
The second problem relates to Part II of the schedule in the order. It concerns the amendments to the Financial Services Act 1986, which were passed in the Companies Act 1989, relating to statements of principle and codes of practice. I fail to see, and to be persuaded about, the argument which states that the discharge of the function of determining a statement of principle—and it was defined quite clearly in the Companies Act 1989—and of the function of determining a code of practice would be prejudiced if there were no exemption under Section 30 of the Data Protection Act.
I find that odd not only because I argued at length against the idea of statements of principle and codes of practice in the form in which they now appear in the Act, but also because I was given many assurances during our debates on the Bill that statements of principle and codes of practice would be for guidance and general information, and would not have the same force as rules and regulations made under the Financial Services Act 1986. I find it odd that such an exemption should be given for the purposes of discharging functions under the 1986 Act, as amended by the Companies; Act 1989 in respect of statements of principle and codes of practice.
If I have spoken for longer than I should have it is because I wish to insist that the Data Protection Act 1984 is a fundamental assertion of individual rights. It is for your Lordships' House to consider most carefully any exemption which may be granted to government to derogate from that fundamental right. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to help with those two problems.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for taking part in the debate at this hour. I shall take up the points that he raised. As regards the foreign regulators, it should be emphasised that discretion to use the power under Section 1 remains unequivocally with the Secretary of State. Before doing so he may take into account whether or not the inquiries involve an unacceptable assertion of jurisdiction. Even when the investigation is complete the Act imposes no obligation to pass any or all of the information to the overseas regulator if it is likely to be used for improper purposes—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hope that I shall not continue to interrupt the noble Viscount but I wish to point out that that is not relevant to the present order. The order denies access by an individual to the computer records with which we are dealing. It is not a question of whether the Secretary of State may or may not pass information to an overseas regulatory authority. That is a different question.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should say that the information obtained under the new power to

227
investigate on behalf of overseas regulators will be stored in the first place on behalf of the Secretary of State. I understand what the noble Lord is driving at. However, I believe that it is important to stress that it is the mutual reciprocation which we require with those who are co-signatories of the original convention that this function will assist.
To go on to the noble Lord's second point, he asked me about paragraph 1 of Part II. The power to issue statements of principle will enable the Securities and Investments Board, which will in practice exercise it, to press at a high level of generality the most fundamental terms of good investment practice. They should be more easily understood and detailed rules and therefore be accessible to practitioners and not just their lawyers. The power to issue codes of practice means that the Securities and Investments Board could amplify what is contained in its principles or rules without the amplification having itself to take the form of rules.
I should like to add that the Government and the registrar will continue to keep the Data Protection Act under review. Indeed, an interdepartmental committee on the working of the Act is due to report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in a few months. If it is necessary we shall take steps to change procedures to improve the working of the Act although always in a way which is consistent with the European convention.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again. I understand about statements of principle and codes of practice under the amendments to the Financial Services Act 1986 which were passed in the Companies Act 1989. I spent a lot of time studying and debating them. I simply do not see—and the noble Viscount has not answered my question—why there should be exemption under Section 30 of the Data Protection Act in order to allow the SIB to discharge the function of making statements of principle in codes of practice. I very much hope that the noble Viscount will be able to answer my question.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not certain that I can answer that question. Therefore, I shall need to write to the noble Lord with a detailed answer. He asked me a fairly detailed question and I shall need to write to him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, again I am sorry to interrupt. I do not regard my question as detailed. It is a question about the principle of Part II of the schedule. Why are the Government coming forward with this order at this point in time when they cannot answer the simplest questions from the Opposition Front Bench? If the noble Viscount says that he would like further time to consider this matter then I suggest that he withdraws the order and we start all over again.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the justification for denying access is that disclosure of that data to the individual may prejudice the discharge of the Secretary of State's functions under those two sections because the need for the statement of principle and the code of practice might arise out of a particular case which may be very sensitive.
The Government believe that the order before your Lordships is necessary in order to bring the subject access exemptions into line with the changes made by the Companies Act 1989 and generally to maintain the correct balance between the rights of data subjects and of the public in general. I commend the order to your Lordships and invite the House to approve it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.25 to 8.30 p. m.]
8.30 p.m.
[House adjourned during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.]

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 15 [The statutory duty]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 13, line 15, leave out ("must") and insert ("shall").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 78. I have brought forward these amendments in response to comments made by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson in Committee. The Master of the Rolls suggested that the word "shall" has been more usual for communicating statutory duties to those who must carry them out than the word "must". I agreed to consult parliamentary counsel on this issue, and having done so, bring forward these amendments to the wording. I should like to make quite clear that, to my view, this is merely a question of usage and that these amendments make no substantive alteration to the purpose or effect of Clause 15. However, since my noble and learned friend has indicated some concern, I am happy to oblige him on the basis that I have stated, while keeping an open mind. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("must") and insert ("shall").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 13, line 20, at end insert —
(" (3) None of the designated judges shall be liable in damages for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of any such functions.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether it is on the basis of alphabetical merit, but I always seem to be high up the list of post-prandial amendments. It has probably been learned from your Lordships' restaurant that I enjoy that part of the evening and must therefore be disturbed! Happily, like most of the amendments I hope to put before your Lordships, this is basically uncontroversial. I say that because when the matter came before the Committee on 23rd January my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, with his customary friendliness:
"There is nothing between us in principle; the question is how best to achieve the continued immunity of judges from damages for suit".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1219.]
My noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich, who most of us in the Law Lords' corridor look upon as the expert in statutory interpretation, said:
"I see no … bureaucratic attempt in Clause 15 to invade the independence of the judges. Since provision is made in Clause 16 (8) to protect the advisory committee from liability in damages"—
I interpose to say that the chairman is to be a Law Lord or a judge of the supreme court—
"in my submission it would be worth having this amendment in if only to negative the argument. Parliament expressly provided that the advisory committee should not be liable to damages. It made no such provision in relation to the designated judges; ergo it intended that the designated judges should be so liable". —[Cols. 1217–8.]
I have awaited with characteristic patience to discover what was the end result of my noble and learned friend's anxiety to see how the question, to quote his language, "could be best achieved" in order to continue the immunity of the judges. However, having had no communication one way or the other I have again tabled this amendment. It is clearly desirable that there should be something provided for their immunity.
I should perhaps say that an action for breach of statutory duty was specifically referred to as being on the cards in the Government's White Paper, Legal Services: A Framework for the Future, because at page 29 it states:
"Any allegation that the statutory duties had not been carried out, or had been carried out in a way in which no reasonable authority would have done, could of course be tested by judicial review in the High Court or by an action for breach of statutory duty".
If an action for breach of statutory duty lies, then for the moment I do not see why an action for damages should not be appended to such an action. This is clearly in contemplation, otherwise Clause
230
16 (8) would not apply for the benefit of the advisory committee and its chairman. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, lest it be thought that this is entirely a matter of interest to the judiciary, may I say that I find this amendment very valuable and acceptable. Indeed, it would add to the completeness of Clause 15. I hope my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will consider it sympathetically.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I undertook at Committee stage to consider this matter, and I am seeking to do so. The precise way in which this should be dealt with is quite a difficult question. Consideration started with parliamentary counsel and the consideration of it has not yet been completed.
There are other matters to look to, apart from this Bill itself. My noble and learned friend will be very familiar with the argument that one compares two statutes and if what is in one is not in the other Parliament therefore must have intended a different consequence. There are quite a number of statutes therefore to be looked at in this connection.
I hope my noble and learned friend will allow me to continue this consideration, and I certainly hope that I shall be in a position to respond more fully at Third Reading. We have managed to respond to a good number of matters that have been raised, but this is one of particular difficulty because of its possible implications in relation to other statutes. Therefore I hope that my noble and learned friend will agree with my suggestion.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, certainly in view of the fact that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is continuing to consider this matter I shall leave it in his hands. Perhaps this piece of wisdom might be communicated to the parliamentary draftsmen. I read from page 585 of Sir William Wade's up-to-date edition of Administrative Law where he says:
"But recently the courts have been opening up new areas of liability, and there are signs that what might be called administrative torts are a subject which is on the threshold of important developments".
It is that which I particularly have in mind in desiring to ensure that Her Majesty's judges, who are—if I may use the phrase without disrespect—being dragged into the arena in pursuit of the provisions of this Bill, are not damaged in the process by claims for damages. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct]:
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 13, line 25, leave out ("14") and insert ("16").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving amendment to substantive Amendment No. 86 and the consequential Amendment No. 87. I am very conscious of the fact that considerable care and consideration had been given to the composition

231
of the advisory committee, but I most sincerely believe—bearing in mind its experience and practice, above all, in the teaching of law—that the inclusion of the Institute of Legal Executives in the body of the advisory committee would be to the national interest.
I am unhappy in one sense —that in my experience committees of more than three generally do not work as well as very large committees—and this paving amendment and the consequential amendment increase the size of the committee overall in order to maintain the balance of a majority of lay over—for want of a better term —professional people on the committee.
I know that the practice and experience of what used to be the managing clerks' association in this field are very well known to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I believe that for them to be left out is a sad lacuna. I am also concerned that they could not be considered under the umbrella of the lay members of the committee because the definition in subsection (10) of the word "practising" seems to bar a practising member of the Institute of Legal Executives from entering the advisory committee in that field. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I support this amendment which is tabled in my name, as are Amendments Nos. 86 and 87.
In so far as the noble and learned Lord was not already familiar with the Institute of Legal Executives, he is certainly fully familiar with them from the information that we have provided to him, not only in your Lordships' House but also in written communications. Therefore, I need enlarge no more on that. What the institute says to your Lordships and to the noble and learned Lord is that we play a substantive part in the provision of legal services to the public. We have no fewer than 50, 000 assistant solicitors who work in various solicitors' offices. Therefore, we are a major component in the legal workforce.
The difficulty is that if the institute is not to have the opportunity to be consulted —and it is asking for no more than that —on the appointment of lawyer members of the advisory committee, the only means under which its members can enter the advisory committee, which is their objective, is under the hat of a lay member. That creates a difficulty because the result of that is, if my arithmetic is correct, that the number of lawyer members of the advisory committee would rise to seven and the number of lay members of the committee would drop to seven. Therefore, one would have a committee of exactly seven lawyers and seven laymen with a presiding judge. It is that which they particularly fear if they are not to have the opportunity to be consulted on appointments within the category of lawyers. They are particularly concerned that they might be excluded altogether, because the noble and learned Lord is very anxious that there should be a lay majority. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can assist them on that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, first of all I should like to make it clear that whatever views we may have expressed in Committee I think all of us on both sides of the House, and in both branches of the profession, now accept that the advisory committee shall have a lay majority. Let us have that understood between us. I have noticed that, in moving the amendment regarding legal executives, my noble friend Lord Morris has altered the numbers of the advisory committee in such a way as to ensure that. So do the noble and learned Lords, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Ackner, when it comes to the next group of amendments. For their purpose they also preserve the lay majority; so there is no dispute whatever on that.
We now come to the question of whether, among various people who could be nominated, legal executives should be singled out as special appointees to the advisory committee. First, I must confess how much, as a barrister, I owed to my clerk. We all did. I do not know how we could have carried on our practices without the expertise of the kind that clerks displayed and on which we relied. I had the remarkable experience of being briefed for several High Court actions by the High Court clerk, as he called himself, of one of the big London firms of solicitors. He instructed me with very great precision and detail. I did not often see a partner in connection with those actions, so that managing clerk was a very important person in relation to the actions in which I was working.
We have to bear in mind in the context of the Bill, if it is thought that legal executives should be singled out, that first of all they have no judicial position. Secondly, they are not to have rights of audience under the Bill. Thirdly, they are not to have rights to conduct litigation because that is the responsibility of qualified solicitors.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. Did the noble Lord say that they have no rights of audience? Indeed they do.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not know that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, they do have rights.
Lord Renton: My Lords, yes. I am glad to be reminded, and I stand open to correction. They do have some limited rights of audience, not those sorts of rights of audience which would be accorded to qualified solicitors; but I quite agree that they have more limited rights of audience. I am grateful for the correction, but they are not legally qualified people.
The question is whether they should be singled out and be specially nominated in the Bill for appointment to the advisory committee. I have a grave doubt about that. They are valuable and splendid people, but I do not think they should be appointed to that position. I am merely expressing a doubt. I am trying to keep an open mind until I have heard the rest of the debate, but as of now I

233
am not convinced that these amendments should be accepted.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, if the legal executives are to be let in I do not see on what basis barristers' clerks are left out. If there is one person who is experienced in what goes on in court, in the qualities of an advocate and what is essential in the pursuit of advocacy, it is the barrister's clerk. He is very much like the actor's manager who perhaps knows a great deal better than the actor what are the qualities that make the good actor or actress. If you are going to let in one you must let in the other.
I do not wish to expound on the position of barristers' clerks because I know that north of the Border the Bar does not have the particular facility. It manages without them in the sense of their function south of the Border; that is, as managing clerks. A clerk who really looks after and controls a whole set of chambers is immensely powerful and has an income comparable to that of the major members of those chambers. I am only saying that; I do not support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but if there is a question of sauce for the goose, there must be sauce for the gander.
9 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may tell your Lordships that years ago —those who are in the legal profession will know that what I am saying is true —it was said that solicitors' managing clerks were the main foundation of the office. That was literally true. I can well understand why the loyal, experienced managing clerk was chosen to brief the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to attend conferences with him. The noble Lord did not see a partner. The managing clerk most probably did much better than the partner would have done. The managing clerk was disappearing from the profession until the Institute of Legal Executives gave him great dignity, and required a great deal of qualification from those who were admitted to the institute as members.
If we are looking forward to the profession's future, whether at the Bar or on the solicitors' side, I beg the House to give as much prominence, prestige and encouragement to the Institute of Legal Executives as it possibly can. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will forgive me. He is absolutely right, or course, about the prosperity of barristers' clerks. Those of us who have the privilege of dealing with clerks at chambers know how true that is and how well they administer the affairs of members of chambers. There is no comparison. Barristers' clerks never address Masters of the High Court; legal executives do it every day. A barrister's clerk does not have experience of practising the law; legal executives do it every day.
The reason for the falling numbers of legal executives, although the institute is doing a great deal to encourage them —we have heard of the number of members that the institute has—is that our fairer system makes it so much easier for promising young people to qualify as solicitors or to be called to the Bar. The old type of people who would normally
234
have become a managing clerk, or legal executive, have that great opportunity. They do not have to find the premiums that existed in my day before one could become an articled clerk. An articled clerk never earned anything. He had to pay for the privilege of being articled. All that has gone.
If we do not accord legal executives the prestige that they deserve, take advantage of the experience that they undoubtedly have, and do not regard them as being a fundamental part of the legal profession, we shall not be doing the legal profession any good.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand and appreciate legal executives and the Institute of Legal Executives. I took an interest in their activities before they were brought to my attention by the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Morris, during the course of these proceedings. My first meeting with a legal executive was in relation to an affidavit in which he described himself as a member of the Institute of Legal Executives. One of our noble and learned predecessors in the Appellate Committee of the House, on reading the affidavit, asked what was a legal executive. I am glad that the standard of acquaintance with the detail of the legal profession has moved on in the Appellate Committee since then.
I appreciate what legal executives do. The structure of the advisory committee is a difficult one. We must have a committee of a reasonable size if we are to expect progress. On the other hand, the interest and expertise of legal executives, as of barristers' clerks, may be of interest and importance to the committee, but it has plenty of ways of obtaining that assistance.
I should like to mention the important possibility of co-opting non-voting members to the advisory committee's committees and sub-committees, which is referred to in Schedule 1 at paragraph 3 (2). It will be open to the advisory committee, if it thought right, to have the benefit of the attendance of a member of the Institute of Legal Executives in that connection.
If I heard him aright, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said that his proposal required consultation only with the Institute of Legal Executives; but if I have understood his amendment correctly, he wants one place on the committee for a member of the institute. That is more difficult. I am willing to consult the institute in relation to appointments. Technically, members of the Institute of Legal Executives will be lay people The provision does not just relate to practising people; it relates to practising solicitors or barristers. Members of the Institute of Legal Executives will technically be "lay" for that purpose. I should be less than frank if I did not say that I believe it unlikely that I should wish to appoint a member of the institute as a lay person on the committee. I have in mind people with rather less direct membership of the legal profession than a member of the Institute of Legal Executives.
In all the circumstances, we want a committee with a good structure of people with knowledge of the legal profession. The two solicitors, two barristers and the two academic lawyers—if I may call them

235
that for the moment—will provide that structure. To widen the committee in the way suggested in the amendment and later amendments would make it difficult to run an appropriate committee. That having been said, there is the possiblity of co-option and the full consultation that will take place with anyone who has an interest, before any decisions are taken. I hope that in the light of that explanation, my noble friend Lord Morris may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, the reply of the noble and learned Lord will be received with some disappointment. As I had feared, the noble and learned Lord would be reluctant to appoint a legal executive to the advisory committee. When I was emphasising the word "consultation" I intended to refer to the amendment. I refer to the appointment to the committee of a legal executive but appointed not on the basis of nomination by the Institute of Legal Executives but after consultation.
There will be some disappointment because if a legal executive is not to be appointed by the same means as a member of the Bar or a practising solicitor, it would appear that there will be no legal executive on the advisory committee. The noble and learned Lord says that there may well be consultation about members of the advisory committee and members may be co-opted under the provisions in the schedules to the Bill.
I have expressed my disappointment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, moved the amendment, and it is not therefore for me to take the matter further. It remains for us to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has to say. On behalf of the noble Lord, perhaps I may beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 13, line 25, leave out ("14") and insert ("18").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is with great regret that I find that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, has asked me to express his apologies to the House. He is unable to be here to move his series of amendments. They cover the constitution of the advisory committee. It is a matter of particular regret because he made a characteristic, immensely powerful speech when he addressed your Lordships on this subject on 25th January.
Perhaps I may go back to the historic debate in April almost a year ago when we debated the Green Paper. During the course of that debate much criticism was made of the constitution of the advisory committee. It was referred to as a cover for Civil Service control, a method of the Civil Service establishing its control over what had been an independent and separate part of our national life —the observation of my noble friend Lord Beloff at col. 1376; and the crisp observation of my noble friend Lord Benson that by statute the majority of those members will be lay members. The blind by statute will be leading the blind.
It prompted the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to say this in the same debate at col. 1463 of the Official Report:
"I have a clear feeling that it is the advisory committee itself that is feared. Therefore I was surprised that there was not a series of constructive suggestions on how it should be composed, whether the balance of it should be changed, whether its terms of reference should be different, and whether its scope should be reduced. That would have been constructive criticism and I hope that that will be forthcoming later".
It has been forthcoming later and it has met with a remarkable absence of response.
On the debate at Second Reading on 19th December, noble Lords suggested that the advisory committee should include a county court judge. The reaction of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was this:
"I was interested in the suggestion that a circuit judge should be a member of the committee. Obviously I shall consider that suggestion very carefully. I certainly envisage that the judiciary on the circuit bench may well have a role in relation to this matter".
That was by no means a surprising observation in view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had received a memorandum from the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges which stated this at page 13:
"The Circuit Bench, which bears the burden of the vast majority of the work in Court and collectively has the widest experience of advocacy, has a direct interest in professional standards but has no effective representation on the Committee".
The council added this in its memorandum:
"A lay dominated Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor could become an instrument of political dogma, that it was not an appropriate body to set educational standards for professional bodies, particularly where specialisations are concerned, that matters of conduct are quite different from educational standards and are even more inappropriate for such a body to determine and should not be within the remit of the same Committee".
That was the observation made by the council.
In his speech on the third day of the Committee stage at cols. 1244–1248 my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver made the following points, which I have summarised. First he said that,
"when we … consider the breadth of the detail of what the committee is expected to deliberate and advise on, it is obvious to anybody with half an eye that this will be and is intended to be in practice a decision-making body and that what it says will go".
Secondly, he said:
"Effectively this is the body that is going to dictate not just the framework and the detail of the education, training standards and discipline of all those who provide legal services in our courts but the very way in which the services are to operate".
Thirdly, he continued to say:
"It is therefore a very important body and a body which is to operate in a highly specialised area of professional activity where technical and practical knowledge is absolutely essential to a proper and intelligent exercise of its functions … it is the apex of the structure of the legal profession, supervising every important aspect of professional practice and training".
Forthly and penultimately, he said that it cannot be sensible that a body which regulates all professional activities in a highly technical sphere should be dominated by people whose very qualification for being there is that they do not have the expertise in the very profession which it is their function to oversee.
Fifthly and finally, he concluded that the committee is an instrument by which the Executive can in a very large measure control a legal profession which up until now has been self-regulatory and which it can by the creation of new classes of practitioners in the courts secure an ever greater control than it enjoys at the moment over the composition and of course ultimately the conduct of the judiciary at all levels.
It is in those circumstances that, while bowing inevitably to the force of the majority at the disposal of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, we have not returned to the battle of the majority of the members of the advisory committee being lay, although we foresee the folly of such a situation, which was characterised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in these terms:
"The idea that an independent profession should effectively be governed by such a ludicrous body, of which we have seen only too many examples in the past 25 years of my experience of Parliament, is one too terrifying to imagine".
But, having given way to the inevitability of the loss of vote on the majority, we have returned to its composition because the present situation is one about which the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, at col. 1242 in Committee said:
"The people who will make the advisory committee work are those who have experience of the legal system. They know what needs to be done and how to go about doing it. No one knows better the needs of lay people than the judges before whom such people appear. Judges have direct contact with them, listen to them and are conscious of the difficulties and problems faced by lay people in threading their way through the sometimes tortuous legal system. I was astonished to note that there was no proposal to include judges in the composition of the committee".
Of course there is the proposal to include what I think my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver characterised as a "toothless watchdog with no casting vote"; namely, the chairman. All that we seek to do by way of this amendment—and heaven alone knows it is modest enough! —is to ask for there to be included in the composition of the committee a presiding judge; that is, a judge who owes his existence in relation to that title to the Beeching Commission, which realised that the administration of the circuits could not be left to the Civil Service and that judges would ultimately have to be in charge of what went on on their circuits. Accordingly, there are appointed to each of the six circuits two presiding judges who are usually there for a period of four years. They are responsible to the Chief Justice, via the senior presiding judge who is currently the Deputy Chief Justice, for the efficiency of that circuit. The first addition therefore is a presiding judge. Of course he will be a High Court judge.
The second proposition is the circuit judge, the very person whom my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor envisaged as being least worthy of consideration. At the Committee stage we suggested a stipendiary magistrate, but we realise that that is over-ambitious in the context of the debates that we have experienced on the Bill. It is obviously wholly sound because since the magistrates' courts deal with over 90 per cent. of litigation in this country, to deprive an advisory committee dominated by laymen of one such magistrate seems to us to be folly; but folly apparently we must accept.
Those are the two modest additions to the composition of the committee. It still leaves the majority as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes. In addition, by reason of definition, "barrister" is not confined to a practising barrister and could therefore be a banister employed in government service or by a company. Under the terms of the legislation, he is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation, which he can totally ignore, having gone through the procedure of consultation with the Bar Council. The proposal is that the barristers on this committee should be those nominated by the Bar Council.
I appreciate that this is the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee. However I emphasise to your Lordships that if there is to be any real confidence among the judiciary in the workings of whatever emanates from the Bill, it will not occur if there is no confidence in the advisory committee. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, said, that committee is at the apex.
The judges' memorandum, which is published for all the world to see, was critical of the Green Paper proposals. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and his department are substantially dependent upon the good will of the judiciary if they are to operate the administration of justice effectively in relation to their functions. The judiciary may learn that this lay-dominated committee is to have but one judge on it. It may be a judge of the House of Lords, a Law Lord who has probably been incarcerated in this ivory tower for some years, out of contact with what goes on. If he is to be the only judge and if, as it stands at present, his appointment will be entirely at the whim of the Lord Chancellor—we all know that in every walk of life, be it in the Church, the armed forces, the Bar, be it in any profession, there are those who hang on princes' favours—if that is to be the kind of committee in which the judges are to have confidence, then my noble and learned friend will be deeply disappointed. I shall therefore move these amendments on the basis that without them the advisory committee will be looked upon as the creature of the Government and will command no respect. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support most earnestly the case which has been proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for his amendments. The advisory committee will have great responsibility under the Bill. It will have difficult duties to perform. It will have influence and power. I think there is little doubt but that it will be, although called an advisory committee, a de facto decision-making body, because it will be with reluctance that the designated judges and even the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his successors reject the advice of the advisory committee. Therefore we must make sure that the composition of that committee is such that it commands respect, and that it does not, so to speak, go off the rails at any time. We must also ensure that the committee does not get into conflict with the designated judges and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That is important.

239
At the moment, as the committee is composed, there will be only one representative of the judiciary on it. That will be the chairman. Chairmen vary. There are those chairmen who try to get everybody over which they preside to bend to their will. Then there are those other chairmen who consider that they should be more or less impartial in overseeing those who make contributions, and who try in a judicial kind of way to reach a decision which conforms with the consensus that is expressed. However, even the judicial chairman, if he took that view, would feel somewhat inhibited about putting forward the views of the judiciary during the discussions. Therefore, surely it is right, indeed necessary, that there should be a presiding judge and a circuit judge on the committee. After all, it is the circuit judges and the presiding judges of the circuits—the word "circuits" is used in a different sense there—who will carry out the greater amount of the judicial work of this country. Their work in total amounts to far more than the work of the High Court. The work of the High Court is a relatively small proportion of the total.
We would surely feel more confident that the kind of experience that will be brought to bear in the discussions of the advisory committee will be of real value if the committee contained a presiding judge and a circuit judge. This is an important matter although it comes at a fairly late hour. I hope that we receive an interesting, interested and sympathetic response from my noble and learned friend.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, one of the classically difficult situations for a member of the Bar concerns what he should do when he wishes to repudiate all his learned leader's arguments while still trying to sustain the same case. I find myself in that position tonight. I profoundly disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner that the composition of the advisory committee of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be designed in such a way as to inspire the confidence of the judiciary. That is largely an irrelevance. The composition of the advisory committee should be designed to give effect to the objects of the Bill. I repudiate totally the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in carrying out his duties in relation to the administration of justice is dependent upon the good will of the judiciary. There is no question of good will or ill will. We each have our respective parts to play and, God willing, we shall play them in partnership. There is no question of good will or ill will.
My noble and learned friend then suggested that the chairman and perhaps the members would be appointed at the whim of the Lord Chancellor. That is wholly wrong. We may or may not agree with the Lord Chancellor's nominations, but it is his responsibility and I have no doubt at all that it will be carried out conscientiously. That is a thoroughly bad point.
240
Perhaps I may approach the matter from a slightly different point of view. I have said before that I am quite happy with a lay majority. If the arguments of the professional minority are not sufficiently soundly based to carry with them part of the lay majority, thus securing a majority for their views, their views are not worth having and do not deserve to prevail. Therefore I am quite happy about the lay majority balance.
I also repudiate any attempts to include special interest groups either in the lay section or in the professional section. We want an advisory committee which in the round can give proper advice.
I am troubled about the omission of the two judges from the committee. If one takes a detached look at the present organisation of justice one sees that there are those who conduct the litigation. At present they go by the label of "solicitors". Then there are the advocates, who go by the label of "barristers". Then —I do not say at the apex of the triangle but one has to start at one end or the other—there are the members of the judiciary who try the cases.
I have learnt that things look different from the Bench—very different. The members of the Bar, looking at each other, are concerned with considerations with which I need not bore your Lordships. Those who sit on the Bench and survey the scene are more intimately and crucially concerned with attaining justice and the way in which the system works. It is a real weakness in the framework of the committee that there is no representative—other than the chairman—who can inject that experience. In a sense it could be injected by the designated judges. However, it would be a pity if the designated judges had to go into the advisory committee and join the hurly-burly and the dust of combat, injecting their own expertise. They ought to be able and encouraged to take a fairly detached view. There is a missing link in the chain of experience available to the committee.
It may be said that that expertise could be supplied by the chairman. I shall not join my noble and learned friend in saying that those peers who are concerned with the administration of justice are entirely out of touch with reality. I only say that when they reverse my judgments. It is a fact that even at my level—the level of the Court of Appeal—once one stops trying cases, after two or three years one tries to remember what it is like and one kids oneself that one does, but I have a nasty suspicion that one does not.
I believe that it would be very desirable that trial judges should be represented on the advisory committee, not to peddle any sectional interest but to inject expertise which is not possessed by the Bar or by solicitors and certainly not by the laymen unless they have had the misfortune to be involved in a vast amount of litigation in a personal capacity. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to accept the amendment, bearing in mind that we are also increasing the lay membership to preserve the balance.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to make a brief plea to the noble and learned Lord with regard to the phrases "appointed after consultation with" and "nominated by". I am sure that the noble and learned Lord appreciates the anxiety—I would almost say the hurt—which the Bill has brought to the Bar and to advocates. I am sure that he wants the mechanism, as he describes it, to have the full confidence of the profession —its members have shown themselves willing to try to operate under the Bill —when it becomes law.
Surely as a result of the Bill members of the profession will be subjected for the first time in their lives as independent practitioners to, in their eyes, that extraordinary bureaucracy of a committee with a majority of laymen who will advise them—a proud profession—on how they should be trained in advocacy, how they should be educated in the law and what their rules of conduct should be.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is convinced that that will be a wonderful step forward for the Bar in England and Wales; otherwise, the provision would not be in the Bill. However, he will appreciate that it is not thought by the Bar in England and Wales to be a wonderful step forward when its members must now have codes, committees and a majority of laymen who will advise them how to behave on strictly professional matters.
If we are to have such a situation—and it must be accepted —we want at least to start with confidence. That proud and independent profession will have two representatives on the committee. Surely the least one could start with is for members of the profession to be allowed to nominate their representatives. That is the minimum of confidence with which to go forward. I should have thought that the solicitors' branch must feel the same. The idea that two persons from the profession who have perhaps never practised in court may be picked out and put on to the committee to help advise the laymen as to how barristers should be trained in advocacy seems to me at least quite remarkable.
I make a plea to the noble and learned Lord—I am prepared to say it again—that that proud and independent profession should at least be allowed to nominate its own two representatives on the advisory committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I too wish to refer to Amendment No. 84. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner gave us some quotations which show the background of constitutional suspicion as regards the advisory committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, voiced the same viewpoint from a slightly different angle.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would be well advised to accept Amendment No. 84. It will avoid any question of the accusation that he is appointing a stooge. It will avoid any difficult situation where after consultation it appears that the Lord Chancellor and the Bar Council are not in agreement.
As for Amendment No. 85, I think that that depends on what the Law Society wants. Again, if it wants to nominate a member, it seems to me that it
242
should be allowed to do so. If it does not want to do that, I suppose it can stay as it is.
I have in mind the solicitor members of the rules committee. I think that they are appointed by the Law Society. The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon or Lord Coleraine, will correct me if I am wrong. Certainly in view of what we have heard, it seems that my noble and learned friend will be very well advised to accept Amendment No. 84—he loses absolutely nothing by that—and accept Amendment No. 85 if that is what the Law Society wants.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I say with deep respect that I am not quite sure whether it is the right note to sound if we use the words "What the Bar Council would like or want" and "What the Law Society would like or want". I have the deepest respect for my own professional body. I hope that I shall always be a loyal member of it. But this is a committee which will advise. Obviously, if the Law Society's advice or the Bar Council's advice were wanted, it is always available to the noble and learned Lord without the need to set up a statutory body.
I very much agreed with the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls when he said that if the professional people on that committee cannot at least persuade a couple of members on it who represent the laity (if I may call them that), then something must be wrong with what is being advanced by the professional members. Courtesy has been paid to the professional bodies—as I see it, and I am expressing only an individual view—because indeed the noble and learned Lord will consult with them. But to give them the nomination is to the public eye merely appointing to the advisory committee members of the establishment who will look after the interests of their profession instead of expressing from their experience an independent point of view.
As I said, if that were not being done with consultation with the professional bodies, so that at least the professional bodies could say, "For heaven's sake, you must be crazy to appoint so-and-so; he has had very little experience indeed" or "He is not a very honoured member of our profession and we think that you would be very reckless if you appointed him", all that could be said. But let this advisory body be an independent body with sufficient experience, and let it be seen to be so.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, since it is fresh in our minds, perhaps I may first take the second point, which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, in particular wished me to have in mind. I am the first to acknowledge the claim of the Bar of England and Wales to be very highly regarded. I yield to no one in that and I have sought to make that clear on many occasions. But this advisory committee is an advisory committee to give advice which will be before the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges, the heads of division, when the profession proposes its rules or when these rules are being considered.

243
The idea that the advisory committee itself will form the rules is not right. The intention is that the rules are proposed by the professional body—the Law Society or the General Council of the Bar, to take the paradigm cases. The profession proposes the rules. The advisory committee will be an independent body constituted as suggested to advise us on the rules. I shall not go over the argument about the lay majority. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, while accepting it, appeared to wish to raise the matter again. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time with that. We discussed it on the last occasion. However, I think it is important that this body is seen to act as a unit.
My experience, for what it is worth, is that the body is much more likely to act as a unit if it is appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not nominated by particular interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, there is a risk that people nominated by a particular body regard themselves as delegates or representatives of that body. The difficulty of this area has been illustrated by past history. I do not wish to go into that again but it is important that this body should act together. What I am hoping for is broadly based, unified advice coming forward from the advisory committee which will enable the two branches of the profession and the designated judges to go forward and evolve a system which will command respect not only in the profession but in the country which the profession is proud to serve. I believe therefore that it is right that the appointment should be the appointment of the Lord Chancellor.
The experience of the Bar and of the Law Society since I was appointed, and I know for sure that this was the practice in the past, has been that the Lord Chancellor consults closely with the professional bodies before making appointments. One of the difficulties is to get people of real calibre who are willing to serve. I had this problem in relation to the Legal Aid Board, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will remember. He was concerned to secure a proper representation of barristers on that board. I would regard it as extremely valuable to know who the Bar Council would wish to suggest. I certainly hope that it would be possible to reach an agreement with the council and with the Law Society. I believe that the unity of the committee itself is important. The way we have proposed is the best way to achieve that.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I rise to speak with the purpose of giving my noble and learned friend the opportunity to look at the book which is in his hand. I am sure that he has been referred to Section 85 (4) of the Act under which the rules committee is itself appointed on the same basis.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is precisely why I asked for the book. I was pretty certain that that was the position, but I wanted to have the text in front of me. My noble and learned friend has confirmed it. The rules committee works extremely well. I have no reason to doubt that the profession has confidence in the rules committee; indeed, so much confidence that it can work without too many meetings. It can work on paper.
244
As to the question of a judge on the committee, I cannot accept the idea that a judge of the supreme court or a Member of the House of Lords would properly be described as a toothless watchdog. That is not an appropriate description for a member of the supreme court of this proud profession. I certainly believe that it would not be appropriate either for one of my noble and learned friends from the House of Lords. They would be people of great experience. My noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls has said that their experience may be a little past.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I quoted from what my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said. The exact words from col. 1247 of the Official Report are:
"As matters stand at the moment, the chairman is a toothless watchdog with no casting vote and he is the only judicial representative. — [Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1247.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, however high the authority from which it comes, in no circumstances do I wish to associate myself with a description of a judge of the supreme court or a member of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House as a "toothless watchdog". It has not been my experience that the description would properly be applied to them—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it was not a description given in relation to his judicial capacity but to his ordinary capacity on the advisory committee—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have made my view clear on that matter. My difficulty about adding to the advisory committee is the tremendous size that it will become. If my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner was put to his election on which of the judges he has suggested will he take—that is supposing that I was in a position to take one judge in order to meet the point made by my noble and learned friend the Master of Rolls—which would he choose? I shall give my noble and learned friend a chance to answer the question in one moment, but I wish to make my thoughts clear.
In a number of ways I have made clear—and my noble and learned friend has kindly quoted me as having done so—that I regard the circuit bench as being extremely important. I must be careful about the balance of the committee because I want it to retain the confidence of both branches of the profession as well as the public. I do not wish to see it become so large that it cannot work properly. I am anxious to obtain a committee which will be excellent and, therefore, I am willing to consider further the possibility of adding one judge to it. However, I do feel able to take two judges because, in view of the way that it has been approached, that would automatically increase the size of the committee by four. Assuming that one position is available, I ask my noble and learned friend to indicate what he would like in that connection and I undertake to consider the matter further.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, may I inquire whether his learned junior also gets a vote?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hope not. It is usually the prerogative of the leader—and I am grateful that my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls has acknowledged that I am in that capacity—to say to his junior when called upon, "For Heaven's sake, keep your mouth shut because otherwise you will wreck the appeal".
Proceeding from that, if I were put to an election I should put it in these terms: the presiding judge, with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice. The presiding judges are 12 in number. They vary in seniority and in the divisions from which they come: some come from the Family Division and some from the Queen's Bench Division; some are younger; some are older; some have been on the circuit bench and so forth, it would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the Lord Chief Justice, who knows his presiding judges well and has hitherto been solely responsible for their appointment, to choose the presiding judge. Therefore, if I am put to my election, I elect for the presiding judge, provided that he is nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, if that is the right expression —am I out of order?
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, cannot the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor address the same question to the Master of the Rolls that he addressed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner? If it was in order for the question to be addressed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who replied, is it not similarly open to the Master of the Rolls?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I put the question to my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner as the mover of the Motion, because I knew that he must reply. However, the view of my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls would be extremely valuable to me. I am sure that the House would be glad to hear his view and therefore I am very willing to give him leave, if he seeks it, to answer that question for
246
himself because I would not regard the rules which regulate relationships between senior and junior as necessarily applying in the context of this discussion.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the House. I totally agree that it should be the presiding judge who will be intimately in day-to-day contact with all sorts of circuit judges in different situations. Therefore, we shall have two for the price of one. One will also get the experience of a circuit judge. I do not agree about the strings which my noble and learned friend has attached. I am sure that the ordinary channels of communication will suffice to ensure that the best possible presiding judge is appointed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall need to consider this matter further because, as your Lordships appreciate, it is important. I have considered it on the basis of the amendment and I now wish to consider the matter further. I certainly would not wish to make a decision now and I shall consult further before coming to a conclusion. However, I am very grateful for the indications given by my noble and learned friends. I hope that in the light of the dicussion my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, at this time of night I shall not divide the House. I add only this. I have quoted what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said on an earlier occasion about how he would willingly consider a circuit judge. The last time he referred to this matter was on the third day of the Committee stage. He said:
"I am entirely open to suggestions as to the people who should be on the body. A number of suggestions have been made already, and I think there is at least one other amendment suggesting yet another possible person".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1260.]
That was a stipendiary magistrate. He went on to say:
"I should love to see, within the constraints I have mentioned, all of these people on the body".
I hope we are moving. If we are, it is rather slow, but hope springs eternal. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 88 not moved.]
10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 13, line 42, at end insert —
("appointed after consultation with such organisations as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to meet some of the anxieties expressed at Committee stage in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and my noble friend Lord Boardman. It places the Lord Chancellor under an obligation to consult appropriate organisations, when making appointments to the lay membership of the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct. It was always my intention to consult such bodies, but I am happy to make this plain by making it a statutory obligation. The form of the amendment mirrors the requirement for the Lord Chancellor to consult such organisations representing teachers of law as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate when appointing the two legal academics to the Committee under Clause 16 (4) (c). I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I have understood the reasons given by my noble and learned friend for this amendment, it seems to overlap with what is already in subsection (4) (c). However, he intends it, and it is indeed in place, as part of subsection (4) (d) if I have understood the matter rightly. That is as it reads on the Marshalled List. Perhaps he could clarify that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the way it will run is that eight persons shall be present, other than salaried judges and so on,
"appointed after consultation with such organisations as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate".
That appears to make perfectly good sense in the circumstances.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for proposing this amendment which will go a long way to meet the point raised in Committee. I understand that he is proposing that when consulting he will be seeking a background in commercial affairs, that that will remain among the desirable objectives and that he will certainly wish to consult bodies such as the CBI when considering candidates. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for this consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is exactly the sort of body that I have in mind, including bodies across the spectrum of interest represented in the immediately succeeding subsection.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 14, line 32, at end insert—
(" (12) The Chairman of the Advisory Committee and any other judicial member either of the Advisory Committee or of any of its committees or sub-committees shall be appointed with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I can take this quite shortly because I have already outlined the philosophy behind the amendment. Under Clause 53 we have "Presiding Judges" and it is provided that for each of the circuits there shall be two presiding judges and there shall also be a senior presiding judge. Those appointments are made by the Lord Chief Justice with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor. I suggest that the same courtesies, mutatis mutandis, be applied to the appointment of the chairman of the advisory committee and any other judicial member—that envisages optimistically that there will be another judicial member—and also any other judicial member on a sub-committee.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already referred to co-options which can be carried out under the schedule. I respectfully suggest that it is the Lord Chief Justice who knows better than anyone else the qualities certainly of his presiding judges and, indeed, the quality of his judges too. He of course would consult among his fellow judges, in particular the heads of the divisions, but in this way the epithet "Lord Chancellor's committee" which one has heard frequently referred to would be somewhat diluted. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it humbly appears to me that the appointment of this committee should be the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, for which he is answerable to Parliament. My noble and learned friend can take it that, as with other matters, I should certainly wish to have the views on these matters of the Lord Chief Justice and the other heads of division. However, I do not believe it is appropriate that the Lord Chief Justice should be involved by giving agreement to these appointments. I believe it right that the Lord Chancellor should carry that responsibility, for which, as I said, he is answerable to Parliament. I believe that the object that my noble and learned friend has in mind will certainly be secured by the arrangements that I have in mind.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I was not in any way departing from confidence in my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, but, as has been frequently pointed out, there are future appointments years hence to be made. The sharing of the responsibility I should have thought was an appropriate one, but if it is not to be accepted I shall achieve nothing by seeking to carry the matter any further, at least tonight. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Duties of the Advisory Committee]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 14, line 37, at end insert —
(" (3) In discharging its functions the Advisory Committee shall —
(a) where it considers it appropriate, have regard to the practices and procedures of other member States in relation to the provision of legal services;

249
(b) have regard to the desirability of equality of opportunity between persons seeking to practise any profession, pursue any career or take up any employment, in connection with the provision of legal services.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to meet some of the concerns expressed at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Elles, and the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Prys-Davies. The amendment requires the advisory committee, when carrying out its functions, to bear in mind the desirability of ensuring equal opportunities in the legal profession and, where appropriate, how legal services are provided in other European countries. I would expect the advisory committee to bear such matters in mind anyway. I am, however, happy to recognise the concern expressed by your Lordships that these two categories were likely to be of central importance in the development of legal services and to put the matter beyond doubt by including these requirements in the statute. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 93, Amendment No. 94:
Leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have raised this amendment because, quite frankly, I do not understand what paragraph (b) means, and at this stage in the evening the prospect of my understanding it will not improve. That is a difficulty which I am relieved to be able to tell your Lordships has been equally encountered by all my noble friends with whom I have discussed it.
If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could elucidate what it means, then my amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not be moved but at the moment we are totally at a loss as to what it covers.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if my noble and learned friend wants an explanation he will have to move the amendment. I will put the question, and then it is open to me to give such an explanation.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to express my lack of comprehension as to what paragraph (b) means. Since I do not know what it means I think I would be acting irresponsibly if I were party to it being passed. That is the purpose of the amendment, and accordingly I move it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, one is in some difficulty with our procedure. I should like to explore this amendment as well, that is, to leave out paragraph (b), but I do not think I am making a speech at the moment; I am merely expressing a doubt about our procedure. If I do make a speech now and then my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gives his explanation, there will be no opportunity of comment. I hope therefore that in the circumstances your Lordships will agree that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who I think is eager to give an explanation of paragraph (b), should give his
250
explanation now, and then those of us who wish to follow it up should be allowed to do so.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am proposing to make a short reponse to that matter now, and if my noble friend wishes to ask the leave of the House, if he thinks that is necessary, no doubt he will do so.
Paragraph (b) is intended to give effect to the concerns expressed on the last occasion by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Prys-Davies, that one of the important matters to be borne in mind —I believe this is a matter of general agreement —is that in the profession equality of opportunity as between males and females, and as between members of ethnic communities and others, for example, should be kept in mind. Training regulations and regulations about practice might have to have regard to that.
One of the difficulties that has been experienced in recent times in connection with the profession is that it has not been easy for married women always to attain the same degree of experience in the profession at the corresponding age as their male counterparts, with the result that it is not always easy, in a competition for the best available person to fill a position, to find a lady who is as qualified as some of the men. There are concerns in relation to that type of equal opportunity. The ethnic communities form another area where such a difficulty arises.
I have understood noble Lords who raised the matter to be concerned about that point and anxious that that aspect of the matter should be taken into account by the advisory committee in the discharge of its functions. Paragraph (b), as drafted, achieves that aim. That is the idea of it. It is upon that basis that parliamentary counsel was instructed, and he has come up with this provision as a result of those instructions which were based upon discussions held in Committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I was in doubt as to whether paragraph (b) was necessary in view of the race relations and equal opportunities legislation. If it is not, it should be omitted in the interests of economy. With regard to paragraph (a), I read "other member States" as meaning members of the European Community. I could not find the phrase defined. It is not in the interpretation clause. I should be grateful if I could be advised on that matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in the hope that I do not need the leave of the House —and I do not believe that I do because I was merely raising a point of procedure—I should like now to have the opportunity to reply to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said. The amendment did not appear in the Printed Paper Office until yesterday morning so one has not had very much time to discover what it could mean; although I received a copy at my home in the country on Saturday afternoon, for which I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
If paragraph (a) is intended to refer to other states of the European Community it is a commendable

251
insertion into the Bill, but when it says "other member States" in the context in which it appears, it does not seem necessarily to be limited to that point. If the intention is to limit the provision to other member states of the European Community, all well and good, but that point should be made clear.
As to paragraph (b) —my name is appended to those of the noble and learned Lords —I was puzzled by its drafting. I can understand equality of opportunity but, as noble and learned Lords have pointed out, we have our race relations and our sex equality legislation and therefore there would seem to be no need to follow that up because the provision would automatically apply. I find the words,
"between persons seeking to practise any profession, pursue any career or take up any employment, in connection with the provision of legal services",
strange and strangely irrelevant even in the context of the Bill's wide purposes. At first in my innocence I wondered whether it meant that, for example, the general secretary of the Wig Makers' Union, who may be a most splendid person but not legally qualified, shall have equal opportunity in connection with legal services with anyone else who will be practising them.
For the sake of clarity, and not to mislead people who build hopes on this strange provision, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be asked to take it away and ask parliamentary counsel to look at it again. It simply does not seem to fit.
Let me come back to the express purpose which is not to be gleaned from the wording of the amendment but from what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said; that is, to give equality of opportunity to women as well as men—and I agree with that—and to members of ethnic minorities; and I agree with that. However, what are the facts? Already 17 per cent. of the members of the Bar practising in England and Wales are women. A member of my own family, I am glad to say, is one of them. That compares with only 10 per cent. 20 years ago and about 1 per cent. when I was called to the Bar.
However, a more important fact than the one that I have just given is this. No fewer than 38 per cent. of the people recently called to the Bar are women. With regard to ethnic minorities, I am not surprised that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Prys-Davies, have referred to them. Here for the first time in all the discussions on this Bill I shall claim virtue for the Bar which the solicitors' branch of the profession does not possess. I am advised that a much higher proportion of members of ethnic minorities —I am not sure what the proportion is —is called to the Bar and is attempting to practise at the Bar than is the case with the solicitors' branch of the profession.
Although other factors may occur to other noble Lords, with those factors in mind I hope that my noble and learned friend will think again about the amendment. I presume that it will be accepted and will get on to the statute book. However, I hope that at Third Reading he will limit the provision to what is really intended and will clarify the meaning.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I do not find the meaning of the clause particularly difficult to understand. It might be slightly improved if the last six or seven words of the amendment began paragraph (b). It would then read that the functions of the advisory committee shall in relation to the provision of legal services have regard to the desirability, and so on. I should have thought that that would make it clearer and would achieve the objective that my noble and learned friend states that he seeks with this paragraph.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, for the first time I am not on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I believe that we are making a great mouthful out of this. Subsection (3) (b) simply provides for the advisory committee to practise an equal opportunity policy while doing its work. That seems to me to be admirable and it should be in the Bill. Knowing the noble and learned Lord's commitment to it, I can only express my gratitude to him that he has put it in the Bill. I cannot see what all the fuss is about.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I do not have any difficulty in obtaining the general message from these words and I doubt whether in context anyone will have to do a nice, as we would say —the layman might take a different adjective—piece of construction.
What troubles me is something different. It arises out of construction. Section 17 (1) states:
"The Advisory Committee shall have the general duty of assisting in the maintenance and development of standards".
Subsection (2) states that it has to carry out the general duty which is set out in considerable detail in Schedule 2. One has to keep one's finger in the previous page, which states that in all its doings it has to have regard to the general principle and the statutory objective.
Then, largely because the point was raised in debate, we come suddenly to this EC point, which is perfectly valid, and the non-discrimination point, which again is a perfectly valid point, tacked on as a new subsection. One would either have to be comprehensive and put in all the considerations to which the members of the committee should have regard—and, I am sure, there are many others if one were to think about this —or perhaps parliamentary counsel could conjure up some words which suggest that, while it is very important that they should have regard to non-discrimination and very important if—perish the thought! —it became relevant that they should look at European law, although I must not allow my prejudices to show, it must not be elevated to a main principle which dominates everything and which has equal importance, for instance, to the general principle and the statutory objective. To some extent that is a drafting point, but to some extent it has some substance. In two or three years' time people will have forgotten what the intention was and they will have to get if from the wording of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall be very short in what I have to say. I should like first to express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having incorporated into the Bill in very clear terms a principle which we from these Benches supported. I believe it was also supported by Members on other Benches. We asked that the advisory committee should have very much in mind the cause of equal opportunity between men and women, ethnic minorities and so on.
I congratulate the side of the profession of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as regards the percentages he produced. I must be very frank with him and say that I do not have any percentages to put forward in regard to my side of the profession. However, I say to him that it is quite extraordinary that the percentage he gave to the House in regard to the membership of the ethnic minorities of the Bar—and I believe I am right in saying this—represents only two circuit judges, no High Court judges, no judges of the Court of Appeal and no judges of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. I am not saying that that results from the point of view of prejudice; however, I am saying that there is much in regard to such matters which is to be considered by an advisory committee.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that the judges are appointed by the Lord Chancellor of the day.
Lord Mishcon: Yes, my Lords; but the Lord Chancellor will be advised by the advisory committee.
Having said that, I regard the language employed here as being perfectly clear. I can well understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls that perhaps some magic words like "inter alia", or whatever it may be, ought to be included in the Bill. In my view that is a perfectly valid point. However, the wording of this new clause should be clear to everyone. I am so grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having inserted paragraph (b).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the position of this wording in the clause seems to me to be quite reasonable having regard, first, to the kind of prominence which my noble friend Lady Elles wished to give to the European dimension so that we would not be considering all these matters in a vacuum, and so that we should have regard to the development of the Community of which we form part. Certainly my understanding is that the phrase "member states" is sufficiently precise to connote membership of the European Community. However, I shall look further at that point.
So far as concerns the second point, the emphasis is one which I thought the committee would wish to put upon the matter. I have tried to reflect that fact faithfully in the amendment. It comes after the specification of general duties, which can be ascertained by reference to the schedule. I am especially grateful to find myself on the same side of the matter as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson
254
of Lullington. In this connection it just shows the ebb and flow of agreement that one can have in this Chamber, especially as the night wears on.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the Race Relations Act and the equal opportunities legislation. That is of interest because, so far as I understand it, the granting of tenancies within chambers and the relationship between solicitors and counsel are not within the scope of that legislation. Above and beyond this, the amendment is drafted to cover equality of opportunity in its widest sense. I mentioned some aspects of that; opportunities for the disabled are another subject in which my noble friend has a particular interest. I know of the work that he has done to promote the interests of those who are disabled, particularly those with mental handicap.
This is intended to cover equality of opportunity in its widest sense. That is a thoroughly sound principle and I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought it to my attention. It is right that we should include it here.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful for the assistance from my noble and learned friend. Mine was not a critical amendment but one which admitted to an inability to understand what was behind the provision. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend saw page 3 of The Times yesterday. It carried a most extraordinary article which seemed to indicate that there was a lack of merit in the appointment of the judiciary. Since that has nothing to do with the advisory committee but everything to do with the Lord Chancellor's Department, I and my brother judges found great difficulty in connecting this amendment —which we assumed must have something to do with the announcement in The Times —with that announcement which purported to quote a certain amount of information from my noble and learned friend's department. Now that we know what the provision is aimed at, I am grateful for the explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 94, as an amendment to Amendment No. 93, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall now put the Question on Amendment No. 93, since we have ranged over it.
On Question, Amendment No. 93 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Specific Functions of the Advisory Committee]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 69, line 42, leave out paragraph 7.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have put down a number of amendments in relation to Clause 44 (preparation of papers for probate) which, among other things, includes a new schedule which sets out the requirements for and system of approving applications from bodies who wish to authorise their members to undertake probate work.
The advisory committee's duty which is currently contained in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 is now contained in that new schedule. This amendment therefore deletes it from Schedule 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [The Legal Services Ombudsman]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("Legal Services Ombudsman") and insert ("Commissioner for the Legal Services Profession").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my principal or first purpose in moving the amendment is to draw attention to the incongruity and general inappropriateness of introducing into our legislation for the first time the Scandinavian word "ombudsman" on the face of the Bill. I am no Canute; I am quite prepared to join any other person in referring to anyone as an "ombudsman", who has been appointed anywhere to act as a complaints arbitrator, adjudicator or troubleshooter, especially so if that is what consumers and those who arrogate the right to speak for consumers conceive to be in their interests.
When the provisions of the building societies ombudsman were being introduced at Report stage during the passage of the Building Societies Bill, Mr. Austin Mitchell, in another place, said that building societies were pioneering a development which should be universal. This Bill may be seen as another step in what he might call the right direction, even if it does not answer Mr. Mitchell's second point. That was a call for enforceability. Mr. Ken Weetch said that he thought that the ombudsman principle was a success and a sound way of adjudicating disputes. If this principle is carried further in this kind of direction, with an ombudsman at every bend, we shall ultimately have no need for courts and lawyers. However, what we should not forget is that the first ombudsman was created on the Scandinavian model by the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 as a means of affording redress to the citizen in respect of central government maladministration. By Section 5 of the 1967 Act the Parliamentary Commissioner may investigate any:
"action taken by or on behalf of a government department … being action taken in the exercise of administrative functions … in any case where … a written complaint is duly made to a member of the House of Commons by a member of the public who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with the action so taken".
The Parliamentary Commissioner was only created after a long struggle with the administration which began, I suppose, after the Crichel Down affair in the early 1950s. There was then the report of the Franks Committee and then a series of initiatives by Justice, the English branch of the International Commission of Jurists. That is an all-party body of lawyers formed to uphold the rule of law. When the late Lord Gardiner introduced the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill to this House on 8th February 1967 he was able to refer to his own interest in the ombudsman question as dating back
256
for six years. He described the objects of the Bill as to increase the powers of Members of the other place over the executive; to provide a remedy for the citizen who believes himself unjustly treated by a government department and to improve the administration of central government.
Since then we have had the local commissioner for administration appointed by the Local Government Act 1974 and the health service commissioners established by the National Health Service Act 1977. Those three commissioners are what I would call true ombudsmen. If the term were to be introduced into legislation, it would be appropriate to rename those commissioners and call them ombudsmen. It appears to me that since then the proliferation of ombudsmen, so termed, has gone a long way to turn on its head the original concept of the individual seeking redress against the state. We now have the banking ombudsman and ombudsmen dealing with insurance and unit trusts. These are complaints adjudicators, called ombudsmen, set up by the industries concerned as a response to perceived demand for new treatment of customer complaints in a changing climate of opinion about these matters. They provide conciliation services to which the various corporations providing the services in question—that is, the services of the corporations—may or may not belong. I understand that the great majority of corporations subscribe to their ombudsmen schemes. If they subscribe they assume a commitment to comply with the recommendations of their ombudsman, whatever those may be. I have no doubt that they do this because the cost of being prepared to comply with what may be, or seem to be, a perverse recommendation is clearly going to be a small overhead expense of the organisation concerned in relation to the shared benefit to all in the industry of having an independent complaints settlement procedure which leaves customers satisfied.
It is when we come to the building societies ombudsman scheme that difficulties seem to me to set in, because this is the first statutory scheme to be compulsorily applied within the private sector. The building society ombudsman provisions were introduced during the passage of the Building Societies Act. The Building Societies Act provides in Section 83 that an individual shall have the right to have a complaint against any building society investigated under a scheme set up under the section. A scheme has to be recognised by the Building Societies Commission, and there is now one recognised scheme to which all building societies are compelled by the Act to belong. The adjudicator under the scheme is, not surprisingly, called an ombudsman.
When this ombudsman considers a complaint he is, under Clause 29 of the scheme, not to be bound by any previous decision. He is to have regard to such matters as the rules of the building society concerned and any contract with the person complaining, but he makes his decision solely by reference to what in his opinion is fair in all the circumstances.
Those are very broad criteria for one man to apply because they take the consideration of complaints

257
outside the law. It is for that reason that a building society is not bound by the ombudsman's determination. It is true that a building society which chooses not to follow the determination must widely publicise its decision and that a similar provision is included in this Bill. However, I shall not go further down that path because it forms the subject of an amendment which I moved in Committee and which I have tabled again.
From the building societies ombudsman I turn to the proposed new Legal Services Ombudsman and to the point that he would have power to investigate specific complaints against individual legal practitioners. That has nothing to do with the investigation of maladministration and with David and Goliath. Whereas the building societies ombudsman may only investigate complaints brought by individuals—not corporations—against building societies, under the new provisions to be introduced by these clauses there is no reason why substantial complaints by large organisations, for example building societies, may not be investigated when made against legal practitioners. If that comes to pass Goliath may be claiming against David and the wheel will have turned full circle.
It is so that your Lordships may consider the points that I have raised that I beg to move the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I considered carefully what title I should give this officer. The word is new to the statute book. The word "commissioner" has until now been applied to such posts.
The word is of Swedish origin and was originally applied to persons appointed to check against administrative abuse by governments—David and Goliath. I assume Goliath to be the government. The word is still used internationally in that sense. In Britain we have extended the concept, if not the title, to the health and local government spheres. More relevantly, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, further developments have seen the creation of an ombudsman for banking, insurance and building societies. In creating the title Legal Services Ombudsman we have extended the concept to a profession. In one sense, however, we are only building on a principle which was already established, at least so far as concerns solicitors, under the 1974 Solicitors Act. The question is, therefore, what the Lay Observer's successor should be called.
I believe that there are good reasons for using the word "ombudsman". It is the word in common use for a public representative who has general powers to investigate complaints about particular areas of activity, whether against government or against institutions. Whatever this House decides I am sure that the holder of the post will generally be called an ombudsman.
Moreover, I believe that the term, although originally foreign, is now in common use in English. There is no common suitable English alternative to describe those functions precisely. The word appears
258
in English dictionaries and is in regular use. It seems rather odd to legislate that the new office shall be known as,
"the Commissioner for the Legal Services Profession",
if all our expectations are that it will in fact be known, as I hope it will be, by the rather simpler title of Legal Services Ombudsman.
If we do not introduce the word into the statute book the discrepancy between public use and legal terminology —always a matter of complaint among laymen —will become wider. I believe that it is right to give the word the blessing of the statute book and to use in the statute book the word which we believe lay people will use in ordinary language.
I hope that my noble friend will feel that on that aspect, although the point is worthy of consideration, mature consideration of the matter suggests that it was right to go down that road. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his explanation and, although I would not agree with it entirely, I have said that I do not see myself in the role of Canute. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Ombudsman's functions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 15, line 17, leave out ("notary") and insert ("duly certificated notary public").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 98 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 216.
The amendments are required to deal with a problem that has arisen in the original terms of the Bill. Originally, the bare term "notary" was used in Clauses 18, 19 and 33, but the term "duly certificated notary public" was used in Clause 44, which relates to the preparation of papers for probate. The problem is that ecclesiastical notaries, who require no legal qualification and no practising certificate from the Court of Faculties, which regulates notaries, fall within the term "notary". Thus, in the Bill as presently drafted, persons with no legal qualifications might be subject to the legal services ombudsman under Clause 19 and entitled to carry out conveyancing under Clause 33.
The first two amendments substitute for the word "notary" in those two clauses the words "duly certificated notary public". Thus, only notaries with practising certificates and therefore legal qualifications will fall within them. That parallels Clause 44.
In Clause 18, which deals with ineligibility for the post of ombudsman, the broad term "notary" is to remain so that ecclesiastical notaries are ineligible for the post. Although they are not necessarily legal practitioners, they belong to the same faculty as other notaries and could therefore be open to some difficulty of conflict of interest.
The third of the amendments gives "duly certificated notary public" the same meaning for the purposes of the Bill as it has in the Solicitors Act 1974. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 16, line 11, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the amendments is to remove the exclusion of the ombudsman from investigating matters in respect of which the person who is the subject matter of the complaint would have an immunity from action. It would not be appropriate for the ombudsman to have power to make a recommendation for compensation in respect of anything covered by advocates' immunity, but that is no reason why the ombudsman should not investigate the complaint. His investigation might disclose a need for disciplinary proceedings to be taken by the professional body concerned.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will note that Amendment No. 100 would ensure that the ombudsman could not recommend the payment of compensation in respect of matters to which the immunity attaches. However, he could exercise his specific power under Section 20 (2) (b) to recommend that the relevant professional or disciplinary body should consider exercising its disciplinary powers against the person who is the subject of the complaint. The ombudsman's investigation and recommendation could therefore operate as a spur to the professional body to deal with the matter.
The current position is that both the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal and that of the Bar can investigate matters which are the subject of the immunity. So why should the ombudsman not also be able to do so, particularly as the immunity rule is designed essentially to put an end to litigation and to prevent the relitigation of decided issues through the medium of a negligence action against advocates? I emphasise that the purpose of the immunity rule is not to protect lawyers from the consequence of errors or misconduct which could be the subject of professional disciplinary proceedings.
I urge the amendment because public confidence in the effectiveness of the overall system of investigating complaints against advocates would be enhanced if the ombudsman could entertain a complaint protected by the immunity, not as a substitute for but as a supplement to the jurisdiction of the disciplinary bodies over conduct protected by the immunity and to enable the ombudsman to give these disciplinary bodies a prod if necessary to consider taking action themselves.
The amendments would also help because, although I firmly believe that the immunity is necessary in the public interest, it is well known that the public find the immunity difficult to understand. I think therefore that access to the ombudsman in immunity cases would add to public confidence in the investigation of their complaints. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I find myself in the unhappy position of having to oppose this amendment. I do so because the operative word in the paragraph to be left out is "conduct". If we leave that paragraph out and allow the ombudsman to investigate conduct in court as to which there is immunity —I am speaking so far as the Bar is concerned, as the noble Lord did —we shall get into the position of having the ombudsman overlapping the power and indeed the duty of the court to ensure proper conduct in court. We shall also find that the ombudsman's power of investigation would overlap the responsibility of the Inns of Court and the Bar Council to uphold the standards and discipline of the Bar.
We really cannot have too many different kinds of authorities acting as active investigators and with power to punish people indirectly. I should have thought that the power of the court, the Inns of Court and the Bar Council were quite enough.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps at this late hour of the evening I might get away with a little heresy. I have always found it very difficult to justify the immunity of advocates appearing in court. I am fully aware of the arguments about the duty toward the court and the integrity of the judicial process, but I have never conceived that when an advocate is grossly negligent in court that will either disturb the concept of duty to the court or invade the integrity of the judicial process.
We now have the opportunity with our legal services ombudsman to oversee the provision of legal services and deal with complaints arising out of the conduct of those legal services. It seems to me that this is a most important opportunity for us to take in drawing back the veil on the professions' immunity for matters conducted in the courtroom. Therefore, while I may not be in agreement with the earlier part of the submissions of the noble Lord who moved this amendment, I certainly wholly agree with the purport of the amendment. I agree with him that it should act as a spur to the professions.
I can tell the House that certainly the Law Society is wholly supportive of this amendment. I see it therefore as a spur to the professions to take action. Adopting another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, I also see it as a way of helping the public to have greater confidence in lawyers and the legal system.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 would enable the ombudsman to investigate an allegation of negligence against an advocate but not to make the recommendation which the complainant is perhaps most likely to seek. That is the effect of Amendment No. 100. I find it difficult to think it appropriate that the ombudsman should have jurisdiction in areas which are expressly closed to the courts. I feel that that would not be right. Nor do I see much point in conferring a jurisdiction which could only fail in the most part to deliver what the claimant seeks. I see

261
that the professional disciplines might be spurred, which is what perhaps the noble Lord principally has in mind.
On the other hand, the ombudsman is brought into position, as it were, by the claimant. The principal purpose of its existence is to try to give the complainant satisfaction. As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has said, the purpose of the immunity rule is to prevent what would effectively be retrials of the substantive issues of the original case, which would often be very difficult to decide, and would have the effect of bringing into doubt the decision of the original court case. In being unconvinced about the immunity, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has perhaps reached that conclusion because he has not looked at the best argument in its favour which is the one that I have just indicated. That is the essential reason for the immunity. It has not to do with integrity so much as that in an action for negligence which is going to succeed at the instance of a complainant or plaintiff, the fundamental issue will be whether the negligence caused damage. That will entail examining whether the decision would have been the same but for what had occurred. That is a way of unsettling the existing court decision in a most unattrative way. We have of course debated that issue separately.
Since courts are not to be able to try actions for negligence where immunity is claimed, I believe that it would be inappropriate for the ombudsman to do so. The professional bodies can investigate these matters and do—both the Law Society and the complaints procedures of the Bar —but I believe that that is how the matter should stand and that it is inadvisable to put the ombudsman into a position where, on the noble Lord's own approach to the matter, he cannot do all that he is able to do in other contexts. That is the problem I have with it.
1 entirely support the idea that we want to make confidence in the profession as high as possible—that is the whole purpose of having the ombudsman —but I differ from the noble Lord in the judgment of whether it would increase confidence to have a complainant go to an ombudsman who would be able to investigate up to a point but would not be able to give the only real matter as a reward if the complainant succeeded which the complainant is likely to be interested in—some form of recommendation under the paragraph to which Amendment No. 100 applies.
While I very much support the general thrust of what he would like to see arising from the ombudsman's appointment, I hope the noble Lord may feel that this position might cause more difficulty if the ombudsman went into it than it would resolve.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I recognise that it is a matter of judgment, but, with respect, I differ from the noble and learned Lord. In one part of his response, he suggested that the ombudsman not looking at these matters was a corollary of the immunity rule: it would be inappropriate for the ombudsman to look at these matters if the court could not do so in the context of a negligence action. He also said that what the complainant would
262
essentially be looking for was compensation, which Amendment No. 100 precludes. On the other hand, the complainant might be looking for and might well be satisfied with, the courts being closed off to him, a proper investigation by the disciplinary bodies. The flaw which I perceived, if I may say so with respect, in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was his view that these amendments trespassed, first, upon the right of the courts to discipline persons appearing before them and secondly, upon the rights of the professional bodies. As to the first, the courts' ability to control the conduct of advocates is essentially in relation to the conduct of advocates as it appears to the court in the face of the court. Conduct which the court may not see can also be the legitimate subject matter of complaint by the litigant.
As regards the second point, I see no reason why a prod at professional bodies is inappropriate, especially since they may see alleged misconduct covered by the immunity differently from the ombudsman. Therefore, I had hoped that the amendment would meet with a more favourable response. It is designed to enhance public confidence that all complaints against lawyers are independently considered.
I am mindful that I have moved the amendment at a late hour. Obviously, it would not be appropriate to take the opinion of the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, despite his original response, I invite the noble and learned Lord to study in Hansard what has been said and reconsider his view.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Recommendations]:
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 18, line 1, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved the amendment some time after midnight. When I arrived here today I found that it was last but one on the list of groupings and therefore I cannot expect noble Lords to express a clear opinion about its substance. However, in Committee my noble and learned friend offered me what, after consideration as to whether they were crusts or crumbs, I decided were the odd crumbs of comfort. Tonight my amendment relates to the proposal that the ombudsman should have the power to investigate and make recommendations in respect of substantive complaints against legal practitioners. The subsection to which I object—and I do so with the support of the Bar Council, the Law Society and Justice—would provide that a legal practitioner who does not accept the ombudsman's recommendation shall advertise that fact as required by the ombudsman and at the practitioner's expense.
In Committee my noble and learned friend indicated that the proposal in the subsection had precedent in a number of schemes in which an ombudsman had such a power. He kindly said that he would consider the matter further should it prove that the other schemes could properly be distinguished.
I consider that the other schemes can be distinguished and I have had correspondence with my noble and learned friend which I now wish to share with the House. I believe that there are three ways in which the proposals in the Bill can be distinguished from what has gone before. First, what has gone before is to be found only in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which has been in force for three months and in the Building Societies Act 1986 to which I have already referred.
I am aware of only one case in which a building society was required to publicise dissent and at its own expense. I understand that the ombudsman found that in the case of premature repayment of a loan it was unfair for a building society to charge the additional three months' interest to which the society was contractually entitled. He found that to be unfair because he considered that at an early stage in the negotiations the building society should have specifically informed the potential borrower that such a clause existed and that it could be enforced against the borrower. The ombudsman considered it necessary to make that point in that particular case because nowadays it is rare for building societies to ask for additional interest on early repayment of loans. It seems to me that there is very little precedent to be found in those two Acts for what we have before us in this Bill.
The second point is that what precedent there is relates to complaints against building societies and local authorities. The cost of compliance with a recommendation made against a building society or local authority will not fall on the official of the society who perpetrated the act of maladministration which is in question. By contrast, in this Bill the cost of compliance with the ombudsman's requirement will fall on the legal practitioner himself.
The final way in which I distinguish the new provisions from what has gone before is that it must be borne in mind that the legal practitioner who is concerned to answer a complaint when it is being investigated by the ombudsman will already have had the complaint investigated by his professional body. Therefore, he will have undergone the considerable personal expense of the cost of the investigations carried out by two different bodies. I should be very grateful if my noble and learned friend would look again at this to see whether he can offer some hope that it may be possible to delete this subsection. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support this amendment. I believe that it is rather strange that a person who has been accused by the ombudsman and, in effect, refuses to comply with what the ombudsman has recommended should then be told by the ombudsman how to publish the fact of failure and then to provide his reasons for it.
The rather strange point is that under Clause 20 (5) the ombudsman is absolutely privileged in that the law of defamation cannot apply to his report. However, if the person being required to publish his reasons for refusing or failing to comply then does
264
so, he would not be protected from the exemption from the law of defamation except to the extent which the common law provides—and it does provide to some extent —although on the expressio unius principle one would hope that he too would be protected, as is the ombudsman in subsection (5).
This rather unusual provision causes people possibly to publish information against themselves and it requires them to publish the reasons for their refusal in a way that the ombudsman or anyone else shall specify. I find this rather strange and I hope that my noble friend will reconsider the matter.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am somewhat worried about this subsection. I would have agreed that the Bill should provide that the findings of the ombudsman should be mandatory, but the Government have not seen fit to provide for that. Therefore, there is pressure put upon the person to comply by his being told "Either you comply with what I have said or you will publish in such form as I specify that you have not complied and the reasons for it".
The words,
"in such manner as the Ombudsman may specify",
could mean the ombudsman requiring publication in a way which could be highly damaging to the person who had not conformed with the requirement. As my noble friend said, under subsection (5) the question of defamation also arises. I hope that further thought can be given to that subsection.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this subsection requires that if the ombudsman finds against a practitioner there should be some form of sanction if the practitioner does not agree with the ombudsman and does not implement what the ombudsman said. We thought it unwise to go the length of forcing the practitioner to do what the ombudsman said. He always has that option, but if he declines to do so it seems right that the ombudsman's authority should not be completely undermined.
If the person does not agree with the ombudsman, what is supposed to happen? The ombudsman's recommendation is left as a dead letter. It seems to me that to make the ombudsman's recommendation binding is going quite a long distance on the practitioner, because the ombudsman may decide this matter in a way to which the practitioner feels there is a reasonable answer. If so, I should have thought, in the light of what has been decided so far, that this is the best way to proceed.
The manner in which the ombudsman directs, or sees fit to do so, is intended to deal with the specification which the ombudsman may give,
"in such manner as the Ombudsman may specify",
in order sufficiently to publicise the failure in a relevant way as to make this a reasonable sanction. Such a power would be subject to the ordinary type of judicial review, I should have thought, if the ombudsman's specification was utterly unreasonable. However, the main point is the need for some form of sanction.

265
The Building Societies Act has such a sanction and the only case of which I know is the one to which reference has been made. The council of the building societies' ombudsman said:
"The decision to give building societies the option not to comply with an Ombudsman judgement was taken during the passage of the 1986 Act. It was considered that it would be unfair to deprive building societies of any right to question the merits of the Ombudsman's decision, particularly as he can of course decide against a society on the grounds that it has treated a complainant unfairly, even if the society in question is not in breach of the law.
"In general the Council accepts this argument. We are nevertheless determined that building societies should not confuse a publicity option with a soft option. The price tag attached to the required negative publicity should always be an appropriately high one, so that societies think long and hard before deciding to pay it".
In other words, the council was concerned that the publicity option might be a soft option to a society deciding not to go along with the ombudsman, and therefore it was right that fairly considerable publicity should be required. That suggests, to my mind, that previous experience supports what we are doing here, and suggests that it is by no means a tall order to impose on a practitioner who has been required by the ombudsman to do something which the practitioner declines to do.
I have reconsidered this matter in the light of discussions I have had with my noble friend Lord Coleraine, and I should be glad to know what sort of sanction my noble friends who do not care for this proposal have in mind should be attached to the ombudsman's jurisdiction if this sanction were not to apply. So far I remain unconvinced that it is right to take out this provision and I hope that in the light of my remarks my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends who supported this amendment. I must say that I am, in a modest way, horrified that my noble and learned friend is not able to see the difference between measures taken against a building society and measures taken against an individual practitioner, especially when, as I pointed out, the individual practitioner has already undergone an investigation by his own professional body which has found him essentially not guilty as charged. In the case where the ombudsman has given directions which the practitioner feels that he should not or does not feel obliged to comply with, the professional body itself may be considerably embarrassed by the decision of the ombudsman.
I was particularly distressed to learn that the remedy that a practitioner might find for a bad decision by the ombudsman was by way of judicial review. I should have thought that the practitioner had had enough in the way of investigations without having to go to court to avoid the need to advertise at his own expense the failure to do what the ombudsman had asked him to do.
My noble and learned friend asked me what sanctions should be applied. There is a very wide gulf between us. I do not consider that it is appropriate for any sanction to be applied to a
266
practitioner in these circumstances who has taken the decision he has done.
The ombudsman's recommendation must carry force, and it is not to be disregarded, but as I look at it there is no need to think in terms of sanctions. If the ombudsman makes a recommendation which is not being complied with, surely it should be the case that the ombudsman then advertises as widely as he thinks prudent or desirable the fact that the solicitor, the barrister or whoever it is is not taking the advice of the ombudsman. That in itself will operate as a quasi-sanction against the practitioner—the fact that his dereliction is being exposed to the world in this way.
It is obviously a late hour to ask the opinion of the House, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Extension of Ombudsman's remit]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 102:
Page 19, line 4, leave out beginning to first ("the") in line 5.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, earlier today noble Lords who had down important amendments showed meritable self-abnegation in not moving them. They did that so that the still more important amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, about the cab rank principle should come on not at this time but at an hour when there was a reasonable assembly of noble Lords in your Lordships' House who could hear the debate and make up their minds on the arguments put forward. That proved to be thoroughly beneficial, but in spite of that self-abnegation the fact is that many amendments were not moved. Nevertheless, I find myself now called on to move an amendment at 10 minutes past eleven.
Originally, three days were put down for the Report Stage. That always seemed to be inadequate in view of the very heavy Committee stages that we had: six days, on only one of which the Committee rose before half-past ten; two were taken beyond midnight; and the last sat until nearly three o'clock in the morning. So three days always seemed inadequate. Then one day was taken away, and after a delay it was restored on a different date. Today's experience and that in Committee indicate very strongly that three days are not sufficient for proper discussion of this Bill on Report. The view has increasingly grown that the Bill is being hustled through your Lordships' House with maximum pressure on your Lordships and the minimum possible opportunity to discuss important issues at an hour when your Lordships are present to hear the arguments.
The matter does not rest there. On Friday the Government tabled 120 amendments. That is more than half the number of amendments that are at present on the Marshalled List. Obviously some of them were drafting amendments and some were in response to matters that were raised in Committee, but two new clauses and two new schedules, one of

267
them substantial, were tabled and one clause was completely rewritten. That in itself amounts to a substantial Bill. So I say, and I am glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is here, that three days is insufficient for the Bill's provisions to be discussed at reasonable times. However, as it is now past 11.15 p.m. it would be absurd to pursue the matter further.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be adjourned.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hasmonean High School Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  BELFAST INCIDENT, 13TH JANUARY
  BELFAST INCIDENT, 13TH JANUARY
  INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND: BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
  INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND: BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
  SCOTTISH STUDENTS: RESIDENCES
  SCOTTISH STUDENTS: RESIDENCES
  Correction
  Correction