Sitting of 22 February 1990

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

  Royal Assent
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent for the following Acts and Measure:

  St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Act 1990

  New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Ltd. Act 1990

  Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Act 1990

  Isle of Wight Act 1990

  Buckinghamshire County Council Act 1990

  United Medical and Dental Schools Act 1990

  London Local Authorities Act 1990

  Penzance Albert Pier Extension Act 1990

  City of London (Spitalfields Market) Act 1990

  Clergy (Ordination) Measure 1990

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 27 February at Seven o'clock.

    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 March.

    ADELPHI ESTATE BILL(By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 27 February at Seven o'clock.
    Mr. Speaker: As the next 11 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, I propose to deal with them as a single group.
    EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
    LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
    PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
    SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
    TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
    VENTNOR HARBOUR BILL (By Order)
    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
    MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 March.
    SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Monday 26 February.
    CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
    HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Drugs Conference
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how plans are progressing for the international drug demand reduction conference in London from 9 to 11 April.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): Plans for the summit are well advanced. It will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the presence of the President of Colombia and the Secretary General of the United Nations. On the second day, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal has graciously consented to address the summit. A paper giving details of the outline programme is in the Library.
    Mr. Rathbone: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that information, but since, after studying that paper, there is concern that the conference may be taken off the rails—to follow the more newsworthy track of studying the cocaine menace—will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure me that it will concentrate strictly, as many hon. Members believe it should, on the important issue of demand reduction?
    Mr. Waddington: I assure my hon. Friend that great concentration will be placed on the problem of demand reduction, but it is difficult to see how one can discuss demand reduction except in the context of the large numbers of drugs coming into the country, particularly cocaine.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Home Secretary aware that Opposition Members are pleased that he did his homework in preparation for the conference by going to the United States and studying the problem there? Will he still have time to visit European countries such as Holland. France and Germany, whose experience may be more

    1051
    similar to ours than that of the United States? When he was in the United States, did he have time to talk about the fundamentals, not the superficial elements, of demand reduction? As drugs are rooted in poverty, bad education and underprivilege of every kind, when will the Government do something about them?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that when living standards were much lower than they are today there was less of a drugs problem. I shall not have an opportunity to visit the European countries that he mentioned, but it is right to consider the experience of others and the position in different parts of our country. That is one reason for the new drugs initiative that we shall launch at the beginning of April.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: As Colombia is bearing the brunt of the war against the odious drug barons, is not it appropriate that President Barco will play such a significant part in the conference? What is our country doing to help Colombia in its fight, and what more should it do?
    Mr. Waddington: I am glad to say that we give considerable help to that brave country and to its brave president. Recently, we gave Colombia £4 million of aid. The Home Office has contributed communications equipment for the anti-narcotics agencies, motor bikes for drug enforcement teams and training equipment for the judicial authorities.

    Remand Centre, North Wales
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to develop a remand centre in north Wales.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): We have no plans to develop a remand centre in north Wales. The number of remand prisoners from that area is insufficient to justify separate remand facilities.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister's reply is extremely disappointing. We have been pressing for a number of years for remand facilities in north Wales. The majority of its remand prisoners are sent to Risley, which has been the subject of serious concern in recent years. It also involves long travelling times for solicitors and prisoners' families. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the matter and consult his colleagues in the Welsh Office to ascertain whether some provision can be made—even if it is not a full-blown remand centre—to meet the genuine concerns that have been expressed?
    Mr. Mellor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is clearly unsatisfactory that people should have to travel long distances. In one sense, I suppose that it is good that not too many people from the hon. Gentleman's area are remanded in custody, as that suggests a lower level of criminality than in some other parts of the country. The average remand population from north Wales is about 80 which, unfortunately, does not make a separate establishment viable. That is the nub of the problem.

    Religious Broadcasting
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the provision for religious broadcasting contained in the Broadcasting Bill.
    Mr. Mellor: I recently had meetings with a number of groups. The Broadcasting Bill is an improvement in significant respects on present legislation relating to religious broadcasting. For instance, the present blanket prohibition of religious sponsorship and advertising will be lifted, and the Bill will allow Christian and other religious groups for the first time to own radio stations. I have undertaken to consider further whether there should be a specific guarantee for religious programming on Channel 3 and an exceptional discretion to allow religious groups to own local and non-direct broadcasting by satellite TV services. A further announcement will be made in due course.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful response. I know from the discussions that he has held that the hon. and learned Gentleman met many of the complaints put to him. Clause 83 of the Broadcasting Bill could radically curtail Christian broadcasting. Will the Minister consider introducing an amendment to clarify formally a matter that is causing much unrest, and about which the hon. and learned Gentleman had received many representations?
    Mr. Mellor: I do not accept that there are restrictions on Christian broadcasting beyond those relating to editorialising which have always existed as part of the normal consumer protection arrangements covering British broadcasting. On the contrary, as I said in my original answer, the Broadcasting Bill makes possible an expansion in Christian broadcasting—which may go further, depending on the outcome of current discussions.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the discussions that I held. It has pained me that some of the leaflets circulating among religious communities are inaccurate, although, thankfully, a number of leading churchmen are making that clear. Those inaccuracies include the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
    Mr. Alison: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of how gratified Church and Christian groups, many of which have made representations to me and to other right hon. and hon. Members, are about the very positive way in which the Government are considering developing the Bill in the two directions he outlined? I and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) hope that my hon. and learned Friend will persist with his intended improvements and amendments; he will carry the whole House, the Christian community and the country at large with him as he does so.
    Mr. Mellor: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is playing a leading part in the discussions. I hope that we shall soon bring them to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Corbett: We welcome the Minister's response to the all-party pressure and the pressure from a large variety of church bodies to require the new Channel 3 television station to carry religious programmes. Does he accept that the problem could have been avoided had the Government

    1053
    retained the public service broadcasting requirements for all new licence-holders, the better to ensure quality with quantity?
    Mr. Mellor: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. However, I derived great assistance from the discussion in Committee on the matter in which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues played a full part. I hope that all who played a part in considering the Bill will feel that what emerges is useful and worth while. What stands to come out of the Bill is clearer definition and wider opportunities than have ever been available. Whether we choose to talk about a public service umbrella or whatever, there will be an expansion of responsible Christian broadcasting which I think most people would like to see.

    Children (Care Duties)
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his proposals to place the same duty of care on local authorities in respect of children in care as he proposes to place on parents for the crimes committed by their children.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): We have had no responses so far, but I expect any responses to be 100 per cent. in favour of the excellent proposals contained in my right hon. and learned Friend's White Paper, which has received such a warm welcome.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and welcome the proposals, particularly as there have been instances in my constituency where young people in care have committed offences. Will my right hon. Friend explain how the victims of offences committed by young people will be affected by the proposals?
    Mr. Patten: The present position is that the victim of an offence by a young person in the care of the local authority is denied any recompense via compensation from the court. We intend to put that right, as I am sure the whole House would want us to do on European Victims Day.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities have a duty to ensure that children in their care do not commit offences repeatedly? Is not it wrong for some local authorities to allow children to commit up to 30 or 40 offences while they are supposedly in their care?
    Mr. Patten: I think that I can guess the local authorities to which my hon. Friend refers. One or two local authorities, in the past at least, have failed to exercise proper care over the juveniles remitted to them by the courts. That is something which the Department of Health's excellent social services inspectorate is working hard to put right.

    Convicted Killers
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the procedures governing the release from prison of convicted killers.
    Mr. Waddington: I am carefully considering recommendations made last autumn by the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment to change the release arrangements for life sentence prisoners.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is somewhat unsatisfactory that, in the 25 years to 1987, 51 persons in England and Wales were killed by people who had previously been convicted of homicide? Against that background, when he considers the House of Lords Select Committee report, will he bear in mind, first, that more openness in the review procedure may produce more confidence and, secondly, the assessment procedure which is at the heart of whether a convicted murderer is released?
    Mr. Waddington: I have discussed that with members of the House of Lords Select Committee. Cases pending before the European Court relate to the machinery that should be in place to decide on the release of people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. We should not make a decision on this until we have heard the result of those cases before the European Court. I take my hon. Friend's point about openness. The difficulty is that the Select Committee says that decisions should be taken out of the hands of Ministers and given to an independent judicial tribunal; but could such a tribunal assess the risk any better than a parole board? Whoever assesses the risk has an appallingly difficult job.
    Mr. Battle: The Government have accepted that Armley, in Leeds, is the most overcrowded prison in Britain. It contains convicted prisoners and unconvicted young people on remand. Is the Home Secretary aware that this week the prison staff are in industrial dispute with his Department, and that the fresh start proposals have ground to a halt as a result of overcrowding? What steps will he take to alleviate the problem, and will we be offered any hope in the short term, rather than having to wait for long-term and medium-term solutions?
    Mr. Waddington: I cannot see for the life of me what that has to do with question No. 5. As a matter of interest, however, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the prison department is trying to resolve the dispute.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the campaign to obtain parole for Myra Hindley? In view of the terrible crimes committed by Hindley and Brady, may we have an assurance that such people will never be allowed out of prison during their lifetimes?
    Mr. Waddington: A formal review of Myra Hindley's case will begin in 1990, in accordance with the announcement made at the time of the previous review five years ago. It does not follow that the board will recommend release, or that I would accept such a recommendation if one were made.

    New Prison, Fazakerley
    Mr. Heffer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will again reconsider the proposal to build a new prison in Fazakerley, Liverpool, bordering the Fazakerley hospital.
    Mr. Mellor: I am afraid that I see no grounds for reconsidering the proposed scheme. Contracts have now been exchanged for the purchase of the site, and we shall shortly be approaching the Department of the

    1055
    Environment for a local public inquiry to be set up into the proposed scheme so that all relevant points of view might be aired and considered.
    Mr. Heffer: That is a very disappointing answer. According to a written reply from the Minister, his Department considered 40 other sites for the new prison in the past two years. Why did the Department decide on a site immediately next to a hospital, in an area surrounded by housing? The city council, the local health authority, the parish council, local people and just about everyone else oppose the proposal. Why are the Government persisting with it when many other sites in the area and the surrounding districts could be used instead? Do the Government consider that we in Liverpool are a special type, and that we should become the prison centre of the north-west? We already have prisons there; why must we have another almost next door to an existing prison?
    Mr. Mellor: The two most recent questions from Opposition Members about prisons reveal the Home Office's difficulties. On the one hand, complaints are made about old and overcrowded prisons; on the other, complaints are made when we propose to build a new one. The hon. Gentleman asks why the prison cannot be built somewhere else, but I dare say that others would object to that.
    After the most exhaustive consideration, we believe that Fazakerley is the right site—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting at me from a sedentary position. I have announced today a public inquiry at which all legitimate points can be put and considered, and that is the proper way for such matters to be dealt with.
    Mr. Loyden: The Minister is misleading the House to some extent. My hon. Friend did not say—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not alleging that the Minister is misleading the House deliberately.
    Mr. Loyden: He is doing so inadvertently, however, by suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) opposes what we all recognise as the urgent need for more prisons to be developed and built. His point was that the community that he represents as a Member of Parliament, which includes a large housing estate, renders the site inappropriate for building a prison. Should not the Minister make a decision about the problem in view of the strong feelings throughout Liverpool—not merely in my hon. Friend's constituency?
    Mr. Mellor: We cannot reject every site that is available for a new prison because people do not want it there. People are fully entitled to object to a prison being sited in their community. We are providing for a local public inquiry at which the wheat can be separated from the chaff and the legitimate arguments from the illegitimate. We shall be bound by the decision that is reached. What could be fairer than that?

    Crime Victims
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to approve the arrangements for the support given to the victims of crime.
    Mr. Waddington: I have today published a victims charter, which sets out for the first time how victims of crime should be treated. It covers, among other things, keeping them informed of inquiries and court proceedings, helping them to secure compensation and how they are treated at court. The charter also raises some wider questions about giving victims a voice in criminal proceedings.
    I have also announced today that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have acted immediately on the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee a fortnight ago that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board should have more staff. We are meeting in full the chairman's request for 60 more staff to enable the board to gain control of the backlog. We are discussing performance targets with the board, but we are ready, with parliamentary approval, to make available another £17 million for compensation payments in 1990–91.
    We also plan to increase our grant to Victims Support from just under £4 million this year to about £4·5 million next year to improve the help that local victim support schemes can give.
    Mr. Greenway: Society has long demanded that greater prominence should be given to the interests of the victims of crime. I am sure that the whole country will warmly welcome the publication of a victims charter. On this day—European Victims Day—we lead Europe in the arrangements for looking after the victims of crime. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we need to make our criminal justice system more victim friendly? Should not we give more consideration to the way in which vulnerable victims are cross-examined in court, as well as to keeping them informed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not seem to pay as much attention to the victims of crime as do Conservative Members—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a rather long supplementary question. Perhaps we may have a briefer answer.
    Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for the victims charter. He is right to point out that the British scheme is probably the most generous in existence. We pay far more in compensation to victims than is paid in Germany or in France. It is absolutely right that the Government should spell out their commitment to improving the lot of victims, that we should make absolutely plain what are victims' rights and that we should point out the good practice that should be observed by each part of our criminal justice system.
    My hon. Friend asked for a more victim-friendly criminal justice system. I am sure that that is part of the message in the victims charter.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that additional staff will be appointed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. How quickly will staff be recruited and appointed? Will more money be provided for the procurement of the new technology that is desperately needed and was recommended as far back as 1982? Will the Home Secretary advertise the scheme, given that only about 25 per cent. of the victims of violent crime and only a very small number of sexually abused children apply for compensation?
    Mr. Waddington: One virtue of producing such a document is to draw victims' attention to their rights. That meets the hon. Lady's latter points. We have already begun to install computers in the Glasgow office. That meets the hon. Lady's earlier point. Staff will be recruited in April and May, so they should be in place before very long. However, first we must provide the necessary accommodation for them. It is a big increase—20 to 25 per cent. more than the existing staffing level.
    Sir John Wheeler: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs will be delighted with his announcement today? Replying to a Select Committee report and accepting all the principal recommendations within two weeks must be a record. The United Kingdom now has the finest method anywhere in the western democracies of looking after the interests of victims, but what does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to do to ensure that the statutory agencies monitor the implementation of the victim support proposals that he has announced today?
    Mr. Waddington: We shall, of course, do all that we possibly can to impress upon the statutory agencies the necessity to observe the high standards laid down in the victims charter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We saw the wisdom of the recommendations in the Select Committee report. That is why we accepted them without delay and are able to tell the House today that they will soon be implemented.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary confirm that despite today's announcement the victims of crime who in 1989 were disqualified from receiving compensation by the Government's change in regulations are still not eligible for the assistance that the Government provide and therefore a substantial number of victims are disqualified from his scheme?
    Mr. Waddington: I think that everyone would agree that it is important to concentrate our energies on those victims of crime who have suffered the most. Our scheme remains the most generous in the world.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept what I know will be the grateful pleasure of the people who run the Medway victim support scheme in my constituency, the second such group to be set up in this country? Does he agree that the victims charter will provide most valuable support for many voluntary organisations which have sought to bring a personal touch into caring for victims of crime?
    Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. The comments of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) were rather churlish in view of the fact that this morning the victims charter received the warmest possible reception from the chairman of Victims Support, Helen Reeves. I applaud the work of Victims Support up and down the country and I am glad that such schemes receive ever more support from the Home Office.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consideration of the new evidence in the case of the Birmingham pub bombings.
    Mr. Waddington: I have not yet completed my consideration of the further material which has been presented to me by a solicitor acting on behalf of the six men convicted of the Birmingham public house bombings. I will decide as soon as possible whether it justifies any intervention on my part.
    Mr. Meale: As the Home Secretary is aware, some of the confessions that formed the major part of the case for the conviction of the Birmingham pub bombers were taken by the West Midlands serious crime squad. That group has since been disbanded because it was found to have been forging confessions. Is not that enough to warrant reopening an inquiry into the case?
    Mr. Waddington: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is my job to consider whether there is any new evidence or consideration of substance that may cast doubt on the safety of the convictions, and I shall carry out that duty. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an inquiry into the West Midlands serious crime squad is being carried out by the West Yorkshire police. Although their inquiry is concentrated on matters which have occurred since 1986, if they wish to take their inquiries further back in time because of matters that come to their notice, I am absolutely sure that they will do so.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people are rather tired of the concerted campaign to prove that those convicted criminals are innocent and to make people forget the nature of the crime that they committed?
    Mr. Waddington: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that it is right for me to comment because I have a difficult duty to carry out. My hon. Friend will realise that I will carry it out.
    Mr. Clay: Does not the length of time that the Guildford Four wrongly spent in prison haunt the Home Secretary as he continues to dither around finding one excuse after another for prevarication while evidence showing that the Birmingham Six were innocent builds up? How many more months, if not years, will they have to spend in gaol, wrongly, like the Guildford Four?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman's remarks were entirely uncalled for. He ignored entirely that Devon and Cornwall police have already carried out a detailed investigation into the matter; he ignored entirely that as a result of that investigation the case was taken to the Court of Appeal; and he ignored entirely that the Court of Appeal carried out the most exhaustive inquiry into the confessions made by the Six and into the forensic evidence.

    Sports Grounds (Public Order)
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the Taylor report, he will introduce legislation as soon as possible to create new public order offences at sports grounds; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We are looking positively and quickly at the report's recommendations for new offences.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend accept that, as the Taylor report indicated, existing legislation is insufficient to deal with trouble and hooliganism at sporting events? Will he therefore support the introduction of three new offences to deal with, first, the throwing of missiles, secondly, the chanting of obscene and racist abuse, and thirdly, the invasion of pitches without good reason? Are not those reforms particularly important in view of the Government's second thoughts on the ID card scheme?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's encouragement, but before a final decision is made we need to discuss the recommendations of the report with the police and the Crown prosecution service to ensure that they are enforceable and that they add effectively to the sanctions already available.
    Mr. Randall: Notwithstanding that response, is the Minister aware that there is concern that the noises coming from the Government on the Taylor report have been almost entirely limited to the question of all-seater stadiums? When will the Minister tell the country what specific action the Government intend to take in response to Taylor? Why is the Minister so slow off the mark in responding to this urgent matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken. We were so quick off the mark that he obviously missed it. We accepted all the safety recommendations in the Taylor report and we are considering speedily and carefully the three recommendations for criminal legislation, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: When my hon. Friend considers the proposals for new legislation, will he bear in mind that many sporting events in this country take place not at sports grounds but throughout the countryside? At the moment, people innocently pursuing their lawful pastimes are inadequately protected from those who seek to disrupt them. Will my hon. Friend please bear that strongly in mind when considering new legislation?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will bear those points very much in mind. As my hon. Friend said, it is necessary to consider the recommendations very carefully.

    Electronic Tagging
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the experiment in tagging in Nottingham.
    Mr. John Patten: The trial of electronic monitoring in Nottingham has run its full course and ended, as planned, on time. The results will be fully evaluated together with results from the other two trial areas, where the experiments continue.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister bear in mind the experience of Mr. Richard Hart, who lives in Nottingham and who was the first person in Britain to be tagged? His tag apparently indicated that he was absconding. The police went to his home, broke in and found him in bed with his wife, who was particularly upset. He was at home
    1060
    all the time. Before he went back to prison, his tag malfunctioned 15 times. Because he was unable to leave the house, the Departments of Social Security and of Employment said that he was not available for work, so he got no benefit. Does the Minister agree with the National Association of Probation Officers that the tagging scheme has been a fiasco and should not be extended elsewhere?
    Mr. Patten: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. He does not know what has been going on in his own back yard in Nottingham. We have seen in Nottingham a successful experiment which has run its full course and which shows how precise electronic monitoring is in revealing when there has been even the smallest breach of conditions. The hon. Gentleman talked about the National Association of Probation Officers. Does he get up and criticise the association every time a probation officer fails to control or get back to a bail hostel someone who should have been back on time? Of course he does not. The tagging scheme is in operation in 21 states in the United States of America where it is widely welcome and is a great success.
    Mr. Lawrence: As the Nottingham scheme is one of three in operation, is not it true that electronic tagging has shown that it effectively picks up violations as soon as they occur, which the ordinary system does not do? Has my hon. Friend yet been able to form a view about the even newer development of tracking tagging?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. and learned Friend is right in the first part of his question. Indeed, tracking tagging is full of possibilities for future use. Any right hon. or hon. Member who doubts the efficacy of electronic monitoring should talk to the people who have been subject successfully to electronic monitoring rather than being on remand in prison. Electronic tagging has led in some cases to people getting lesser, non-custodial sentences than they might otherwise have received.
    Mr. Hattersley: If tagging in Nottingham has been such a great success, why did the clerk to the Nottingham justices say on behalf of the magistrates that it had been a complete failure? Now that the Minister of State has had his moment of publicity, should not he drop the whole daft idea?
    Mr. Patten: First, the right hon. Gentleman is reporting alleged remarks by the clerk from the Nottingham justices which the clerk certainly did not make. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman characteristically has not applied his mind to how to deal with offenders on remand or being punished in the community in ways other than the traditional way. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has thought seriously about criminal justice issues for a decade. He is politically and intellectually out to lunch on such issues.
    Mr. Maclennan: If the Minister is prepared to announce today his complete conviction in the efficacy of the scheme, why has he bothered with experimentation?
    Mr. Patten: We have not drawn our conclusions to a satisfactory end because we have three experiments. The hon. Gentleman is highly intelligent. He knows that when experiments are conducted it is necessary to wait until they are over before they are evaluated.
    Mr. Alexander: Does the Minister agree that any failures are failures of the defendants rather than the system? Is not the advantage of the system that the authorities know immediately the bail condition is broken? Is not it significantly cheaper to have tagging than to keep defendants expensively in prison?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows, as I know, that unfortunately when people who are remanded on bail go into the community, they often breach their conditions, but we hear nothing about that from the Opposition.
    Mr. Allen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

    West Midlands Police
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has anything to add to his answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 304, concerning DS Morton.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: No, Sir. The answers that I gave on 25 January and 1 February referred only to those officers who conducted interviews with those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. I stated that specifically in my original reply.
    Mr. Flannery: Why is the Minister hiding from the truth? This is the third time he has been questioned on the matter. Sergeant Brian Morton was expelled from the police force and gaoled because he beat up a prisoner to try to extract a confession. The reality is that he was in Queen's road police station in Birmingham during the whole time that the Birmingham Six were being brutally beaten up to extort confessions from them. Why does not the Minister face that and tell us the truth?
    Mr. Lloyd: I said in an earlier written answer that Detective Sergeant Morton had been in prison for an offence. I said in the latter answer, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that Detective Sergeant Morton had nothing to do with the interviews of the Birmingham Six. He photographed one of them—Hill—at one point, but many officers had jobs at the periphery of the investigation, in which they were not involved. Morton was one of them and unless the hon. Gentleman has evidence otherwise it is deeply irresponsible to imply that Detective Sergeant Morton had such involvement.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the German Defence Minister and one with the National Pensioners Convention.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Prime Minister accept that there is growing anger and dismay in Scotland at the way in which the Scottish steel industry is being run down by British Steel? Does she accept that, on the ground of competition alone, the time is right for British Steel's monopoly to be ended and for an independent steel industry to be established, based in Scotland? Would not that best serve the interests of competition and of the Scottish steel industry? Has not the Secretary of State for Scotland already suggested that that may be a course to be considered? My party has been advocating it for the past two or three years and it has growing support within Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: The best guarantee of a successful steel industry has been privatisation. Before it was privatised, it was losing about £3 million a day; it is now making more than £500 million profit a year. On Ravenscraig, the hon. Gentleman knows that the British Steel prospectus stated that, subject to market conditions, there would continue to be a need for production at Ravenscraig until 1994. The chairman of British Steel has recently reaffirmed that. British Steel also gave the assurance that if it did not need Ravenscraig at some future date it would be prepared to sell it to another buyer. That assurance stands and I wish Ravenscraig well.
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 February 1990.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the fourth quarter of last year exports rose by no less than 23 per cent. compared with the same period in 1988? Given the additional good news that Japanese investors are to create 400 new jobs in Barnsley and that German investors are to create 300 new jobs in Birmingham, is not there every reason to be optimistic about the prospects of British manufacturing?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that British manufacturing industry can take justifiable pride in its success. Its production is at an all-time record this year and its investment is at an all-time record over and above the previous record set the year before. Growth has been good. Growth has been strongest in the highest technology industries. Production of electronic goods has increased by 50 per cent. since 1978, aerospace production has doubled and the computer industry has grown faster than that in any other country except Japan. That success has come about under Conservative economic policies. Japan and Germany know that and are anxious to put more investment here.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister ready to recognise that her high mortgage rate policies and her poll tax are bound to push up the rate of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, our top priority is to get inflation down. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the best way to do that in the longer term must be to make the price of money more expensive. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that, I am very surprised.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister talks about combating inflation, but she is causing it. Is not it

    1063
    absolutely clear that because of high interest rates, high mortgage rates and high poll tax levels, the level of inflation now faced by the British people is mainly made in Downing street?
    The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman rightly grumbles about an inflation level of 7·7 per cent., but under the Labour Government it was 26·7 per cent.—an all-time high this century. Our record is far, far better than anything that the Labour party would ever produce.
    Mr. Kinnock: This time last year, when inflation was at 7·8 per cent., the Prime Minister said that it was "proceeding towards zero". Now it is 7·7 per cent. Is that what she calls "proceeding"?
    The Prime Minister: It is because we have growth that is faster than we had thought that it is taking longer to turn round. Nevertheless, we have a record number of home owners and a high level of mortgage payers, 99 per cent. of whom are managing to pay their mortgages and know the fundamental truth that those who put their money in bricks and mortar have, in the longer run, done better than those who put their savings in building societies.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen the new policy platform adopted by the Communist party of the Soviet Union, which extols the virtues of markets, stresses the importance of competition, and calls for the scrapping of indiscriminate subsidies and for the selling of shares in state enterprises, all of which are opposed by the Labour party—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that what goes on in the Soviet Union is the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am coming to the point of my question, Mr. Speaker. Is not it ironic that the Government of the Soviet Union, who are adopting the policies of Her Majesty's Government, are edging that country towards a free enterprise future, which is opposed by Labour Members whose minds are still sunk in the Socialist attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s?
    The Prime Minister: As usual, my hon. Friend makes his point effectively. Those who have lived under Socialism know that it produces only poverty and oppression and they turn away from that to Conservative policies, as they are doing in eastern Europe.
    Mr. Turner: Is the Prime Minister aware that for Wolverhampton to get down to the poll tax level projected by the Government it would need to cut £28 million from its spending, which is equivalent to the whole of our social services budget and almost the whole of our leisure services budget? Will she tell the people of Wolverhampton why they have to pay an additional surcharge of £47, which has nothing to do with their services but has been imposed by her Government? The people of Wolverhampton want to know, and they want that surcharge taken away.
    The Prime Minister: If the local authority is finding it difficult to reduce its spending by £28 million, does it not
    1064
    realise—I doubt whether it does—that it is doing the worst possible thing by taking that money out of the pockets of its residents because that is what it is doing if it is setting a community charge that is higher than it need be?
    Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fishburn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention, once the community charge is in place, to ensure that private landlords who currently charge their tenants rent and rates combined should lower their charges by the amount of the rates and not just pocket the difference?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I hope that private landlords will lower their charges when they know that they do not have to pay rates and thus act in accordance with the terms of their tenancy agreements. Various remedies are available for tenants whose landlords do not agree to such a reduction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is setting those remedies out in a leaflet which will be widely available.
    Mr. Winnick: Can the Prime Minister explain why, despite all the money and propaganda spent on it, the poll tax is the most detested and hated tax introduced for centuries? If she disputes what I say, could we have a referendum on the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: First, a rating revaluation of domestic properties, which some of us have been through before, would have been infinitely more detested than the community charge. The community charge will have more generous rebates than the rate rebate system ever gave and also a transitional relief scheme which does not depend on means testing. I understand why the Opposition do not like the community charge. It is because it will reveal that the highest spending councils are Labour councils. Labour has an even worse remedy in the roof tax, which would put a local tax on capital values regardless of whether the person living in the house owned it and would add to it a test of income tax.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom agriculture industry grows some 75 per cent. of our indigenous foodstuffs and at the same time contributes, through exports, some £1,600 million to the balance of payments and the balance of trade? Will she recognise that, and help to sustain the confidence of that vibrant industry by maintaining pressure on the European Community to dismantle the green pound?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the farmers who have put up production greatly and have also put up productivity. They have saved us a great deal on the balance of payments. We are very

    1065
    much aware of the difficulties caused by the green pound. We are seeking a substantial devaluation of the green pound in the current price negotiations.
    Mr. Skinner: Has the Prime Minister considered the possibility suggested by some of her Back Benchers of reducing the poll tax by taking out of it education and perhaps teachers' salaries, fire services, the police or a combination of any of the three? Will she rule that out before the next election?
    The Prime Minister: The revenue support grant already pays for a substantial part of education, teachers' salaries, polytechnics and, indeed, every part of education. The business rate already pays for another substantial part of education. Therefore, if we were to take education out and run it centrally—which I believe would be totally wrong. It is much better to do as we are doing and to take education away from the local authorities and put it out to the people so that they can run it themselves. That is true devolution. If education were taken out, a substantial part of the revenue support grant would have to come out with it, as well as some of the business rate.
    Mr. Dover: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dover: What encouragement can my right hon. Friend give to the people of Chorley who sensibly voted in the Conservative-controlled Chorley borough council, which is spending exactly in line with Government spending forecasts, but faces sky high community charges because of the high spending of the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council?
    The Prime Minister: I hear what my hon. Friend says about Lancashire. There is no justification for extravagance on the part of any authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it perfectly clear that where there is excessive spending he will not hesitate to charge-cap the authority.
    Mr. Fraser: If the Prime Minister is right to suggest that the poll tax is another Government success, will she confirm that there will not be any poll tax capping between now and the end of March?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, not all authorities have set their budgets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider the criteria for charge-capping when all the budgets have been
    1066
    set. The matter will have to be considered carefully for each authority. Naturally, that will take time and my right hon. Friend will do it as soon as he can.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last Stalinist regime in Europe has found a new role model and has renamed itself the Albanian Labour party? Will my right hon. Friend take time to send a message of support to the people of Albania in the hope that, some day, they will be relieved of the burden of Socialism in the same way as the people of this country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I hope that the Albanian Labour party will be unable to inflict upon the people of its country the sort of damage that Socialist parties here inflicted upon ours.

    European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions she has had with (a) Chancellor Kohl and (b) other European Community state leaders concerning the location of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
    The Prime Minister: The Government believe that London is the natural choice for the home of the bank. I have made that clear to all my Community colleagues.
    Dr. Godman: Despite the undoubted banking expertise and skills to be found in the United Kingdom, in both London and Edinburgh, it is extremely unlikely that the bank will be sited in London. Should not the Government show some magnanimity and argue the case for the bank to be sited in an eastern European capital such as Prague?
    Mr. Tony Banks: Or Newham.
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. London is the largest centre for international banking in Europe and it houses more international banks than any other major European nation. Foreign banks enjoy more than 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom's international business and 520 foreign banks are represented in London. We have the largest equity market in Europe. I could go on to give many, many qualifications and justifications as to why the bank should be sited in London. London is quite the best position for that particular bank.

Beach Pollution (Sussex)
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the problem of drums of potassium cyanide washed up on Sussex beaches.
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The first canister of potassium cyanide on Brighton beaches was reported to the Sussex police at 11.5 am on 21 February. The coastguard was informed immediately and, together with the police, they instituted a full-scale search, which located a second canister on the beach an hour later. The police then called in the fire brigade to deal with the chemicals and the beach was promptly closed off to the public by the council. The beach remains closed.
Thanks to the prompt action of the police, the fire brigade and the local authority officers, a total of six canisters of potassium cyanide and several canisters of other dangerous chemicals are now in safe storage in Newhaven. The council is arranging for their disposal.
Local officials are searching the coastline in case further canisters are washed up. We still do not know from which ship the chemicals came or how they came to be in the sea, but our inquiries are under way.
Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that potassium cyanide is a deadly human poison and that, potentially, this is a highly dangerous situation for those in the vicinity of those containers? Does he agree that such incidents are causing increasing concern and that the plain fact is that the waters around our coast are in an appalling state, made worse by such problems as this, but also because the Government continue to allow the dumping of industrial waste at sea?
Can the Minister tell the House whether the containers were labelled in line with international regulations for dangerous goods? What action is taken after the sinking of any ship known to be carrying hazardous materials? Recently there have been several incidents when the Government have been aware of hazardous materials on ships that have sunk. What action have the Government taken in those cases to trace chemicals, such as those that we are discussing today?
Surely this incident proves that the Government are wrong to reject proposals for a European Community directive on vessels carrying dangerous goods entering or leaving Community ports. Will the Government think again about tightening such controls before a major catastrophe occurs?
Mr. McLoughlin: This is undoubtedly a very serious situation. Indeed, as the hon. Lady says, the chemicals washed ashore are of the most serious kind and are particularly dangerous. I hope that everybody will urge those who today, tomorrow and over the coming weekend make their way on to beaches to keep a close watch for any chemicals that may appear.
It is wholly wrong of the Opposition to try to make this issue part of the dirty water syndrome, about which we have heard so much from Labour Members. It is absolute and total rubbish. Between 200 and 300 ships a day use the Dover straits. It is imperative that the masters of those
1068
vessels operate under the international agreements. If any such cargoes are lost, they should report the fact immediately. That is the requirement.
A major conference of states bordering the North sea will take place in two weeks' time. The question of the carriage of dangerous goods of this kind will be discussed, and we shall see whether anything further can be done to ensure that the IMO rules are fully enforced.
My answer to the hon. Lady's question about the EC directive is that had she read the Official Report of the debate on 25 January of this year, she would be aware that serious concerns were expressed about whether what was proposed by the EC was practicable. It would require setting the standards for more than 4,000 ships, and we were not sure whether what was proposed was the best way forward.
I assure the hon. Lady that, as in the past, Her Majesty's Government will take whatever action is necessary, through our marine pollution control unit, to deal with problems of this kind when they arise. I would point out to her, for example, the action that was taken by the Secretary of State when the Perintis was sunk and chemicals were recovered.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to information that I have received, the total number of canisters recovered has now reached 12? Is there not some evidence to show that these canisters were washed off a ship at sea in recent bad weather? They have clear markings on them and I understand that the labels and batch numbers have now been identified.
Will the Minister give careful consideration to ensuring that the regulations requiring ships' masters to report immediately the loss of any dangerous canisters are enforced and that any ship's master who fails to report such a loss is subject to very severe penalties? Is he satisfied that the liaison between his Department, local authorities and the marine pollution control unit is working effectively?
Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points, because I appreciate that this problem is of great concern to him and his constituents. Anybody who is convicted of not reporting incidents of this kind, and should be subject to the most severe penalties available under the law. This is a very serious matter; that is certainly the view of the Government, and the penalties are there for the courts to enforce.
There has been very good liaison between the local authorities and the marine pollution control unit. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend, who is right to say that more canisters have been washed ashore. As I said, dangerous chemicals other than potassium are involved.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the Minister aware that there is concern about the way in which incidents of this kind are handled and about which Department is responsible? Will he confirm that initially, the local authorities were left to tackle it and that subsequently the Department of Transport was called in? When and under what circumstances is his Department responsible, and when does it become the responsibility of the Department of the Environment?
Does the Minister accept that we need clear international regulations to identify all toxic cargos of this

1069
kind and that the trade in toxic materials must be restricted much more rigidly, particularly the trade in toxic waste, which should be limited to the absolute minimum?
Mr. McLoughlin: This incident has nothing to do with toxic waste. The chemicals involved are in canister sizes suitable for laboratory use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) pointed out, they are fully labelled, in accordance with international regulations. That is an important point.
There is no confusion over the question of responsibility. The responsibility for beaches is clearly that of the local authorities. But the Department of Transport and its marine pollution control unit stands ready to help any local authorities that may experience particular problems in this area. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department is only too willing to give any help that it can, through the coastguard or the marine pollution control unit.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: While I appreciate the action that is being taken, about which my hon. Friend has told the House, has he consulted his right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the potential danger of pollution of the valuable fish stocks on the Sussex coast? Rather than just relying on people walking up and down the seashores looking for canisters, would it not be possible to call in the many Army helicopters that are available and are based quite close to the coast?
Mr. McLoughlin: There has been helicopter assistance and, as I said, if local authorities were to ask for extra help for the coastguard, the Department of Transport would be only too happy to oblige. I assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been fully informed about the situation. We shall take, and I am sure that it will take, any necessary action.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to give priority to those Members who have direct constituency interests in this matter.
Mr. Ian Gow: As the containers are clearly labelled and this highly dangerous chemical is not widely used, would not it be easy to trace from which ship the containers have escaped? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the penalties for not notifying a loss of highly dangerous chemicals at sea are sufficient? Is he aware that it is possible in the courts of some nations to prosecute for a dereliction of duty of the kind that has taken place?
Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that my hon. Friend is correct and, bearing in mind the clearness with which this consignment was marked, that it will be easy to find out its origins. I am convinced that penalties are quite tight. It will be up to the court to make a decision when the case comes to court. Over the past few weeks there have been violent storms in this part of the country and it may be that in some cases ships' masters may not know that cargo has been lost.
Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend confirm that., despite the fact that the Perintis was not loaded or destined for a port in this country, my hon. Friend's Department received the manifest of that ship within a matter of hours? Is it not a fact that my hon.
1070
Friend has implemented every suggestion that has been put forward by hon. Members from both sides of the House to try to control the incident? Does he believe that there is a case for co-operation between us and the French so that we know the manifest of every ship that goes through the Dover straits?
Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend makes an important point: the Dover straits is an exceptionally busy piece of waterway. Therefore, it is vital to have total co-operation with the French authorities, and I am satisfied that we do. We work closely with them when such an incident occurs. As regards the Perintis, I agree that we took the necessary action in recovering those canisters.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend share with me an appreciation of the job done by the local police, fire services, his Department and the local authority? Will he reassure the House that any additional costs that the local authority may have to bear, which could lead to an increased community charge, will not lead to the local authority being capped for raising the community charge? That point is extremely important to my constituents. While he may have doubts about whether the European Community directive is the best way to control shipping and cargoes in the crowded Channel, will the Government swiftly bring forward counter-proposals for consultation with the EC partners?
Mr. McLoughlin: As I said, there is to be a major conference attended by states bordering the North sea in two weeks' time when this incident will be discussed. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the local authorities and the local people involved. I understand that the cost of mounting these operations for the local authorities will be minimal, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister is right to pay tribute to the public services and to commend the thousands of people who are prepared to be vigilant in this matter, and he may be right to refer to the next international conference, but is he aware that, during the past few years, there has been international conference after international conference, one of which I chaired last year in which Conservative Members were involved, and it is about time that we had far less concern for attending conferences and more for ensuring that there are proper regulations? Are not the regulations governing the movement of toxic waste in Britain, around our coasts and in our waters utterly and deplorably inadequate?
Mr. McLoughlin: I am not prepared to put the British shipping industry at a disadvantage, and I am constantly urged not to do so by Opposition Members. Therefore, it is no good Opposition Members asking us to ignore international agreements and we have no intention of doing so. The best way to proceed is by international agreement and I know of no more immediate action that we could take than the conference that is due to be held in two weeks' time.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Standing Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill which is sitting upstairs seems finally to have reached the conclusion that the direction of wind at sea is the determinant factor in

1071
deciding which of the Government Departments in which some of these problems are dealt with has ultimate responsibility? Does he agree that that is not entirely satisfactory, and will he consider, in consultation with Ministers at the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Defence, and anybody else who is necessary, the proposition that ultimately the owners rather than the carriers of these products should be held responsible, which would ensure that they did not put some of their products on ships that do not know where they are going or what they are carrying, and lose their cargo?
Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is jumping to a number of conclusions, which at the moment it would be wrong to draw. There is strong co-operation between all Departments when an incident of this seriousness takes place.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the Minister recognise that the present regulations are grossly inadequate and that there is plenty of evidence to support that point of view? Is he aware that, in several incidents around British coasts, and one in particular on Merseyside, containers of hazardous substances were eventually driven ashore, but there was no co-ordination between the emergency services because they were not informed? Is not it time that the Government recognised that such materials should be monitored while they are on board and that the emergency services should be kept informed when something happens, so that it can be dealt with? To rely on local people around the coast to look for each lost cargo is nonsense.
Mr. McLoughlin: There are strong regulations in force, but they cannot encompass every situation that might arise. We have taken strong action in a number of cases where ships have gone down or have lost their cargo and their cargoes have been recovered as a result of the efficient operation of the Department's marine pollution control unit. That is important, and it is the best way to proceed.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend the Minister—who has put up a very good performance in replying to the private notice question—reiterate that it was not a matter of dumping toxic chemicals at sea but a maritime accident? In the light of that, is not it opportunistic and cynical of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to exploit that accident and to attack the Government's excellent environmental record?
Mr. McLoughlin: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is not a matter of dumping chemicals at sea. Anyone who dumped such chemicals at sea would be guilty of a very serious crime and would deserve the full weight of the law coming down upon them.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister described the canisters as containing potassium cyanide. The police have warned that a whiff of the fumes could kill, but potassium cyanide is a solid and gives off no vapour. Did the canisters contain only potassium cyanide or a combination of chemicals? What are the quantities involved? How many containers are there? Is one talking about tonnes or only of kilograms of what is a very toxic chemical?
Mr. McLoughlin: We are talking about canisters of the particular chemicals concerned. One is talking of sizes of 1 kg or 500 ml—that kind of size. It is important to stress that we are not talking about large drums, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave me an opportunity to clarify that point.
A number of different chemicals have been washed up. Potasium cyanide is one, but there are others. The British public, and the people living in the particular areas concerned, are well advised to take the advice of the police not to touch or tamper with any of the chemicals but, if they come across them, to report them immediately to the relevant authorities.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry for not being able to call all the right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak.

Business of the House
3.51 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill.
Motions on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) and (Construction Board) Orders.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for Consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].
Motion to take note of the annual report of the European Court of Auditors for 1988 and related EC document on action against fraud. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 28 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY I MARCH—St. David's day—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 2 MARCH—Private Members' Bills
MONDAY 5 MARCH—Opposition day (10th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
[Tuesday 27 February
Relevant European Community documents

(a) Unnumbered Court of Auditors report for 1988

(b) 4582/90 Fight against Fraud

(c) UnnurnberedAnti-fraud Policy

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 11-ix (1989–90), para 1

(b) HC 11-x(1989–90), para 2

(c) HC 11-iv (1989–90), para 6]

Dr. Cunningham: I am sure that the debate on Welsh affairs that is to take place on St. David's day will be warmly welcomed.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what proposals he has for allowing the House to debate and deal with the recent report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests? Has he had a chance to consider how we may deal with that matter? Is he in a position to say anything about it today?
Has the Leader of the House noticed that yesterday the Minister for Social Security was once again found guilty by the High Court of acting unlawfully in respect of the social fund? May we be given next week either an oral statement or time for a debate on the High Court's decision? Are we to be told the Government's intentions, given that, as of now, Ministers persist with an unlawful activity and are denying many thousands of people facing severe financial hardship their legal entitlement to benefit? May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that the Government will not, as they have done in the past, introduce retrospective legislation to render lawful their hitherto unlawful actions?
Has the Leader of the House had a chance to consider
1074
the events yesterday involving the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who said, referring to an hon. Member:
"he has registered there for the standard community charge"—[Official Report, 21 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 916.]
The hon. Gentleman made a definitive statement. The regulations approved by the House on confidentiality for the administration and enforcement of the community charge—the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989—stipulate in paragraph 11(5)(c) on page 7 that the extracts of the poll tax register available for public inspection
"shall not identify whether the community charge which arises by virtue of any residence, property or dwelling is a personal, standard or collective community charge."
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the Minister came to the House yesterday with confidential information on a Member of the House which he was not entitled to have. There can be no doubt about it. He made a definitive statement saying that he had that information, and it is beyond doubt that he must have had it to make a statement.
On the same day, one Minister has been found to be acting unlawfully in the High Court, and another Minister has breached regulations laid down by Parliament. Should not both Ministers come to the House as soon as possible to answer for their activities?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The first and substantial part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was a question about the recent report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. As the House fully appreciates, that is an important matter for the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) as well as for the House in general. I hope to be in a position to make a reasonably early announcement about my proposals for a debate on that subject, but, in the meantime, I am obviously consulting widely within the House about the appropraiate form of motion to be tabled for debate. I shall advise the House of my conclusions as soon as I sensibly can.
The hon. Member made a point about the social fund. Obviously, I shall give consideration to his request for a statement, but I see no need for one. There was nothing in the recent court judgment on the social fund that called into question the basic aims and operations of the fund. As I understand it, the court recognised the clear intention of Parliament that the scheme should be subject to strict monetary limits. The court found that the strong form of wording was not appropriate to guidance. Since the basic legal framework is not in question, the Government do not anticipate any sudden change in the pattern of awards.
On the subject of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), it will be within the recollection of the House that he has made much of his residence in Coventry. The community charge register is a matter of public record—[interruption.] Allow me to finish, please. It is a matter of public record and it is manifest from the public record that the hon. Gentleman is registered for the community charge in Wandsworth. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment inferred that it was his second home—[Interruption.] It is not an unreasonable inference. Moreover, my hon. Friend has written a letter in reply to the letter which he received from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) setting out the foundations for that inference. If it is incorrect, of course it can be corrected; but so far nothing has been said to suggest that it is incorrect.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement to the House clarifying the law relating to councillors—including Labour councillors in London—who have said that they will not register for the community charge, or will not pay it, and then proceed to vote on council motions relating to the settlement of the charge? Is that lawful?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot answer that question, but I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that all hon. Members, as well as all councillors in all parties, will take every action that they should take to pay the community charge for which they are liable.
Sir David Steel: The Leader of the House will have heard the answer given a few minutes ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) by the Prime Minister about the steel industry in Scotland. Does he accept that, in view of the temporary closures already suffered by Ravenscraig since privatisation, considerable concern is felt by Scottish Members on both sides of the House? They fear that British Steel has no interest in keeping the plant going at a high level if it is likely to be declared redundant and taken over by a competitor. For that reason, we consider that there is an urgent need to debate the alternative proposition—the creation of a Scottish steel company in the near future.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, which fortifies that made by his hon. Friend. It goes a long way to support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that the privatisation of the steel industry has played an important part in offering better prospects for it. Commercial decisions are a matter for British Steel and not for the Government.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to study early-day motion 545?
[That this House congratulates the Paisley Central Labour Party for their condemnation of the roof tax; notes that the roof tax has been rejected by all shades of responsible Scottish opinion; that the Labour Party's proposals for England and Wales are radically. different from those for Scotland; that the roof tax has all the unfair and unjust features of the wholly discredited domestic rating system with many additional injustices and anomalies; and calls upon the Labour Party to accept the views of Paisley Central and drop those unwelcome proposals.]
Is he aware of today's press reports that a senior and distinguished figure in the Labour movement, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), is to make a speech describing the Labour party's roof tax proposals as "a charade" and "a dreadful mess"? Is he also aware that those proposals appear to differ radically north and south of the border, and can he offer any prospect of an early debate so that the Labour party can withdraw its unjust, unfair and unwanted plans?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has made an important point. If the reports are correct, it is significant that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is to join the wisdom of the Paisley, Central Labour party in recognising the disastrous effect that the
1076
introduction of a roof tax would have on people in Scotland. I do not know whether it is possible for us to debate the subject; perhaps the Opposition will give us an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), may I press the Leader of the House for a statement or a debate on the Data Protection Act 1984 and the poll tax—particularly practice notes 4 and 6 and section 8 of note 3?
Is the Leader of the House aware that, when the Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday that my poll tax details in Wandsworth were in the public domain, he spoke far truer than the thought? When the BBC telephoned Wandsworth council this morning, it was told that anyone could check the details of the poll tax register by telephone; yet, 40 minutes ago, the Department of the Environment told me that the only way in which people could check the register was to go physically to the finance reception department at Wandsworth town hall.
This is not about me; it is a matter of principle. It could as easily apply to a battered wife seeking refuge in Wandsworth from a violent husband. It is not just a case of confidential information being given out: Wandsworth is giving out such information willy-nilly on the telephone.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is excited about a wide range of matters, but the central point at issue is whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment could reasonably infer, in order to make it known to the House, that the hon. Gentleman's Wandsworth home was his second home. The fact of his having a Wandsworth home is legitimately a matter of public knowledge. My hon. Friend has written a letter to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), saying that, if any of the inferences were incorrect, he would naturally wish for them to be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity. The only question remaining is whether my hon. Friend was right to infer that the hon. Gentleman's home in Wandsworth was a second home.
Mr. John Biffen: Earlier this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—under the Svengalian, mesmerising influence of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—seemed to rule out any possible changes in the methods of financing education before the next general election. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members would like to share the status of the hon. Member for Bolsover and to seek the ear of the Prime Minister in an attempt to persuade her that there is a good case for the financing of education by the Exchequer? Could he arrange a debate on the subject in the near future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my right hon. Friend's interest in the matter, but I cannot undertake to arrange a debate upon it merely in response to his request. However, I can assure him that he will never need to emulate the style or the personality of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in order to secure the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the case of Sub-Lieutenant Simon Rowland, who suffered brain damage after heat stroke that went unnoticed by his instructor, is not an isolated

1077
case? During the last 10 years, 663 service men have been injured and 12 have been killed by heat stroke, but there has not been a single prosecution. May we have a debate, therefore, next week on the need for the automatic courts martial of officers involved in training when service men are seriously injured or killed? Could there be an independent scrutiny of the cases during the past 10 years where there have been no prosecutions? May we also debate the need for the dismissal from the Royal Navy of Sub-Lieutenant Rowland's instructor?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot immediately offer the prospect of a debate on that topic, as requested by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I can assure him that the recommendations of the board of inquiry into the Rowland case are being implemented. Instructors in survival training are being given more first-aid training, and staff are being issued with portable phones in order to improve reaction times. Course syllabuses and casualty evacuation procedures are being reviewed, and medical advice is given to all personnel on the prevention of heat stress.
Sir Richard Body: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion 562 on the Order Paper?
[That this House seeks an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not remove the ban on the irradiation of food until many unresolved safety issues have been addressed, in particular its effects on packaging, pesticides and food additives, and that it will not introduce irradiation without a practical and reliable set of tests that can detect irradiation and the dosage in all foodstuffs; and welcomes the National Federation of Women's Institutes and Consumers' Association lobby on 22nd February highlighting consumer fears of irradiation and requesting that Her Majesty's Government guarantees time to both Houses to debate this issue prior to the introduction of regulations.]
Better still, has he seen the 500 charming and persuasive ladies in the mass lobby on behalf of the National Federation of Women's Institutes who have come to support the early-day motion? May I go and tell them that, if not next week, at some time the House will have an opportunity to debate food irradiation? Before we do so, the House ought to be given access to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's information about the safety of irradiated food.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend does not need me to remind him that food irradiation has been thoroughly researched and that the process has been pronounced safe by international, Community and United Kingdom independent expert committees. However, the subject has aroused widespread interest. My hon. Friend recognises, I think, that there will be an opportunity to debate the process when the Food Safety Bill is considered. In that context, I shall draw his request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Stanley Orme: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Chope), had written to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to say that, if he had misled the
1078
House, he would withdraw what he said. Should not the Under-Secretary of State come to the House and make a statement?
Several years ago, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) said something to me across the Floor of the House that was challenged. The following day he came to the House and honourably made a statement withdrawing the accusation. Surely the straightforward course of action would be for the Under-Secretary of State to make a statement. He deliberately misused information that he was not entitled to use. Therefore, he should clear up the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The facts remain fundamentally simple. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has made it plain that his residence is in Coventry. It is a matter of public record that he is registered for the community charge in Wandsworth. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary therefore inferred that his Wandsworth home was his second home. The fact that that home was on the public register led my hon. Friend to conclude that he had not sought anonymity from the community charge registration officer. I repeat again that, if, in the correspondence that has already taken place between my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, either of those inferences is incorrect, naturally I would wish to have them corrected at the earliest opportunity. That remains the position, that is the record and those are the facts as presented by my hon. Friend.
Sir Dudley Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that various county councils are lodging their structure growth plans. Is he also aware that the advent of the M40 is generating tremendous pressure for extra housing in the middle of England, particularly in mid-Warwickshire? I suspect that it is happening in other parts of the country as well. In those circumstances, there are enormous pressures on the green belt, which Conservative Members have always regarded as sacrosanct. Does he agree that there will be some advantage in due course in having a debate on the preservation of the green belt?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my constituency demonstrates many of the same anxieties about the importance of the green belt, I understand why my hon. Friend raises that issue. I cannot promise him a debate, but I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware that, since the Government entered a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong and allowed 670 tonnes of elephant ivory to come on to the world market, the Kenyan wildlife director, Richard Leakey, has announced that poaching has risen sharply in Kenya, where conservation of the elephant is under very strict control, so it must be worse in other African countries? Is he not now convinced that it was a total mistake on the part of the Government to allow that Hong Kong ivory on to the world market? Will he allow the House to have not an Adjournment debate but an Executive debate and a vote so that we can discover whether the House wishes the Government to reverse that reservation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman, who takes a tenacious interest in that topic, knows that Hong Kong is not a market for poached ivory, because there is already a total ban on imports of ivory. The strict controls there

1079
include licensing for possession of quantities over 5 kg and monitoring movements of ivory between licensed holders. If there is any evidence of Hong Kong complicity in poaching, and in particular if Dr. Leakey can produce evidence of complicity by Hong Kong traders in illegal trading in ivory, we shall investigate it.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Rather than discussing the European Court of Auditors, does not my right hon. and learned Fried agree that it would be even more topical to discuss yesterday's decision by the European Court of Human Rights which means that hundreds of thousands of people living near Heathrow who suffer from the noise of 900 flights every day cannot sue for nuisance and have no legal remedy? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I am concerned about the welfare and peace of mind not only of my constituents in Twickenham but of residents of neighbouring boroughs such as Wandsworth, including the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises a matter of importance for him and his constituents. He may not appreciate that the Patronage Secretary and I represent constituencies that are contiguous to another London airport, Gatwick, so we share his concern. However, I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I for the third time ask for a debate on wages in the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons? Is the Leader of the House aware that I have a letter dated 20 June 1989 from the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving), saying that there are some people in that Department who are underpaid? He admits that they are underpaid. May we have a debate on the matter, because it seems that the Committee is taking no action and some action should be taken?
In the light of what my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said, there has been a breach of regulations in the case of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may ask only one question at business questions, in fairness to the other hon. Members.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What action will be taken?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should raise, in such detail as he wishes, the wages of staff in the Refreshment Department of the House in correspondence with either the Chairman of the Sub-Committee or with myself, as Chairman of the Services Committee, rather than raising it, as he has done several times, on the Floor of the House. Let him set it out in an orderly fashion in correspondence, and it will be studied.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In supporting the request made a little earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), may I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to early-day motion 571 on educational funding?
[That this House believes that following the Government's education reforms, particularly the move towards local management for schools, there is now a
1080
changing role for local education authorities and a compelling case for education funds to be provided directly from central Government.]
It has been signed by more than 50 Conservative Members. Will he find time for a debate on the need to transfer the total cost of education from local government to central Government to make the community charge, which is right in principle, sensible in practice?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the fact that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would like the matter to be debated, but I am unable to promise the prospect of a debate. The Government have no plans at present to change the way in which education is funded.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 429 on New Consensus in Ireland?
[That this House gives its full support to the broad-based Irish group New Consensus which aims to challenge at every opportunity apathy and ambivalence about the right to human life in Northern Ireland, to promote the equal right of all citizens to the democratic control of their destiny, to defend the principles of mutual respect and civil liberty as the basis for democratic, non-sectarian social activity in Ireland, North and South, and to reject all forms of paramilitary activities; and further supports the initiative of New Consensus in organising a dignified picket of the Sinn Fein annual conference in Dublin on the weekend of 3rd and 4th February, to call upon the Irish Republican Army to stop its murder campaign and to reject the claim that they act in the name of the people of Ireland.]
What inference does he draw from it? New Consensus has been established to oppose any ambivalence or apathy to the right to life in Northern Ireland. Its representatives have been in the House today. Might it be a good opportunity for us to debate democracy and civil liberties in Northern Ireland and Ireland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not familiar with all the aims and ambitions of New Consensus. In so far as it draws attention to the evils of terrorist violence and seeks to counter the actions of the Provisonal IRA and Sinn Fein, the Government welcome its activities.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: A number of hon. Members are rising who were not rising previously. In view of the great pressure on the following debate, in which I shall have to place a 10-minute limit on speeches, questions will continue until half-past four, when we must move on.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is there not a need for an early debate on local government finance, so that we can congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on doing what everyone in this country is entitled to do—order their tax affairs to their best advantage? If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about living in Wandsworth and a Militant force coming round to kneecap him, perhaps we could do a swap. I live in the London borough of Lewisham, which has a high community charge. I should be happy to move to Wandsworth and let the hon. Gentleman have my secret address in Lewisham.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Far be it from me to intervene in the somewhat hazardous domestic arrangements suggested by my hon. Friend.
Mr. John McFall: The Government will be aware of the Gardner report on leukaemia clusters and the comments that have been made in the wake of it. One thing is sure: a massive financial investment in both civil and military installations is required. The Government's watchdog, the National Radiological Protection Board, has asked the Department of Health to undertake a study of the medical records of more than 100,000 people who have been exposed to radiation since 1946. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to make a statement on this issue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give such an undertaking, but I shall bring the question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Bowis: Further to the question about my constituent, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), will my right hon. and learned Friend grant the request for a debate? It would enable us to explain that Wandsworth borough council may reveal who has registered for the community charge, but it will never give out a private address and never say whether it is a community or standard charge. A debate would give the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East the opportunity to say whether his main home is in Wandsworth or Coventry. It might also offer Opposition Members the opportunity to explain why so many of them live in Wandsworth, with its benefits of low community charge and high services. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accede to that request.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has done so well in representing the interests of his constituents and of Wandsworth council that I hardly need to offer him the benefit of a full debate.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the leader of the House aware that the British film industry is the best and finest in the world? Is he aware also that an all-party group visited Pinewood last week to find out about the problems in the industry? It is going downhill, and has been for a considerable time. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate so that we can consider seriously what help can be given to the industry? Incidentally, I am waiting for a contract. I hope that the Leader of the House will do something about the problem.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The persuasive clarity of the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of the subject commends it to me more than many that have been mentioned this afternoon.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: In the light of the unfortunate and unseemly scenes on the Floor of the House at Question Time yesterday and immediately after, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it might be wise for us to have a further debate on procedure so that we can establish when points of order should and should not be taken?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fancy that the House has had its fill of debates on procedure for a week or two.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the question of having a debate about the poll tax and in particular its—
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Where is the hon. Gentleman's second home?
Mr. Skinner: It is in highly rated Lambeth—and I am only a lodger.
Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate about the transfer to central Government of teachers' salaries, education as a whole, fire, police and so on—a plea voiced by his hon. Friends? The Leader of the House is well known for using coded language to explain his differences with the Prime Minister. He could take part in that debate and tell us exactly what he feels. I warn him, however, not to become too semi-detached.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am always grateful for warnings from the hon. Gentleman, even when I think that they are wholly unnecessary.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us feel that the agony of the poll tax could have been spared us had the burden of education been transferred from the rates long ago? Is he aware that many of us believe that the case is stronger than ever now for that burden to be transferred to central Government? May I add my plea to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others that we debate the matter very soon?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that a number of my hon. Friends have an interest in discussing the subject. I must tell my hon. Friend of the general rule that the transfer of a burden from one place to another does not always result in it becoming any more comfortable.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Despite his cool and legalistic interpretation of the High Court judgment yesterday concerning the administration of the social fund, is the Leader of the House aware that that decision had profound implications for many scores of thousands of people who are in receipt of income supplement? May I ask for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security on the matter? Such a statement, among other things, should point out what advice or directives have been sent to local offices of the DSS to enable people to reapply for grants and loans which were denied them under the disgraceful administration of the fund.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already told the House, the court judgment did not call into question the basic aims and operation of the fund. I have explained why, for that reason, we do not regard a statement as necessary. I also told the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that I would consider the request and bring the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I give no undertaking in respect of it.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: May I again draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to early-day motion 571?
[That this House believes that following the Government's education reforms, particularly the move towards local management for schools, there is now a changing role for local education authorities and a compelling case for education funds to be provided directly from central Government.]
It has now been signed by 57 of my hon. Friends of all varieties. I am very much looking forward to the signature

1083
of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) being added to the list. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give serious consideration to an early debate on education, so that the educational case for making the transfer of funding to the centre may be fully put and debated in the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's representation of an additional reason for discussion of that motion. I shall give consideration to it, but I cannot give any undertaking on the prospects for a debate.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can the Leader of the House explain why, within 24 hours of the severe weather hitting the south of England some time ago, the Department of the Environment volunteered an oral statement on a Friday morning, when, a full four weeks and more after similar severe weather hit Scotland, the Scottish Office has not made an oral statement? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early oral statement from the Scottish Office and, in particular, one that will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and myself to point out the deep sense of grievance felt in the Highland region because the damage done in Strathspey and Inverness-shire, in our respective constituencies, has not been acknowledged financially by the Scottish Office?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was offered in response to a private notice question. That is a difference of some importance. On the substance of the matter, all I can do is to draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider organising another debate on South Africa to give the Opposition spokesmen the opportunity to explain why they try to present Britain as uniquely soft on sanctions when imports from South Africa to Socialist France have increased threefold since 1985? Does that not show a great deal of hypocrisy, and not only on the other side of the Channel?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises an important point. However, he will recall that the subject has been the subject of two statements from the Dispatch Box and one debate in the past 10 days.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give a reassurance that the Government will be in a position to ratify the United Nations convention on drug misuse and trafficking before the special demand reduction conference takes place at the beginning of April? Can he tell the House whether necessary legislation will be brought before it to do so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give a firm undertaking in that respect. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government are using their best endeavours to do so. The position will depend on the progress of legislation now before Parliament.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow an early debate on the
1084
arrogance of those small-minded councillors, whoever and wherever they may be, whose selfish obsession with programmes for which the public does not wish to pay has blinded them to the savage financial impact that their empire building will have on those who are least able to pay?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure of the need for an early debate on that matter. We hope that the increasingly effective impact of the community charge will bring that message home to voters as well.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the deplorable state of education in certain parts of London? Is he aware that, in 1988, only 29 pupils obtained A-level German in the 12 inner-London boroughs and that only 137 obtained A-level French? Is that not a scandal, which underlines how the Labour party's education policies have failed the people of London? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the best results come from Conservative-controlled boroughs in London and the worst from Labour-controlled boroughs?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance of that point. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the disappearance of the Inner London education authority shortly will fortify the message that he is trying to get across.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members of all parties—excluding, alas, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—have taken part in recordings for "Songs of Praise" from St. Margaret's next Sunday? Does he consider that the interest in "Songs of Praise" means that the House is now ready for a full debate on school assemblies and on Christian-centred religious education in schools?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance of the subject raised by my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that the performance of the House on that occasion is necessarily the best argument in its favour.
Mr. James Hill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider having a debate on freeing the remainder of the ports of the United Kingdom? I am thinking of the trust ports, some of which are having great difficulty in operating commercially, because everything has to be done through a private Bill passed through the two Houses. Would it not be a good idea to have a debate on trying to finish what we started, which was privatisation of the ports in the United Kingdom?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend understands that it is not appropriate for me to comment on private business. However, on the principle that he has raised, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering whether to introduce legislation to enable port trusts to be converted into companies. No decisions on that matter have yet been taken.

Business of the House

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Points of Order
4.33 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At column 836 of Hansard an allegation was made against the Army. I have spoken—
Mr. Speaker: On what date?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am raising this at the first opportunity, as you know, Mr. Speaker.
I spoke to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) this morning on the telephone to tell him what I proposed to raise. He was content with what I wish to say. Hansard shows that an allegation was made, that a vehicle
"carrying such a device was travelling through the centre of a major city in Britain"
and, according to the hon. Gentleman,
"fell off the back of the lorry."—[Official Report, 20 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 836.]
The hon. Gentleman has made a retraction to the national press, which I am delighted to see. However, Hansard is a record of what has happened in this place, so I must ask how a retraction of those words, which I am sure were uttered in good faith but which turned out to be wholly misplaced, can be effected in Hansard?
Mr. Speaker: This matter arose on Tuesday and was raised again on a point of order yesterday. Although the hon. Gentleman may not have been present, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was present here, but I do not think that a retraction was called for at the time.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The retraction by the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter does not appear because he was not involved. I am asking how an allegation which he has now said was wholly wrong can be put right by him. I could not raise the matter yesterday for reasons of which you are aware, Mr. Speaker, and I have taken the first proper opportunity—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be the first opportunity for the hon. Gentleman, but I regret that he was not here
1086
yesterday when the matter could have been raised and when the hon. Gentleman involved could have responded. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue the matter now. The hon. Member for Leicester, East came to see me last night to inform me that he was leaving for India today.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The top of page 119 of "Erskine May" states:
"The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt."
We do not know whether the statement made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) earlier this week was deliberately misleading, but we do know that it was misleading. It should be possible for the hon. Gentleman to come to the House to tell us about the statement that he made which put a police operation at risk. We are all concerned about terrorism in this country and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. He cannot raise the matter now. It should have been raised at the proper time. This happened on Tuesday.
Mr. Tony Banks: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, from time to time the opportunity arises for hon. Members of all parties to earn an honest crust outside this place. I have an opportunity to get myself a fiver. It arises from an offer made in Private Eye. If someone can find out who is circulating copies of a Central Office publication on the National Health Service, called "Our Ace of Hearts", using House of Commons stationery, which is something upon which you, Mr. Speaker, have remarked in the past, which is being circulated in West Sussex, Private Eye will pay a fiver. I should like you to order an inquiry so that we can find out who—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Banks: —and I shall share the fiver with you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is some time since I have seen that admirable publication. I do not know anything about that matter.

East-West Relations
[Relevant document: un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 15th December 1989 on the Community-USSR Agreement on Trade and on Commercial and Economic Co-operation]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
Mr. Speaker: Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who may be called before that time to bear that limit in mind. Furthermore, I hope that the House will think it fair if today I give priority to those right hon. and hon. Members who were not called when we last debated this subject, on 1 December, even though they may be Privy Councillors.
4.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We are debating the future shape of our continent: the impetus towards democracy in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union; the emergence in the centre of Europe of a united Germany; and the reduction, on an unprecedented scale, of the armed forces that for decades have opposed one another across a divided Europe. All those developments we can welcome. All those developments will need a mass of continuing work.
It seems that a lot is going on. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had talks in London with the Polish Prime Minister and the French and German Foreign Ministers. President Havel of Czechoslovakia will visit Britain next month. Next week, I go to Hungary. In April, I shall visit the Soviet Union for talks with Soviet leaders. Those are just a few of the array of visits and meetings now in progress. The airways of Europe and the Atlantic are thronged with travelling Ministers. At first, all the visits and discussions seemed somewhat formless. That was my first impression a few weeks ago but now I begin to see new patterns of consultation and sensible understandings emerging.
The first phase of smashing statues and hunting secret policemen in eastern Europe is almost over. The more difficult task of building democratic institutions and creating free market economies is beginning. As that happens, we enter a completely new phase of East-West relations. Until now, the challenge for the West was to manage a relationship between adversaries. The overriding need was to avert war—
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, I must get on a little.
After that overriding need, we had to seek progress with arms control and greater respect for human rights. Much of our effort was directed to limiting the damage of the cold war, exposing the abuse of human rights and countering the disruptive influence of the Soviet Union worldwide. That traditional effort required perseverance and sometimes courage. We did not need to look beyond political alliances, political systems and certainties. Now, many countries, including the Soviet Union, are being transformed.
1088
We shall still need steadiness and courage, but we must welcome fresh ideas and original thought. That is undoubtedly the new mood in Britain, the rest of Europe and across the Atlantic. That came across sharply in the remarkable series of meetings in Ottawa last week. It turned out to be a diplomatic festival as well as a formal conference. The Foreign Ministers of NATO and Warsaw pact countries were there to discuss an open skies regime. In practice, our talks ranged far more widely. It was less a case of open skies than open house. It was an extraordinary experience to talk and listen to the Polish, Czech or Hungarian Foreign Ministers and hear, for the first time in nearly half a century, genuinely national points of view emerge.
I came away with a strong sense that the Soviet Union is no longer sure of its moorings. The Warsaw pact is no longer biddable. Democracy is starting to encroach. Soviet foreign policy is much more sensitive than before. I have the impression that, perhaps for this reason, it at present contains more questions than answers. I admire the Soviet leadership for riding the tide of events, but the pace and strength of the tide will increase over the next few months.
The dominating issue at Ottawa was German unification. The western allies and, as the House knows, successive British Governments, have always supported the principle of German unification, to be brought about as the result of the freely expressed choice of the peoples of the two Germanies. We can be glad, as friends of the new and democratic Germany, that the years of painful division are coming to an end.
Momentum toward unification has built up fast and it is now likely to happen sooner rather than later. The political momentum is largely due to the continuing flow of people from the German Democratic Republic to the Federal Republic and the desire of those who stay behind to share in the prosperity of their fellow Germans in the West. There is also, as we can all understand, an emotional momentum, which, in a way, is the most powerful of all.
Other, equally important realities can now be taken into account. German unification, of course, closely affects other countries—her immediate neighbours, her partners and allies in the Community and in NATO and the four powers that retain rights and responsibilities in Germany. There are, therefore, external aspects to the German question and alongside self-determination goes the need for joint determination of those external issues.
Before the Ottawa meeting, we felt that the external aspects were not always adequately heeded as the West German Government grappled with the rush of events in the GDR. Until last week we lacked a framework for discussing the external aspects of German unification. We were not alone in our concern as others were worried that we seemed to be in a scramble towards unification without the framework for handling the external aspects, including membership of NATO by a united Germany, the implications of that for the territory of what would be the former GDR because of the Soviet troops there, the status of Berlin and the final settlement of borders, as well as the implications of unification for the EC.
Our message was not one of obstruction, but that we risked muddle and instability if the issues were not addressed in some orderly way. Many felt those anxieties and told us about them and we were probably foremost in spelling them out. Because of that, a notion grew up, particularly in parts of the German press, that we were in

1089
some way going back on our traditional support for the principle of unification. I hope that that notion has now been dispelled to the comfort of us all.
Sir Russell Johnston: The Foreign Secretary has referred to the possible effects of the DDR on the EC. He will be aware that he was reported in the press a couple of weeks ago as saying that the DDR must wait in the queue behind Austria and Turkey. Surely that was not a realistic thing to say.
Mr. Hurd: I was talking then about the suggestion made by President Delors that an independent GDR might apply for membership of the Community. I agree that his statement and my comments upon it have been overtaken by events.
When I visited Washington on 29 January, I stressed to the President and to the Secretary of State that a framework was needed, but we did not discuss in detail what form it should take. By the time I went to Ottawa at the beginning of last week, our thoughts had become more precise. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I were clear that, at Ottawa, I should press as hard as possible for a meeting or meetings of the six—the four former occupying powers and the two Germanies. Other external aspects need to be discussed in the EC, in NATO and with Poland, but a six-power meeting seemed to be the first step.
When I got to Ottawa, I found that I was knocking on an open door, because the minds of our allies had moved precisely in the same direction; only the Soviet Union was reticent but. in Ottawa, that reticence was overcome within 24 hours. We believe that a forum of the six offers some obvious advantages. It brings together those most immediately concerned, the two Germanies and the four countries that have a unique standing in terms of legal rights and responsibilities in Germany.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. Friend has touched on the status of Berlin and many people would he interested to know exactly what is British Government thinking on it; after all, we have a garrison there. Is that likely to be reduced in the near future? How does my right hon. Friend see things developing in that regard?
Mr. Hurd: It might save time if I made some progress, but I shall give way later to those who may be dissatisfied by the inadequacy of my remarks.
We have therefore achieved our aim—a channel that can guide the discussion in the future. We welcome that achievement and plenty of hard work lies ahead. We are now optimistic, however, that German unification can be achieved in a manner that fits a pattern of European stability and security acceptable to all. I cannot help adding that now that that framework is beginning to take shape, everyone is saying how important it is.
Everyone is happy to climb aboard now, but an analysis of the importance of discussing the external aspects of German unity was regarded as unrealistic foot-dragging when the Prime Minister and I spoke about that a few weeks ago. Such analyses were two a penny around the table at Dublin on Tuesday. I want to express my appreciation of the way in which the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Genscher, has stressed throughout, in private and in public, the importance of consultation and the particular role of the four powers.
Mr. Denis Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned the contribution of Mr. Genscher. He will recall that Mr. Genscher told the press at the Dublin meeting that he regarded the Helsinki organisation, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as the most important framework for dealing with those problems. He signed the declaration by the Community Foreign Ministers that said the CSC'E was a fundamental element. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the Helsinki arrangements. Why not?
Mr. Hurd: I have been speaking for about eight minutes and I have a particularly exhaustive account of the CSCE process, which I shall give in about 10 minutes. Once again, I learn the lesson that I should make some progress.
It is not just on procedure that we have begun to make progress; there is a coming together of ideas on substance as well. There is the concept of a united Germany in NATO. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) would agree that that is important to the West. It is also important for the security of Europe as a whole, as a number of east European countries now, for the first time, recognise. A neutral Germany, outside existing security arrangements in Europe, would weaken stability, and we believe that the Federal Government was right to reject that option. American and other foreign troops and their nuclear weapons will need to remain in Germany in significant numbers as a stabilising element in European security. There is a growing consensus on that point.
We need to take account of Soviet concern, and that means finding special arrangements for the territory of what is now the GDR, including, perhaps, the continued presence of Soviet troops for a transitional period. It is too soon to be precise about details and I do not think it sensible for the Government to try to be precise about them. The principles, however, are becoming clear. I believe that the Soviet Union will come to accept that its own interest in stability will be served by having Germany as a member of the defensive western Alliance, but with the special arrangements I have mentioned, especially as arms control reduces the level of forces on both sides in Europe.
The second important consideration is the eastern border of a united Germany. No one with any sense of history can be surprised by the Polish emphasis on this subject, which was stressed to us by Prime Minister Mazowiecki last week. The German Government have made it clear that the substance of their position is not in doubt. I have heard Mr. Genscher say several times that a united Germany will comprise the territory of the Federal Republic, the GDR and Berlin—not more, not less. Nevertheless we believe that there should be a formal and binding agreement to settle this matter once and for all. A treaty is the obvious solution and Poland, of course, will need to be closely involved in the discussion.
In answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), we need to consider seriously within the Community the implications of an enlarged Germany. The economy of the GDR is clearly ill suited to Community life. It is massively state-aided, it offends every EC environmental directive and its industrial and manufacturing standards are, to put it mildly, not those of the single market. The Germans will therefore need derogation from Community law, and we shall all need some transitional arrangements. That is why the Irish Government, as the President of the Commission, have

1091
proposed a special Community summit to discuss this, after proper preparation, towards the end of April. We welcome that initiative. The European Commission agreed in Dublin, at my suggestion, that detailed work should begin now in preparation for that meeting.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: In relation to the Oder-Neisse line, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for Germany to seek unity, and I am in favour of that. But a possible future powder keg might be the lot of the German minority living in the territory, in Silesia and around Stettin, to the east of the Oder-Neisse line.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner Poland is drawn into the European Community the better, because that would ensure that the human rights of the ethnic minorities in Poland—and perhaps in Czechoslovakia, too—could be maintained, remembering that that was a source of some problems in the days before 1939?
Mr. Hurd: Indeed it was. The Helsinki Final Act covers human rights and the question of borders, so it is important as a safeguard for both parts of the problem.
Fourthly, there is the question of Berlin. The western allies have defended freedom in their sectors of Berlin during the long period when the city and Germany itself was divided. Now that the Berlin wall is coming down and unification is in prospect. we do not want needlessly to perpetuate the occupation regime. It has served a particular and worthwhile purpose during a particular period in Berlin's history.
The allies will consult the Russians about the future status of the city, and the two Germanys should be asssociated with the rather more formal process of four-power consultation.
I am particularly anxious that, in all these matters, we should work closely with the French. We have long had a virtual identity of interest in many of these matters. I hope that we can work for a virtual identity of view.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the economic background of East Germany. We are well aware of the massive wealth of West Germany. Obviously, East Germany will be put back on its feet. May we have an assurance that there is sufficient money in West Germany to put the east European economy back on its feet and that the British taxpayer will not be required, through European funding, to put into effect a greater Germany, which will then have the economic effect of putting some of our own companies and people out of business?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will have seen and read how the German Government, industry and the Bundesbank are already engaged preparing a massive infusion of help into the GDR. The question of the access of the eastern part of a united Germany to Community funds—how exactly that would work out, transition arrangements for goods and, as I mentioned, derogations to the law—is all detailed work which is just beginning in the Commission in Brussels and which will come to a head at the European Council at the end of April. It is a big series of dossiers, as they say in Brussels, and it is too soon to be clear what the outcome will be.
1092
The second important outcome of the Ottawa meeting was the agreement to hold a CSCE summit later this year, at which—this is important—an agreement on conventional force reductions in Europe would be signed and which would establish a framework for future European co-operation.
The background is known to the House. For years, our negotiators struggled to secure, in the Helsinki process, a common standard of human rights. It was a long-drawn-out business under several Governments, painstaking and painful. The Governments of Eastern Europe were in the end brought to sign up to a set of standards by which their own people could apply a test, and we have all been able to make good use of that Final Act.
People such as President Havel and Doina Cornea would have been lost to view—they might have disappeared for ever—if we had not had a standard that could be waved on their behalf, a mechanism by which we and others could keep pressing for their freedom and rights.
All that effort has been proved worth while. It has been vindicated. The new Governments of eastern Europe, many of whose individual members benefited personally from that process, want to build on it for the future. We agree and believe that the process can now play a greater role than ever before in strengthening peace and stability in Europe. It has the right membership and the right broad agenda.
We need to make human rights, democracy and the rule of law as secure and as permanent as we can throughout Europe, and to achieve that we need an underlying framework of stability to support and nourish the wider growth of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, because all history shows that the survival of those things is fragile and sometimes at risk. The CSCE process is there to hand. We believe that it should be adapted and strengthened for that purpose.
I see the CSCE rather like a motorway which at present carries a good deal of the traffic of East-West relations, but that traffic has been moving uncertainly in the past. The political work of the CSCE will become more important in future. If this motorway for carrying the traffic of East-West relations is to fulfil its potential and carry the additional traffic, we must widen it. We must increase the number of lanes and find other ways of keeping the traffic flowing. So we shall look for practical new elements with which we can strengthen the CSCE's contribution to European security.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the existing instrument of the Council of Europe has a useful part to play in the road-building programme that he has outlined?
Mr. Hurd: The Council of Europe provides, particularly in the European convention on human rights, a mechanism—a rather more formal standard—which will be important as the east European countries develop. That is why they are showing such interest in the Council of Europe, and I welcome the fact that our representatives there have supported them in their efforts to become more closely associated with the work of the council.
Returning to the subject of the CSCE, last year, we and the United States launched a proposal in this context of

1093
free elections and made another about respect for the rule of law. In Ottawa, I advanced another British proposal which, so as not to bore the House, I simply mention.
The cold war had many undesirable effects, but one which was perhaps neutral was to freeze many of the old nationalist emotions and tensions which for centuries were flashpoints in Europe. Now that the cold war is melting and the ice is thawing, there is a risk—we can see it in every newspaper—particularly in central and eastern Europe, that national reawakening will be accompanied by some of the uglier effects of nationalism as the old rivalries reassert themselves.
In the West, we have made a reasonable job of overcoming such rivalries in freedom, but Communism—the enforced and artificial uniformity of Communism—denied that chance to our eastern neighbours. The CSCE could provide a means of resolving disputes between its members to defuse tension and avert the threat of conflict, alongside, of course, the established machinery of the United Nations.
The process should not get bogged down in machinery. It would perhaps be reasonably easy to get agreement on a piece of conciliation machinery and then find that most countries spend their time finding excuses for not using it. We need to encourage the countries of Europe to talk and think collectively and more often about some of these issues—such as minority rights and the protection of minorities—which may be at the heart of existing or future disputes between and within countries.
The third important agreement to come out of the two and a half days in Ottawa was perhaps in some ways the most surprising. It was the agreement reached between the United States and the Soviet Union on the reduction of their stationed forces within Europe. Alongside that was a consensus between the alliances that the negotiations going on in Vienna should press ahead as quickly as possible so that we can reach an agreement this year.
We shall work hard to achieve that outcome. Problems remain. We have not solved the problem of aircraft or the problem, which always dogs the negotiations, of effective verification, but I came away from Ottawa with the feeling that the political will was there to achieve that result.
As many hon. Members have said, we need to look beyond the Vienna negotiations to the future needs of European security. Future arms control measures will be part of that, as will the political aspects of security, which I have already mentioned. In Ottawa, I suggested that we should set this work in hand, and we shall follow up the proposals in NATO and the CSCE.
Mr. Heffer: I agree that we cannot settle matters in Europe overnight, and it will take some time. However, in future, could not we introduce the concept of a wide neutral zone in Europe that is non-nuclear, with both American and Russian troops withdrawn? It is an old concept that was suggested many years ago by Mr. Gaitskell and others in the Labour party. As we think to the future, is not this the way that we should go?
Mr. Hurd: That is a concept of which we shall certainly hear more, but I do not think that it makes best use of our opportunities. The separation of conventional and nuclear, which lies at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, is a bit old hat. I would rather do what we have suggested, which is not try to copy exactly the CFE I talks on conventional forces in Europe, but to look at what the
1094
needs of European security will be in 1991–92 and begin to work out what further arms-control collective negotiations are needed to meet those needs.
All those developments raise the question of the future of our own Atlantic Alliance. We need not be dominated by thoughts of symmetry and what is happening in the Warsaw pact. The implications for the pact of democracy among its members will certainly be profound. It will either be transformed or fade away. But that is for its members to decide. They will decide, and are deciding now, what its future should be.
NATO will change, too. It will be affected by the changes in eastern Europe and will need to adapt. However, it is different; it has proper foundations in the consent of Governments and peoples. Therefore, whatever happens to the Warsaw pact, NATO will endure. We need to distinguish as rigorously as we can between those attributes of NATO that will remain important in future and other aspects that should change in response to events. Our security needs will change, but the need for security will not.
Among the permanent characteristics I would list—some hon. Members will have different lists—NATO's present membership, the presence of significant stationed forces, including those of the United States, Canada and Britain, on the continent, a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional forces and an integrated command structure. Those essentials taken together would mean that we would continue to have a strong European defence. For us they include, among other things, the retention of the independent nuclear deterrent.
As for change, the Alliance will become more deeply involved in the management of change in Europe, in the dialogue with the East, in arms control and its verification, in consultation about security problems outside—as well as inside—Europe and in developing the new ideas that I mentioned for the 1990s, such as minimum deterrence. An Alliance that can change with the times still has a lot of offer for the security of its members. It offers a sure link between Europe and north America. I hope that we can have a consensus in the House about the importance of that. It offers a sound framework for co-operation in defence and arms control and the cheapest insurance policy against the uncertainties and possible turbulance of the 1990s.
The long-term security and stability of Europe can best be maintained if what is happening now—the democratic renewal in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe—remains on track. There may well be reverses and upheavals, but I do not think that they are likely to bring back the cold war. However, they could send tremors of danger through the whole of our continent.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in that context and in the context of the peace treaty governing the reunification of Germany, there is an attractive logic in considering eventually a formal agreement between NATO and the Warsaw pact, within the umbrella of other international agreements?
Mr. Hurd: That is one possibility, but it assumes the survival of the Warsaw pact. We should not argue that we need the Warsaw pact—that is a matter for its members. If they decide to keep it, my hon. Friend's suggestion will fall to be considered, but we should not say, "We need the Warsaw pact."

1095
I am nearing the end of my speech, because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I was talking about the process of democratic renewal in eastern Europe. We must provide what practical support we can for that. Hon. Members will be familiar with much of the detail, which was covered during the debate in December. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State with particular responsibility for these matters may have something to say about this.
I stress the key role in the process of the European Community. The Community's response to events in the East has been fast and effective. The Commision, at the request of the United States and others, co-ordinates the work of the wider group of 24 western countries. We, the Twelve, are sending aid of many kinds. We have launched the idea of a European development bank, whose emphasis on helping the private sector owes much to our urging.
We are acting to develop trade and co-operation agreements with the eastern countries and, as a British initiative before Christmas, we looked for closer forms of co-operation between the Community and those countries in the longer term. We want to enable those emerging democracies to develop their economies and align themselves more closely with the Community as reform proceeds.
I hope that the process will eventually lead to full membership of the Community. That is for the future, and a matter for those countries, as well as the Community.
Mr. Michael Jopling rose—
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way, for perhaps the last time.
Mr. Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one other step that it is essential to take now in our relations with the emerging countries of eastern Europe in order to assist them, is to try to dissuade them from building up economic, military or political boundaries between themselves? That could only give rise to the nationalistic tendencies about which he spoke earlier.
Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree. I was encouraged by the talks that I had for the first time with individual eastern Foreign Ministers in Canada. They were well aware of the danger there. Democracies heed public opinion. They are all engaged in election campaigns in one way and another. My right hon. Friend's point is sound, and it is in the minds of those in the eastern European countries.
I hope that the process of gradually creating and enriching association agreements between the countries of eastern Europe and the Community will eventually lead to full membership. That will be a matter for them, as well as the Community. The Community already provides a stable political, economic and legal framework for European development. Their relationship with the Community will enable those countries to cope better with the conomic and political travail through which they will pass during the next few years. It will be hard for almost all of them. We have provided bilateral help. That well-targeted help is well documented and I shall not list it today. It is increasing all the time and is increasingly effective.
1096
I wish to make a new announcement today. We want to look, on an all-party basis, at what help Britain might give to political parties in eastern Europe and elsewhere. We shall shortly be in touch with others in the House to see whether we can reach some understanding about the way in which we, as a country, could do that.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy rose—
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way for the last time.
Mr. Duffy: I thought that the House would want to know that some right hon. and hon. Members, notably the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), have already taken on such a task on behalf of NATO parliamentarians, in consultation with Mr. Primakov, chairman of the supreme Soviet, as long ago as last June. I am glad to say that that intention is prospering and on-going. I was glad to hear what the Foreign Secretary said, and perhaps we can come together on this.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me up to date on that. We shall ensure that, as far as possible, these efforts are brought together.
Hon. Members will agree that we must encourage those countries in every way possible in the amazing task that they have set themselves. In their societies they are transforming the nature of the relationship between the state and the individual. That sounds easy as a general statement, but it is extraordinarily difficult in practice day by day.
I have touched on the three main efforts in which the British Government are engaged—the move towards German unification and our interests in the external aspects of that, the development of the European security framework and support for reform in eastern Europe. All those tasks stem from events of which the House was glad—the breaking down of walls and the freeing of peoples.
Lech Walesa told me when he was here before Christmas that he and his fellow amateurs, as he put it, had done their bit by proving to us professionals that the impossible was possible. He added—this was the thrust of it—that the rest was up to the professionals. We professionals—parliamentarians and diplomats, business men and bankers, journalists and broadcasters—must show the skill and imagination to follow up in a worthy way the work of, for example, the shipyard workers in Gdansk, the crowds in Wenceslaus square, and those who, through the years, defied the Berlin wall.
5.10 pm
Mr. George Robertson: I welcome the Foreign Secretary back to this country after his unsuccessful visit to Dublin for the Council of Ministers meeting where he found himself, yet again, out-voted, out-argued and out on a limb.
There are in this important issue some matters of considerable importance, and our relationship with the United States, as the Foreign Secretary has rightly said, is of crucial importance. Therefore, why was it falsely said in Dublin that there was American support for the Prime Minister's policy on sanctions for South Africa? Was it President Bush's repudiation yesterday of that claim which makes the Government too scared to tell the House, other than through a written answer, that they will now lift the investment sanction pressure on South Africa?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is a day out of date. He had better find out what has been said today in Washington about that.
Mr. Robertson: The House will be delighted to know. The House would have been delighted to know yesterday what was being said. This morning's Financial Times says:
"In Washington, a senior administration official stressed that the White House did not endorse Britain's intention to lift the voluntary ban on investment in South Africa".
Mr. John Maples: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us came here today under the happy impression that we were to talk about foreign affairs subjects other than South Africa. Is the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): This is an Adjournment debate and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is still on his preamble.
Mr. Robertson: I well understand the embarrassment of Conservative Members when they discover that relations with one of our closest allies are in such a state of disrepair.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: No, I will not give way. I am well aware of the time constraint on all of us.
We unreservedly welcome the debate. At this time, when history is being made every day, it is right that the House should have time to look at the momentous events going on around us—events which will yet determine the kind of world that we shall inhabit for generations to come. After all, we know that Britain will be intimately affected by events on the other side of the continent and well beyond that as well.
The Foreign Secretary forcefully made the point that we are at a veritable hinge of history and the people of Britain have a right to expect that their politicians will try. to achieve a consensus on what is happening and on what role Britain should play.
Remarkably, the Foreign Secretary said that we should think collectively in Europe. That is a remarkable claim, but one to which we would subscribe. In most countries, in the East and in the West, an attempt is being made in the dramatically improved climate of relations to achieve a community view of what the future holds.
These times involve the collapse of the cold war and with it the collapse of the Warsaw pact as a military alliance in anything other than name. That has created unprecedented opportunities for the new and less risky European security order. There are also the grave and perhaps crippling crises within the Soviet Union—in the economy, in the ruling Communist party and in the republics that seem set to secede from the union.
There is no doubt that, as Mr. Gorbachev was the trigger for the remarkable process that we are enjoying, his personal and policy survival is of considerable consequence to us all.
There has been the economic collapse of the former Communist satellite states in eastern Europe, where four decades of sterile, incompetent, corrupt bureaucracy have left rising expectations which, if denied, may spark instability or worse. Then there is the question of the new unification of the two German states, a question which seems to mesmerise the world and one on which the Foreign Secretary rightly concentrated.
1098
That is a more than full agenda, and for any Government with vision or any sense of destiny, the need for national consensus on the future would be self-evident. A consensus at home and the building of future influence abroad should be our collective priority.
But if, as is the bitter reality, we have no consensus, but instead conflict at home and isolation abroad, it is solely the result of that unique egocentric short-sightedness that our Prime Minister has made her own special hallmark. We were out-voted and marginalised again this week in the EC over sanctions, just as we were on the social charter and on monetary union in December, and it looks as though we shall be in conflict again over the role of the new European bank for development and reconstruction, perversely, at exactly the same time that the Government have the brass neck to claim that that bank should be placed in Britain.
Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that we would not be in this position today had it not been for the foresight, vision and co-operation of Ernest Bevin and Winston Churchill in days when the Labour Government were doing things of which the Conservative party thoroughly disapproved on the domestic front, but it realised that there were greater things to come together on? Would it not be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman emulated the example of that great Labour statesman now?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should listen not only to Opposition Members but to many of his colleagues. Of course we want a consensus. We should like to return to the vision of Ernest Bevin, when the creation of NATO and a unified Europe stood at a more difficult time than today. If anybody is guilty of breaking such consensus, shattering it before it could even be contemplated, it is the lady in No. 10 Downing street today.
We are divided even from the Americans on South Africa. As I said, as we gallop alone to relieve the pressures that have brought reform in that country. We are shunned in the Commonwealth and out on a limb on nuclear modernisation in NATO. As the world moves into a new era, the Government's stewardship of foreign policy has brought us to a new low in international influence. Never was that more glaringly on display than in the handling of the German issue.
For more than 40 years, we in Britain have stood by the objective of uniting the two artificially divided German states. Therefore, we should now rejoice that the brave people of East Germany have liberated and democratised their oppressed land, and that the German people can now choose to live together in peace and freedom.
But at a time when delicacy was required, the Prime Minister offered only meddling obstruction. At a time when vision was required, the Prime Minister offered only a crude rehash of the past. At a time when generosity and imagination were required, the Prime Minister offered only bleak prejudice.
Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that at least some Opposition Members were not keen about the language that the Prime Minister used about German unification, but some of us who had a certain experience at one time of our lives as young fellows, have never quite forgotten that experience, and we have a worry about this matter? That is why the Labour party split after the war on the

1099
question of German rearmament. Some of us feel very strongly about that matter, although in principle, we are in favour of German reunification.
If my hon. Friend reads Le Monde, he will know that the French are very concerned—all the French. My hon. Friend must not imagine that he speaks for the whole of the Labour party, as I saw him claim to do on television the other day. We want unification, but we want to be certain that there are safeguards, so that we never again see the situation that arose before.
Mr. Robertson: I always listen with great care and attention to those of my elders who have wider and longer experience than myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) speaks with great passion, as do other of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I have read carefully the words of President Mitterrand, whose experience is as long and distinguished as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walton. As my hon. Friend listens to the rest of my speech, he will come to realise that the distinction I draw is one of the tone and the repercussions of that tone, rather than of any under-estimation of the concerns that he and many others in Europe genuinely feel.
It is an act of diplomatic vandalism for the Prime Minister to campaign with the insensitivity that she has, and thereby alienate and irritate our closest European ally and our most important European trading partner. Last week, I was told by German members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg that our Prime Minister stimulates and encourages the very forces of Right-wing German nationalism that she warns about by insisting—in her own special, grudging, carping tone—that, of all the Europeans, only the Germans are to be denied self-determination.
We must ask ourselves why the Prime Minister seems immune to criticism from the continent and even from this House. Why is it necessary for Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell to cut her newspapers so forensically that she can ignore the criticism that is coming? Last weekend, The Sunday Times, which is not known for its loyal support of the Labour party, commented:
"Britain's future role in the world is more uncertain than at any time since the end of the second world war …No wonder Britain is set to play only a marginal role in the reshaping of Europe, an increasingly irrelevant voice that nobody bothers to listen to. That is certainly isolation, but there is nothing splendid about it."
An editorial in The Economist, which is usually well to the right of the politics of Ronald Reagan, stated:
"There is fog in the Channel, and once more the continent is cut off. This time, however, the fog is being generated in Downing Street and threatens to cut off not just Britain's partners in the European Community but the new governments of Eastern Europe, all of black Africa and even America. In short, Britain is in danger of becoming an irrelevance on the world stage, largely because its foreign policy emanates from the gut of its prime minister, Mrs. Thatcher."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, there are concerns inherent in the unification of the two Germanies, and they are shared by many cleverer minds than that of the Prime Minister. Poland's western frontier is of vital significance and it must be guaranteed absolutely. I agree entirely with the Foreign Secretary's view that there should be a treaty in that respect. The prospective neighbours of a united Germany are
1100
apprehensive and nervous about the perhaps natural introversion of their large next-door neighbour. Instability in central and eastern Europe poses dangers to us all.
Nevertheless, it is a counter-productive insult to continue to rattle old skeletons in the face of two Germanies, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly done over the past few weeks. To invite any comparisons between Hitler's third reich and the threat it posed to Poland and to other neighbouring countries with the Federal Republic of Germany—a nation with strongly rooted, robust and developed democratic institutions, many of them created by this country after the war, and which has no conceivable territorial ambitions—displays a perverse lack of tact, or just an absence of reality. A newly united Germany will pose a challenge to the rest of Europe, but it will be economic, not military. As I said in December's debate, perhaps we should beware of the second Japan, not the fourth reich.
When the costly and painful unification is complete—perhaps five years is a generous estimate of the time that that will take to accomplish—and despite the formidable problems of unifying currencies, harmonising benefits and pensions, and tackling appalling pollution problems, we will have in our midst in Europe an economic super-power that could easily distort the balance between the Community's member states. The Prime Minister would serve this nation better by facing up to that challenge instead of abrasively campaigning to lose our friends and allies.
The framework to develop relations with Europe will be found within the European Community—with nation states both inside and outside its present membership. It will be within the Community that economic and political balance can be ensured and strengthened. It is the Community which will be able to tackle the huge aid project for recovering the crucial stability of newly democratised countries. Only the Community can provide the institutions that can bind together diverse states and provide the pooling of sovereignty that alone will guarantee that no nation or economic force becomes disproportionately powerful.
Given Britain's isolation among our Community partners, what hope is there that we will be on the inside track of the new Europe? As a party politician, I suppose that I should rejoice in the incompetence of the present Government, the divisions among Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers, and the yawning chasm between Downing street and the Foreign Office. But I do not. I care enough about my country and the future of my children and their generation to feel only despair at the way that Britain is avoidably losing out.
In security, amazing opportunities are opening before us. The agreements reached in Ottawa that the Foreign Secretary outlined show what is possible when political will is there. But the disintegration of the Warsaw pact demands a reassessment of NATO's role and its current military strategy. It is interesting that the doctrine of flexible response was not among the components listed by the Foreign Secretary as the most valuable to be retained within NATO. Obsessional debates about neutralism are becoming meaningless, given that the bulk of Soviet troops will be leaving eastern Europe and that only one alliance is left facing a radically weakened, if still well-armed, Soviet Union.
The 35-nation CSCE group meeting to which the Foreign Secretary referred offers a real chance to bridge

1101
the now almost irrelevant divide in Europe. We must grasp that chance. I stand full square with the Foreign Secretary on that. The group must not degenerate into a talking shop but should set about creating institutions that will provide a new security framework for our continent.
I listened sympathetically to the Foreign Secretary's suggestion that the potential border problems, ethnic grudges and nationalisms that have been unleashed by the new process might be considered by the group. In the new security and political atmosphere that now exists, we must seek to avoid crude triumphalism and vain, unconvincing attempts to grab credit for what has happened. That would be not only wholly inappropriate as the euphoria dies away and the problems pile up, but deeply patronising.
The people of Poland, many of whom I met when I visited that country three weeks ago, displayed an astonishing sophistication last year in achieving what they wanted from their elections, despite the complex problems and obstacles put in their way under the system offered. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's initiative in bringing together the political parties of this country, to see whether we can give financial aid to political parties abroad. There is no doubt that the German system of foundations allied to political parties has played a major role in boosting German influence abroad and helping developing countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I know of the hon. Member's commitment to this cause. However, could he draw the attention of his colleagues in the European Parliament to this matter? The European Democratic group has twice tried to set up a fund, which it wants to call the European democracy fund, to do exactly that, but the Socialist group, including the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the European Parliament, has twice blocked it.
Mr. Robertson: I was in the European Parliament last week when the debate took place and the decision was taken. A number of distinctions have to be drawn. First, there is already aid to political parties in the European Parliament, and the Socialist group has made a gesture of levying its members and adding to that levy to help the promotion of the political process in eastern Europe. Secondly, some political parties represented in the European Parliament might have an affinity with organisations abroad which should perhaps not be the beneficiaries of public money. I understand that the various parties in the European Parliament continue to talk about the issue. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have a deep interest in the subject, and I intend to pursue it irrespective of what anyone outside the House intends to do.
The people of eastern Europe are in the process of rejecting many of the easy stereotypes on offer from the Right and also perhaps from the Left in the West. The Czechoslovakian Prime Minister was quoted last week as saying that there would be no Thatcherite revolution in that country. The Daily Telegraph quoted him as saying that
"there would be a privatisation programme, but it would be pursued slowly."
By saying that, he was perhaps rejecting all the ideologies that are being peddled today, and that may be the key to their future.
1102
As we face the new dawn in East-West relations, I hope that Britain, in spite of our Prime Minister's gross lack of judgment, will be able to play a major role in building a secure future. Certainly, the Labour party believes in the importance of multilateral processes, in the forging of friendships and alliances and in consensus for the benefit of all and not the ego of one. When the Labour party comes to office, that will be our guiding principle.
Britain has some unique and irreplaceable assets. For example, the British Council, which already has an organisation in place in eastern Europe, has allowed Britain, almost alone, to channel immediate technical, scientific and educational help to those countries. The council's over-stretched staff are already providing practical assistance and English language courses where there is an urgent need.
The BBC world service has played a remarkable, perhaps even an historic, role in the liberation of eastern Europe. From every country reports have come about how the objective, fair and truthful news from the world service has sustained and informed millions of people, and kept hope alive amid years of oppression. Surely, it is therefore now time for the Government to recognise that huge achievement and to provide the trivial sums that would give life to world service television.
Britain has the assets and, in spite of the Government we have a proud record of rising to a challenge. The British people deserve the chance to participate in the bounty that the present situation presents. Dare we hope that our Government can eventually, even belatedly, rise to the expectations of their own people?
5.33 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: We are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for giving us such a wide-ranging and comprehensive review of the present situation, however quickly it may he changing. I hope to be able to comply in two ways with Mr. Speaker's request that we should make brief interventions in the debate. I admit straight away that I do not propose to be as comprehensive as my right hon. Friend; and I do not wish to state views on the disarmament process which is going on, because I think that there is a better chance of success now, and my right hon. Friend has the matter completely in hand.
On the question of the future of NATO, I must confess that I do not understand some of the language now being used on both sides of the Atlantic. It is said that NATO must change from a military function into a political framework. I confess that I do not know what help a political framework in NATO would be. I do not see what purpose it would serve, because we already have a political framework. Therefore, I think that we should drop the idea that NATO is just going to become a political organisation. We shall still require a united defence in Europe. We had better concentrate on that.
I was slightly disturbed when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that that would enable NATO to look after defence in other parts of the world—although he did cast that remark away lightly. I strongly object to that. NATO has a European purpose which will continue, although perhaps in a more limited form, but I could not support a NATO in Europe which regarded itself as the policeman of the rest of the world. Nor do I think that that would be acceptable to what were formerly the colonial

1103
territories. They would regard the European powers in a new form as trying to dominate their independence in other parts of the world.
I have no desire to see Europe try to sort out what is happening in Colombia with drug runners, or what is happening in South Africa, or anywhere else in the world. I think that South Africa is of relevance, not just for the reason that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned, but because we have opted out of the views of our partners in the European Community, and the views of the Americans on the other side of the Atlantic. The important thing is the consequence that that will have for our relations with those two groups when dealing with the new situation in Europe.
I hope that I can be brief about the new situation in Europe, because it seems to me that all sorts of objections—or if not objections, strange constructions and interpretations—are being put on the situation unnecessarily. I hope that I will not be thought arrogant in any way if I say that what is required seems to me obvious—as obvious as it is to the eastern European countries.
First, German reunification is inevitable and the eastern European countries recognise it. The hon. Member for Hamilton said that this was a new dawn. It is certainly an era of hope. Therefore, when we say yes, but only with careful consideration, a great deal of reservation and several conferences, those countries will say, "There you are—the British once again are trying to slow the whole thing down or prevent it from happening." The Foreign Secretary knows as much about the subject as any hon. Member—certainly since 1965, when he was my private secretary. He understands these attitudes and that they are unfortunate. We need to say, "Yes, we share your hope and we are going to work out how to help you." That may seem to be only a slight difference, but it will be vital for their attitude towards us.
German reunification is inevitable and we have always recognised that. Sometimes we said that we believed in it because we thought that it would never happen. If that was the case, it is now going to happen, and we must accept it. What are the problems? It is up to the two Germanies to settle how they come together. It is not up to us as occupying powers, or interfering busybodies from outside.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned the formula of four plus two. I understood that, at the recent conference, it was changed to two plus four. That is important. The two refers to the two Germanies, who will work out how they come together. Then the four powers will discuss with them the implications of unification for the four-powers. As far as the three powers are concerned, we have long recognised that, when the two Germanies come together, that is their affair and we no longer have an interest from that point of view. Moscow has also come to recognise that situation in the past few days. Therefore, the two Germanies will settle what they are going to do, and the four powers will acknowledge that. That is not difficult and there is no problem about it. It will not take long.
I heard the Czech Prime Minister say the other day that he had asked for the withdrawal of Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia. Mr. Gorbachev's reply was that he would certainly consider it, but, of course, it would be a lengthy operation and might take more than a year if he decided to do it. The Czech Prime Minister said, "I replied to him,
1104
'Well, it only took you a day to put them in, so why should it take longer than a day to take them out?'" That is a very practical approach.
The East German Prime Minister, Mr. Modrow, has said, "We have little time: do get on and allow us to achieve our purpose." Why is there so little time? Why is Chancellor Kohl saying, even before the general election, that various things, one of which I shall discuss in a moment, must be done? The reason is that they have fears.
What.is Chancellor Kohl's fear? Every month, 70,000 East Germans are still crossing his border. West Germany has done a magnificent job in accommodating East Germans since they started to come in through Hungary, but an extra 70,000 each month pose a problem. A second problem is that both Chancellor Kohl and the East German Foreign Minister are worried about the state of the East German economy, which they believe may collapse at any moment. In that case their problems will be infinitely greater: there is no time to be lost.
What is the third fear? The possibility that there may still be a hard core of Communists in eastern Germany who will attempt to reverse the process cannot be overlooked. There is no time to be lost: they must get on with it, and that is what they will try to do directly after the election. I see no problem, and no need for lengthy investigations.
It is interesting to note that Chancellor Kohl has proposed the introduction of a unified currency as soon as possible, preferably before the election. I heard him make a very well balanced speech the other day. Having completed the economic part, he looked up, smiled and said, "So, you see, I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that Ludwig Erhard has triumphed over Karl Marx." That was a very revealing statement.
What the Chancellor said took me back to 1948, when Erhard—whom I knew well, both as Finance Minister and as Chancellor—reformed the German currency. He said, "Our marks are useless: we shall revalue them. If we take 10 for one, we shall have the dynamic to create the new Germany." It worked. East Germany—which now has an anomaly of four marks to one and a black market of 10 to one—must reform its currency in a similar way to obtain the same dynamic that Erhard produced for western Germany. I do not see why we should query that, or why it should pose any problem for the Community.
In a moving intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—who has now left the Chamber—asked for a guarantee tha the British taxpayer would never be involved. What does that mean? Despite all our protestations that we want freedom for the eastern Empire—that we want it to have its own way, to be successful and to enjoy a higher standard of living—the only issue that appears to concern my hon. Friend is the need for the British taxpayer not to become involved.
Of course western Germany will provide the larger part of what is necessary; indeed, it is already doing so. Already German business men from the big firms are roaring around eastern Germany, establishing their plants and distribution systems and offering capital. Perhaps we should mention that to one or two British business men; after all, East Germany is not all that far away.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says that we should have discussions about the possibility of our parliamentary parties' taking part in political activities in the east European countries, and showing them how to proceed. They are already doing that. The Socialist parties

1105
are roaring around those countries. All that we have to do is persuade the Conservatives in this country to do the same. The Conservatives in France are already doing it, as are those in the European Parliament. I see no need to make a great fuss; let us get on with trying to persuade those countries that, when elections take place in less than a month's time, they should vote for the party that we support. Opposition Members can do the same.
We have no problem with regard to the European Community, because of the special provision in the treaties that East Germany should always be given preference. It has been given preference, and will continue to receive it. That leads automatically to union, and there is no need for long arguments about it. As for the other eastern European countries, we must recognise—perhaps, as a Back Bencher, I can say this more easily than others can—that, after 40 years of Communist domination and repression from Moscow, they have no experience of government or administration: they do not know how to run an organisation. They talk of a market economy, but they have no idea how to produce one. When we ask, "Where will your investment come from? You have no savings, because under Moscow you were not allowed any. How will you create a market economy?", they do not know the answer.
That is a frightening feature of the present developments, and we must help in every way that we can. The east European countries welcome management studies, and we ought to help with investment as much as we can. The Community is already organising that, and we should play a large part; we should assist those countries to develop their economies in a way that will enable them eventually to become members of the European Community.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hope that it will reassure my right hon. Friend to know that the Adam Smith Institute is working very hard to ensure that the economies of eastern Europe fully understand the benefits to be derived from a liberal market economy.
Mr. Heath: Nothing that has happened at the Adam Smith Institute has given me any reassurance at all. If, after 10 years, it is thought desirable for the emerging eastern European countries also to enjoy interest rates of 15 per cent., mortgage rates of 15·5 per cent., balance-of-payments deficits of £20 billion and inflation rates of 8 per cent., very well: let the Adam Smith Institute go and tell them, and we shall jolly soon see that they are taking no notice. The problem with the eastern European countries is considerable.
Let me say a word about the Soviet position, which seems all too often to be overlooked. What we are discussing depends to a large extent on Mr. Gorbachev's retaining his present position—or, if someone else replaces him, on that person's following the same policies. We are entitled to have doubts about that. Indeed, any Government would be very unwise to ignore the possibility of a change—an attempt to return to an earlier system.
What has happened to Mr. Gorbachev? He set out to improve the Soviet economy to such an extent that the Soviets would welcome him and his supporters as their saviours—a laudable ambition. I am convinced—in fact, Mr. Gromyko has told me—that he believed that no change in the political organisation would be required.
1106
Once people were properly fed and housed, they would say, "This is a good political organisation." However, the economic situation has worsened in the five years of Mr. Gorbachev's regime; the result has been the emerging demand for political rights in the Baltic states, the eastern European countries, the southern states of Azerbaijan and Russia itself. There is increasing evidence that support for Mr. Gorbachev is waning considerably.
I talked the other day to some Russians from Leningrad. When I asked them for their comments on this country, they replied that Mr. Gorbachev seemed to be infinitely more popular abroad than at home. I said. "That does happen to politicians from time to time." We must recognise that all our plans to help depend on Mr. Gorbachev's position being maintained, and on the retention of the present Soviet policy line.
Mr. Graham Allen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the forces of reaction in the Soviet Union would be strengthened—thus undermiing Mr. Gorbachev's position—by the lack of a flexible response from NATO and from this country? The more aggressive our defence posture, the more likely are the generals and other reactionary forces in the USSR to reassert themselves.
Mr. Heath: If by "flexible" the hon. Gentleman means a balanced arrangement for disarmament, I agree with him. That is what the Foreign Secretary has said. That must be the basis of any negotiations between the two sides. However, we must also recognise that those whom we describe as diehards in the soviet Union are concerned about the break-up of the Soviet empire. When he started along this path, did Mr. Gorbachev deliberately intend to break up the Soviet empire? It is difficult to believe that he did. In that case, will anyone who does not hold the same view intervene and say,"This has got to stop"?
Mr. Jim Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that West Germany recognised the need immediately to satisfy some part of the consumer demand in the Soviet Union in order to reinforce Mr. Gorbachev's position? It made a grant and transferred food immediately so that the people of the Soviet Union would recognise the benefits of perestroika. Ought we not to press our Government to follow the German lead?
Mr. Heath: Chancellor Kohl has said that he will not accept neutrality. That is absolutely right. We should back him. That would mean having German forces and NATO forces, if he requires them, in a united Germany. I do not believe that it is a realistic or workable proposition that there should be NATO forces in what is now the western part of Germany and Soviet forces in the eastern part, once there is a united Germany. No Government could operate under such conditions.
I deplore the comparison that is made between the present Germany and the past Germany of the 1930s. Much as I admire the chief rabbi, I cannot support his statement that Jewish people from this country should be present at all the negotiations. The Jewish people here do not form a country; Israel has no status in this connection. Germany believes—as does Japan and many other countries—that in the modern world it is not military power which is of the utmost importance. Japan has become very successful through the exercise of economic power. We wish that we had greater economic power.

1107
West Germany realises that, given time for the recapitalisation of East Germany, a united country of 80 million people will be the most powerful country, economically, in the Community.
I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary's reference to France. We want a balance in the Community. The obvious balance is this country and France. That was recognised long ago by General de Gaulle and President Pompidou. It is still recognised today. However, we must take a positive line and work for it. If we persist in making provisos about this and that in the Community, the French will not accept it. There is the closest relationship between Paris and Bonn. Everything is done by consultation between Paris and Bonn. They work out their policy together, including their defence policy.
As for Poland and Czechoslovakia, we agreed long ago—with Chancellor Brandt of Germany taking a large part in the negotiations—that the frontiers would never be the pre-war frontiers; they would be the post-war frontiers. That is now accepted by Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Foreign Secretary was right to emphasise that the ethnic German groups in those countries would like to be within the boundaries of a united Germany. The welcome that Chancellor Kohl received from the Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia demonstrates that fact.
Similar problems have been solved in many parts of Europe. The Foreign Secretary mentioned some. Italy is another case. It has had similar problems, but they have been resolved through peaceful negotiation. We could do the same. As the standard of living improves in those countries, national and ethnic differences will be greatly reduced. I see no real problem over that. With agreement over the Polish-Czechoslovakian boundaries, another obstacle is removed.
We must hasten the completion of the Community arrangements as fast as possible. That is what Germany wants. Those who say that we must slow up and wait for the eastern European countries to get ready to join us are wrong. It took Spain and Portugal 10 years, after General Franco and President Salazar went, before they were in a position to negotiate with the Community. Their economic position was infinitely stronger than that of the eastern European countries today. Whatever one thought of General Franco—and I never thought very much of him—during his period in office, the middle class grew and became extremely well trained. The banking system was well organised; so was the industrial system. That enabled Spain, after 10 years of democratic government, to join the Community. It will take the eastern European countries at least 10 years to reach the point at which they can become members.
Our job is fully to develop the Community as quickly as possible; the eastern European countries recognise that that is in their interest. Then we should be able to give them more help. They will be granted associate member status and then, if they want it, full membership. That is the biggest safeguard of all for those who are worried about the place that a new, united Germany would have inside Europe and inside the Community. That is where we must put our trust. We have a major part to play in that process.
5.55 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It is a somewhat sentimental occasion for me. We first became politically involved with each other more than half a century ago—then, as now, holding very different political views—because we were fighting a Conservative Prime Minister who believed in appeasing Nazi Germany. Today, more than half a century later, we are united in fighting a Conservative Prime Minister who is obstructing the creation of a unified, democratic Germany. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on a more recent anniversary, which he celebrated yesterday—the 40th anniversary of his entry into Parliament—and on the magnanimity that he showed in allowing the Prime Minister to attend the celebrations.
I was very interested, if I may say so without offence, in much that the Foreign Secretary had to say. Some of it will bear careful reading. I was particularly interested when he advocated minimum deterrence and a follow-up to the current negotiations for a conventional forces in Europe agreement. I only hope that he took more trouble to clear those passages with the Prime Minister than he did with his recent speech on turning tanks into tractors, of which I thoroughly approve.
I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup who feels alarm and stupefaction at the Foreign Secretary's idea that NATO, having lost its enemy in Europe, should look for enemies in other parts of the world and try to expand its geographical influence. I do not think that the Foreign Secretary will find many takers for that idea in the Community—least of all, incidentally, in a united Germany.
I intend to concentrate on two issues—first, the implications of what is going on in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union for the present level of defence spending in Britain and NATO, and secondly, the implications for our security and that of the West of those same events. We all agree that, whether or not we foresaw the nature of what was going to happen, we were taken by surprise by the extraordinary acceleration of the speed at which it happened. The Foreign Secretary has had to admit that the remarks that he made a few weeks ago are totally irrelevant as he speaks to us today. No one was prepared and the nature of the change was far more fundamental than we recognised.
The end of the cold war and the impact of glasnost on the western part of the Communist world has released pressures that had been bottled up for 40 years—in the case of the Soviet Union for 70 years. The explosive force of those pressures has produced change at a rate that it is very difficult to follow and which, as the Foreign Secretary admitted, could lead to many dangers as well as to many opportunities. We have to ask ourselves whether any of the possible dangers—they are not all certain dangers, by any means, yet—are grounds for maintaining the present level of defence spending, or the present structure of western defence in NATO. I would suggest not.
The worst that could happen in the Soviet Union would be that the midsummer Congress of the Communist party produces the rejection of central control by the Communist parties in most of the Soviet Republics and perhaps produces a split into three of the Communist party of Russia itself—one under Gorbachev, a Left-wing

1109
or radical party under Yeltsin and another under Ligachev or Gidaspov which is more conservative. That is all perfectly possible.
One possible explanation of Gorbachev's haste to develop new powers as President of the Soviet Union is that he wants to detach himself from the Communist party altogether and to detach the state from the Communist party to run a more normal system which would have much more in common with the West. that is bound to have implications for the unity of the Soviet Union. It seems almost certain now that the three Baltic republics whose incorporation has been recognised by the Soviet Government to have been illegal will be independent by the end of this year. Georgia and the Central Asian Republic may wish to follow shortly afterwards.
There is much speculation as to whether Gorbachev or his successor, if there is one, would seek to stop that process by the use of force. I remember Arbatov, who was one of his advisers, telling a body in Harvard last year that he would react to demands for secession in the same way as Abraham Lincoln did in the United States. But Mr. Arbatov forgot that the American civil war cost the United States more deaths than all the wars that followed, including Vietnam, at a time when the United States had only one seventh of the population it has today. The American civil war took place on the other side of the world, where there were no neighbouring countries capable of intervening.
It would be very different if there were a civil war particularly in central Asia. The counter-productive effect of military intervention in stimulating nationalism in Georgia and Azerbaijan is already a great warning. I doubt very much whether any Soviet regime under Gorbachev or any successor would follow that path. If it did, the result would be to destroy the Soviet Union as a force in world politics for at least a generation. It is certainly most unlikely, under any hypothesis that I can imagine, to produce a military threat to western Europe or to Britain. It would remove the very possibility of a military threat from that source.
Nevertheless, there are real dangers in eastern Europe. The liberation of the peoples of eastern Europe threatens the new balkanisation of eastern Europe. Yet we all know—this is one reason why the first world war broke out—that it is impossible to draw boundaries for nation states in eastern Europe without including powerful minorities in each state which, if persecuted, will rebel against it. We see signs of that already in Yugoslavia with the Albanians, the Serbs and the Croats, and there were many signs recently in Romania with the ethnic Hungarians in Transylvania. I very much hope that that process will not develop, but I fear that the economic catastrophe facing some of the new regimes could produce some terrifying political forces and developments.
Even if the worst came to the worst, however, those developments could not sensibly be met by British defence spending or NATO intervention. The Foreign Secretary's idea that we should try to develop instruments inside the Helsinki arrangements to enable that body to be used for conflict resolution in eastern Europe is excellent. There could be quite a useful role for the Helsinki instrument in mediating between Greece and Turkey, as eastern Europe is not alone in having such national conflicts.
Those developments are not likely to present a threat to the West such as the Warsaw pact from the days of Stalin to the days of Brezhnev undoubtedly presented in
1110
capability, although there is still an argument about how far it presented that threat in intention. I cannot understand the Government's reluctance to recognise that the need for drastic cuts in British defence spending is on us and there is no room for manoeuvre. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary regularly talks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who desperately needs to save money somewhere to use it for productive purposes in restoring our ruined and eroding social and economic infrastructure, not to mention helping the countries of eastern Europe. Economic aid to eastern Europe would do far more for our security than building up NATO.
With regard to German unification, on which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup spent some time, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that German unification is inevitable in the very near future and that there is nothing that anybody outside can or should do to prevent it. In less than a month from now, there will be a new Parliament and a new Government in East Germany, and its first decision may well be to reconstitute the three federal Lander in East Germany, which may simultaneously declare themselves part of the Federal Republic, as they are empowered to do under a constitution that we as the victorious allies endorsed. If that does not happen, the people of East Germany may continue to vote with their feet, producing unification by migration rather than by political decision, so we should not worry about that as a threat.
There will be some enormously difficult problems for the Germans, and later for other countries, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that the threat of a united Germany—if it is a threat—will be economic, not military, and that the daftest thing that we could do would be to restrict Germany's armed forces and thus allow it to have the same glorious freedom from defence burdens in competing with us from which Japan has derived so much benefit in the past 40 years.
Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have spent many months in Germany since the last war. I cannot speak for East Germany, but West Germany today is by far the least nationalistic of all the larger European powers. It is far less nationalistic than Britain under the present Prime Minister; it is far less nationalistic than France under President Mitterrand, never mind President. de Gaulle; and far less nationalistic in many respects even than Italy. The one thing that could revive nationalism in Germany would be an attempt by the former occupying powers to continue acting as occupying powers. That is the danger that the Prime Minister's recent behaviour has aroused.
I know that the Foreign Secretary agrees with me, because he has tried his best to soften the asperities of some of the nonsense that she has talked, but that has not stopped some of the British tabloid press following her lead. That is followed by the German tabloid press, and before we know where we are we have conjured up the very dangers that we were trying to prevent.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recoil, like others, from the rather offensive suggestion that the German people were guilty of crimes against humanity in the second world war? All that, vis-a-vis the Nazis and the wrongdoers, was dealt with through the Nuremberg trials process. The German people

1111
were not guilty, and were never adjudged to be so; moreover, 87 per cent. of the current German population were born after the war or were youngsters at the time.
Mr. Healey: Conservative voters were not responsible for what the Government are doing. But it is idle and dangerous to ignore the fact that Germans performed the most awful atrocities during the last world war, and that is not forgotten.
The obscenity of Nazism is a disease which could be caught in any country, if the conditions are right. If I may say so as a declining person—[HON. MEMBERS: "Never!"] Thank you very much—I was inviting that response. The appeal of Communism in Europe just before and after the war was that capitalism in Europe had produced Hitler, Mussolini and the second world war. That was a powerful factor in the appeal of Communism in western Europe, France and Italy and in eastern Europe but, thank God, everything has changed since then. We must not forget that the evils that we fought in Germany in the last world war were present in many countries but, thank God, the conditions that allowed them to take over did not exist.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell rose—
Mr. Healey: With respect, I must get on.
It will be vital to maintain stability and security in the new Europe. The dangers are very real. None of the cold war structures is appropriate. NATO's original military role disappeared with its enemies. No one now believes that there is a threat from the Warsaw pact—as the Secretary of State said, it no longer exists—nor is there a threat from the Soviet Union. The bloc mentality, which is an essential part of NATO, has no role in our approach to the new world.
We need a new security system. What sort of security system should it be? It cannot be based on NATO in its present form. The American role in NATO will soon be unacceptable to the Americans as well as to the Russians, and there are already signs of that in Congress. Even the American Secretary of State, Mr. Baker—the Foreign Secretary's colleague—said the other day that perhaps a united Germany should have some associated membership of NATO. That is what he said, but as the Foreign Secretary knows, when he got back he was compelled by the chinovniks and apparatchiks to withdraw it. From time to time, the Foreign Secretary has been compelled by higher forces to withdraw things. Nevertheless, Secretary Baker meant what he said when he uttered those words, just as the Foreign Secretary meant what he said when he said that we should be turning tanks into tractors. I give him credit for sincerity in his first thoughts.
In its present form, NATO is not appropriate. It is difficult to shake off the bloc mentality. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, people as disparate as Mr. Bush and Secretary—General Worner have been saying recently that it must adopt a political role if it does not have a military role. The question is what political role.
Mr. Hurd: The key point that the right hon. Gentleman is skirting around in his fascinating analysis is the presence of United States troops in Europe. The President of the United States, Mr. Baker and German politicians from the three main parties, and ourselves, for what that is worth,
1112
are united in saying that it is important for European security that there should be significant United States forces in Europe. They are an essential component of the defence side of NATO, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I believe should be preserved. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe in that?
Mr. Healey: I believe that United States troops need to be here under the NATO umbrella. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that many Germans, in opposition and in government, do not want American forces in Germany. No one I know in Germany wants American nuclear weapons in Germany to drop on East Germans, on Lech Walesa or on Vaclav Havel. Yet the Government are still yammering away about replacing Lance by a weapon with a range which would enable it to hit not only Germans but Germany's eastern neighbours. Can idiocy be carried any further than that?
With respect to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the European Community cannot provide a framework. The plain fact is that it is dominated by West Germany. The best proof of that is the fact that, when the Bundesbank raised interest rates last October, although Britain is not a member of the exchange rate mechanism the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to raise interest rates 40 minutes later in the middle of the Tory party conference, having spent£2,000 million of our reserves trying to avoid that decision. Germany will be the decisive factor in the European Community so long as the Community is restricted to its present membership.
I accept the points that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made about the difficulties of bringing all the east European democracies into the Community as soon as they ask, but there is no reason why Austria should not join today. Ireland, as a neutral country, has joined and if, as is more than likely, the next Swedish Government decides to join—Swedish industry and finance have already voted with their funds to join the Community—another neutral country can do so.
Neutrality is a buzz word which has lost all its meaning. A country can be neutral only if there are two alliances or blocs to be neutral between. German neutrality is as irrelevant as Swiss, Swedish or Austrian neutrality in the new world into which we are moving. The Community must expand north and east of its present frontiers as fast as possible to take in the Scandinavian countries as soon as they want to join—none of the problems to which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred apply to them—and countries such as Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia as soon as possible. The Community should make it plain that that is its intention. That would offer a framework in which a united Germany could occupy a more comfortable position than in the limited framework of the west European community.
I do not believe that the European Community will ever form a suitable security structure to contain Germany. Various attempts are being made to do that—I tried to do so a little through the Western European Union when I was Secretary of State for Defence 20 years ago—but the plain fact is that the disagreements on strategic matters between the major European powers—particularly between Germany, Britain and France—exclude that.
The Foreign Secretary misled the House about the four-power arrangement—it is two plus four, not four plus two. The only role of the four-power meeting will be to

1113
liquidate its residual responsibilities in Berlin and to reaffirm frontiers which have already been embodied in treaties. It is an unsuitable body to deal with major problems, because it excludes all Germany's eastern neighbours, particularly Poland and Czechoslovakia, which for historical and other reasons are deeply concerned about Germany's place in the new Europe.
The only conceivable structure that could be developed for the new European security system, as Mr. Genscher said a few days ago in Dublin and with which the Foreign Secretary appeared to agree when he signed the declaration, is the Helsinki conference on security and co-operation in Europe framework. We are far from ready for it yet, but Mr. Genscher was right in saying that it was the most important framework, and the Foreign Secretary was right to join his colleagues in saying that it was fundamental. I was glad that the Dublin meeting agreed that there should be a working committee in midsummer to prepare for the summit of the CSCE, and it has already been suggested that it should accept responsibility for national conflict resolution.
As to the problems facing us now, I agree that they are not insoluble, but many of them will have solutions in which we can play little part. At the moment, it is impossible to devise a solution for many of them because the position is changing so fast. Many countries are marching together to confront the challenges. It is extremely depressing that, instead of Britain being in the lead in that march our Prime Minister seems to be locked in a time warp. I find it difficult to understand how she can go around talking of how we have won victory in the cold war and saying, "It is all due to me, the British Prime Minister," and the next moment saying, "Absolutely nothing in the world has changed—we must go on exactly as we have done for the last 40 years." The Minister of State, of course, is far too intelligent not to recognise the contradictions in that extraordinary posture, but I do not ask him to agree with me.
A couple of days ago, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) referred to the Prime Minister's paranoid isolationism. There seems to be an odd element of mental disturbance. Like all his predecessors, the Foreign Secretary, who is very able and experienced, has to spend most of his time battling with No. 10 instead of dealing with the problems. The only difference between the present incumbent and his predecessors is that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be on librium. The Secretary of State for Defence knows that the services are crying out for him to get down to a drastic review of what is going on. Meanwhile, people are voting with their feet against the present set-up, and natural wastage is being overtaken by the fall in re-engagements.
While the rest of Europe is marching to confront the new challenges, the Prime Minister is shuffling along in the gutter in the opposite direction, like an old bag lady, muttering imprecations at anyone who catches her eye. It is not a noble role. She has managed to produce an extraordinary degree of unanimity against her in the press. I follow the newspapers; occasionally I write for them myself. Last Sunday, I was fascinated to find that the editorials in The Observer, The Sunday Times and the Sunday Telegraph were all bashing the Prime Minister. She is the only person in the world who could get Peregrine Worsthorne, Andrew Neil and Donald Trelford in the same bed at the same time. All I can say is, "Eat your heart out, Pamella Bordes."
1114
The right hon Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will recall that the Prime Minister deposed him as a result of what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) called a peasants' revolt. As the poll tax has produced a peasants' revolt, might not the time have come for another peasants' revolt by Conservative Members? There are signs that the revolting peasants are revolting over the poll tax, but that affects only their seats in Parliament. What the Prime Minister is doing to Britain's foreign and defence policy affects Britain's role and future in the world. So I say to the peasants on the Government Benches, "Go to it."
6.24 pm
Mr. David Howell: The first four fifths of the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) were fabulously interesting and drew on his enormous experience. The last fifth has to be described as vintage Healey; it made enjoyable listening but added not one jot to the sum of human wisdom or to the progress of the debate.
The House will have enjoyed the buoyant optimism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about what is happening in eastern Europe. I think we all share that optimism. There is a reason for the sense of elation which my right hon. Friend must feel, with his distinguished war record. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and many others who fought in that terrible war must understandably feel tremendous elation that we are at last seeing the achievement of what they thought they were fighting for—the emergence of a free Europe of republics and kingdoms working together in democratic structures. At last that is in sight, having come at a speed which few people dreamed of.
The main point of my intervention is that there are also considerable dangers ahead. In fact, the 1990s in many ways will be more dangerous for our security than the 1980s. I do not mean that one does not welcome the chaos and fluidity that followed the end of the cold war, but there are enormous threats, none the easier for not being identified as threats. We are not clear where they all come from. They are there. If we dismiss them and say that keeping up our guard is nostalgic, we could all pay a terrible price.
I do not deny for a moment, nor did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that we need to adapt our collective defence structures and, incidentally, our territorial defence structures, in the 1990s. It would be ridiculous if we were like the French general staff in the 1930s, assuming that the collective defence structures of a previous era, aimed against the enemies of a previous era, are suitable for the 1990s; clearly they are not. We should put fully aside the Maginot mentality which might lead people to assume that we need do nothing except reinforce the defence structures of the past.
There are serious new dangers to which we should be fully alert before we begin to talk about spending the peace dividend or gaily dismantling the defence budget or the fundamental political support which defence spending needs and which has been won by serious statesmen over many years. It is easy to throw all that away, but it would be dangerous to do so.
What are the dangers that one darkly talks about? Let me be the first to admit that one cannot see every detail.

1115
Nationalism and tribalism lurk in countries whose names we have forgotten or which have not appeared on maps for the last 70 years; suddenly their aspirations are appearing again. There are all those dangers, which can be very bloody.
There are bigger dangers. First, there is Russia. I mean Russia and not the Soviet Union. It is still an enormous European country stretching back into Asia, with a population of hundreds of millions but possibly shorn of many of the autonomous republics, the trans-Caucasian and Baltic republics which it has built into an empire. Such a country may emerge as a great liberal democracy but the historical record is not good on that score. It has never known democracy.
A great deal of bitterness is building up. The position is getting worse and worse, even with the economic reforms. The Russians and the Moscow economic planners have repeatedly agreed on what they ought to do and repeatedly shied away from doing it. As a result, there is endless piecemeal reform which is making things worse rather than better for perestroika. There are enormous difficulties in that great uncertain republic which has its bitternesses and its own nationalisms. We would be crazy not to understand the great dangers that lie there and not to design our own defence structures and our preparedness for any evils and threats that might come from there.
Coming nearer home—and it is very near home, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup reminded us—there is the question of Germany and the need to see that the amazing events in East Germany are handled in a stabilising and orderly way and do not destabilise not merely the eastern European, but the western European system as well, which brings us up to our own doorstep. My right hon. Friend is right to say that these matters can all be handled quickly and efficiently, but it will also be extremely difficult. Many, including myself in recent months, have under-estimated the extreme dangers and potential instabilities if the matter is not handled quickly.
As Chancellor Kohl, to his credit, spotted early on, there is and remains a threat that the whole East German economy could dive into a vortex of chaos, with desertions and migrations on a scale even bigger than the present 70,000 or 80,000 a month. One can imagine that 1 million or more might try to move across in a day if panic set in and there would be a black hole which could be full of dangers. People say that the East Germans can survive and that they need not worry if there are no dentists in Leipzig. Someone told me that one of the worries was that no parking fines were being collected in East Berlin—although I said that that was not necessarily a reason for leaving the country.
There are more serious worries. One can imagine a total collapse of East German society which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup reminded us, has no leaders of experience among the present leadership. Even those who are likely to be elected on 18 March have no experience of running an open, free-market economy and a free society. The question of Germany must be handled swiftly, and I believe that it will be.
It is fascinating to see that the governor of the Bundesbank who, only three weeks ago, was saying that the idea of monetary union was fantastic, has suddenly
1116
discovered—perhaps it is unfair to say "suddenly"—that it is a perfectly manageable affair, provided that it is done rapidly. He and other Germans whom I see do not want a Government to be elected in East Berlin on 18 March who then call a national assembly and enter into protracted negotiations with West Germany about the kind of federation that should emerge a few years hence.
The bankers want to see something very different and far quicker. They want the three lander, under article 23, simply to submerge themselves in the Bundesrepublik, so that the entire East German state becomes a deutschmark area, with the Bundesrepublik having total control and responsibility for the circulation of currency, the legal system, the tax system, the social system and, in fact, the entire national structure of East Germany. The German Democratic Republic then, in effect, vanishes and ceases to exist separately.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are parallels between what happened in Germany in 1945–48 and what may happen in the very near future in eastern Germany? In that period, the point at which Germans discovered that they had a real currency which could buy real goods and had a real value was the point at which their economic miracle began. When that is perceived in East Germany and when the currency is unified, can buy real goods and has a real value, the East Germans, too, will enjoy their parallel economic miracle.
Mr. Howell: I very much hope so. One is always a little wary of historical parallels. I think that it was Balfour who said that history did not repeat itself, but historians repeated each other. My hon. Friend may be right to say that an economic miracle will come in East Germany. It may be achieved if there is a rapid merging of the three Lander into the Bundesrepublik under article 23 of the constitution. That must be recognised as the best outcome.
In this nation, we must be as helpful as we can. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that there is nothing that we can do. We can be extremely supportive. In the past, our reputation in the Federal Republic has been high, as the right hon. Gentleman is the first to know because he played a part in that. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, it was British minds and energy which set up that fabulous success of the Federal Republic. As our views are still listened to, we have a role to play in seeing that the merging of East Germany and the Federal Republic into the new Bundesrepublik—or Deutscherepublik, or whatever it will be called—is handled in an orderly way. We should not be missing on the day when our voice and support are needed.
The second danger in relation to German unification which we have to address is the question of security and defence. It was interesting that, when the Polish Prime Minister, Mr. Mazowiecki, came to see the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs last week—or perhaps the week before—his main message to us as Members of Parliament was that Poland would never wish to see what he called a "neutral" Germany. We can argue about what the word "neutral" now means. However, Mr. Mazowiecki was very concerned about the removal of the allied military presence from western Germany or the emergence of a neutral large German state, which one of

1117
his aides likened to a ship in a harbour in a storm which had lost its anchor and was banging about knocking everything else in sight.
The Poles have a point there. We should recognise the Polish worries, which we were—eventually—right to do in the past. They are usually valid worries. We should do all that we can to see that a more dangerous kind of independent neutrality does not unleash itself in Germany. Perhaps it will not. Perhaps the nation is so anaesthetised against its horrific past that all those fears are unworthy. However, the fear is there and that is why I understand the concern at Ottawa of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and of the former occupying powers about the two German states—which will shortly be one, perhaps as soon as September, some people say. I understand the desire to create a framework or procedure within which the future security position can be discussed.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the idea of a united Germany with two thirds in one alliance and a little bit in the other seems absurd. When we said to the Polish Prime Minister that it seemed odd that one might drive through Germany and come across a notice that said, "You are now leaving the protection of NATO and moving into a NATO-free zone," he said that it might seem odd, but we should be innovative and face the fact that there could be a prolonged transition period in which we saw a Soviet military presence—perhaps attenuated—in what is now East Germany and the military presence of the allied powers in the other parts of Germany. He said that the Poles would feel much happier if we could live with that innovation.
We must be ready to accept wholly novel solutions to a wholly novel situation. If one considers it further, one realises that unless one is resigned to seeing a neutral Germany or a Germany from which Americans and perhaps all foreign troops have been removed, one is left with very odd solutions for the time being. Perhaps we shall have to live with them, peculiar and unthinkable as they seem at first.
In the 1990s, the dangers could be different from—but as great as, more varied and, therefore, more frightening than—those we faced in the final stages of the cold war in the 1980s. I want to deal with the approach of the United Kingdom to these matters and its interest in them. In recent months—perhaps in recent years—a certain surprise has crept into the press that the British do not seem to be as fond of the idea of a united states of western Europe or as committed to one particular view of a greater Europe as they should be, and as some people hope that they are.
The surprise is not justified because, as many of us have remarked, it has always been a tradition on this island to be concerned to prevent any idea prevailing of a greater Europe dominated by any one country. We never liked the idea in the past of a greater Germany dominating. We never liked the Bonapartism of the French and we have kept a wary eye on any Soviet Russian imperial ambitions in the past. I do not see any great change in the pattern of the habits and instincts of this island at a basic level.
We are right to want to see a Europe that is not dominated by the grander ideas of the French, which President Mitterrand occasionally puts forward. We certainly do not want European domination by Germany—not that I think that there is any political instinct to achieve that domination in Germany today—and we
1118
certainly do not want domination by the looming power of a Russia which might be stripped of its colonies but which would still be very big.
The British approach to this enormously fluid scene is one in which we have clearly preserved the traditional national instinct. Of course we seek to exercise our sovereignty in common—I believe that that is the right way of putting it—with others in a whole variety of areas in which it makes economic and in many cases political sense to do so. However, we must remember that the treaty of Rome was rooted in nation states, not in the idea that there should be a total submerging of the practical and manageable structures—the nations—into a larger and more anomalous body.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Leaving aside any possibility of total submergence, is not the traditional concept that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined—that Britain believes in a balance of power on the continent and intervenes from time to time when one power, be it a Napoleon or a Hitler, becomes too grand—now wholly irrelevant in the light of our current power and possibilities? Is not that part of the reason why our partners on the continent are so suspicious of whether we are in or out of the new developments in Europe?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman does not understand how the statesmanship of the balance of power was carried through and implemented in the past. Far from involving detachment and isolation—although occasionally we were guilty of that with catastrophic results that we can all remember or read about in the history books—it involved the most intimate detail and continuous involvement in the structures and processes of European political exchange and dialogue. I strongly believe that that must continue today. I share the views of those who express concern that we might become too detached and isolated, with the same kind of results as in the past. The hon. Gentleman's analogy and comparison are not valid.
I should like to address the question that has been raised by some people, which is whether we should now speed up the integration of the western European Economic Community—the EC, which used to be the EEC—in response to and as a counterpoint to what is happening in eastern Europe. I certainly do not believe in slowing down and in going to the other extreme, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was concerned.
However, I wonder about some of the more intense speeches made by Monsieur Delors and others about speeding up, intensifying, deepening, furthering and accelerating and all the rest of it. If one reads some of those speeches, which are all about the need for the political will to do this and the political will to do that, one realises that they sound a bit like a 1990s version of Nietzsche. That chills me and is not something that we should welcome.
I make no bones about being a bit of an evolutionist in relation to the European Community and European integration. The European Community has been a fabulous creation. I see it much more as a magnet than as a block. I do not hold with those who say that it should be exclusive. Austria and other countries have a perfectly reasonable case to make about joining. Indeed, the European Community is proving a magnet to and possibly a cause of much that is happening in eastern Europe.

1119
However, let us not get delusions of grandeur and believe that, for all its success, the European Community is the only answer or that it is a club that we keep others out of and that we should strengthen and deepen in every conceivable way and in which we should go faster than we are already going towards achieving the single European market. Perhaps, in a few years' time, our somewhat grand hauteur about the poverty of eastern Europe will have to be replaced by a recognition that they are highly dynamic countries that will want to work together among themselves. Indeed, Mr. Havel and others, including Mr. Mazowiecki, have already indicated strongly, as have their Ministers, that, although they have no time for the ridiculous COMECON, they would like to see some regional grouping in eastern Europe, with money flowing between the trading nations, which could look the European Community in the face and possibly do business with it, rather than one country after another being picked off.
Perhaps something like the old European Payments Union, which was a clever idea that worked extremely well, might do nicely in helping those countries to develop a modern capitalist trading system in eastern Europe. It might help them to maintain their European vigour and dignity without getting too lost in endless negotiations with the EC which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has reminded us, might take years and years and years.
Those are the ways in which I hope that our foreign policy might develop. Above all, I ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to do what he is trying to do and to participate in all these things fully and continuously. Britain should not be the sort of friend who comes along afterwards and says, "Good idea." We should be the friend and support who strengthens and encourages our allies as they take these critical decisions. By our allies I mean, for instance, the leaders in Bonn who are having to handle the most difficult crisis that has faced the Federal Republic since its inception, and who need all the support, encouragement and new ideas that we could conceivably offer them at this stage.
My hope is that we remain closely involved. If we do not, not only will we suffer from detachment and isolation as our financial industries and banks are bought up and as the whole centre of action moves to the continent—that is already happening, because London is now closing down as a financial centre—but Europe itself might lose one of its vital ingredients, which has been, through history, the wisdom, participation and common sense of this House and this nation. We, too, have been Europeans, and Europe needs us as much as we need it.
6.46 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) finished on an uncharacteristically nationalist note. However, I very much agree that the pace of change is so fast and, many think, so unpredictable that it is difficult to devise settled policies and views.
I shall concentrate on four issues to the exclusion of others, including force reductions and the position of the United States, important though they are. Three of the issues have inevitably been canvassed and dealt with by
1120
hon. Members already, but my first point has not. To a large extent, it has been neglected throughout the argument, although it was touched on by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
A couple of weeks ago today I had the opportunity of asking the Prime Minister a question. I asked her whether she agreed that the same logic that had led the West—not just Europe or, within it, the United Kingdom—to assist countries such as Poland and Hungary and would in turn be directed to other satellite countries should lead us to facing up to the huge problem of assisting the Soviet Union itself. Her reply was cautious. I might even say that she was timid, although that is not an adjective that I would normally apply to the Prime Minister.
This is one area in which we should not be timid. I should like to commend to the House, and especially to the Government and to Ministers, a visionary article that was published in the Financial Times on 6 December 1989 by Anatole Kaletsky. I refer to a couple of passages that put their finger on something that has still not been recognised, although the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup touched on it en passant. The article stated:
"as the world celebrates the outward signs of liberation in eastern Europe, it is in danger of forgetting the deeper causes and consequences of the events in Budapest, Berlin and Prague…
It would be the ultimate historic irony if an outdated preoccupation with German unity and instability in central Europe should now distract attention from the infinitely more important issue of Gorbachev's attempts to reconstruct the Soviet Union and bring it closer to the liberal West. If Gorbachev and perestroika fail, the turmoil in the Soviet Union will be a far greater threat to world prosperity and peace than any conceivable development in Germany or central Europe."
He went on to say, as several hon. Members have said, that if Gorbachev could feed, clothe and heat Russia through the winter, the people might tolerate him for another year. If he managed to produce consumer goods such as cars, video recorders, or even soap and blue jeans, he might last longer. But can he do it in the present circumstances?
The author went on to quote an estimate—these things are very much estimates; when one talks in billions one wonders how it is all worked out—by an Hungarian-American financier called Soros, who
"suggested that$25 billion a year of Western aid would be required to stabilise the Soviet economy and avert hyper-inflation in the two years ahead."
I shall quote two further passages from that article:
"The first reaction of many Western readers will be to throw up their hands in horror"
at such a proposal.
"The Soros proposal is equivalent to the entire US foreign aid budget and more than double the annual disbursement of the World Bank…But‖The cost of helping Russia must be set against the cost of defending the world against her;$25 billion is a very modest figure when compared with the US defence budget of $300 billion, to say nothing of the sums squandered on armaments by other countries."
We should all give serious consideration, not just to tinkering around saying, "We shall have the odd joint venture here and take a few chaps from there for managerial courses."
In the West, we must consider that, if there is to be a dramatic drop in defence spending, it will be because of what Mr. Gorbachev has undertaken. He could be overthrown and there could be recidivism. There could be someone unpredictable with his hand on the Soviet Union's nuclear trigger. We can help prevent that and we should give it the most serious consideration.

1121
My second point will be much briefer because several hon. Members have already talked about German reunification. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I believe that reunification will take place, de facto, though not de jure, by the end of the year. We must remember that other changes will occur when the elections take place on 18 March. The polls forecast that there will be a Social Democratic, eastern European, East German-type victory.
Whether the victor will rush tumultuously into Helmut Kohl's arms directly after the election is a question for consideration. There may be some delay, but in practice rather than in law the DDR will join the Federal Republic and therefore, will join the European Community. One could argue that, because of her preferential trading arrangements with the Federal Republic, the DDR is already an unofficial associate member of the EC.
There are many fears about reunification. Some hon. Members have talked about a fourth reich. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) talked about instability in the case of a break-up of the DDR. He spoke of it as something to be feared. That was not the sort of instability of which the Prime Minister spoke when she addressed the Jewish Board of Deputies. She spoke about a different instability caused by a powerful German state.
With all respect, for the Prime Minister to talk about instability is a bit rich, because the United Kingdom has been one of the main factors of instability in the European Community in the last decade. The talk of fourth reichs and the like is an insult to the impecable democratic record of the Federal Republic. It has constructively and courageously advocated ostpolitik. Its internal society is open and tolerant.
As a Liberal, I acknowledge the Foreign Secretary's tribute to the work done by the German Liberal Hans-Dietrich Genscher. One could pick many other German politicians from both sides of the political spectrum. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) talked about Mr. Erhard, but Adenauer and Schmidt and others have all played a constructive role in European politics which was not a nationalist role. It is not to be forgotten that they were far-seeing.
One cannot have it both ways. If it is argued that the reunification of Germany produces an enormously worrying concentration of economic and political power, the answer—I disagree with the right hon. Member for Guildford—is to accelerate the process of economic and monetary union, thus firmly anchoring Germany in the Community and building up supranationalism to overcome the institutionalised nationalism which in the past we have been used to in Europe and which, perhaps, we are getting over. The Government's hesitancy in respect of monetary union is deeply flawed.
As borders become less significant after 1992, the next generation, and even more so the generation after that, will wonder what all the fuss was about. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East spoke about that, although he did not put it in exactly that way. We must remember that an adult male who was 20 at the end of the war is now on a pension. The world has moved on and we must recognise it.
It is difficult to sort out defence matters, and I shall not try to do so. It is all rather confused. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East was dead right: "neutral" is a word which now has quite a different meaning. It is hard to imagine Germany as neutral in any sense. It must play
1122
its part in the European Community and express opinions. It has to present attitudes. As a major state in an integrated European Community, it cannot have its decision-making power taken away.
One may say that the Warsaw pact as a military alliance no longer exists. Hon. Members may have noticed that the Hungarians have said that they would like to join NATO. I do not know why they want to join or what the purpose would be. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East was right that we must get away from the old business of blocs. That has changed. Where he was wrong, or at least where he went ahead a little fast, was in talking of the expansion of the Community.
I wonder whether the European Community does not have an optimum size. Can it go on like Topsy getting bigger and bigger? It will be difficult to administer and regulate. If the Community develops any effective coherent foreign policy, it will have to have a defence policy, too. One cannot separate the two. It is absurd nonsense to say that we shall have a foreign policy but no defence policy. The two things come together.
Several hon. Members made points about minorities, which are a big problem. Borders may exist but, for instance, the Oder-Neisse line is not sacrosanct. Why should it be—any more than the Saar was a sacrosanct part of France when it was transferred in 1956 by plebiscite? On the Polish side of the line, there are no Germans left. There are no Germans any more in what was Konigsburg and is now Kaliningrad. However, there are minorities spattered all over Hungary, Romania and other countries. They require some safeguards.
I doubt whether simply changing borders would be sufficient, because such people live in inconvenient places and groups. Some sort of assurance is needed if there is to be a final treaty. It has been suggested that that could be done through the Council of Europe and an extension of the powers of the European Court from only human rights issues to minority rights issues of education, culture and protection. I do not know whether that would be the solution, but it is probably the way to do it.
The know-how funds are proceeding well. There are criticisms that there is bureaucracy and there are delays, but the Minister will agree that the thing has to shake down. Money is coming through from the United States and the Community as a whole in pure investment terms too.
People have talked about helping the democracies. Hon. Members should note that every one of the countries turning to democracy and away from authoritarianism has chosen proportional voting systems rather than our system. That is a fact. They want consensus government. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on the Labour Front Bench was wearing an allegedly consensual robe of emollience. It did not sound very emollient to me. Eastern European countries want a bit of peace and co-operation, and that is something which we should develop.
I am sorry that I have spoken longer than I intended, but it is difficult for us to stop one another speaking about such important things. I agree that we are being given an historic opportunity—probably the best Europe has ever had—for prosperous development in freedom. We should not be over-cautious, but should be anxious to get in there to help that process.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Mr. Speaker has limited speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm to 10 minutes.
7 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: You force me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak faster than usual.
First I should like to praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on their remarkable speeches. However, I am afraid that they omitted to mention the way in which the leaderships of eastern Europe perceive our Prime Minister. They believe that my right hon. Friend is a good Prime Minister, they respect her and they want her to play a leading role in the negotiations that will take place between the West and eastern Europe.
This debate is jolly dangerous to everyone in the House in the sense that no one predicted the events of 1989, but here we are trying to predict those of 1990. When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, went to eastern Europe, we visited three Karl Marx institutes—in Budapest, Bucharest and Sofia—and in each one they were preaching the free-market economy and Thatcherism. Such small rumblings should not have gone unnoticed by those in the West who call themselves experts in this subject.
Without doubt we all give generous and warm acclaim to the self-liberation and birth of new democracies in eastern European countries. Now we must go beyond congratulations and act with alacrity and vision. One eastern European ambassador in London said to me only today that eastern Europe needs deeds now, not words, if it is to survive to achieve democracy.
In the work in which I have been engaged in the Select Committee and in which I participate on behalf of the British-Soviet parliamentary group, it has become apparent that it is easy to generalise and to miss the essential fact that each eastern European country is different. Certain problems, however, are common to all those countries, and the West, particularly the United Kingdom, should help quickly to overcome them.
The easiest problems to solve are, unfortunately, long-term and not immediate ones, such as helping with management training, improving distribution methods to get goods to the shops from the farms and the revision of COCOM. That organisation is irrelevant, but in Paris it is still grinding on with a four-year revision of its work. All the eastern European countries demonstrate their need for convertible currencies and we also need to help to provide some solution for the terrible debt problems faced by countries such as Poland and Hungary. It is awful to observe that the one country without any debt problem is the one that had the bloodiest revolution—Romania.
The West can give help to overcome the short-term problems, but we must act fast. The West Germans have set the pace and I believe that we should give instant credit to countries such as the Soviet Union to enable them to buy food from us. A story has gone round to suggest that the Foreign Office has said that we cannot do that without the permision of the European Community. That is nonsense. I hope that the Minister will kill that story when he replies and make it clear that we will be only too willing to help the Soviet Union to get the food that it urgently needs.
1124
We could also help in an instant by ensuring that visas for east European business men are granted without delay. The only espionage in which such people will indulge now will be industrial and it is up to the host company to deal with that—it is not a job for the Foreign Office or the Home Office to investigate such people's reputations.
We could also encourage industry to give manufacturing licences for the basic commodities needed in the Soviet Union. Electric kettles are needed more than anything else. There must be British companies which could dump electric kettles on the Soviet Union and get plant started up now. It is extremely galling to hear from the Soviet ambassador that the South Koreans have found their way into a redundant defence company in Uzbekistan and are now licensing that company to make video and cassette recorders. The development of such manufacturing would not only help the Soviet Union to get into business quickly by translating its defence industry into consumer products, but help to soak up the surplus money sloshing around all the east European economies.
The prime problem faced by eastern Europe, which must be solved with similar alacrity to that adopted by the West, is bureaucracy. If anything will defeat Mr. Gorbachev the pragmatist, it is the bureaucracy of the Soviet Union, much of which is unwilling to do anything to change or to remove old privileges. That bureacracy is also unable to take on management tasks in the economy; since the advent of Communism in 1917, the Soviet Union has had a command economy in which management was not required.
It took us a long time to appreciate that Mr. Gorbachev is a man who says what he means and means what he says. On the two occasions when I have had the privilege to meet him, it has taken a long time to get used to the fact that he is a man who tells one the truth. Some people outside the House may say that that is one politician's judgment of another and that I may not be the best judge, but I believe that we must listen to him carefully. When he says that he is under threat, we must remember our alliance with him and that he is the man who has done most, on either side of the iron curtain, to damp down the fires of the cold war and to remove the Berlin wall.
I accept, however, that he has been extremely cunning in dumping all the problems of the economies of eastern Europe on to the West. We now have the responsibility to try to straighten them out. Mr. Gorbachev, however, still faces the eternal problem of his army—the 400,000 elite of the Red Army now stranded on a political island in East Germany. I do not know how he will get them out, but the economic problem of defence is the fundamental feature which beat him when he tried to preserve Communism.
There is a lot of work going on in the EC, but Britain should be more actively engaged in helping. My Committee returned from Brussels today and we are aware of three parallel policies in the EC—negotiations with the European Free Trade Association, the 1992 process and the aid programmes to the East. In 1989, the EC gave£200 million and it is now mapping out plans to give£600 million. Without being cynical, that aid presents many opportunities for British business as we attempt to solve the short-term and medium-term problems of eastern Europe.
Undoubtedly, with the implosion of imperialism in the Soviet Union, other types of alliance will form. Finland is already looking across the Baltic to Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia as a possible new trading area—one which

1125
would also encompass the northern area of Poland. Without doubt, we must accept that anything is possible but that deeds count more strongly than words.
I am not the least bit scared by German reunification. I remember, as a young boy, the horrors of the war, but there is no need to look back—we must look forward to helping Germany unite. I appreciate the problems associated with a neutral Germany—it must participate in all our European affairs. We must remember that, in 1989, West Germany took in 864,000 refugees. That is a social burden on West Germany and it is not right or proper for us to say that, so long as the British taxpayer does not have to pay for reunification, it does not matter.
We stand on the frontier of a new life of freedom which, for the first time in our lives, will be shared right across Europe. It is unexpected and therefore all the more wonderful. Above all, we in this country have a duty to help all those people in the east of the continent who have won their freedom, often with the blood of their brothers and sisters, after 50 years of terror.
7.10 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) about the crucial role that Mr. Gorbachev has played in unleashing these events. It is not all due to him, for there have been a whole series of other events as well, but his achievement has been very great indeed and, as most people believe, we are faced with a great historic opportunity—the greatest opportunity the world has confronted since 1945—and we are concerned to make sure that we make the best use of it, with Britain playing a leading part.
Part of our criticism of our Prime Minister, who has had a few remarks addressed to her by my hon. Friends, is that sometimes she does not seem to appreciate the scale of events. But then, in the next breath, she seems to say that she has been responsible for all the wonderful things that have happened. I have no doubt that, if the second coming happened during her period in office, she would immediately claim that it was all due to the operation to her housing policy of no room at the inn, and continue to go on pressing her claim of being responsible for all today's momentous achievements.
As I say, a few others, in addition to Mr. Gorbachev, have played a part in the affairs of Europe. When the Berlin wall came down, no man in Europe had a better right to rejoice than Willy Brandt, in view of the part he played as major of Berlin and the manner in which he kept the cause of democracy alive in Berlin and in Germany throughout his life. President Havel must take great credit for events in Czechoslovakia in recent times. All those who talk about German rearmament and unity should read carefully reports in the United States about what he has said on that subject. He is trying to instruct us in these matters.
Our Prime Minister should have a little humility. I was horrified to read the speech that she made to the Board of Deputies of British Jews recently. I read every word of it. I am amazed at the deductions that she fails to draw from the position on nuclear armaments and the whole nuclear situation. The right hon. Lady just repeats the old formula about our sticking by our nuclear deterrent. She spoke of
1126
a few other countries that would soon have nuclear weapons, and she did not seem terribly concerned about that.
The right hon. Lady does not seem to know, even now, that we are signatories of the non-proliferation treaty and that, if we are to abide by that treaty, we are committed to trying to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether. If we refuse to go ahead with that, not merely shall we be in breach of our solemn undertakings—anyone who reads the document will see that what I am saying is the truth—but we shall be helping to unleash the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, some of which she mentioned in her speech to the board of deputies.
This is surely a moment when we should return to the question of how we are to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether, particularly as we have the scientific means of doing that, being the means of inspection. There is no greater advocate of nuclear disarmament in the full sense of commitment to the non-proliferation treaty—the Soviet Union is also committed to that treaty—than Mr. Gorbachev. One of the best ways for us to react to the statesmanship that he has shown in these matters would be to respond on that subject. Instead of doing that, the right hon. Lady turns her back on it and does not show any interest in it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. (Mr. Healey) gave an account of some of the new structures that will be needed to deal with this great new situation and he spoke of how to make the best use of them. There is one institution that I believe we should reconsider for the kind of framework in which we wish to see the new Europe—indeed, the new world—rebuilt. In addition to the institutions to which my right hon. Friend referred, this is the moment when we should be stressing our allegiance to the United Nations charter. We should restore the United Nations to a more central place in our diplomacy and dealing with the new situation.
If Conservative Members think that such an appeal is idealistic and confined to Labour Members, I ask them to read again the last speech made in the House of Commons by Winston Churchill. He pleaded for the restoration of the authority of the United Nations and said that the moment had come when that could be achieved.
I have previously quoted in the House from that speech by Churchill. He made it at a most significant moment in the history of Parliament. Not only was it his last speech here, but he said that he was impressed and oppressed by the dangers of the nuclear arms race which he saw before him. He thought that a bigger effort should have been made to restore decent relations with the Soviet Union. That was just after the death of Stalin, and he said that he had been stopped—"bitched up" was the phrase he used he used it not in the House but elsewhere—by the Foreign Office, but I will not now go into that.
I ask the House, indeed the whole country, to take note of what Winston Churchill said in 1953 at what was then an historic moment, like the one we face now. Speaking of the initiative that he had wanted to take with the Soviet Union, he said:
"It might have meant a real UNO, with Russia working with the rest for the good of Europe. We would have promised them that no more atomic bombs would be made, no more research into their manufacture. Those already made would be locked away. They would have had at their disposal much of the money now spent on armaments to provide better

1127
conditions for the Russian people. I trust the opportunity may not slip away".—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c.231.]
That was Churchill's view of the prospects and possibilities in 1953, but it did slip away and the chance of detente was lost.
I am not saying that that was all due to actions here or the impositions or chains that were placed on Churchill. Partly, no doubt, it was due to what the Russians did. Churchill underlined the need for a different attitude. He saw the possibilities that existed at the time. Now we have a new chance to do it.
Mr. Nigel Forman rose—
Mr. Foot: I will not give way. I have in total only 10 minutes in which to speak.
The fear of many of us at this moment of great opportunity for the whole world—this is not merely an argument across the parties—is that the Prime Minister is restoring in the Cabinet the very conditions that have led to so many catastrophes before. The right hon. Lady has torn up the idea of proper Cabinet government. That is why we got into the Falklands war—that was the conclusion reached by the committee that looked into it. Time and again the Prime Minister has strayed from the proper idea of settling matters as Cabinet government decisions. I do not say that because I respect all the other Members of the Cabinet, although they are better than she is.
I do not believe that the original decision that we would break with the other countries of Europe over sanctions on South Africa was taken in the Cabinet. It was taken by the right hon. Lady, and all the others followed behind. It has been a miserable affair that they should have followed her in that way.
Similar dangers for us lie in Europe as we come to deal with the present situation. More and more people in Britain, and certainly in the House, are losing confidence in the way in which the Prime Minister deals with issues. We thought a few months ago that proper Cabinet government was being restored in Britain, but we have seen in recent weeks that it has been torn away. We can see how damaging that can be because it removes any possibility of putting before the Cabinet the proper consideration of all the present issues.
At no time would it be more dangerous for the Prime Minister to have such power and use it in such a way than at this moment, when we have the best opportunities for our country, as well as Europe, that we have had for generations. That is why I urge the Government to listen to what we say in this debate.
7.20 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: I agree with the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that we live in exciting and challenging times. The people of the eastern European countries, the Baltic republics and Russia are throwing off the shackles of Marxism and Socialism, which have been shown to be manifest failures. That is what is exciting and we must rise to the challenges presented to us. In the whirligig of the unique time facing us, we must find policies, but they are extremely difficult to determine.
1128
We must avoid the traps either of reacting too quickly to situations which may turn out to be bubbles which burst at a touch or of missing opportunities by reacting too slowly. It has been my fear so far that the Government have not yet got the policy right and steered a correct course between those two types of rapids and rocks on which the policy could founder. I was delighted with what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary offered the House this afternoon. He gave a clear indication that Government policy is now on the right course.
There are three issues on which we should focus. The first, on which there should not be change, is the crucial importance of the European Community. Its role has always been vital. Most Conservative Members, though not all, have recognised that. We live in a tri-polar world. Happily and hopefully we are talking not about war, but about the economic and commercial realities that face us in the tri-polar world of Japan and the Asian states, North America, and western Europe. It is crucial that we continue to play our role in the development of the European Community.
One danger that we face is that there are voices on both sides of the House and in all parts of the media from time to time, seeking to use the opportunity of the developments in eastern Europe to suggest that the European Community is not as important as it was. They suggest that more means better and we should relax our moves towards a single European market, 1992 and European monetary union. I am quite certain that that is wrong. I am certain that a major contribution that we must make in the interests of this country's citizens, the stability of western Europe and Europe as a whole, is to ensure that the move towards the European Community continues. That will offer the sort of opportunities for which many in eastern Europe are looking.
Secondly, how wrong the right hon. Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) were to suggest that there should be drastic cuts now in this country's defence forces. That should not happen too quickly. The military realities have not changed sufficiently. There is a tendency in the West to be bemused by Mr. Gorbachev. Much though we respect and admire his political agility and some of his objectives, we should not forget that Gorbachev remains, he would say, a Soviet patriot. Some of the non-Russian states of the Soviet Union might challenge that, but he is certainly a Russian patriot and he would claim to remain a Leninist, with the techniques and tactics inherent in that creed.
There are great dangers in suggesting that our interests are necessarily identical with those of Mr. Gorbachev. The responsibility of western Governments remains the preservation of western security. That is where our responsibility lies, not necessarily in the survival of Mr. Gorbachev. In all that he has done, his list of failures must be seen as considerable by any Russian, let alone non-Russian, member of the Soviet Union. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stressed the dangers of seeking to equate or to see some symmetry between NATO and the Warsaw pact when clearly there is none; NATO, as a willing and voluntary combination of nation states, is totally different in nature from the Warsaw pact. Changes must come, but gradually, in the light of reality, not the wishful thinking that we have heard from the Opposition Members.
Thirdly, we need to change our attitude towards the two Germanies and modify our fears about their

1129
unification. We all recognise that fears still exist. That point has been made many times in the debate. However, insufficient credit has been given to the remarkable transformation of Germany since the war and the way in which democracy has taken deep and genuine root in that country.
We should recognise the historical reality that democracies do not become aggressive. There are very few historical examples of that. History also teaches us that past enemies can become firm allies in the future. Our relation with France, if it teaches us nothing else, should teach us that. We are in grave danger of exaggerating the spectre of a unified Germany. The two Germanies, unified, will have a great deal of work to do to make the union work. The East German economy represents only 8 per cent. of the gross national product of West Germany. Stimulating and bringing East Germany up to the European Community standard will absorb West Germany's investment surplus. One estimate is that it will take about 10 years to achieve that, and I believe it.
It is also important to consider the population. Germany is the largest of the European countries, but it is not a super power. Compared with Japan, it is not even an economic power. The population of a combined Germany would be about 80 million, but the population of both Germanies is declining and by the turn of the century it will be about 76 million, as against a forecast combined population of France and the United Kingdom of 115 million. That puts the matter in perspective.
I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary state clearly that one way forward in the future must be closer collaboration between France and the United Kingdom. Every European to whom I speak in the European Community cries out for Britain to play a positive role, and to continue to play a more positive role, in the functioning of Europe. There is no time now to get embroiled in the mysteries of the exchange rate mechanism and the social charter. The thrust must come from us. We must not be put of by phoney challenges to sovereignty. Sovereignty and national identity are important, but no Frenchman. Italian or Dutchman considers himself threatened by the unity that is developing in Europe.
I do not know what sort of union it will be—no one can know that—but the work of building the European Community is vital and must go on. We have a crucial contribution to make to the development of Europe and a response to make to the extraordinary and stimulating events in the eastern European countries. They would recognise that contribution. It would benefit them and give them an objective to which to aspire and a bloc with which to trade. It would also operate as a force for the free market and be yet one more demonstration, if that were needed, that Socialism, Marxism and Leninism are bankrupt philosophies and that it is the free-market principles for which we stand that offer peace and prosperity.
7.29 pm
Mr. George Galloway: I have just spent four days in a two-star hotel in Romania—an anti-junket—and it is about Romania that I want to talk in this important debate.
1130
I could not, in the 10 minutes available to me, describe the grotesque, bizarre and unbelievable character of the Ceausescu regime in Romania, the legacy of which I saw in those four days. Words simply fail me.
Some hon. Members may have read Malcolm Bradbury's marvellous satire "Rates of Exchange". It is said that he used Romania as the model for the people's republic in that book. If he did, he was not required to tax his imagination in the writing of it. It will be remembered that that mythical people's republic, Slaka, a net exporter of beets and brown suits and a net importer of everything else, where ballet and opera were good but footwear scarce mostly going for export, is a pretty good pen portrait of the grimness of Romania.
The first important point that I want to emphasise is the need to appreciate that those Romanian Christmas days that shook the world do not mark the end of the revolutionary upheavals in Romania. There remains in that country a deep and dangerous polarisation. The National Salvationist Front Government, which includes the leaders who came to the fore during the revolution, other intellectuals and technocrats, and key military officers who distinguished themselves in that fierce fighting, are, I found, trying hard to stabilise the situation in Romania. They have called an election for a constituent assembly for 21 May. They are doing their best arid deserve our support.
There are forces at work in Romania, some of whom took part in the revolution and others who did not, who evidently do not want to wait for the elections but rather to continue the politics of the street. Some hon. Members may have seen pictures of the events that I witnessed last Sunday in the Piazza Victoreie in the centre of Bucharest when a mob invaded and ransacked the Government's headquarters. It was not a pretty sight. I talked to many leading members of the Government and I remain impressed by their determination to keep the country stable and to reach those elections.
The Foreign Secretary talked about some of the uglies that are coming out from underneath the stones as a result of the revolutionary upheavals in central and eastern Europe. One that is very present and important in Romania is the spectre that haunted Europe long before Communism haunted Europe, and that is anti-semitism.
I had long discussions with the representatives of the Jewish community in Bucharest. In 1939, there were 800,000 Jews in Romania, and at the end of the war there were 400,000. The pogroms remain vivid and lurid in the minds of the Jewish community. The so-called Christianism and nationalism of some of the historical parties and forces in Romania that are now coming to the fore are giving real cause for concern to the remaining 20,000 members of the Jewish community. They told me that they regard the Iliescu National Salvation Front Government as sometimes the only thing that stands between them and the return of pogroms to the streets of Bucharest.
I wish that I had more time to develop that point, but I hope that the Minister is listening, because much western support is now going to those Christian nationalist forces. The Jewish community is worried, for example, about some of the broadcasts on the Romania service of the BBC, the earlier praise for which I identify with. But the Romania service seems to be giving some cause for concern; I leave that with the Minister for him to think about.

1131
The most dramatic matter that I want to deal with in the few minutes available to me is the catastrophe of AIDS, on the brink of which Romania finds itself. Some hon. Members will have seen pictures and read articles in recent weeks about the situation there which has resulted from transfusions of infected blood into poor, malnourished and orphaned children in Romania. Because the Ceausescu regime could not feed those children, it injected them with 25 ml of blood at a time in an attempt to nourish them. Massive amounts of that blood now turn out to have been infected with HIV and the children of Romania are, in large numbers, falling prey to that infection.
I talked to a French child AIDS expert, Dr. Christian Courpotin from Trusseau hospital in Paris and Dr. Ion Petrascu, who have been doing some limited testing, and the results are staggering. In just a few weeks they have definitely shown 1,000 little children to be HIV-positive and, from their current testing, a likely figure of 2,000 children, with evidence now emerging of vertical transmission of the disease with devastating results. They have not even started testing the adults from whom the blood injected into the children came.
To put the problem into perspective, the tiny Black sea port of Constanta has more child AIDS victims than the entire metropolis of Paris. That is only one of the few sites where testing has taken place.
I visited the Victor Babes hospital in Bucharest. I have seen some appalling sights in my life, I have walked through the killing fields of the famines of Ethiopia and the Sudan, but I have never seen a more distressing scene than ward D1 of that hospital, where 80 tiny babies, stricken with AIDS, are lying waiting to die. Because the nurses do not know or understand, they are dressed as if they were on a space mission. They are terrified of the babies, scarely touching them, never mind giving them a cuddle.
Those children have no parents. They have had no human love or kindness. They are simply lying there waiting to die. There is not a teddy bear in the hospital. The lucky few have a balloon in their cots. Instead of nappies, rags are wrapped around them 10 to 15 times a day by terrified nurses.
I like to hope that the British Government and the western community can make a specific response to the problems of AIDS children in Romania, because I can assure the Minister that there is an impending catastrophe. Britain has donated 2 million syringes to Romania to help combat the problem, but they have not yet arrived. Plenty of people asked me about them when I was there. That was a welcome response from the Government, but I hope that they will look at the matter again. I hope that the private sector and the public will look again to see how we can respond. To see 13-month old children who look 70 just lying there waiting to die was very distressing indeed.
The situation in Romania is still unfolding. It is clear that the earthquake of 22 December was not the final one. There is a political fault line in Romania. We do not know, and it is not our business, what the Romanians' final political decision will be, but it is important for us in the West to respond positively to the Romanian Government's appeals for help on the economy and in the health sector and to intervene with caution in their internal politics in the way that I have been describing.
1132
We should extend the hand of friendship to Romania. It is an important country with an innovative, bright and enthusiastic population. We can make a good friend there. We have made a fair start, but I hope that the British Government will try to do better still.
7.39 pm
Mr. William Cash: I wish to speak mainly about balance—the balance of argument and the balance of power in Europe. We have seen momentous changes, largely based on an understanding by the people of eastern Europe in particular, but also of the USSR, of the need for freedom of choice and to give full weight to the importance of that and to self-determination. At the same time, I detected in some of the speeches today a rather mean, third-rate appreciation of the importance that the Prime Minister attaches to those matters, without which many of the achievements that have proliferated throughout eastern Europe recently, and which are appreciated in the United States and elsewhere in the world, would not have occurred.
It does not take much imagination to appreciate that German reunification will give rise to much argument and dispute. I welcome German reunification as someone whose father was killed in the last world war and who was awarded the military cross for action in Normandy. As I remarked in a previous debate, I now regard the Germans as friends and colleagues. Nevertheless, I make the point that it is important for the Germans to understand the sensitivities on our side of the argument. It is inappropriate to make snide remarks about our Prime Minister or about anyone who takes a perfectly sensible, balanced view of the future of Europe, and to argue that they are adopting a negative, narrow, nationalistic approach. That is neither true, fair, nor balanced.
I invoke a German in my argument. Are the remarks of Mr. Gunther Grass to be dismissed? He advised caution. He said much more, and those who wish to read his article in The Times are welcome to do so. The Germans that I have met fully appreciate, perhaps better than some right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today and in previous similar debates, that Germany should be more sensitive in its approach.
In the context of the wider Europe, to concentrate on the one aspect of institutional changes and the development of a federal Europe is itself not necessarily in the interests of Germany. We should give consideration to a freer, more liberal, looser association with other countries, not only in our own interests but in those of Germany itself. The enormous economic power and engine that Germany now has at its disposal could prove a disadvantage to that country if it led to envy, jealousy and all the other characteristics which led people to fear Germany in the past. It is for such reasons that I believe that we should not go down the path of creating a German-dominated federal system.
I was interested to hear the balance struck in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and the emphasis that he placed on the word "involvement". I am on record as encouraging Members of Parliament to emphasise that word in relation to Europe. We need to be involved because we need to understand, but in understanding we do not have to be subsumed. We must keep that at the forefront of our thinking at this volatile and difficult time.

1133
In the context of the thrust and drive towards the markets of eastern Europe, it would be as well if the countries of the East themselves would apportion the investment made in them by other countries as equally as possible, and not just rely on the impetus and initiative already taken by Germany. It is essential to achieve a balance in eastern Europe as well as in western Europe.
My other point arises out of an article in The Times on 14 February by Helmut Schmidt and Giscard d'Estaing. It was depressing and disappointing because it seemed to assume that the future of the European Community depends on a Franco-German axis. Nothing will be more divisive than if countries congregate in the context of the developments desired—by Jacques Delors and the Commission, among others—and create a combination of the economic strength of East and West Germany, which, combined with their voting strength on the basis of Franco-German unity and other alliances that they could develop, would cause serious concern to the other members of the Community. I do not regard that as very communautaire.
We must strive for a reciprocal, mutual balance. That is the key. At the same time, we must provide a bulwark against over-domination by any one country by associations between ourselves and Hungary—of the kind that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs tried to achieve on his great visit to that country—Czechoslovakia and Poland, and even with Yugoslavia, Turkey and EFTA countries. That would offer a natural balance in economic terms to the strength and power that will otherwise be concentrated in a reunified Germany moving towards the East and dominating its markets.
It is equally important to remember our connections with the United States. Some complain that we have been moving away from a special relationship with the United States, and opinion polls suggest that the Americans believe that Germany will dominate the new Europe and that they will have to look to Germany rather than to the allies of previous decades. For decades, if not for generations, we have had a relationship with the United States whereby it sent its people over here to help us for the prime reason that we shared common values and interests of a kind for which the people of eastern Europe are striving and which we must help them to achieve.
It is a matter of the greatest importance for us to ensure that we do not allow the other members of the European Community to divorce themselves from the United States. We are living in a global village and we have a mutual interest not only in fair and free trade but in security. We must do all that we can to ensure that the Community plays an integral part in the developing and evolving world that we shall inhabit by the year 2000, but without in any way relinquishing our right, based upon self-determination within the Community, to make major decisions of our own.
Finally, it is important that the German people should be aware of the sensitivities that the question of Poland arouses and to understand that it is not just a question of borders. It is also about feelings. We must ensure that the Germans understand that the balance of power and the balance of opinion belong to all sides in the Community.
7.49 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The transformation of East-West relations presents opportunities for the 1990s, but whether this decade will witness such a momentous shift depends upon a multitude of factors. The critical and most unpredictable one is the evolution of policy in the Soviet Union. Before I touch on that, I wish to pose other questions which, I submit, need to form the framework of our debate tonight. What role will our Alliance continue to play? What can we now expect of the Warsaw treaty organisation? To what degree is the framework operated in Vienna for the CFE—negotiations on conventional armed forces in Europe—still valid? What is our concept of a future Europe and, in particular of a future Germany?
First, as democratic values overcome the legacy of Yalta in Europe, does NATO still have a role or has the Alliance already accomplished its mission? Although article V, the "core" of the North Atlantic treaty, commits the parties to regard an attack on one as an attack that involves every other member, the raison d'etre of the western Alliance does not depend on an existing, identifiable military threat. Article II of the North Atlantic treaty clearly speaks of non-military roles, by obliging the parties to
"contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded. and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being".
Is not that a valid political role, which some hon. Members were questioning earlier?
NATO will remain necessary and desirable for well into the future. Its basic purpose of defending and furthering western values endures, as does its permanent worth as the only forum in which the 16 like-minded north American and European democracies can discuss political and economic as well as military dimensions of security policy.
Secondly, one of the ironies of the times is that, just when the WTO is being increasingly described as militarily and politically less important to its member states, a discussion is growing about the stabilising role of the Warsaw pact. Although the traditional Soviet objective of dissolving both alliances has not been formally abandoned, during his historic 19 December 1989 visit to NATO headquarters in Belgium, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze stated:
"We believe the Warsaw Treaty and NATO at this crucial stage in the European process can play an important stabilising role in stabilising Europe."
I agree that the future of the two alliances in Europe must remain a matter for speculation. As we have head tonight, the CSCE is increasingly cited as a model for the Europe of the future, with each Government engaged in a broad range of discussions as independent nations. At present, NATO and the WTO, as well as the neutral and non-aligned countries, negotiate as three caucuses in CSCE. However, assuming that in the future the CSCE framework will evolve into a Europe without opposing alliances, does any hon. Member present believe that that would prove more stable than the current situation? Would the absence of alliance structures, perhaps not aggravate irridentist and nationalist tendencies and make future Sarajevo cataclysms more likely? We must take the

1135
longest view. How does this justify abandoning any notion of geopolitical balance as the various permutations of Europe 2000 are contemplated?
Thirdly, the briefings that I have been fortunate enough to receive from CFE delegations in Vienna, as recently as December, left me in no doubt that a conventional arms limitation agreement is possible some time in 1990 and if we could get aircraft off the table, we could get agreement by this summer, as the Minister knows. A number of important issues remain to be resolved. None are considered insuperable. There is ample good will on both sides, but more push from the other side. However, it is only the complexities that deter our side.
One eastern representative remarked:
"whatever happens politically in Europe, even if the alliances disappear, the military potentials remain".
A treaty and, we hope, further treaties that formally reduce and constrain those forces are vital necessities.
The precise budgetary consequences of eventual conventional arms cuts—the peace dividend which excites all of us—must as yet remain unclear. In a first-phase CFE agreement, we could expect cuts for NATO of only between 10 and 15 per cent., and then only in certain weapons categories. It is likely that the benefits accruing will be offset by the cost of destroying and verifying treaty compliance—and that has not been considered sufficiently by hon. Members. Finally, what is our concept for a future Europe and, in particular for a future Germany? How will both countries interact on the evolution of policy on the Soviet Union?
In my present role as president of the North Atlantic Assembly, I presided over three days of talks last week in Brussels with the NATO Secretary General, Dr. Worner, with his council of NATO ambassadors and with a delegation from the Supreme Soviet, led by Ambassador Valentin Falin—the former ambassador in Bonn for seven years and currently chairman of the international committee of the Central Committee, a close adviser to Mr. Gorbachev, and the very Russian who is experienced in western Europe and European politics. He was accompanied by Marshal Akromeyev, of whom we have all read and perhaps some of us have met, as well as General Lobov, Chief of Staff of the Warsaw treaty organisation, whom I have met three times in the past year. There were also joint meetings with those newly elected Soviet parliamentarians and a representative body of senior NATO parliamentarians, including right hon. and hon. Members of the House.
Those meetings were the first between NATO and the WTO at military and parliamentary levels. They illustrated the extent and depth of Soviet misperceptions about our alliance. Marshal Akromeyev told me that, until five years ago, he was convinced that we would invade eastern Europe. If such misperceptions can be held by Marshal Akromeyev, Ambassador Falin and General Lobov what are ordinary Russian people thinking about us? Akromeyev has still to be persuaded that even now NATO is not an offensive Alliance. Lobov still believes that it is Alliance policy to preserve the wealth of the West and to keep the USSR poor.
There was a pervading feeling on the part of the Soviet delegation that they will be excluded, not so much from settlement as from an evolving European house. Incidentally, they want a US presence. They were explicit
1136
that German unification should not adversely affect US security. Ambassador Falin—although I do not believe that he is necessarily representative—is opposed to unification. He believes that Moscow maintains latent rights in East Germany, and that the German Democratic Republic must carry out its duties to the Warsaw pact, even after the March elections. He reiterated last week in Brussels, in a radio interview, that a united Germany could not carry on being part of NATO. He dwelt on the wartime destruction. There is not time for me now for me to go into the details that he gave, especially of destruction in Byelorussia. It was much more severe than German wartime damage and, he put it forward as an important factor in continuing Soviet economic difficulties.
There were no specifics from the Russians as to settlement, but repeated expressions of fear about German unification. They are not alone. Some of Germany's European neighbours, as I meet them in the NATO parliamentary network—as do other hon. Members, all the time—consider the prospect of a powerful united German state with more unease then hope. None is questioning German unity, but how is it to be secured? Nor do they question the two-plus-four framework agreed last week in Ottawa, but they are looking for firm safeguards as well as reassurance to the USSR.
7.59 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: I must confess that I do not share the nostalgia for stability felt by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). I never thought that I would live long enough to see the liberation of eastern Europe, but I thank God that I have; and, if a good deal of instability is part of the price, let us pay it.
We have just come through what was, in effect, a third world war: but for nuclear weapons, the cold war would have led to a holocaust. While we should not claim too much credit for that, I would point out that it was the determination of the West to make it clear to the Soviets that their policy of expansion was a no-win policy that created the Gorbachev regime: Gorbachev is, in that sense, the son of Reagan.
I am not at all dismayed by the prospective union of Germany. The Nazi phenomenon came from the appalling inflation of the 1920s and the consequences of the world recession of the 1930s. There is nothing like that on the horizon yet, but we must face—and, from what I have heard this evening, I am sure that we are prepared to do so—the fact that the union of Germany, and Austria's approching membership of the European Community, will mean a preponderance of German-speaking people in the Community. We had all better brush up our German pretty quickly.
How is this to be faced? There are two schools of thought. The thinking in Brussels and Paris, followed to some extent in Bonn, is that we should try to anchor Germany in the European Community by making it more federal. I see the force of that argument, but I do not believe that it would work. I do not think that it is possible to tie down a growing, organic popular development with rules and institutions. What did an Irish patriot say?—"You cannot set limits to the march of a nation." But I do agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath): if Britain is fully involved, some counterpoise will be provided for the preponderant German element.

1137
Whatever view we may have about federalism or non-federalism, I do not see the House of Commons that I have served for nearly 40 years accepting a tight federation. How, then, do we cope with the problem? A tremendous responsibility rests with the French and the Germans. If they want to develop a system that we cannot join, they can of course inflict on us an economic and financial Dunkirk; but in that event, the French will find themselves, geopolitically, back in Vichy. If they want to choose that route, it is open to them.
On the other hand, we too have a great responsibility, because a Europe united without us could be a Europe united against us. We must also make a big effort to bridge the gap between the Paris thinking and our own—on, among other things, economic and momentary union—and I believe that that can be done. The Almighty, in his infinite wisdom, did not see fit to make Frenchmen in the image of Englishmen. We may regret that, but it is a fact and we must live with it. We shall all have to make a considerable effort.
It is important to remember that the foundation of the European Community is not the treaty of Rome, but the reconciliation of France and Germany. That came about in 1955. When the French Assembly had refused to accept the idea of German rearmament, Anthony Eden gave an undertaking to commit a British Army corps and a tactical air force on the continent indefinitely. That was a generous and a dangerous commitment. On that basis, the French accepted German rearmament, and the Germans themselves agreed to rearm. The treaty of Rome elaborated on that foundation in economic terms. I am sorry that we did not have more of a hand in framing that treaty, but that is neither here nor there.
We are putting together massive interests, economic and financial, in the European Community. So far, they have been protected by NATO. I agree with many hon. Members who have said this evening that the Warsaw pact is finished, but I am not at all sure that NATO in its present form can continue when there is no Warsaw pact. What we really need is a European defence system. I believe that the Western European Union—which we set up in 1955, and which formed the basis and condition of the Franco-German reconciliation—provides us with the necessary structure. France and Spain are not in NATO—the command structure—but they are members of the WEU. We have a minimum deterrent capability, British and French. Here, surely, is the machinery through which we could provide a system for the defence of the interests that we are putting together.
For most of my life, I have seen British Governments respond to European initiatives—the Schuman plan, the European Defence Community and the treaty of Rome—sometimes negatively and sometimes positively. Here is an opportunity for us to take the initiative, and to tell our friends on the continent that the WEU is the nucleus of a European security system that could form the European pillar of an alliance with the United States. Nor should it exclude the grander design supported by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, involving both the United States and the Soviet Union in the ultimate security of this part of the world. It could be the basic building block for such a design—and a fallback if things go wrong.
8.6 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) of the magnitude of the events that we are debating, and also his special concern about the implications for the liberation of eastern Europe—and the near-collapse of the Warsaw pact—for the problem of a united or reunited Germany. We shall face a great power in our own western Europe.
Like others, I do not think that we are faced with any real threat to European security from Germany. Anyone who has had any dealings with West German politicians will, I think, agree that there is no doubting that their democratic credentials are good and solid; nor do I doubt that people have learnt the lessons of history. It would, however, be unrealistic for us simply to say that a united Germany poses no problems for us, or that others who suffered more terribly than we during the second world war are not still very anxious about a resurgence of German power. As others have said, west Germany is already the dominant economic power in western Europe and a united Germany will greatly reinforce that power.
We must guard against the contingency of future adverse change. We should always bear in mind the lesson of history—that, sooner or later, an expression of economic power will correspond with that of political and military power. The key question is how we guard against the fears and contingencies not of today, but perhaps of tomorrow and the years ahead.
Two approaches to the problem are already highly visible. The first is the drive towards West European federalism, or as near to it as its supporters can get, in order, they hope, to bring German power under collective west European control. The second approach is to develop proposals for new pan-European security arrangements and frontier guarantees which would safeguard the European nations from any future assertions of German military power.
The case for a federalist approach was set out with great candour in an article in The Times Last week written jointly by former President Giscard d'Estaing and former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. As they put it, German reunification must be
"part of a strategy of establishing a federal union of the member states of the European Community. Such a federation would entail not only economic and monetary union but also the integration of foreign policies, and ultimately military and security policies, in which France and Germany will have a special role to exercise jointly."
That is the destiny for western Europe that the authors of the Schumann plan and the Rome treaty long ago envisaged, and which their disciples have never ceased to advocate. It underlines much of the thinking behind the Single European Act and, even more, the current proposals for economic and monetary union.
Those who hold that view—they include the President of the European Commission, Mr. Delors, President Mitterrand, Chancellor Kohl, Prime Minister Andreotti and, as we heard again this afternoon, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—can be expected to press for it with all their energy, in the preparations for the intergovernmental conference and in the conference itself, agreed at the last European summit and scheduled for later this year.
I believe that that is the wrong solution. The closer and faster the economic integration of Europe, with German

1139
economic performance far outstripping that of her European Community partners, and long in advance of any serious attempt to achieve economic convergence, the more certain it is that in such a union German economic power will increase and the rest of western Europe will become part of a German economic zone. It is an illusion for France to believe that it can be the partner, even a junior partner, in such a union. Nevertheless, that concept chimes with the whole thrust of current European Community policy—the rush for economic and monetary union, the transfer of power from the nation states to the Brussels Commission and the European Parliament, the total integration of the European economies.
A corollary of that drive for union is the moratorium on enlarging the existing membership of the European Community. That will keep out Austria. It will certainly keep out the countries of eastern Europe, other than East Germany. When the right hon. Member for Pavilion spoke during the debate on the Loyal Address on 24 November 1989, he said:
"We must ensure that in achieving a good measure of integration in the Community, we do not build an economic Berlin wall to keep others out."—[Official Report, 24 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 381.]
I oppose the drive towards union because I want a wider Europe which will put a permanent end to the post-war division of our continent. I also oppose it because I believe that it would place the economic interests of our own country in great jeopardy. Political union in a federal or quasi-federal Europe is simply not acceptable to the majority of our citizens.
The alternative and, I believe, far more effective approach is twofold. The first task is to widen the collective security arrangements that have served us so well in post-war Europe. We can all applaud the present process of multilateral disarmament, under which huge, asymmetrical and verified cuts are being made in the Soviet Union's previously overweening conventional military power. However, the maintenance of the American commitment to Europe and the retention of NATO, in which not only has Soviet power been deterred but German power enmeshed, will be necessary for many years to come, and so, in a greatly modified form, will be Soviet guarantees for some of her neighbours in eastern Europe.
What we need to do now is to find a way to extend collective security across what used to be the iron curtain—a system that involves the Soviet Union and its east European neighbours, along with the NATO countries, in joint guarantees of existing European frontiers—except where peaceful and non-coercive changes may be agreed and the underwriting of those frontiers by collective security arrangements. That should certainly be on the agenda of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe meetings this summer. It may be that new arrangements can be grafted on to the existing Helsinki accords; it may be that a new pan-European and also a North American security conference is necessary. However, it is collective, Europewide guarantees about force levels, frontiers and mutual and collective assistance for which we should aim.
The second prong of such an approach is directed at the countries of Eastern Europe. We should encourage the earliest possible association with, and full membership of
1140
the European Community, of all European countries who wish to join. If that is to happen, we must recognise that it cannot be achieved if the present thrust towards political and economic union in Western Europe is sustained. In the Times article, Giscard and Helmut Schmidt put the central question:
"Is Europe seeking a single market with monetary stability in which all member states retain sovereign powers, or is it seeking a federation to which member states allot joint powers?"
The answer should be yes, yes, and yes again to the retention of our sovereignty, and no, no, and no again to a federation of member states.
I end with an analogy suggested to me by President Gorbachev's reference to a common European home and Mr. Delor's recent reference to his vision of a European village. To me, the common European home that we should seek to construct is a very large apartment block with flats of varying sizes—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has gone beyond his time. Mr. John Maples.
8.16 pm
Mr. John Maples: I am unable to share the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for constructing, through a system of conferences and the use of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and border guarantees, the security that we need in a new Europe. It seemed to me to be all too redolent of the conferences at Locarno and Lugano and the League of Nations, all of which were full of guarantees and good will but which did little to protect us from the most awful war that mankind has ever experienced. We need to construct something that is much sounder than that.
I face the prospect of a united Europe with a mixture of joy and apprehension. We all rejoice that eastern Europe is finally free of the shackles of its imperial masters. However, I am apprehensive about tearing up a security system that has brought peace to Europe for 45 years. That peace was brought about by the division of Europe into two hostile camps. At times there has been tension, and sometimes there has been danger. Nevertheless, that division has worked. It succeeded in suppressing many of the nationality and border problems that had been at the heart of European history for a long time and that are now re-emerging.
The challenge that we face is to replace a system that has guaranteed us that security and not to allow the problems that are re-emerging—the problems of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century—to engulf us again. All those problems are still there—boundaries, nationalities, ethnic minorities, above all, a greater Germany and just exactly what that means and what its position will be in Europe.
Events have unfolded incredibly fast, but in some ways things are more certain now than they were three months ago. It now seems to be fairly clear that democratic states are emerging in Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Czechoslovakia. There is obviously some danger of rather greater problems in Romania and Yugoslavia.
It now seems certain that there will be a united Germany. Three months ago it did not seem at all clear that the United States and the Soviet Union would agree to that, but now it is perfectly clear that they will. We

1141
should welcome that as it is something we have sought for a long time, but we have to focus on the fears and problems in western Europe and in the Soviet Union. If anybody has suffered from overweening German power in the past, it has been the countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
We do not yet know what the Soviet Union needs for its own security. We do not really know what the future of the Soviet Union and its empire within the boundaries of the USSR will be. We cannot ignore the danger that the Soviet Union may revert to what it was before. I doubt that it will present the same military threat, but there is certainly a possibility that the liberalising that has taken place under President Gorbachev will stop.
It seems fairly certain that eastern Europe will have to go through a simply dreadful period of economic reconstruction. Some of its economies have been practically destroyed, and almost all of them are in a terrible mess. If we are to help to sustain democracy in those countries, which is one of the keys to the future peace and stability of Europe, and prevent them from reverting to nationalism, dictatorship and narrow interests, it is extremely important to promote the free enterprise economy and the economic development of those countries in which West Germany and the EEC will have to play the foremost role.
I do not want to strike a churlish note in all the optimism that today's debate has generated, but I have some misgivings over German unification. The problem of Germany in Europe has caused wars in Europe three times in the past 120 years. Although the democratic credentials of our German friends are every bit as good as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has said, they must take into account our legitimate concerns in formulating their own stands for unification and the Europe in which that unified Germany will play a part. It looks as though Germany will unify within the West, perhaps firmly anchored into the NATO Alliance, as that is what Chancellor Kohl says that he wants.
However, I am concerned—and I shall be interested to hear the view of my hon. Friend the Minister—that if the Soviet Union and East Germany hold out for a neutral Germany and the German elections get closer and the SPD and Mr. Lafontein say that that would be a reasonable price to pay for German reunification, we shall then be faced with a very different problem which no one who has spoken in the debate has yet addressed—the serious possibility of a neutral Germany floating around in the middle of Europe.
We have vital interests at stake. They are definitely shared by France and most of the other countries in the EC, and I believe they are also shared by the United States, the Soviet Union and most of the countries in eastern Europe.
We should set ourselves a couple of signposts. Obviously there are many objectives that we should try to achieve. The establishment in eastern Europe of democratic states on their existing boundaries seems to be a crucial condition for the way in which eastern Europe develops. The united Germany that emerges from the present discussions must agree to that. East and West Germany have separately signed treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia agreeing their borders. There is some doubt over the legality of those treaties and how they
1142
might bind a unified Germany, but clearly they have to be brought into the process of unification so that everybody is committed to the existing boundaries.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) said that democracies do not go to war with each other—and there is a large element of truth in that—several dictators have been elected and, in past conflagrations in Europe, dictatorships have emerged out of democracies. Although democracy is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient. We need to develop some institutional arrangements which tie together the cultural, political and economic interests of all the countries of Europe.
We need to do that in the interests of ensuring the survivial of democracy, suppressing some of the nation state rivalries which between 1800 and 1945 gave rise to so much trouble, and trying to make those boundary disputes and nationality disputes caused by groups of one ethnic community living in another country less important. I do not believe that it is time to return to the old balance of power idea advocated by Peregrine Worsthorne in his article in The Sunday Telegraph That would be extremely dangerous. It requires great subtlety to work for even 30 years and usually results in armed conflict.
The institution that is in place and clearly available to perform that function is the EC, on which we should build our hopes and the future construction of Europe. its first task would be to ensure the incorporation of East Germany into the Community and to start making arrangements with other eastern European countries and gradually bring them in, in less than 10 years in some cases, although perhaps countries such as Romania will take rather longer.
While I should be happy to move some way towards what the French and the President of the Commission are suggesting, I should also be happy to slow the process a little if it would lead to the broadening of the Community. If we want to construct a Europe in which the rivalries that have led to conflict in the past are diminished, we have to construct a broader Europe in which all those countries are involved. A united Germany might well dominate a Community of 12, but it would be rather more difficult to dominate a Community of 16 or 20.
To sum up, I am overjoyed at the prospect of a Europe emerging from 45 years of cold war, but somewhat worried about some of the minor disputes and problems of the past that have been in the deep freeze during that time. President Gorbachev has set us the challenge of creating a common European home, and that that has to involve a framework for containing a united Germany arid for suppressing some of the border and nationality problems. The two key ingredients are making sure that democratic countries arise in eastern Europe and broadening the EEC. If we do that, we have considerable prospects for turning to great positive effect the wonderful opportunity with which we are faced. If we fail to do it, at some time in the future we may be faced with repeating some of the awful episodes of the past 150 years of European history.
8.26 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and share his joy at the positive movement in Europe, having experienced it at first hand last March in

1143
Hungary and having revisited Berlin and Leipzig last month. The changes there are bound to cause delight to anyone who prizes freedom and the movement of people.
The right hon.Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) referred to Balfour saying that it was not a question of history repeating itself, but of historians repeating the past. That is one of the dangers we face at the moment. In that context I have more sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said about the EEC. It has been regularly claimed in Europe and in the House that hope lies in a united Europe. Historians call the period of a united Europe the dark ages and I am a shade concerned that we might be returning to that period of history.
I was interested in the comments of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who said that the Almighty had made Englishmen and Frenchmen different. He reminded me of the story of the English business man who claimed that he was a self-made man and relieved the Almighty of an awful responsibility.
We have a tendency to lecture others and although I am delighted that Members of Parliament and members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union have been using the agency of the IPU to share with the emerging forces in Europe some of our concepts, we have to do that with sensitivity. They have reached this stage in their development without a great deal of help from us. While they may not have much experience of the working of parliamentary government as we understand it, they have kept the torch of freedom alight in dark ages in the past 40 years. Now they are moving towards a new era. It is good that we share that with them.
I understand, and note with some thanks, that the Government are providing advice on local government structures to the emerging east European democracies. I fully support that, but, coming from Northern Ireland, I must say that the Government have little to boast about, when a significant part of this nation does not have a true local government structure and when the structure for Northern Ireland legislation is akin to old-syle Stalinism. We have left ourselves open to certain accusations.
With Jim Nicholson, a former Member of this House who is now a Member of the European Parliament, I visited and had discussions with many of the smaller emerging political parties in East Germany. We owe them some help, but I regret that blocs within European Parliament have voted against giving them financial help. It is all very well to say that we as individuals can help, but they need more help than that to deal with their state structures. I hope that hon. Members will use their influence and help them with their political campaigning.
The rush to encourage democracy and to dismantle dictatorships must not endanger already established democracies. I noted the comments that were made tonight about disarmament, but the arguments for massive cuts in conventional forces are premature and send a strong signal to the generals who still command divisions of tanks and missiles in the East.
I speak as a child of the early 1930s. I remember the high hopes for the League of Nations, which was set up after the first world war. Disarmament left the nation open to blackmail and attack. I remember the blood that had to be shed to restore freedom and democracy to only half of
1144
Europe. We have heard speeches from senior Members of the House who served at that time, but I should like to give a brief quotation from an elderly constituent—a man in his 80s—who served with the merchant marine on the Archangel convoys during the second world war. Dealing with what he believes is needed at this time, he says:
"Highly skilled statesmanship is required; the political rush to disarm requires extreme caution, in case this nation is placed in the position that we have been through before…of fighting by force of arms, to restore Europe's soul and sanity."
I regret the report from Romania, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), on the tragedy of HIV-infected children and emerging anti-semitic views. The Europe of the future will need strong moral principles and ethical structures based on a Judean-Christian ethic. If anyone has departed from that in the past, that is to their shame and we should not repeat their folly.
8.33 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: Hon. Members who have been involved in the changing world since 1984 feel it a privilege to have been even a minor part of that process. I was lucky enough to be a member of the Select Committee which invited Mr. Gorbachev here in 1984. One has followed the unfolding process with enormous joy and it has reached the point where we can now debate East-West relations in a different context. The change in East-West relations is not simply a matter for continental Europe, on which most of the debate has concentrated. It goes wider and covers the regions and regional conflicts.
I should like to mention the concern of many hon. Members about the short term in the Soviet Union. Much has been said about Mr. Gorbachev's ability to rethink the Soviet Union's position and all that that has meant in the logjam of international relationships. Hon. Members who have visited the Soviet Union more recently than I have will recognise that the next three to 12 months will be critical to public opinion in the Soviet Union.
It behoves us to think deeply about what we can do not only to help Mr. Gorbachev and to ensure his survival but to help the Russian people to recognise the courageous step that he has taken. The liberalisation that he has brought about must show some results if people are to continue to follow. One of the saddest aspects at present, perhaps because of the way in which it has been done, is that ordinary people have yet to see the effect of perestroika.
A Soviet delegation recently visited the House. I asked what we can do to help. The message was, "We do not want anything special—we want normal loans." When I asked what else we could do to help, they said "Nothing." Yet one felt that that was the official position rather than the true position. The Germans, as I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), did not ask what they could do to help—they did something. They provided an enormous amount of food and consumer goods and made the loan arrangements to facilitate that. Those goods will be in the shops shortly.
I hope that Britain will follow that lead and not wait and ask, "What can we do to help? What committees can we set up? How can we help to reinforce your democracy?" I hope that we shall perform some short, sharp tangible act so that people in the Soviet Union will say, "Gosh—

1145
perestroika has started to work; we have friends in Britain, Germany and Europe." We must back that process of tremendous traumatic change, which many of us recognise will take 10 or 20 years to bear fruit.
I support the view that the dynamo for change has been the European Community. When the Select Committee visited eastern European countries, everyone said, "We recognise that this dynamic Community is part of the world economy and we want to be a part of it." The European Community was the magnet that was drawing them. We cannot afford to slow that process for 10 or 15 years while they develop their economies.
None of us knows which will be the good or bad economies or what traumas they will go through. We should extend the hand of friendship and ensure that they can become associates. We should not deny them the impact, dynamo and creation of the wider Community, which has the wealth to support that process. We can then have a Europe of concentric circles which will draw in countries as they are ready to join.
I am deeply concerned about the Horn of Africa, which was often regarded as an area of Soviet influence. The Horn of Africa committee met constantly to discuss the Soviet Union controlling the Gulf. Three countries are in a state of traumatic turmoil. We have heard about the human misery in Romania, but it does not compare with what is happening in Sudan, Ethiopia or Somalia. There are refugees from Ethiopia in Sudan, refugees from Sudan in Ethiopia, refugees from Ethiopia in Somalia, and Somalian refugees in southern Ethiopia. The formidable trauma of starvation is threatening Tigray and Eritrea. The takeover of the port of Massawa—the one port from which food can be obtained—is a cause of tremendous concern. When the public become aware of the turmoil in those countries, they will ask what we are doing to help.
One of the benefits of East-West relations is that we can work together on such problems. The Soviet Union and eastern European countries, which have had programmes in Ethiopia, and western countries, including ourselves, can work together to try to bring an end to the conflict in those countries. I ask my hon. Friend to do something about the Horn of Africa with the same urgency that we acted on Cambodia and the boat people. There should be a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council about the Horn of Africa before the position gets worse.
Vietnam is seen as part of the Soviet economy, because many Vietnamese work in the Soviet Union. That is one way in which Vietnam has tried to balance its books. Again we have seen a change in emphasis at the recent conference of the Association of South East Asian Nations. It was interesting to note that the conference asked that an Economics Minister rather than a Foreign Office Minister should attend its next conference, because ASEAN is a developing economic unit. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would be delighted not to have to go so far.
We should encourge Vietnam to be part of the economic element of ASEAN, free of Soviet influence. We have a vital interest, because the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), has just come back from Vietnam where he was trying to solve the problem of migration. We need to be statesmanlike; we have an opportunity to make statesmanlike gestures by increasing the aid programme and stopping sanctions
1146
against Vietnam so that it can leave the eastern influence and become part of its natural community in south-east Asia.
I was very much taken by what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at the beginning of his speech about building bridges and motorways into central and eastern Europe. If we are doing that, surely we should do no less for the outlying regions.
8.42 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: Over the past 40 years, we have grown accustomed to the division between East and West. It has been symbolised by the economic divide, so to speak, between capitalism and Communism. The same applies to the military sphere. The NATO Alliance has been lined up against the Warsaw pact. In the past few months, it is as if the whole edifice has been collapsing around us. Politicians and military leaders are busy contemplating the new framework.
The reunification of the two Germanys looms large. Some hon. Members, like the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), welcome it; others have doubts and anxieties stemming from their experiences in the second world war. Certainly a reunited Germany will be a mighty colossus in the heart of Europe. For the present there is no military threat, as has been pointed out in the debate, but that is no guarantee for the future.
More immediately, the threat from Germany is essentially economic. The Federal Republic already has a strong economy. It can boast a£50 billion balance of payments surplus, against our£20 billion deficit. The countries of eastern Europe which are emerging from Communist rule are seen as part of its natural markets. There will have to be massive investment by the Federal Republic in East Germany. There will also have to be massive investment in eastern Europe. Japan is gearing up to invest part of its huge surplus of capital resources in that area. France traditionally has close links with Romania. Where does that leave Britain? I am thinking particularly of the more impoverished areas, such as the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
To be parochial for a moment, in Wales we have had massive closures in our traditional industries, coal and steel. We have had to look to overseas countries for new jobs. Japan has invested widely in Wales. So has West Germany, as is symbolised by the major Bosch plant in south Wales. With the dramatic developments in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, will the investment which is badly needed in Britain dry up?
We all realise too that it is not only Britain which may suffer. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has referred to the Third world. It could be adversely affected because money invested in eastern Europe will not be invested in the Third world or in Britain.
My main purpose in intervening in the debate is to point out that last week the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) and I, on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, went on a fact-finding mission to Bulgaria. The first thought that strikes one in Bulgaria is that the hostility to Soviet Russia discernible in other eastern European countries does not exist. There are historic reasons for that; on two occasions Russia has liberated Bulgaria, once from the Turks and later, at the end of the

1147
second world war, from Nazi Germany. It is also worth pointing out that there are no Soviet troops stationed in Bulgaria.
Another landmark is the fact that on 10 November last year Zhivkov, the longstanding president, was ousted by a Communist party coup. Since then there have been changes. The Bulgarian-Turkish border position has eased. People are allowed to retain their Turkish-sounding names. Religious tolerance has been introduced. While Bulgarian remains the official language, people are permitted to use other languages if they choose.
We found Sofia a hive of political activity. The newly emerged Union of Democratic Forces had been allocated a high-rise building and people were going in and out continuously as if it were the London underground. A daily newspaper was published and the hon. Member for Rochford and I had an interview with the editor. We also had numerous discussions with leading figures in the Union of Democratic Forces, which comprises activists in many factions who have come to the fore since th dramatic happenings of 10 November. Several had served prison sentences fairly recently.
Some of our discussions were about future election arrangements. The UDF wanted a delay because of the lack of time to organise. It thought that November would be the earliest time to hold elections. Nevertheless, there is strong speculation that the elections will take place early in May. The UDF complained about a shortage of newsprint. It also needs office equipment, including basic items such as typewriters and duplicators. Despite the difficulties, it displayed tremendous enthusiasm.
We also had many discussions with Communist party officials, including the Speaker of the Parliament. Talks centred on the method of electing a new democratic Parliament. In that respect, Professor Spasov, the secretary of the parliamentary legislative commission, was most informative. He said that the commission had in mind a dual arrangement for elections. There would be the first-past-the-post method, as in the United Kingdom, and a proportion of members elected by the method of a transferable vote.
Until the past two weeks, the Agrarian party had served as a junior partner of the Communist party and it had been part of the Government for the past 40 years. At present, Bulgaria has a pure Communist Government. At the election, the Agrarian party will fight under its own banner, but the leaders of that party suggested that, immediately after the election, they would again be prepared to enter into a coalition with the Communist party. That concept caused me concern. Bulgaria and the other countries of eastern Europe in this new era need an opposition party to expose the Government's mismanagement and errors, when they occur. That needs to be encouraged.
I believe that the Communist party, for the time being, will remain in power in Bulgaria. It retains a national organisation which will be too much for the new democratic forces, despite their enthusiasm. The American Secretary of State, James Baker, whose visit coincided with ours, suggested that his country would be prepared to recognise a Communist Government, provided that the elections were free and fair. I am sure that all hon. Members endorse that sentiment.
1148
I have visited Bulgaria several times. The Bulgarians are essentially a friendly people. There is a need for modernisation and technical assistance. The Bulgarian people are in uncharted waters. I wish them well for the future.
8.52 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Two years ago, I had the great privilege of going to a small and, in those days, unusual gathering in the Netherlands to discuss human rights. It was one of the first times—the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) knows all about this—that a group came from the Soviet Union, led by the then Minister of Justice of the Russian Republic, and Fyodor Burlatski—who was the chairman of the Soviet human rights commission—to sit down and really talk with westerners about problems of human rights. It was a refreshing experience, although at that stage there was some hesitancy on both sides.
A year later, in January 1989, having met in the meantime at Atlanta, at the Carter presidential centre—both President Carter and President Giscard d'Estaing were members of that small group—we went to Moscow. I had the privilege there of being one of the first people from the West to stay in the Soviet Communist party's own hotel. The Labour party delegation who went two weeks later were somewhat surprised to find that my name was in the visitors' book when they got there.
The most moving moment of that visit came when Father Ted Hesburgh, who was President Carter's civil rights chairman, said mass in his room in that Soviet Communist party hotel, and we went to it. Whatever one's religious beliefs—and I am not a Roman Catholic—it was a most moving experience to see the dawn breaking over Moscow during the celebration. People knew that we were there, they knew what we were doing, and we were able to discuss it openly. That was an exciting leap forward.
I have watched with increasing excitement the events of the past year. It is remarkable that we in this House tonight can debate East-West relations in a wholly different atmosphere. There is real trust and a new understanding on both sides. There are several hon. Members in the Chamber this evening who took part in the discussions a fortnight ago when we had a visiting delegation of Soviet parliamentarians, and they know exactly what I mean. We exchanged views robustly. We even had the marvellous sight of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), who is a dear friend of many of us, rebuking some of the Soviet parliamentarians for what he thought was too great a leap forward. He in turn was rebuked because the Soviet delegates said that they thought that the age of the stereotype was over. Things have moved a long way.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in a remarkable and constructive speech, said that the time had come for fresh ideas and original thoughts. He was right. That is a challenge which hon. Members of all parties should take up and we should try to work together. If there was ever a need for people who truly believe in parliamentary democracy to work together, that need is here now, and this is the occasion.
The countries of eastern Europe are seeking to adopt or to create democratic structures. One must realise a point that has not been mentioned in the debate. We are dealing not with long-established nation states which had their

1149
nationhood taken from them, but with countries that had a brief independent history. In their present boundaries, Bulgaria was created as an independent nation in 1908, Czechoslovakia in 1918, Hungary in 1920, Poland in 1918 and Romania, the oldest of them all, in 1877. None of them has had the democratic structures that we so easily take for granted in this place.
I was glad when, during an interesting exchange earlier between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), there was talk of our trying to help the countries of eastern Europe to found, establish and strengthen democratic structures. We have a real duty as well as a real opportunity. We must not be patronising or seek to impose. When he was asked whether he was a supporter of the Church, Churchill once said that he was, but that rather than a pillar, he was a flying buttress. We must be the flying buttresses of the nascent democracies of eastern Europe.
What we could do—and it would be a challenge—is try to consider whether there is some merit in our having a special Select Committee on eastern Europe, which could be a unique institution because it could be a joint Select Committee with European parliamentarians from Britain. Perhaps we could help those countries through exchanges, seminars and discussions.
Goodness knows, our system here is imperfect enough and, as I said briefly in the House yesterday, the balance between the Executive and the legislature is not right. Nevertheless, we have a firm and secure parliamentary democracy of which we are all proud. We know that we can work together, across party lines—and we do, in our Select Committees and other things. Not all the emerging democracies are conversant with that. One sees splintering on the Right, with many parties jockeying for position. One also sees the understandable distrust of those who held office in former Communist Governments.
Eastern Europe is full of vicars of Bray, but we must accept that the vicar of Bray is an important political phenomenon when we are trying to develop new institutions that do not have deep roots or people with great experience. In this exciting year, with elections in Hungary and East Germany next month, with the great challenge and the great opportunity of German unification—which will come about—I believe that we, with our democratic traditions, have much to give as well as much to learn.
I was much taken with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who spoke in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and who said that we could encourage those eastern European countries to form their own Common Market-type of Community that could come together with our own European Community because, through economic strength, one can break down divisions.
I am anxious to sit down to allow my hon. Friends a little extra time, but I hope that the message that will go out from this debate will be that we parliamentarians in Westminster are anxious to give and to share our experiences and that we should like to play a constructive part—not overpowering, but constructive—in helping the emerging democracies in eastern Europe to create institutions that will allow their countries to have far longer histories than they enjoyed before their freedoms were snuffed out in the 1940s.
9pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: As a relative political greenhorn, it is difficult for me to follow speeches of the quality and the authority that we have been privileged to hear this evening, especially from senior right hon. and hon. Members. It is truly fascinating to feel and to hear the excitement that they are experiencing, having been participants, either as politicians or as soldiers, in creating the world in which we have lived during the past 40 years, but which we now see being reshaped.
Their excitement is matched by the excitement of people of my own generation because we shall inherit the world that is being made now. That excitement took me to East Berlin and to Prague in November last year. I did not go as part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation and I was not sponsored in any way. I went there independently and was emotionally swept up in the fever and the ferment of the new movements there. I was left in no doubt that what was happening were genuine revolutions in every sense of that word. I must acknowledge the assistance that I received from the embassy in Prague during my visit and the warm-hearted reception from the students who were active in the movement in Prague.
I vividly remember meeting a youngish man in jeans and denims in one of the theatres in Prague, with whom I had a fascinating conversation. Within a month of returning home, I read that that man, Vaclav Klaus, was the Finance Minister in the new Government in Czechoslovakia.
Hon. Members have referred to the need for cross-party work to try to establish contacts with the emerging democracies of eastern Europe. I am pleased to tell the House that I am participating in just such a venture with the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who is in his place, in organising a conference in London in May to bring together young politicians from the emerging democracies of the East, as well as young politicians from the west of Europe and North America. I think that that conference will be important and exciting, and I should like to acknowledge the assistance and advice that we have received from the Foreign Office, and especially from the Minister of State who is to reply.
To depart from that cross-party note, I was disappointed by much of what the Foreign Secretary said when he opened the debate. I was seized by one phrase that he used, when he talked about the need to keep certain characteristics of NATO permanent, one of which was NATO's current membership. I was disappointed to hear that, because the Foreign Secretary still seemed to be stuck in the old bloc mentality that I had hoped that we were beginning to break out of and discard.
If the membership of NATO is to be permanent, how should we respond to the news in this morning's papers that the Foreign Ministry of Hungary is contemplating applying to join NATO? How on earth could we justify saying no to a democratic Government in central Europe? The attitude that NATO should continue in some kind of splendid isolation while everything else changes around it is of no assistance or help to President Gorbachev in his efforts to make the Soviet Union a respected member of the international community—the important goal that he must achieve if he is to rebuff some of his internal critics.
We must drop the unjustifiable and untenable idea of the western Alliance as a gentleman's club in which the

1151
Foreign Secretary can blackball applicants for membership. We must also drop the almost existential search that has gone on over the past six months for a new role for NATO, whether in fighting the drug trade or as some sort of international environmental agency, as I have heard mentioned in NATO headquarters. Those suggestions were rightly ridiculed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
What is the future of NATO and the Warsaw pact? It is clear that the status quo is untenable. The Warsaw pact is already beginning to dissolve in front of our eyes. We can safely predict that, as rival parties begin to compete for power in the competitive political climate of the new democracies of the East, politicians will find that promises to leave the Warsaw pact are a guaranteed vote winner. The new Governments will not put up for long with the constraints and taints of the Warsaw pact.
Several hon. Members have expressed fears that, with the dissolution of the pact, we shall begin to see the emergence of the ethnic, national and territorial rivalries which disfigured European history and led to wars and conflicts. In that sense, we can regard the Warsaw pact as a 20th-century equivalent of the Ottoman empire, creating similar problems and potential crises as it decays and crumbles.
The significance of the fears of emerging conflicts as the Warsaw pact dissolves is—I address myself to Labour Members—that the traditional Left-wing demand for the dissolution of cold war security blocs is no longer adequate. As the cold war blocs dissolve, something new must take their place. That is why I support what some analysts have already advocated—a new security framework which includes, in principle, all members of NATO but also all members of the Warsaw pact, including the Soviet Union, in the medium to long term. There should be a new north Atlantic security alliance. I say north Atlantic because I believe that it should not be simply a pan-European alliance.
We should welcome and encourage the continuing involvement of the United States in European security matters. I say that as one who lived and worked in California for six years before becoming a Member of the House. I use the word "encourage" because I do not believe that the problem will be that the Americans will overstay their welcome in Europe but that they will be only too keen to orientate themselves towards the Pacific coast rim. I was well aware of the pull of the Pacific rim for Americans when I worked in California and of the way in which the whole pendulum of political power in the United States swings towards the south and west states, which do not have the traditional ties with Europe that the north-eastern states have.
We should work to encourage continuing American involvement in European matters. I believe that it will be good of itself but also that it will make it easier to have a balanced European security framework in which the Russians can eventually play their part as free and equal partners.
The new framework should have a sound organisational basis, and its development should start with the CSCE talks. President Havel has already called for those talks to be brought forward, but a conference by itself—even if it is semi-permanent—cannot act as a conflict-resolving
1152
body, though the Foreign Secretary seemed to suggest that. A conference is no substitute for the links, co-operation, understanding and ethos that can develop by working together in a proper organisational framework. That is the lesson to be drawn from the unique success of NATO in the past 40 years. We should carry that lesson forward into the future.
9.10 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: In Britain we have looked on in amazement and with considerable pleasure at the pace and scale of the developments in Europe, particularly in Germany. The Prime Minister was none the less absolutely right to put it on record last Sunday that
"there is no doubt that this coming together of the two parts of Germany is going to happen."
A number of hon. Members have already said that that is a fixed point. It does not mean, however, that we should throw our hats in the air or lose our critical faculties. We must think long and hard about the framework within which the full implications of Germany's unification are worked out. Obviously that will be the vital task of the six, to which the Foreign Secretary referred in his excellent speech.
There are some necessary principles to which the Government should cling when playing our part in the process. The new, greater Germany should be encouraged in every possible way to remain a leading member of the European Community. It should not be tempted by some of the more euphoric distractions to the east, which I detect could be a temptation to German public opinion.
I do not believe that it would be right to disband NATO simply because it is argued that there is no longer a need for the Warsaw pact. In the past there was no necessary symmetry between those organisations. I am also worried about the concept of German neutrality, which was advanced quite strongly by some hon. Members, not least because, if that neutrality is armed, what reassurances will be given to Germany's neighbours? If Germany is a disarmed neutral, who will keep Germany disarmed?
Those questions haunted the House for many of the inter-war years. We should not lose sight of them, especially as German politics, admirable as it has been in the years since the basic law of 1949, has recently thrown up, for reasons I do not have time to go into, an alarming tendency on some of its wilder shores. Recently, Mr. Schonhuber spoke about the notion of armed autonomy in Germany. I do not pretend that that is the majority view within the Federal Republic—God forbid that it should be—but we need to be warned and to be wary about such things.
I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that it is vital to keep the Americans fully engaged in the new European construction. In that way we shall avoid the risk of repeating the cardinal mistake of the League of Nations between the wars when, essentially, we lost full American commitment to and participation in the maintenance of the European security arrangements at that time.
The European Community is the foundation of the common European home about which President Gorbachev recently spoke eloquently. We need to use that foundation to reach out generously to the new democracies and emerging market economies of central and eastern Europe to help them make the difficult

1153
transition from state Socialism to a mixed economy, or, better still, to free-market capitalism, should they decide that is what they want. That help should definitely include the sort of help at which the Foreign Secretary hinted in his excellent opening speech, when he spoke about the possibility of help for the new emerging political parties in the eastern European countries. I hope that the Government will press forward with that.
To me, that suggests initially putting more commitment and resources into the excellent know-how funds that we already have for Poland and will shortly have for Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I hope that that process will be extended to other Comecon or former COMECON countries as they emerge towards a market economy. Clearly that will be the basis for those economies to move on towards associate status one day with the European Community and towards fuller participation, as I am sure they will wish to have, in the Council of Europe as a bridge towards the possibility of membership of the Community at a more distant date.
In that connection, it is important that we in Britain should play our full part both bilaterally, as I believe we are doing, and as part of the Community in its efforts to help those countries. They must not be left to languish in their difficulties because, as many hon. Members have pointed out, there is a sort of J-curve in these revolutionary developments; one goes through greater difficulties before reaching the stage when one reaps the fruits of great changes.
Nor should we take the view that those countries to the east of Germany have now become part of a predominantly German economic imperium. They have a right to expect support and sympathy from all the major western European countries and doubtless from the United States and Japan as well. So, in all these matters, Britain still has some vital policy choices to make, now and in the near future, in relation to these great questions. I put it that way because the situation has evolved over perhaps only the last six months.
The first option might be to continue with the present policy, as adumbrated by the Prime Minister and others, which undoubtedly has the right objective, which is a stable framework for a United Germany but which, in my view, needs to be followed through in a more diplomatically acceptable way than has been the case hitherto—acceptable to the Germans and to those who live in the proud and now independent nations further to the east, including the Soviet Union itself.
The second option—I see this as not to be recommended—would be to adopt an explicitly pro-German policy and then to try to use the political credit which we might hope that would build up for us in Bonn, and subsequently in Berlin, to try to dilute or slow the process of European integration in some sort of alliance of procrastination with those elements in the Federal Republic which would look on that with some favour. Such a policy would be fatally flawed because it would underestimate the degree of positive German commitment, especially in the older generation of Germans-people of 40 and over—to the existing structures of European integration.
I cite an interesting poll that was quoted in a book entitled "British Social Attitudes", produced recently by SCPR, which reminded us that, according to a poll done by Euro-Barometre, 50 per cent. plus of all the British people questioned said that they had great pride in their
1154
country and less than 20 per cent. answering the same question in the Federal Republic said that they had great pride in their country. So the fear of German revanchism is, in present circumstances, overdone because the nature of German public opinion has been changed in a fundamental way by the experience of the past 40 years, and that is all to the good.
The third and best policy option for this country would be to register our sympathy and support in practical ways for the process of German unification, but at the same time to move closer to our Community partners, especially France, Italy and Benelux—I was delighted to hear what the Foreign Secretary said about moving closer to Paris—in their determination to deepen the process of European integration by pooling sovereignty for our mutual benefit. I could not disagree more with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on that point, especially in relation to completing the single market and moving on with due speed towards economic and monetary union.
If we adopt that approach, we shall serve simultaneously not only our national interest, which is vital to this House, but the wider Community interest as well, to the benefit of the emerging democracies in eastern Europe which we welcome into the concert of free nations.
9.19 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: Another interesting feature, in addition to the poll that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) mentioned, is the interesting contrast in the fact that, although there have been demonstrations in favour of unification on the streets of Leipzig and Dresden, there have been no such demonstrations in western Germany. That goes some way to show that most of that population feel deeply anchored in the West and do not share the same romantic excitement of their counterparts in the East.
This has been a remarkably wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) managed to bring in Ulster. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) managed to bring in the Horn of Africa, and the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), managed to bring in proportional representation. Some Members showed a more Atlanticist tendency, some a more European tendency, and within those groups, some gave a wider or narrower definition of that Europe. There was basic agreement, almost to the point of a love feast, although there was a spectre at that feast, but more of her later.
There was a sense of shared excitement at the change and co-operation after the stagnation and confrontation that has characterised so much of the post-war world. At a time of such bewildering change, it is difficult adequately to predict the future, and mould policy responses that are appropriate and prudent for the time.
We can imagine the problems of those Soviet astronauts who left the earth on 6 September. On their return, the old faces had gone—the Honeckers, the Husaks, the Zhivkovs and the Ceausescus. In their absence, we witnessed the strange death of Communist Europe as the old forces lost confidence and the new forces took over: an excellent theme for a future historian.
As East-West relations improve, clearly that river of improvement will go into many channels over the

1155
landscape of the world, whether they be political, in the security sphere or in the extra-European sphere—the developing world—which the hon. Member for Broxtowe brought to our attention. Politically, it is clear that the old age of the two super-powers has gone. One can ask whether the Soviet Union can, in the full sense, still be defined as a super-power.
The decline of the Soviet Union was shown dramatically at the Ottawa conference last week. Mr. Gorbachev, a man of vision, and—as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said—a man who should be supported, showed that he recognised the need for fundamental reform. He realised that his east European allies were no longer reliable, has already faced the disintegration of the Soviet empire and now faces enormous problems in the Soviet Union.
While Europe, for its part, catches up with its geography and history after the untidy interlude of the immediate post-war world, the momentous developments in West and East Germany lead to an inevitable unity. East Germany is mightily weakened, to the extent that some parts of it simply do not function. The figures have already been given by hon. Members. Last year, 344,000 East Germans fled to the West. By the end of February it is assumed and predicted that—even after the opening of the wall on 9 November—at least 100,000 East Germans will leave. Many of them will be young, with skills, and that will pose housing and employment problems in West Germany. That development will be little influenced by outsiders as they proceed to unification, and probably to a social democratic future.
Unfortunately, the process of unification in Germany has been caught up in the West German election campaign. There is at times an almost hysterical element. Although events are moving fast, one needs prudence, a certain ability to step back and view what is happening in the light of history. Sadly, much is being decided on the hoof.
Ottawa has set out the steps towards unification—the necessary framework that the Foreign Secretary mentioned today. But I am a little worried that he mentioned the six, as opposed to the two plus four of the Ottawa formula. The key starting point of that unification is monetary and political discussion between the two parts of Germany. Then there is the endorsement by the four powers. We should be wary of using terms such as "occupying powers", which have fallen from the lips of the Prime Minister of late and have been completely unhelpful.
Then there is the wider framework—to ratify the frontiers and to ratify and take on the security implications, the 35 members of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe—the Helsinki process. That is the process which will lead to the long-delayed second world war peace treaty, but it is a peace treaty with a difference, because this time it is the vanquished who will set out its terms.
The German question is fundamental in terms of the political shape of central Europe and beyond and the new economic weight of that Germany, whether or not as part of a united Europe within the definition of the EC. That will play a decisive role in the future.
1156
Yet no umbrella framework is yet in sight for the new political developments. Perhaps it is too early in any event to envisage that, but the question of how we are to build that new Europe can now be posed. Some principles stand out. The core will be the current EC, as enlarged, I hope shortly, with Austria, Norway and Sweden, countries which, economically, culturally and in every other way, are ready without difficulty to be part of the Community.
I hope that the Government will consider urging the Commission to set in train the preparatory work for the acceptance into the Community of Austria, the only country to have applied so far, so that that will not be too long delayed after 1992. That will be a sign to Austria of its easy acceptability into the Community.
The enlargement of the core Community is the starting point. It poses problems about the democratic deficit and the decision-making machinery within the Community. At what point does an enlarged Community under the current rules become non-sustainable? Those are practical problems which will have to be addressed in the near future.
There will be a European structure at different levels. The intergovernmental conference to be held towards the end of the year will take on some of those. Whether as concentric circles or constellations, other groups will be attached in various forms to that core Community. The association has proved extremely flexible in the past. It can be a framework either for those in a waiting room for entry for for those who will not be able to enter that core Community in the foreseeable future.
Clearly, the United States also will be linked. The Baker doctrine has already been alluded to, but it will not be the same form of relationship as currently exists, if only because of changes within American public opinion. Whether the United States is coupled to the new Europe by treaty or some other way, there is certainly a place for the United States in that new European home. There must be a place also for the Soviet Union, not only because it is a European power, but because, due to its size and economic position, it can never be part of the core of the Community.
The frontiers must be clearly defined. When the CSCE begins to examine the question of frontiers, given the nationalities and tensions within the existing countries, it may have to adopt, sadly, a formula not unlike that used by the Organisation of African Unity, which accepts existing frontiers and the fact that there can be change only with the whole-hearted consent of the people immediately involved.
It may be that the existing frontiers—particularly the Oder-Neisse line—will be sacrosant. As the Foreign Secretary emphasised, a way must be found of giving guarantees to cultural minorities within the central countries through the European convention on human rights, the court within the Council of Europe, or the cultural and scientific basket of the Helsinki process. We shall need to see how the revised Council of Europe can play a positive role in the interim process.
As to the security implications, there are across-the-board developments that would have been inconceivable a short time ago. The Warsaw pact as such does not exist, and NATO will have to redefine its position, because the threat as once defined no longer exists. However, as part of the problem is managing change, NATO must continue to exist in its current form for some time.

1157
Other problems present themselves to the Government—and will do so to my own party soon. They include the conversion possibilities because of the considerable number of jobs in the military sector that are likely to be affected. We have 311,000 men under arms, and 365,000 personnel are employed in our defence industries. As it is unlikely that any research is currently being undertaken by the Government, it should begin urgently.
The challenge to our defence strategy is clear, as is the challenge to Germany to recognise the existing frontiers. It is said that Chancellor Kohl has been less than forward in that respect. Progress in current arms control negotiations—has been remarkable—whether it be at the CFE in Vienna, in the START talks, the breakthrough regarding chemical weapons, or the military basket of the Helsinki CSCE talks.
Only the hon. Member for Broxtowe and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) introduced the question of the Third world—partly in the context of the new Europe turning its back on the Third world as a result of its obsession with central and eastern Europe, partly because of the Community's inadequate personnel resources, and partly because it is so busy that it has time for nothing else. It is also clear that, in terms of East-West relations, we are in a new climate and that there are areas of remarkable agreement in respect of conflicts outside Europe. There are different levels. Clearly, in areas that are far from the immediate security interests of the super-powers, such as southern Africa, the Soviet Union has played a remarkably constructive role—for example, in the settlement that has led to progress there and to independence in Namibia. In other, more sensitive areas—those where conflicts are contiguous to the superpowers—whether it be Nacaragua or Pakistan, there has been less possibility of movement.
In intermediate areas such as the Horn of Africa or the middle east, there are some signs of constructive Soviet intervention. For example, there is evidence that the Soviets are bringing pressure on Syria as part of the middle east peace process. They are also putting pressure on Mr. Mengistu in Ethiopia—a former client state—to be more constructive in his internal position in that country. It is clear that we are in a new era, in terms of Third-world developments, although it is also clear that major conflicts remain.
What can Britain do? We should play to our strengths and respond imaginatively. We applaud some of the constructive things done by the Government—the excellent work of the Great Britain-East Europe Centre and the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union—my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) mentioned an IPU visit. There is also the know-how fund and the positive role of Britain within the Council of Europe.
Perhaps our Government could do as the Americans have done, and consider the adequacy of our diplomatic personnel in central and eastern Europe, because there have been massive cuts during past years and now we are in a different era.
Are the Government considering the COCOM restrictions, or visas for people in central and eastern Europe? The Germans are already saying that they will relax or abolish visas for the Polish. But, again, we appear to be reluctant, or to be following behind other countries in that respect.
1158
We have not been constructive in other areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) stressed the Prime Minister's highly negative stance on Germany. The Minister accuses us from time to time of ritual condemnation of the Prime Minister. He and his colleagues should not just listen to what we have to say, but look at the press, which are normally tame and docile about the Conservative party and the Prime Minister.
I refer the Minister to The Sunday Times, which mentioned the handbagging of history last Sunday, and to the main editorial in The Economist this week. He should look at the article in The Times by Ronald Butt, who normally speaks—or at least writes—in reverential tones—on his knees, to the Prime Minister, who says:
"But the negative attitude of Mrs. Thatcher's government is well on the way to turning a tried friend into a suspicious, anxious and … inward-looking country."
There are a crowd of witnesses. It used to be said that the nightmare of any Conservative Prime Minister was to wake up and find The Daily Telegraph against him or her, but even its editorials are now showing the deep resentment that is being caused in West Germany.
Surely we should praise West Germany as a major ally and a well-founded democracy, and recognise the inevitability of unification. We should fight our corner on the details, as President Mitterrand did with great finesse when he met Chancellor Kohl last weekend. He made grand declarations and an acceptance, and then worked where they believed there were particular points of interest. There is a great contrast between the way that the Foreign Secretary has put the case and the way that President Mitterrand, albeit with some of those traditional reservations of France, has put the same case, with much greater effect, keeping an ally whose support will be needed in future.
The Prime Minister loudly trumpets that events in eastern Europe represent a triumph for the free market. That suggestion does not bear serious analysis. The theme has been "Democracy yes, the unfettered market no." That is true of both the leaders of the newly emerging countries and the parties that are likely to emerge.
The probable victor in East Germany is the SPD, the East German equivalent of the Social Democrats. That will affect Germany as a whole, and I believe that the welfare social democracy of Scandinavia and Austria—and of our own Labour party—will act as a model for the newly emerging forces in eastern Europe. We hail the developments there as democratic and social. We have no fears about the new age of social democracy in Europe, and the first fruit of that will be a unified and democratic Germany. We must be prudently optimistic: let us welcome this new age.
9.40 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): When I had the privilege of winding up the last debate on this subject, on 1 December, I began by saying that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) had wound up for the Opposition with dignity, aplomb and a wide sweep of knowledge. He has done the same today, although his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) opened with a ranting, knockabout speech. I could read my last speech again, as Lord Wilson used to, and glory in my own

1159
past genius. As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will remember, Swift said of "The Tale of a Tub":
"Good God! what a genius I had when I wrote that book."
If we repeat our dual act any more, it might be a good idea for the Opposition spokesmen to swap round occasionally. In any event, the hon. Member for Swansea, East widened the horizons of what has been a very interesting debate.
In a vintage performance, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent argued that we should not miss our opportunity, and quoted from the famous Churchill speech. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech will have shown him that we have no intention of missing that opportunity. When he studies my right hon. Friend's speech, to which tributes have been paid today, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it contained much that was imaginative and forward-looking.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about the development of the Helsinki process to deal with problems of nationalism, and the boundary difficulties that are certain to raise their heads again. He also talked about the need to use the original spirit of the United Nations to try to bring people together to deal with some of the long-lasting and intractable difficulties which will not have gone away when the force confrontation is dissolved.
I do not think that we shall make again the mistake that was made in 1953—let us pray that we shall not be seen to have done so—although I suspect that the forces in the Soviet Union were not there to respond at that time. There is the same feeling throughout Europe—although people are looking back at history with some nervousness, they are determined not to miss the present opportunity.
On one point I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. Indeed, it would be surprising if I did not, for it is at the heart of the political divide between us. He paid tribute to the Ostpolitik of Willy Brandt, and said that it had helped to produce the present changes. He argued that it was ridiculous for Conservative Members, the Prime Minister and President Reagan to argue that the free market or any part of the great resurgence of western values had brought them about. I strongly believe, however, that that above all brought about the Soviet understanding that the competition was lost.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: That is what they tell us.
Mr. Waldegrave: Indeed, they say so quite openly. When they saw that a new and terrifying structure of armaments might face them in the shape of the strategic defence initiative, they realised that the competition would never be won and that they would have to join the school which would teach them the way forward. Although I admired the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, I disagree profoundly with him on that point.
We also heard a vintage speech from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who managed to do something that even the hon. Member for Swansea, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) did not manage to do, although they referred to a wide range of issues. He managed to bring Pamella Bordes into the debate and in the process invented an excellent
1160
new joke. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East passed me a courteous note saying that he could not be here for the end of the debate. It is a tribute to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent that he has stayed until the end. I do not criticise those who have had to leave, due to other engagements, but it is a pleasure to us all that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has been in his place throughout the debate.
The theme that dominated the first part of the debate was Germany and our response to unity. I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who also sent me a courteous note apologising for the fact that he could not be here for the end of the debate. He reminded me of the days when I was his private secretary. He said that it was all very easy and perfectly straightforward—that there was no need for committees or councils, that Community matters could be dealt with in a moment, and as for NATO, what was all this nonsense about discussions?
It reminded me of the way in which senior Ministers hold out their hands to their Parliamentary Private Secretaries for their railway tickets and expect them to be there. I have some familiarity with the psychology. In the meantime, however, somebody has to go and buy the railway ticket and produce it, one hopes, at the right moment. We must pay tribute, boring for them though it may be, to the railway ticket holders who labour in councils and committees to ensure that this historic and wonderful event—the freeing of the other one third or one quarter of the German people and their right to self-determination, for which we have stood for so long—comes about in a way that does not undermine the Community.
Let us consider for a moment the extraordinary developments in the Community, if we assume that soon there will be a united Germany, although part of its territory will be unable to comply with Community law for a considerable period. That will be unprecedented. I beg my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to allow time for a little council, a little committee, just for a day or two. It will not happen automatically. It has never happened before, so we ought to consider it carefully.
As for NATO, I agree very much—as I so often do—with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and with a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), again not for the first time—that the NATO structures are still valuable and that within them we can tackle, in an informed way, security issues.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that I can never find much content in the ideas that come across the Atlantic about making NATO more political. I am never quite sure what that means. Committees invented by Mr. Nixon are still in existence. For example, there is a committee which discusses the environment. That would be the last way in which to make NATO a political institution. There are properly based political and democratic organisations, above all in Europe and the Community, to deal with the political aspects.
There is, however, a real sense in which NATO will have a different and very important role, even in the period immediately ahead of us, without looking too far ahead. I refer to verification—a new concept. We are moving towards something that we tried in the 1920s and 1930s but

1161
got wrong. We failed to do it properly. We rested our security almost as much on treaty obligations, and therefore on trust, as on our capacity to repel any attack.
In one sense, it has been easy for the last 40 years. It was a great achievement for 40 years to persuade voters and taxpayers in democratic countries to pay for all the armaments to repel attack. Now we are moving towards far lower armament levels and treaty obligations. The last time we did this—the naval agreements of the 1920s and 1930s, the disarmament of Germany after the first world war-we did not verify, so an air force was trained in Russia and they built the battleships.
If we intend to rest our security to a far greater extent on treaty obligations, verification and trust will be crucial. NATO will change into an organisation which plays a vital role for a large part of Europe as well as maintaining a necessary minimum insurance, which will involve nuclear insurance. I strongly disagree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, because the Soviet Union is beginning to talk our language and discuss minimum deterrence.
We cannot go back to the old language of a denuclearised and demilitarised Europe just when the Soviet Union has started to realise that minimum deterrent theories are in its own security interests, so that there is a happy and potentially beneficial growing consensus on security issues and we should not throw it away. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) made those and other related points with his usual clarity.
We should examine with a great deal of care the fascinating, potentially creative and productive but also potentially dangerous instabilities of flux which we now face. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East was pulling our leg a little when he said that he could not conceive how any danger could come out of the balkanisation of eastern Europe. He said that it could not be dangerous to us. He said that the Soviet empire—using language that he did use at other stages of his career—would tear itself apart, so how could it be dangerous?
It is all too easy to write a scenario in which such a combination could be dangerous. I shall sketch one rather briefly, although others could do it much better. Let us imagine that not all the democracies created by the balkanisation take root. We hope that they will, and I shall say a little more about how we shall help them to take root. Mr Shevardnadze said at the recent plenum and repeated to journalists on the aeroplane back from Ottawa, so it was not said lightly,
"If perestroika collapses there is a risk that we"—
in the Soviet Union—
"could have a dictatorship.".
That is all too easy to imagine. One can imagine balkanisation, some of the democracies having failed and a dictatorship coming to power—they were not my words, but those of Mr. Shevardnadze—so it is not very difficult to sketch out a scenario in which there is considerable danger.
I am not saying that any of that is likely, and we hope that the chances of success are high, but it is surely worth retaining that reinsurance, particularly as our own peoples show no disinclination to pay for it. They want some savings, and they will surely get them, but they show no inclination to rush headlong into the disarmament and pacifism of the late 1920s and 1930s because they have a collective memory of what happened last time, which for the purposes of today's debate the right hon. Member for Leeds, East set aside when he said that he could not even
1162
see a purpose in the transatlantic Alliance. He seemed to be leading us back to the old doctrine, which was twice dangerous—that we can balance the security of Europe without the New World. Surely we have learnt that we cannot do that. That would be my answer to the interesting speech by the hon. Member for the Western Isle (Mr. Macdonald), to try to persuade him that those insurances were necessary.
The consensus around the CSCE process is growing and is satisfactory. The hon. Member for Inverness., Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and many others made the point that perhaps that is the way forward. I would have said to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), had he been here, that there is some relevance to Northern Ireland. Are not those who seek to solve the problems of the minorities of Ireland by changing boundaries in exactly the same position as those who might seek to change the problems of the minorities in Moldavia or anywhere else by changing boundaries? We should seek to solve the problems within the existing national boundaries and such ancient attitudes will soon look as outdated as they are.
It was rightly said that there must be some trade-off between our security needs and the success of the growing democracies in eastern and central Europe. It is not only in our interests but in the interests of justice and democracy that we should try to help those countries to secure democracy. That is a fair and right argument.
I cannot agree entirely with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, who said that £25 billion of aid should be made available to the Soviet Union. A fundamental reason for my disagreeing is that the Soviet Union is not asking for such aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) said that the Soviet Union should be given credit, but it is not asking for credit. The credit line established by Lord Wilson is still open. There is a debate within the Soviet Union about whether it should go down what appears to be a rather dangerous but seductive route of borrowing to put food on the shelves, but what will that do to its agricultural production? We should not be doing the Soviet Union a favour by offering it cheap loans, which it is not seeking.
Mr. Warren: I am assured by the Soviet embassy that it is actively seeking credit from the United Kingdom. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be willing to facilitate anything that will enable it to obtain from our industry that which it so urgently need and that which it has been offered by West Germany.
Mr. Waldegrave: There may be some confusion here, as I am told that credit lines from the 1970s are still outstanding. We must get to the bottom of that. The Soviet Union has not yet decided whether to buy its way out of its problems using credit. The east European precedents show that that is a poor way of trying to do things.
The know-how fund extends to all the countries of eastern and central Europe, which is good. We must try to develop institutions—this point was made by the hon. Member for Western Isles and by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) —to handle political aid. That is new territory for this country. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a new initiative, which was put to us by the

1163
hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hamilton.
A new institution is necessary to handle political aid. At the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my office has today been in touch with the leaders of all the parties in the House, because we must discuss this thoroughly to achieve cross-party consensus. We must try to achieve that quickly.
Mr. Cash: Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about the kind of Europe that we shall inhabit?
Mr. Waldegrave: A large theme of the debate has been the future of Europe and whether it is to be intensified and deepened or whether it is to be widened. That may be an over-simple way of putting it, but I was surprised and fascinated by the consensus among hon. Members for the widening of the Community. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup agreed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we should consider the possibility of eastern European countries becoming members of the Community. I believe that that is the way that we should proceed. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) raised that issue.
This is the turning point, and we must decide which road to take. The explicit purpose of many in Germany and in the Commission is to intensify the integration of western Europe into a federation within the next few years. It is not realistic to think about a Community—certainly not within my lifetime—which contains the countries of eastern and central Europe. Can we foresee them being part of a federated Europe? I cannot believe that that will happen.
I believe that we shall move towards a wider and slightly looser Europe. I do not believe that it would be safe to leave a political vacuum in central Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that those countries may experiment with forms of association among themselves, but that was tried in the 1930s. An attempt was made to put together groupings in the centre of Europe between the two big blocs. That does not work. Western Europe should be the core of a reunited wider Europe. I was fascinated by the consensus which seemed to be emerging in the House that that is the way the country wants to go. It is an important matter for the nation to decide, but decide it we must, sooner or later.
Mr. Tom Sackville (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Arts (Government Funding)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
10 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is a delight to continue the debate on the arts that began on Tuesday, although I must tell the Minister that hon. Members from all parties to whom I have spoken were disappointed by his reaction to the debate and by the way in which he studiously avoided talking about the problems of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Now that the lights are dimmed, the stage curtain down, the audience gone and the television cameras about to be turned off, I hope that we can have a quiet and detailed discussion about the issues. Hopefully, we will get answers from the Minister to specific points.
I spent this morning at the Royal Shakespeare Company. I was impressed by the attitude of the people, by their candour and by their ability. They made 11 points to me, each of which deserves a response from the Minister. First, they said that they were disappointed that the Minister seemed disinclined to talk about their plight and that he had not understood either its magnitude or its consequences. Secondly, they said that the staff at the RSC were "shell-shocked". They found the current position alarming and depressing. They want to know what the Minister intends to do to get the Arts Council to react.
Thirdly, they made it clear that the decision to close the Barbican in November was not a set-up, nor was it a phoney drama. It was not a repeat of Peter Hall's "Cottesloe." A female administrator put it with passion. She said, "Why should we make a deep incision into our own flesh? We lose sleep and sweat nightly because of this tragedy. The fault lies with the sheer bloody nonsense of the system." I turn that question to the Minister: what will he do about the "sheer bloody nonsense" of the system?
Fourthly, the people at the RSC said that the Minister and the Arts Council are forcing them to break their contract with their audience. Theatre going is a habit which requires continuity. The RSC does not know how the public will respond to a four-month closure of the Barbican. Fifthly, although they have said that they could reverse the decision to close in November if the necessary cash is forthcoming at any time before then, that is not true. The sheer logistics of getting plays on means that the deadline for the provision of the necessary money is July or August. If catastrophe is to be avoided, it is important that the Minister gets the Arts Council to start talking immediately.
Sixthly, the RSC insists that it is an efficient company. It points out that, during the last two lean and difficult years, it has played to audiences of 75 per cent. capacity. That compares favourably with the commercial theatres in the west end, whose modern dramas and comedies play to only 54 per cent. of capacity, and whose thrillers play to only 51 per cent. of capacity.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about this place?
Mr. Sedgemore: It is not playing to great capacity at the moment.
Seventhly, the RSC says that the City of London is shocked at the prospect of the Barbican closing for four months, because the theatre is the heart of the Barbican centre. It draws in most of the people and it has a quality

1165
which is indefinably important. Eighthly, the RSC says that there is no question of it wanting to move from the Barbican. Adrian Noble is the person usually cited as saying what a poor place it is to work in, but he is on record last week as arguing that it is the best auditorium in the country, and possibly the best in Europe.
Ninthly, the people at the RSC point out that a lot of nonsense is talked about musicals losing the company money. Not one musical has lost the company money.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: What about "Carrie"?
Mr. Sedgemore: I shall come to that.
Not one musical has lost the company money because all have been undertaken on a guaranteed no-loss basis, signed with the commercial people with whom the company operates. Even the flop "Carrie", I was told this morning, made a profit of £220,000. Nor can it be claimed that the RSC has sold its soul to musicals. "Carrie" was one play out of 40 that took place in a year. There have been only three musicals in the past four years. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) seems to dispute that, but that information comes straight from the RSC.
Tenthly, despite the regular contact that the RSC has with the Arts Council, it insists that it is not told from year to year the logical principles on which the grant is based. The company assumes that the reason is that there are no such logical principles.
Eleventhly—and this is the most important point—the company says that, contrary to what the Minister said in the debate on Tuesday, it and everyone else understood that the Government accepted the funding plan laid down by the Cabinet Office report in 1984. The company believes genuinely, as most people do, that the Minister and the Arts Council have broken their promises. The company referred me to the 113th report of the council, which says:
"and the then Minister for the Arts reported to Parliament that the new subsidy was 'to establish a satisfactory baseline for future operations', that it was intended that the establishment of the new baseline would enable the RSC 'to operate on a satisfactory basis in the future', and that 'provision will also be made for subsequent years'."
I ask the Minister to answer the question that he refused to answer on Tuesday. What do those direct quotations mean unless the Minister accepted the funding plans in the Priestley report? The company told me that, if the Minister had said openly at the time that he was not accepting the financial proposals in that report, there would have been a public outcry. Here was the Priestley report saying that the RSC was a good, efficient company and here were three proposals, to which the Minister could have said, "I do not accept any of those cash proposals." It seems that that was what the Minister was doing.
As the Minister must know, Sir Kenneth Cork wrote an article in The House Magazine recently. The chairman of the RSC, in his article on 29 January, was of the same understanding about the obligation laid down by the Minister after the Priestley report was published in 1984. Sir Kenneth Cork, commenting on the fact that the Arts Council's contribution to the RSC's costs had fallen from 44 per cent. to 31 per cent., said:
"We feel this shift in the balance of funding is unreasonable, and it is certainly dangerous."
Sir Kenneth Cork, as I understand it, is no radica; Socialist. Why did everyone except the Minister understand what was said in 1984?
1166
I raise another question in more detail than I raised it in the debate on Tuesday, when it was left unanswered. Why was the Arts Council prepared to bail out the English national opera and the English national ballet when they got into trouble, but not to bail out the RSC? The conventional establishment wisdom has it thus. First, Tory Westminster city council withdrew 90 per cent. of grants to the English national opera and to the English national ballet. The Tory chairman of the Arts Council, Peter Palumbo, then described that withdrawal of funds by Westminster city council as "scandalous". He then went on to give £12·25 million from the reserves built up out of the recent increase in grant to the Arts Council to fund the English national opera and the English national ballet.
Yet the Minister says, "None of these things has anything to do with me." Indeed, as part of his written answer to a question that I tabled on 13 February about the RSC and its problems, he replied:
"It is for the Arts Council to determine the allocation of this additional money to individual companies."
As part of his answer to a similar question on the same date about the English national opera, he said:
for the Arts Council to determine the allocation of this additional money to individual companies."—[Official report,15 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 417.]
Hiding behind the arm's-length principle, the Minister was saying, "It has absolutely nothing to do with me."
However, is that the case? Along comes Westminster city council, stung by the criticism, and Roger Bramble, the chairman of Westminster's arts sub-committee, effectively said, "No, it does not operate like that at all. The arm's-length principle does not exist. Mr. Peter Palumbo effectively made a fool of himself. He does not know what is going on, and the Minister has misled Parliament."
I ask the Minister to answer this point. I quote from a news release from Westminster city council in which Councillor Roger Bramble, chairman of Westminster'sarts sub-committee, said:
"I am pleased that the Arts Council has at the eleventh hour honoured the commitment which was made by government to pick up the funding of these two major national arts bodies which Westminster is no longer in a position to provide."
If that commitment was made by the Government, how could the Minister say to me:
"It is for the Arts Council to determine the allocation of this additional money to individual companies."?
Councillor Bramble also stated:
"The funding which the Arts Council received for next year from the Office of Arts and Libraries included specific provision for these grants and I only regret that this was not made clear to the companies earlier."
How can the Government making
"specific provision for these grants"
fit in with the Minister's answer to me:
"It is for the Arts Council to determine the allocation of this additional money to individual companies."?
Which Tory is telling the truth? Is it Roger Bramble, Peter Palumbo or the Minister for the Arts? Does the Minister believe that Peter Palumbo was right to describe the conduct of Westminster city council as "scandalous", or has it given a proper explanation when it pointed out that the arm's-length principle did not exist?
There seems to have been some deception and irresponsibility in this matter. However, it is worse than that because, whichever of those people is right, we have seen that £2·25 million, which Parliament and the public were told was extra money for the arts, has gone to reduce Westminster's city council's poll tax bill. It has gone into

1167
Lady Porter's election fund. We were told that that increased cash was for the arts. However, it is not really increased cash because it is money to reduce Westminster city council's poll tax bills. It seems that the arm's-length principle has been abandoned without public or Parliament being informed.
Personally, I am pleased that the English national opera and the English national ballet have got the extra money, but I now believe that the Minister should see about giving the RSC some extra money. Mr. Peter Palumbo's handling of the affair has been fatally flawed. I hope that the Minister will not simply act as his apologist.
The Minister has accused my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) of "gloom and doom". However—I shall close soon because I want to give the Minister plenty of time to reply—the Royal Shakespeare Company told me this morning that its intelligence, which it suspects is better than the Minister's, about what is happening to the arts and to theatres around the country is deeply worrying. It said that cumulative problems are building up and that their extent will become apparent over the next year.
I do not know whether the Minister claims that he has more knowledge about these things than the Royal Shakespeare Company, but that view has not only been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. On 10 February, the Financial Times, which is hardly a radical Socialist newspaper, contained an article by Antony Thorncroft that begins:
"Just three months after the Minister for the Arts, Mr. Richard Luce, staggered the art world by announcing an unexpectedly generous increase in the Government grant for the arts for 1990–91, most of the major theatre, opera, dance and orchestral troupes in the country seem to be in a state of severe financial crisis.
The future for the arts suddenly looks bleak … The arts will lose some of their zing and the nation will suffer—slightly and silently."
I end with a plea to the Minister. Is it really the case that London, the capital city of the world, is either so poor or so philistine that it intends to close its Shakespearean theatres? Surely to God, no. Surely to God the Minister will offer us some hope tonight.
10.14 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): It would be churlish not to congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on achieving the Adjournment debate and on choosing the arts and, in particular, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the English national opera and the subject which he did not reach but gave notice that he would raise, the English national ballet. Perhaps that was embraced in his point about financing from Westminster city council. I should certainly like to tackle that point.
The only thing that took me by surprise was that the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to have a quiet debate. I had assumed that he would resume where he left off in last Tuesday's debate when he made quite a noisy speech. Compared to his speech on Tuesday, his speech tonight was relatively quiet. I shall respond in the same fashion, although we are bound to have something of a repeat performance of Tuesday. I hope that it will be of a high standard, as the hon. Gentleman's speech was.
1168
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not resort to some of the more vindictive remarks that he made.
Mr. Skinner: I had a word with him.
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his restraining influence. I shall call on his help on future occasions to restrain the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch.
In the time that the hon. Gentleman has allowed me, I shall make some general points before coming to the specific points. It is important to reiterate the broad context in which we are discussing this problem and the Government's strategy. As a Government, we are committed to maintaining taxpayers' support for the arts. That is a clear commitment that we have made and have kept to. It is a commitment that we must keep to.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has in the past, along with many other hon. Members, welcomed the concept of three-year funding, which was introduced in November 1987. That, too, has a bearing on the points that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch raised about important companies such as the Royal Shakespeare Company. It helps them to organise their long-term finances on a better basis than hitherto.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the settlement of autumn 1989. It incorporated a 24 per cent. increase in cash terms in the next three years. That demonstrates a clear commitment to the arts on the part of the Government. It includes a 22 per cent. increase for the Arts Council over the next three years. The cash position of the Arts Council—this is important in answering the hon. Gentleman's questions—will rise from £155·5 million this year to £175 million in the coming financial year. That is just under a £20 million cash increase. Of course, I accept that inflation must be allowed for. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is a substantial increase in the grant to the Arts Council.
That leads me to my next point, which was central to some of the discussions that we had on Tuesday. I shall meet the hon. Gentleman on his point about Westminster city council. It is a fair point to make. I hold, just as every Government since the second world war have held, that the arm's-length principle is the right principle to stick to. Every Labour Government and every Conservative Government since the war have done that. There is nothing new in my approach. I am simply reaffirming the approach of my predecessors of all political complexions. How one interprets arm's length is a matter for debate. How far it is taken is a matter for argument and discussion.
Before I discuss—if that is the right word to use—with my colleagues, the Chief Secretary and others, what should be the budget for the arts in the next three years, I take into account the views expressed to me by the Arts Council on behalf of its clients, which include the Royal Shakespeare Company, the English national opera, the English national ballet and others. I take into account all the arguments, including some of those put by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch tonight. It is then up to me to argue and discuss the case with my colleagues and to reach an agreement, as I have done.
I reiterate that that agreement includes a 22 per cent. increase in the next three years for the Arts Council. That

1169
is the basis upon which the decisions are made, and I do not believe there is much difference between my approach and that of my predecessors, of any political party.
The logic of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is that we undermine the arm's-length relationship. Whenever an arts organisation faces a problem—there will always be such organisations at any one time—he believes that the Minister should intervene immediately. But I believe that that action in itself would flout the arm's-length principle. Having negotiated the funding, it is right to say to the Arts Council that it should take the decisions that it believes to be right. based upon the financial and artistic circumstances of the relevant organisations.
Once again I must express my great confidence in Mr. Palumbo and his vision and leadership of the Arts council. It is up to that council to decide whether it should continue to subsidise or increase the subsidy to particular organisations or reduce it. That is its job. The hon. Gentleman approaches this subject with great seriousness, and it is right that I should outline the broad context of funding.
I shall take head on, as best I can, some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We come back, although it is something of a repeat performance, to the Royal Shakespeare Company, but I shall add one or two extra points which were not mentioned on Tuesday. I shall then consider the important points raised about the English national opera and the English national ballet, which I did not deal with on Tuesday as I was not challenged about them.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and with the view expressed to him when he visited Stratford, that the RSC is a highly efficient organisation. It does an excellent job and the quality of its arts is outstanding. In common with the hon. Gentleman, I have enjoyed the experience of seeing some of its performances and I do so every year. I have nothing but admiration for their quality.
The grant to the RSC stands at just over £6 million. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggested on Tuesday, it received an 11 per cent. increased allocation for next year. The hon. Gentleman implied that the English national opera got that increase but the RSC did not. All the flagships will receive an 11 per cent. increase in the coming financial year.
It is also fair to say that the Royal Insurance sponsorship is a magnificent support to the RSC. Over the years the RSC's box office has done extremely well and its overall turnover is about £20 million a year. Last year the RSC gave 2,000 performances and undertook a great deal of touring. It performs on two stages at Stratford and it has used its London base at the Barbican since 1982.
The purpose-built home provided by the City of London is important to the RSC. The corporation has been very supportive of the RSC. In 1988 a new 22-year lease was agreed that provided for low rents and limited overheads. It was a favourable deal for the RSC and it would be wrong of me not to highlight the contribution made by the corporation to the strength of our arts in London at the Barbican and its support of the RSC.
I accept that Mr. Cass and his team have had to take a difficult decision. As the Arts Minister I do not enjoy the situation in which any arts organisation must announce, because it is pressed for resources, that it needs to prune its operations.
1170
We must keep in perspective what is being done. The hon. Gentleman implied that it was stopping completely. It is not. Its decision is to close its two London theatres, the Barbican and The Pit, for four months from 5 November 1990. There is some question—frankly, I am not clear about it, and I do not think anybody is—about regional tours to small venues. That issue, in discussion with the Arts Council, will have to be clarified.
I have given the factual situation. The RSC is adjusting its expenditure to the resources available to it, which is what I have been asking the arts world to do. It is the only responsible thing to do. The hon. Gentleman may argue that the amount available is insufficient, but the fact remains that it must remain within its resources.
The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the Priestley—the Cabinet Office—report. I reiterate what I said in the debate on Tuesday. There were three recommendations in that report. The first was to write off an agreed level of deficit at that time. The second was to increase the basic grant to £4·9 million. The third was a series of recommendations under one heading, basically to index-link for the future. As I explained, the first two were accepted and dealt with. It was never fully accepted that that or any other arts organisation should be deliberately insulated in terms of inflation.
Having said that, I should point out that the Government's commitment is to maintain overall support for the arts, to give to the Arts Council sufficient sums of money to enable it to deal with its priorities. It is up to the Arts Council to decide how much to give and how much is deserved.
I must meet head on the hon. Gentleman's points abou the English national opera and, by implication, the English national ballet. ENO has had its grant increased by 11 per cent. and ENB by 12 per cent. for the coming year. Both those organisations have performed at a very high level and I have been deeply impressed by the performances that I have seen. They have a great deal of public support.
But it would be wrong of me to allow the debate to end without dealing with the argument adduced by the hon. Gentleman in which I think he implied that what had happened over the withdrawal of most of the funding by Westminster city council of the ENO and the ENB was in itself leading to direct intervention by me as the Minister.
Both of those companies, with the financing from Westminster city council, have been facing a special financial problem arising from changes in the system of local government finance, starting with the abolition of the GLC in 1986. The city council agreed with central Government and the other London boroughs that it would pick up the GLC's funding of the ENO and London festival ballet, as it was then called, provided that the amount of the grants, which then totalled £2·2 million, was deducted from the city council's contribution to the extended London rate equalisation scheme.
Under that scheme, some of the proceeds of the business rates in the city of London and Westminster were spread around other London boroughs to help even out or equalise the rate base. From 1 April 1990, when the new system of local government finance comes into operation, that mechanism will cease to exist. I should point out that none of the grant came from Westminster's domestic rate-payers.
I realised early in 1989 that there was a problem, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central must also have known; I have no doubt that the chairmen of the

1171
companies drew his attention to the problem. There was that problem at the time and I took that factor—which was a special factor peculiar to Westminster—into account in my discussions with the Chief Secretary and in relation to the final settlement.
It was against that background that the Arts Council announced on 14 February that it was replacing the grant to the two companies that was formerly made by Westminster city council, although we should acknowledge that the city council will still give—albeit a more modest sum—£160,000 to the ENO and £100,000 to the ENB.
I understand that Westminster's total expenditure on the arts, as earmarked for 1990–91, will be about £1 million, which puts it at the top of the league table of local
1172
authority arts expenditure in the London boroughs area. It was important for me to deal with that specific point made by the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I take seriously the issues that he has raised. However, from my own experience of travelling around the country, I believe that there is growing public support for arts of all kinds. As I look around, the evidence is that, although companies have problems, organisations are doing well, whether they be orchestras such as the City of Birmingham orchestra or major arts centres in various parts, or theatres like the Plymouth theatre royal. All those organisations—
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER, adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Churches (Subsidence)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list by location the number of churches waiting compensation from British Coal due to subsidence damage; and if he will show in his answer, when the claims were first submitted.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners do not possess this information. I am, however, writing to the hon. Member.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City College for the Technology of the Arts
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a timetable for(a) the appointment of teachers, (b) signing of a lease for the premises, (c) closing date for application by pupils, (d) projected opening date, (e) agreement on curriculum the school will pursue, (f) the announcement of the cost of the Exchequer's contribution for capital costs and (g) the announcement of the sponsors' contribution to capital costs at the Britschool city technology college Croydon; and if he will publish a full list of sponsors for the Britschool city technology college and their projected contributions (i) in cash and (ii) in goods and services.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The lease of the premises of the city college for the technology of the arts (CCTA) in Croydon is scheduled to be signed today. The opening date for the college will be September 1991. The British phonographic industry has undertaken to provide capital funding of 40 per cent. of an agreed £5·9 million, of which my Department will provide 60 per cent. It is for the project team appointed by the sponsor to decide appropriate dates for the appointment of teachers to the college, a closing date for applications by pupils, and the details of the college's agreed curriculum. The college's principal was appointed on 1 January this year.

  Further Education
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the expected staying on rate in full-time education for the 16 to 18 years age group in 1992–93.

  Mr. Jackson
  The projected participation rate for full-time students aged 16 and 17 in England for 1992–93 is 47 per cent. The ages are those at 31 August 1992.

  Pupils (Attendance)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to remedy the poor attendance record of students in the later years of secondary schooling and in schools in deprived areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The national curriculum and other educational reforms being introduced by the Government will increase opportunity and motivation for all pupils and thereby help to improve school attendance. In addition, a new category of education support grants, to raise attendance at designated schools, begins in April. The grants will support three-year projects in 35 English local education authorities at a total cost in 1990–91 of £2·34 million. Most of those grants are for projects in urban programme areas. Similar arrangements apply in Wales.

  The Department has recently published a survey report by Her Majesty's inspectorate which reviews school attendance and calls attention to examples of good practice in schools and local education authorities.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the total sum of bids by local education authorities for capital spending on further education colleges for 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  The bids by local education authorities for capital spending on further education colleges for 1990–91 totalled £186·1 million, as follows:

  £ million

  Major building works1:

  Started prior to 1990–91

  50·0

  To start in 1990–91

  36·8

  Minor works

  25·4

  Equipment and furniture

  53·1

  Other

  20·8

  TOTAL BIDS

  186·1

  1 Projects in excess of £200,000.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out, in 1987 prices, the expenditure on discretionary student awards in(a) 1984–85, (b) 1985–86, (c) 1986–87, (d) 1987–88, (e) 1988–89 and (f)

  Mr. Jackson
  The available data are as follows:

  Real terms1 expenditure on section 1(6) and section 2 discretionary awards2 1984–85 to 1987–88

  England and Wales

  £ million

  1984–85

  156·8

  1985–86

  159·8

  1986–87

  169·0

  1987–88

  171·0

  1 Real terms expenditure at 1987–88 prices.

  2 Includes expenditure on fees and maintenance.

  Education Budget
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the education budget will be met by local authorities in the next financial year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In the present financial year local authority expenditure on education is expected to account for some four fifths of the Department's total programme. Education budgets for 1990–91 are still being determined by local education authorities. As the bulk of central Government support for local authority spending is not hypothecated to individual services, it is not possible to determine on a service by service basis what percentage of those budgets will be met from local authorities' own resources.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what sum of money was added to higher education students' grants representing 20 per cent. of average community charge; and when the calculation from which that sum resulted was made.

  Mr. Jackson
  The increased main rates of mandatory student grant for the academic year 1990–91 were announced on 19 December 1989. As in previous years these broadly reflected both the resources available and the net impact of several factors upon students' living costs. These factors included students' discounted liability for the community charge and the abolition of domestic rates. The basic maintenance grant is not earmarked in respect of any element of students' living costs.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the number of students in further education who will take out student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  Top-up loans will mean extra resources for students in higher education. If 80 per cent. of those eligible were to apply, some 455,000 higher education students would receive top-up loans in 1990–91.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Footwear Imports
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding the Government's continued policy concerning footwear and leather imports from Taiwan and Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have received a small number of representations on this matter. The European Commision is still considering the way forward in the light of member states' views.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will indicate, or place in the Library, the details of the scheme Her Majesty's Government intend to deploy to enforce the European Commission decision on applying for a voluntary restraint agreement covering leather and synthetic footwear imports from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan;
  852
  (2) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the recent decision by the European Commission to enter into a voluntary restraint agreement covering leather and synthetic footwear imports from Korea and Taiwan.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The Commission has still to decide what action, if any, to take. We understand that it may be considering Communitywide restraints on trade in leather and synthetic footwear from South Korea and Taiwan. Any restraints would, of course, have to be fully and economically justified. If, however, the industry has any evidence of unfair trading practices it should be forwarded to the DTI or the Commission.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many of the specialists recruited for the development of the Securities and Investments Board and of its rule book are no longer required;

  (2) if he will give details of the steps taken in the preparation of the planned expenditure of the Securities and Investments Board for the year 1990–91 to contain expenditure to reflect the reduction in formation and development of the regulatory role of the Securities and Investments Board;

  (3) what are the premiums which the Securities and Investments Board will be required to pay in respect of salary and rental costs as a result of the decision to relocate within central London;

  (4) whether he has any plans to make available free of charge to the public in Scotland access to the Securities and Investments Board's Prestel system which holds details of all authorised firms;

  (5) whether the manpower levels within the Securities and Investments Board are intended only to reflect the minimum personnel required to maintain compliance standards;

  which locations outside London were considered for the possible relocation of the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: This is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

ENERGY

  Wave Power
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will review his Department's policy concerning funding for research into and development of electricity generation from offshore wave power devices; and if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the likely cost of such electricity per kilowatt hour.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A thorough review of the technical and commercial viability and prospects for wave energy in the United Kingdom is currently being undertaken, following which it will be possible to review the Department's policy concerning funding for research into and development of electricity generation from offshore wave power devices. Offshore wave energy is currently considered unlikely to be competitive, with estimated costs exceeding 10p/kWh, but reassessing these costs is fundamental to the review now taking place.

  Electricity Pylons
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to require pylons to be moved away from urban settlements in view of the effect of the electrical fields generated beneath them on human health.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans to require pylons to be moved away from urban settlements in view of the presence of electrical fields. All types of electrical conductor, whether overhead or underground, and whether forming a power transmission or distribution system or simply the wiring and appliances in the home, create electric and magnetic fields.

TRANSPORT

  Road Building Objections
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road building objections in the form of Valentine cards he has received this month.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend and I and officials on our behalf have received a number of road building objections in the form of Valentine cards. All those giving names and addresses will be taken into account in the consultation process.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards the location and development of motorway service areas by the private sector;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to allow the private sector to take responsibility for the location and development of motorway service areas; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received from the major oil companies regarding the development of motorway service areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Representations have been made by certain oil companies that the initiative should be left with them to identify, seek planning clearance for, and obtain ownership of sites for new motorway service areas. The current general policy is for the Department itself to identify sites, usually on the basis of a private consultant's study, and itself to seek planning clearance and ownership, and to market the right to provide services there by competitive tender. The aim of this policy is to ensure the satisfactory choice, development and continued operation of sites, primarily from the point of view of road safety and traffic management considerations, to promote competition between operators in the interests of consumer choice and satisfaction, and to ensure an adequate return to the Exchequer by way of premium for the right to provide services at key locations on the motorway network.

  There are no present proposals to change this policy. It will however be kept under review in the light of experience and representations made.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to consider the privatisation of the Civil Aviation Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to privatise the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the shortage of Civil Aviation Authority examiners to test for the commercial pilot's licence and instrument ratings examinations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I have asked the chairman of the authority to write to my hon. Friend.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he set down any ordering timetable before approving investment by British Rail in the trains necessary for the direct link from the Channel tunnel to the north of England and Scotland;

  (2) what is the number of trains for the direct link from the Channel tunnel to the north of England and Scotland for which he has given investment approval to British Rail; and what is the minimum number of such trains required.

  Mr. Portillo
  While BR has outlined its plans for through services, it has not yet submitted its investment proposals with its estimate of the cost of the trains.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the types of trains for the direct link from the Channel tunnel to the north of England and Scotland for which he has given investment approval to British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  BR published its plans for through services on 14 December and I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) on that date,Official Report, column 767. It has not yet submitted its investment proposals.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what parameters for the completion and delivery of the order for the trains which will run from London through the Channel tunnel to the continent he set down before approving British Rail's investment in the new rolling stock;

  (2) what requirements he imposed when giving his approval to investment in new rolling stock for British Rail about the companies to be invited to tender for the order to produce the trains necessary for the direct link from the Channel tunnel to the north of England and Scotland.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. These are commercial matters for the railways concerned.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the cost of the trains which will run from London through the Channel tunnel to the continent for which he has given investment approval to British Rail.
  855
  Mr. Portillo
  I refer to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 11 December 1989 at column 486.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when reaching his decision about investment in new rolling stock for British Rail what consideration he gave to the extent to which continental trains could run directly through the Channel tunnel to the north of England and Scotland;

  (2) when reaching his decision on whether to approve investment in new rolling stock for British Rail, what consideration he gave to the extent to which existing British Rail trains would be able to run directly through the Channel tunnel to the continent from the north of England and Scotland.

  Mr. Portillo
  Neither existing BR nor continental trains can use the Channel tunnel for a variety of safety and engineering reasons.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive from British Rail its investment proposal for the trains to be used for the through passenger services to be introduced from the continent to the north of Britain.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that British Rail proposes to submit its proposals in April.

  London Underground
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the eastern alignment of the proposed Jubilee line extension.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Following further work and negotiations with property developers and landowners, I am pleased to be able to authorise LRT to seek the leave of the House for the deposit of an additional provision to re-route the Jubilee line extension, from Canary Wharf to Canning Town via Greenwich point.

  The east London rail study which I announced in July last year, identified two possible alignments for the Jubilee line extension between Canary Wharf and Canning Town either via Greenwich point, or via the Brunswick foreshore. The pressure of a November deadline for LRT to deposit a Bill, for the extension, made it necessary to take a decision as early as September to plan on the basis of the shorter and cheaper alignment via Brunswick. The Bill that I authorised in November was drafted on that basis. However, since then further discussions have been held with property developers and landowners whose interests would be affected by both alignments to ascertain whether they would be prepared to meet the additional costs of providing a station and changing the route, as necessary. Each of the interested groups has offered to contribute on this basis but the financial case for proceeding with the Greenwich alignment is more robust and offers a number of additional benefits. It is essential to secure the regeneration of the industrial wasteland in the Greenwich peninsula and above all, by providing two
  856
  further river crossings it will open up new areas in south London to the Underground network. I am sure this announcement will be welcomed in those areas.

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to dispose of his shares in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have concluded that it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to dispose of their ordinary shares in the company now in view of the inquiries by inspectors appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I have, therefore, decided that in accordance with the Government's general policy on Government shareholdings the ordinary shares should be transferred into the ownership of the Treasury. At the same time I intend to relinquish the right attaching to the special share which enables my right hon. Friend to appoint up to three directors of the company.

  Road Signs
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice or instructions are given by his Department as to the signs, illumination and positioning of warning signs at major road junctions or roundabouts when the traffic lights have failed.

  Mr. Atkins
  Current guidance on these matters is contained in paragraph 5.7 of Department of Transport advice note TA 24/81, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Traffic Lights
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conditions are imposed on his traffic control systems units maintenance contractor as to the urgency and intensity of the efforts to restore normal working of failed traffic lights at the Hogarth roundabout on the A4 at Chiswick and at similar major junctions.

  Mr. Atkins
  The priority to be given to repairing traffic signals in London is detailed in the TCSU's contract with its maintenance contractor and varies according to the seriousness of the incident and when it occurs. Complete failure such as happened at the Hogarth roundabout is accorded top priority and the contractor is required, if it is possible, to effect a full repair within two and a half or five hours of the fault, for weekdays or weekend respectively. If, as was the case recently at Hogarth roundabout, major civil engineering works beyond the scope of the maintenance contract are necessary to effect the repair, the maintenance contractor is required to make the installation safe and to place warning signs on approach roads until the civil works can be put in hand.

  I can assure my right hon. Friend that all concerned are alert to the need to effect repairs as quickly as possible.

  Network SouthEast (Investment)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of investment in Network SouthEast has to earn an 8 per cent. return; and what investment projects do not have to earn this return.

  Mr. Portillo
  The basic criteria for all replacement investment in BR's subsidised sectors such as Network SouthEast are that the existing service should be maintained and that the chosen project should be the least cost option. An 8 per cent. discount rate is used to compare the costs and benefits of options, but there is no requirement for replacement investment as a whole to earn a financial return of 8 per cent. It is only when an option for investment includes an element of enhancement, for example the provision of first-class accommodation, or air conditioning, or represents an addition to the asset base, that this additional expenditure must normally be justified by its ability to earn an 8 per cent. return. We have however made it clear in the new objectives set for BR in December that where, exceptionally, additions to NSE's asset base cannot meet an 8 per cent. financial return, it is appropriate to consider whether there is a case on cost-benefit grounds. Most investment projects include elements of both replacement and enhancement, so it is not possible to provide the percentages requested.

  Network SouthEast (Property Sales)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the major items of property sold by Network SouthEast over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The sale of property and land no longer required for operational purposes is handled corporately by the British Rail Property Board. Its activities are covered on page 28 of the board's annual report and accounts for 1988–89, a copy of which is in the Library.

THE ARTS

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many representations he has received concerning Government funding of the arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) on 12 February, at column 51. I have no immediate plans to make a statement on arts funding.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has received on the number of organisations, regionally and nationally, which are planning to(a) cut their staff, (b) cut their operations or performances and (c) close down completely in the coming financial year, following changes in funding available to them from the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  It is for the management of individual arts organisations to determine the level of their staffing and operations. Like any other organisation, they must set the scope of their operations within the limits of available resources. I am confident, however, that with an increase of 22 per cent. in the Arts Council's grant over the next three years, arts organisations will continue to build on recent successes.

  Book of Kells
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if his Department has any plans to assist in the acquisition for the national collections of one of the two new facsimiles of the Book of Kells.

  Mr. Luce
  No. Decisions on acquisitions are a matter for the trustees of the national collections. I understand that a new facsimile is available for academic research in the university of London library, and that the British Library holds an earlier facsimile.

  Museums and Galleries (Thefts)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many reported thefts from museums and art galleries in London there have been in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Luce
  Information on the number of reported thefts from museums and art galleries in London is not held centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the function of the official whose signature has been sent to the hon. Member for Linlithgow under the printed phrase cleared and approved for release in the answer to written question No. 164 of 19 February from the hon. Member for Linlithgow to which the Secretary of State said he would reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Cope
  It is the administrative practice in the Northern Ireland Office for the Parliamentary Clerk to satisfy himself, before answers to parliamentary questions as approved by the Ministers are dispatched to right hon. and hon. Members, that they contain no textual inaccuracies or other errors and to confirm to those responsible for their dispatch that such a check has been carried out.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will arrange for his officials to meet Sir George Terry to discuss the need for a wide inquiry into the affairs surrounding the Kincora boys' home.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: I have no plans to do so.

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of all primary, secondary and grammar schools in Northern Ireland which have been granted integrated status, showing the number of pupils attending each school in each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 February 1990]: The table sets out the names of the seven integrated primary and secondary schools that have achieved voluntary maintained status, together with their pupil enrolments at January in each of the years 1988, 1989 and 1990:
  859

  Pupil Numbers

  January

  January

  January

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Primary

  Hazelwood (Newtownabbey)

  160

  199

  208

  Forge (Belfast)

  130

  171

  186

  All Children's (Newcastle)

  —

  86

  103

  Bridge (Banbridge)

  —

  107

  140

  Milstrand (Portrush)

  —

  83

  115

  Secondary

  Lagan College (Belfast)

  500

  558

  585

  Hazelwood College (Belfast)

  —

  215

  293

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what numbers of pupils presently attend an integrated school in Northern Ireland; what percentage of pupils this number represents, for(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) grammar schools; what information he has as to how many pupils attend such schools in each education and library board area; and how many in each board area are (i) Roman Catholic, (ii) Protestant and (iii) other, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 February 1990]: The seven integrated schools that are grant-aided as voluntary maintained schools had an aggregate enrolment of 1,630 pupils at January 1990.

  Enrolment figures for all schools are not yet available for January 1990 but at the latest date for which comparable figures are available (January 1989) the five integrated primary schools had 646 pupils, representing 0·4 per cent. of all primary school enrolments in Northern Ireland and the two secondary schools had 773 pupils, representing 0·8 per cent. of all secondary school enrolments.

  In addition to the seven grant-aided integrated schools, there are three integrated primary schools operating as independent schools:

  Pupils

  Windmill Integrated Primary School

  59

  Enniskillen Integrated Primary School

  64

  Braidside Integrated Primary School (Ballymena)

  36

  The figures for the four education and library board areas in which these schools are situated are as follows:

  Numbers

  Belfast

  687

  South Eastern

  688

  North Eastern

  115

  Southern

  140

  Information as to the religious affiliations of pupils at schools in Northern Ireland is not readily available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what paternity leave is allowed to staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  860
  The Attorney-General
  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.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  >Business Expansion Scheme
  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(a) the regional distribution of BES funds and the regional distribution of small firms, (b) the distribution of BES investments by two digit standard industrial classification, or as detailed as possible and (c) the average size of investment.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information on the companies receiving investments through the business expansion scheme is published in chapter 7 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1989". Further information that is readily available is as follows:

  Companies receiving BES investments, 1987–88

  Industry

  Number of companies

  Amount of investment

  £ million

  Agriculture, Horticulture, Forestry

  21

  9

  Fishing

  20

  6

  Manufacture of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals

  28

  3

  Mechanical Engineering

  26

  2

  Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  50

  5

  Manufacture of Transport Equipment

  20

  7

  Instrument Engineering

  20

  2

  Food and Drink Industry

  30

  2

  Textile, Clothing, Footwear Industry

  23

  1

  Manufacture of Paper and Paper Products

  38

  3

  Other Manufacturing Industries

  47

  4

  Construction and Real Estate

  45

  34

  Wholesale Distribution

  34

  6

  Retail Distribution

  87

  27

  Distribution and Repair of Motor Vehicles

  24

  3

  Hotels and Catering

  70

  38

  Transport and Storage Services

  27

  1

  Business, Professional and Technical Services

  68

  6

  Medical, Educational and Social Services

  36

  30

  Recreational, Hairdressing and Personal Services

  56

  4

  Others

  12

  2

  Total

  782

  195

  The average size of investment per company is as follows:

  £ thousand

  1983–84

  147

  1984–85

  183

  1985–86

  224

  1986–87

  226

  1987–88

  256

  11988–89

  180

  1 Provisional.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for(a) 1960, (b) 1970, (c) 1980 and (d) the latest year, the number of single people with children who work and pay tax; and if he will estimate the numbers below the tax threshold.

  Mr. Lilley
  In 1989–90 an estimated quarter of a million working lone parents pay tax and about the same number are in work, but below the tax threshold. Estimates are based on the 1987 family expenditure survey and are provisional. Figures for the earlier years are not available.

  Personal Disposable Income
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing annual consumers' expenditure and personal disposable income from 1979 to 1988 in(a) owner-occupier households and (b) other households.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  An analysis of consumers' expenditure and personal disposable income is not available in the form requested. Estimates by tenure of average weekly household expenditure and income are published annually in the report of the family expenditure survey.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what data would be required to enable a reliable assessment to be made of the cost of extending payment of Civil Service widows' pensions to the widows of post-retirement marriages of civil servants who retired before April 1978;

  (2) if he will estimate the numbers of surviving retired male civil servants who retired before 6 April 1978.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 9 January 1990, at column 575. I regret that the information requested could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Coins
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake a review of the United Kingdom coinage so as to replace the present bronze 1p

  Property sales in 1988

  Range of consideration (lower limit)

  £0

  £10,000

  £20,000

  £30,000

  £50,000

  £100,000

  £250,000

  All values

  Region

  Number1

  Value2

  Number1

  Value2

  Number1

  Value2

  Number1

  Value2

  Number1

  Value2

  Number1

  Value2

  Number1

  Value2

  Number1

  Value2

  North

  21

  98

  21

  310

  21

  507

  24

  910

  10

  639

  2

  256

  1

  415

  98

  3,135

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21

  80

  39

  606

  48

  1,227

  46

  1,745

  22

  1,448

  4

  513

  1

  994

  182

  6,613

  East Midlands

  21

  92

  25

  375

  33

  849

  50

  1,980

  36

  2,386

  6

  855

  2

  1,292

  173

  7,829

  East Anglia

  6

  15

  6

  93

  6

  149

  26

  1,111

  41

  2,785

  8

  1,058

  2

  1,371

  95

  6,581

  South East

  36

  67

  20

  315

  27

  662

  81

  3,381

  274

  19,262

  82

  11,751

  14

  10,181

  534

  45,618

  Greater London

  30

  42

  16

  231

  13

  326

  25

  1,035

  167

  11,934

  60

  8,773

  14

  13,684

  326

  36,025

  South West

  21

  45

  17

  252

  18

  455

  66

  2,704

  98

  6,782

  23

  3,277

  4

  2,849

  247

  16,363

  West Midlands

  26

  80

  22

  323

  18

  459

  47

  1,836

  38

  2,544

  9

  1,266

  2

  1,594

  162

  8,103

  North West

  40

  160

  42

  643

  58

  1,460

  57

  2,192

  31

  2,083

  5

  731

  2

  1,394

  234

  8,664

  Wales

  18

  69

  15

  220

  26

  654

  30

  1,171

  16

  1,026

  3

  416

  1

  498

  110

  4,053

  England and Wales

  240

  748

  224

  3,368

  268

  6,747

  452

  18,064

  733

  50,890

  203

  28,894

  42

  34,272

  2,162

  142,983

  1 Thousands.

  2 £ million.

  Source: Survey of Conveyancing 1988.
  862
  and 2p coins with copper-plated pieces; and if he will state the excess cost to the Treasury of providing these denominations in the current metal.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on 6 February, at column 540. The excess cost to the Treasury of continuing to provide 1p and 2p coins in bronze as compared with copper-plated steel depends on metal prices and on the number of coins issued, but a reasonable estimate is between £2 million and £4 million a year.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the smaller size denomination of 5p and 10p to be issued by United Kingdom banks; if he has the coinage under review; if he will issue a £2 coin for circulation; what other plans he has for a redesign of the reverse of the coinage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The new, smaller 5p coin will be issued by the United Kingdom banks in June 1990 and the new, smaller 10p coins will be issued in June 1992. These changes followed a general review of the coinage in 1987. The Royal Mint issued a pamphlet setting out various options for change and the public were invited to comment. The smaller 5p and 10p coins were the options preferred. Aspects of the coinage are always kept under review. £2 coins are issued for circulation from time to time only as commemorative coins. Two versions of the £2 coin were, however, issued last year to commemorate the Bill of Rights in England and the Claim of Right in Scotland. There are no immediate plans to issue a further £2 coin or to redesign the reverse of the coinage.

  Property Sales
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide a breakdown on a regional basis for the 1988 freehold and leasehold figures in table 15.1 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1989".

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that reliable information is not available at the level of detail requested. Available information is in the table:

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will provide for the boroughs of Croydon, Merton and Hounslow 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;

  (2) whether he will provide for the boroughs of Ealing, Waltham Forest, Redbridge and Barking and Dagenham 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;

  (3) whether he will provide for the boroughs of Wandsworth, Greenwich and Lewisham 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;

  (4) Whether he will provide for the districts of Stafford, Cannock Chase and Staffordshire, South-East, 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.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost in 1990–91 and in a full year of raising the lower limit for the reduced rate for corporation tax from £150,000 to £200,000; and how many firms would be affected.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: About 20,000 companies would be affected at a cost of £30 million in a full year and £20 million in 1990–91, assuming company incomes at 1989–90 levels and that the change took effect from 1 April 1989.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the savings in a full year at 1989–90 rates of restricting all allowances and reliefs to the standard rate of tax; and if he will provide a breakdown of the category of allowances and reliefs.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Estimates of the direct revenue yield in a full year at 1989–90 levels of income from restricting the main income tax reliefs and allowances to the basic rate are as follows:

  £ million

  a. Personal allowances

  1,350

  b. Mortgage interest relief

  430

  c. Employee's superannuation and personal pension contributions

  200

  d. Retirement annuity relief1

  110

  1 Including relief for retirement annuity payments made by employees.

  864
  It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for the effects of restricting other smaller reliefs to the basic rate. The direct revenue yield from restricting all reliefs and allowances simultaneously to the basic rate is likely to be in the order of £2¾ billion, somewhat more than the sum of the yields from restricting the reliefs and allowances separately; this is due to the cumulative effect of bringing more people into higher rate tax. About two thirds of those who would pay more tax as a result of this change are currently liable only at the basic rate. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal income and are provisional. No account is taken of possible behavioural changes or the effect on receipts of capital gains tax.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report, now or as soon as the figures are available to him, a table indicating for each county and district authority in Wales, the budgeted spending for 1990–91, the corresponding grant-borne and community charge-borne aggregate sums, and the proposed personal community charge level.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the figures become available and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the appeal procedure after the refusal of a grant of a waste disposal licence issued under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Appellants are required to give notice of appeal on the form set out in schedule 7 to the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988 and to provide the documentation as required by regulation 10(3).

  Schools
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table to show such information as he has to hand from the schemes of local management of schools submitted for his approval by local education authorities to show the relative values of the general schools budget, the mandatory exceptions, the discretionary exceptions and the aggregate schools budget, on a comparable basis to that published by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in his reply of 5 February to the hon. Member for Epping Forest,Official Report, column 451.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The following information has been taken from the local management of schools scheme submissions made by local education authorities to my right hon. Friend. The table gives the percentage figures requested; it is not possible to provide comparative cash figures because the information has been supplied using different price bases.
  865

  Local Education Authority

  Mandatory exceptions as percentage of general schools budget

  Total discretionary exceptions as percentage of general schools budget

  Aggregated schools budget as percentage of general schools budget

  Clwyd

  11·49

  24·35

  64·16

  Dyfed

  7·82

  23·43

  68·75

  Gwent

  10·13

  21·91

  67·96

  Gwynedd

  9·97

  24·87

  65·16

  Mid Glamorgan

  9·34

  23·37

  67·29

  Powys

  9·08

  23·50

  67·42

  South Glamorgan

  7·90

  16·91

  75·19

  West Glamorgan

  13·34

  18·43

  68·23

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for Wales and each major administrative division the number of (a) rateable domestic premises, (b) resident adults and (c) resident children together with (i) the

  Domestic rateable value at September 1989

  Resident Population1 (thousands)

  Local Authority

  Number of hereditaments

  Value £000

  Average Domestic Rate Poundage

  Yield £ million

  Aged 0–17

  Aged 18+

  Alyn and Deeside

  27,806

  4,440

  270·8

  12·02

  17·8

  54·8

  Colwyn

  23,584

  3,573

  281·6

  10·06

  11·6

  43·1

  Delyn

  25,618

  3,970

  269· 2

  10·69

  15·6

  49·5

  Glyndwr

  17,285

  2,206

  276·1

  6·09

  9·3

  32·2

  Rhuddlan

  22,262

  3,412

  269·5

  9·19

  11·8

  44·3

  Wrexham Maelor

  45,356

  6,126

  278·5

  17·06

  28·5

  88·5

  Carmarthen

  21,885

  2,269

  263·6

  5·98

  12·2

  43·6

  Ceredigion

  26,626

  2,957

  256·0

  7·57

  14·8

  52·2

  Dinefwr

  15,401

  1,417

  254·9

  3·61

  8·5

  30·3

  Llanelli

  30,619

  3,176

  282·1

  8·96

  16·0

  58·0

  Preseli Pembs

  28,825

  3,047

  252·3

  7·69

  16·7

  54·0

  South Pembroke

  16,854

  2,044

  258·1

  5·28

  9·8

  32·1

  Blaenau Gwent

  31,415

  2,998

  266·9

  8·00

  17·8

  59·5

  Islwyn

  25,756

  2,715

  258·5

  7·02

  15·5

  50·9

  Monmouth

  29,842

  4,482

  262·3

  11·75

  18·6

  62·7

  Newport

  52,787

  8,038

  257·4

  20·69

  30·9

  97·2

  Torfaen

  35,975

  4,519

  270·9

  12·24

  22·2

  70·1

  Aberconwy

  22,623

  3,233

  261·4

  8·45

  11·2

  42·9

  Arfon

  23,805

  2,410

  258·5

  6·23

  13·3

  41·9

  Dwyfor

  13,683

  1,519

  259·9

  3·95

  5·6

  21·4

  Meirionnydd

  16,265

  1,818

  263·0

  4·78

  6·6

  25·0

  Ynys Môn

  29,151

  3,727

  258·1

  9·62

  17·6

  53·5

  Cynon Valley

  26,710

  2,181

  273·1

  5·96

  15·0

  49·3

  Merthyr Tydfil

  23,679

  2,177

  282·6

  6·15

  13·8

  44·3

  Ogwr

  50,834

  6,213

  292·8

  18·19

  32·4

  105·1

  Rhondda

  32,123

  2,067

  286·5

  5·92

  18·0

  58·6

  Rhymney Valley

  39,172

  4,181

  292·0

  12·21

  26·8

  77·7

  Taff Ely

  36,414

  4,224

  283·9

  11·99

  23·4

  71·5

  Brecknock

  16,676

  1,929

  248·5

  4·79

  9·0

  32·1

  Montgomeryshire

  21,521

  2,497

  229·9

  5·74

  11·4

  39·8

  Radnorshire

  9,967

  1,135

  232·4

  2·64

  4·9

  17·7

  Cardiff

  111,753

  19,613

  222·1

  43·56

  68·0

  215·9

  Vale of Glamorgan

  43,548

  7,287

  230·0

  16·76

  28·6

  90·9

  Port Talbot

  20,457

  2,214

  301·5

  6·77

  11·0

  38·0

  Lliw Valley

  24,738

  2,481

  305·7

  7·62

  13·9

  47·9

  Neath

  26,115

  2,832

  307·2

  8·54

  15·0

  50·2

  Swansea

  73,859

  9,958

  315·0

  31·37

  42·8

  144·2

  Total Wales

  1,140,989

  145,085

  265·6

  385·14

  665·9

  2,190·9

  1 Registrar General; 1988 mid-year estimates

  Local Government and Housing Act
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy that the timetable for implementation of the subsidiary legislation giving effect to part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of Wales should allow adequate time for local
  866
  rateable value of the domestic premises, (ii) the yield from that rate and (iii) the estimated yield from a 1 per cent. levy on the capital value of the housing stock in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information for Wales and each district for 1989 is shown in the following table. The estimated yield from a 1 per cent. levy on the capital value of the housing stock in 1988 and 1989 is not available.

  authorities to assess the nature of their relationship with companies and make necessary adjustments in the light of the subsidiary legislation;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to allow a period of six months between the publication of the subordinate

  867
  legislation giving effect to part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in Wales and the date from which such subsidiary legislation takes effect.

  Mr. Grist
  The implementation timetable will provide adequate time for local authorities to assess the implications of the controls on local authority companies. Part V of the 1989 Act defines a company and also specifies the tests which apply in establishing a local authority's relationship with companies for the purposes of the new regulatory system. The provisions are explained in greater detail in a consultation paper issued to local authorities in Wales last October.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Welsh voluntary wildlife bodies have indicated to him support for the Government's proposals for splitting the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  A number of other organisations in Wales have done so, including the National Farmers Union committee for Wales, the chairman and chief officers of the national parks and the committees for Wales of both the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will respond to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs report, "The Channel Tunnel: Implications for Wales," published on 21 June 1989.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The command paper should be published next month.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of a settlement for ambulance personnel in Wales of(a) 6·5 per cent. from April 1989 to 1990, backdated to April 1989 with an additional 3 per cent. from April 1990 with an offer of further negotiations in October 1990 and (b) 9 per cent. from April 1989, backdated to April 1989 with an offer of further negotiations in October 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) £2·2 million

  (b) £2·7 million

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each county education authority the number of teachers needed to(a) deliver Welsh language teaching at the primary and secondary levels as required by the national curriculum and (b) deliver all national curriculum subjects in Welsh secondary schools by teachers with the appropriate subject qualifications.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The current estimate, based on 1988 pupil numbers, of the number of teachers required to deliver Welsh language teaching when the national curriculum is fully implemented is:
  868

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  498

  128

  Dyfed

  933

  119

  Gwent

  278

  128

  Gwynedd

  969

  97

  Mid Glamorgan

  560

  165

  Powys

  146

  38

  South Glamorgan

  290

  115

  West Glamorgan

  338

  105

  Wales

  4,012

  895

  These estimates are being revised and will take account of more recent information on pupil numbers.

  Estimates of the number of teachers required to teach subjects within the national curriculum will be available only when the results of the 1989 secondary schools staffing survey are available and have been analysed.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether under the community charge system in Wales it is possible to identify the amount of revenue support grant attributable to each county council and to each borough and district council.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I calculated the revenue support grant entitlements of all Welsh local authorities, under section 82(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, following the approval of the Welsh revenue support grant report 1990–91 on 24 January. Authorities were notified of their entitlements on 1 February. Those entitlements are listed in the following table:

  Welsh revenue support grant settlement 1990–91

  Revenue support grant

  £

  Alyn and Deeside

  3,596,953

  Colwyn

  2,725,742

  Delyn

  2,764,702

  Glyndwr

  1,721,119

  Rhuddlan

  3,178,226

  Wrexham Maelor

  5,893,988

  Carmarthen

  2,910,219

  Ceredigion

  3,673,507

  Dinefwr

  1,771,103

  Llanelli

  4,792,442

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  3,854,649

  South Pembrokeshire

  2,743,440

  Blaenau Gwent

  6,435,008

  Islwyn

  4,976,825

  Monmouth

  3,031,576

  Newport

  10,154,847

  Torfaen

  5,646,991

  Aberconwy

  2,849,894

  Arfon

  3,692,376

  Dwyfor

  2,309,802

  Meirionnydd

  2,184,575

  Ynys Môn

  4,171,718

  Cynon Valley

  5,442,452

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5,561,740

  Ogwr

  8,624,883

  Rhondda

  8,295,768

  Rhymney Valley

  6,056,028

  Taff Ely

  5,803,832

  Brecknock

  2,202,866

  Montgomeryshire

  2,228,139

  Radnorshire

  989,607

  Cardiff

  17,925,825

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,367,849

  Port Talbot

  3,988,218

  Lliw Valley

  3,180,384

  869

  Revenue support grant

  £

  Neath

  4,006,177

  Swansea

  15,570,241

  Clwyd

  124,120,279

  Dyfed

  117,851,755

  Gwent

  141,200,394

  Gwynedd

  82,423,396

  Mid Glamorgan

  191,709,234

  Powys

  48,371,125

  South Glamorgan

  135,014,799

  West Glamorgan

  118,903,306

  TOTAL DISTRICTS

  180,323,711

  TOTAL COUNTIES

  959,594,288

  TOTAL WALES

  1,139,917,999

SCOTLAND

  Salmon
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice has been given to the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust regarding the acquisition of salmon netting rights in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Acquisitions of salmon fishing rights in Scotland are private transactions. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland does not advise on either the acquisition or sale of such rights.

  Advice is given by DAFS scientists to salmon interests including the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland) on possible research or monitoring activities which they might fund or take part in. Discussions on this basis took place with the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland) in March 1988 and in April 1989. Similar discussions are conducted with the Atlantic Salmon Trust, other research trusts concerned with particular river systems, individual district salmon fishery boards and the River Tweed commissioners. General discussions also take place from time to time with bodies representing the collective interests of district boards, anglers and netsmen.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a decision on the proposed scheme of salmon tagging being drawn up by the River Tweed commissioners.

  Mr. Lang
  On 26 January the River Tweed commissioners submitted formal proposals for a local scheme of tagging wild salmon in the Tweed area. The proposed scheme would be organised and financed locally but the River Tweed commissioners have sought my right hon. and learned Friend's views about possible new, local powers to support the scheme. These local powers would require primary legislation. I expect there to be further discussions with the River Tweed commissioners on these and other aspects of their proposals in the coming weeks.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evaluation his Department has made in 1990 of alternative methods of raising finance for Scottish local government other than the community charge.
  870
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A number of possible options for financing local government were evaluated before the decision was taken to abolish domestic rates and introduce the community charge. There has been no need since then for any study of alternative methods of finance. The Labour party's proposed roof tax is essentially a return to domestic rates and if introduced would mean a return to the many anomalies and unfairness of that system.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people who have gained financially from the introduction of the poll tax.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the outset of the new system it was estimated that around 50 per cent. of households would benefit from the introduction of the community charge. Other changes in the local government finance system, introduced at the same time as the community charge, and the lack of information on what local authority budgets and rate poundages would have been under the previous system make it impossible to provide further information.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to introduce regulations that allow voters to opt out or opt in to the sale of their name and address from electoral registers; whether he has had discussions with the Data Protection Registrar concerning the sale of names and addresses from the electoral register; and whether he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have no plans to introduce such regulations. The operation of the electoral registration system requires that all the information in the register should be freely available to the public. The provisions of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986 governing the publication and supply of the register reflect this fact and the conclusion that its use by commercial organisations could not effectively be prevented. The Data Protection Registrar was consulted before the introduction of the provisions in those regulations governing the sale of the electoral register in data form.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to introduce regulations to alert voters to the fact that their name and address are routinely disclosed from the electoral register for poll tax purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to introduce regulations to protect voters who may be vulnerable to attack if their name and address appeared on an electoral register that is available for sale or inspection by the public; and whether he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have no present plans to do so, but we shall continue to keep the position under careful review.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has provided guidance to electoral registration
  871
  officers concerning the privacy implications of the inspection or sale of the names and addresses from the electoral register without the knowledge or consent of the voter; whether his Department has studied the implications of linking copies of the electoral register information to that of the census or to other large databases; and whether he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Home and Health Department has issued guidance to electoral registration officers on the electoral registration process, including the inspection and sale of the register, but not specifically on questions of privacy. Individual census records will not be available for linkage to the electoral register or other large databases.

  Region/Islands Area

  Number of domestic subjects at 1 April 1988

  Total rateable value at 1 April 1988 of domestic subjects

  Gross domestic rate yield 1988–89

  Adult population (18 and over) at June 1988

  Under 18 population at June 1988

  Borders

  46,209

  26,621,187

  15,120,834

  80,306

  22,286

  Central

  107,162

  68,128,907

  47,622,106

  207,278

  64,248

  Dumfries and Galloway

  61,855

  38,539,073

  22,314,123

  114,364

  33,118

  Fife

  141,111

  89,981,175

  62,446,935

  263,032

  81,685

  Grampian

  207,913

  131,750,260

  73,384,895

  383,216

  118,178

  Highland

  85,953

  45,603,970

  28,730,501

  151,663

  50,203

  Lothian

  312,045

  230,025,097

  169,988,547

  582,047

  159,132

  Strathclyde

  926,810

  611,761,080

  474,114,837

  1,766,910

  549,829

  Tayside

  170,187

  105,941,973

  73,523,729

  304,985

  88,763

  Orkney

  8,108

  2,621,357

  1,258,251

  14,822

  4,633

  Shetland

  9,076

  3,277,446

  3,310,220

  16,210

  6,154

  Western Isles

  13,295

  3,577,367

  2,575,704

  23,214

  7,725

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households there are in Scotland with only one adult over the age of 18 years; how many of those are single-parent families with children; and how many are single people over pensionable age.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, it is estimated that at 31 December 1986, there were 564,000 households with one adult over the age of 16 (either living alone or with children under the age of 16) in Scotland; 70,000 of these are estimated to be lone-parent families, while 325,000 are estimated to consist of one person over pensionable age living alone.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the most recent available breakdown of the Scottish adult population by household size in(a) total and (b) percentage terms.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information in the form requested is not available. The estimates in the table are of the population in private households aged 16 and over, by the number of persons aged 16 and over in the household, at 31 December 1986:

  Estimated population aged 16 and over in private households 31 December 1986, Scotland

  Number of persons aged 16 and over in household

  Population

  Percentage

  One

  564,000

  14·4

  Two

  1,921,000

  49·0

  Three

  832,000

  21·2

  Four

  438,000

  11·2

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each region in Scotland the number of (a) rateable domestic premises before the poll tax came into effect, (b) resident adults and (c) resident children together with (i) the rateable value of the domestic premises, (ii) the yield from that rate and (iii) the estimated yield from a 1 per cent. levy on the capital value of the housing stock in 1988 and 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table. Gross yield is calculated by applying poundages (net of domestic relief) to total rateable values. Figures on actual yield after allowing for reliefs, non-payment, and so on are not available separately for the domestic sector. Reliable estimates of the capital value of the housing stock are not available.

  Number of persons aged 16 and over in household

  Population

  Percentage

  Five or more

  163,000

  4·2

  TOTAL

  3,918,000

  100·0

  Incomes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the most recent household income figures for Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The most recent family expenditure survey shows that in 1987–88 the average income per household in Scotland was £234·23 per week.

  Rating System (Costs)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of(a) administering the (i) domestic and (ii) domestic and non-domestic rate rebate system in Scotland in 1987–88, (b) administering the poll tax rebate system in Scotland in 1989–90 and (c) administering the poll tax transitional relief scheme in Scotland in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No information is held centrally on the cost of administering non-domestic rate rebates in 1987–88. Neither is it possible to distinguish between the costs for administering domestic rate rebates and those for rent rebates and rent allowances from the information which is submitted by local authorities. The total cost of housing benefit administration in 1987–88 was £15·3
  873
  million. Similarly, it is not possible to separate community charge rebates from the other elements of housing benefit administration in 1989–90, but the local authorities' estimate of the total cost is £21·7 million. The cost of administering the proposed personal community charge transitional relief scheme in 1989–90 and 1990–91 has not yet been established.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of collecting non-domestic rates in Scotland in 1989–90.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 25 January.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's most recent estimate of the(a) capital expenditure, (b) revenue costs and (c) extra staff employed by local authorities in connection with the establishment and maintenance of the poll tax register and with the administration and collection of the poll tax and poll tax rebate system in Scotland for 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information on actual capital expenditure is not yet available centrally for 1988–89 or 1989–90 in respect of establishment and maintenance of the community charge system in Scotland. However, in order to assist local authorities in preparing for the introduction of the community charge, additional capital allocations were provided in 1987–88 and 1988–89 totalling £26 million. The administrative cost of community charge collection for Scotland in 1989–90 is estimated by local authorities at £23·3 million and the cost of registration work is estimated at £8·5 million. These figures are exclusive of the costs of operating the community charge rebate system. These costs are offset by the savings which local authorities made by no longer having to value domestic properties or collect domestic rates.

  It is not possible from the information collected to separate local authority expenditure on the administration of community charge rebates from that incurred on other housing benefits but local authorities have estimated the cost of administering housing benefits as a whole at £15·9 million in 1988–89 and £21·7 million in 1989–90.

  No information is held centrally on the number of staff employed by authorities on community charge work. The organisational arrangements for community charge collection are entirely a matter for the local authorities themselves.

  Health Service (Expenditure)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total expenditure on the Health Service in Scotland in(a) gross terms and (b) net of pay costs in constant prices and indexed (1980=100) for each year since 1980 including estimated expenditure for 1990–91.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information in the format requested is not fully available. Details of gross expenditure in both cash terms and adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator, are given in the table:
  874

  Total National Health Service Expenditure in Scotland

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1989–90 prices

  Index (1979–80 = 100)

  1979–80

  1,064

  2,143

  100·0

  1980–81

  1,343

  2,386

  106·7

  1981–82

  1,531

  2,374

  110·7

  1982–83

  1,660

  2,401

  112·0

  1983–84

  1,773

  2,450

  114·3

  1984–85

  1,901

  2,502

  116·7

  1985–86

  2,015

  2,517

  117·4

  1986–87

  2,144

  2,591

  120·9

  1987–88

  2,328

  2,672

  124·6

  1988–89

  2,591

  2,772

  129·3

  1989–901

  2,851

  2,851

  133·0

  1990–912

  3,064

  2,918

  136·1

  1 Projected outturn.

  2 Provisional allocation.

  Rate Arrears
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of summary warrants granted for domestic rate arrears in Scotland in each year since 1985–86.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information is not held centrally on the number of persons subject to summary warrant procedure for non-payment of domestic rates.

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of speculative bank account arrestments served in Scottish clearing banks for the recovery of outstanding debts to local authorities in each year since 1985–86; and how many were successful in(a) locating an account and (b) recovering the amount outstanding.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information is not collected centrally on the use of bank account arrestments for the recovery of local authority debts.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on his allocation of £319·217 million to Lothian health board for 1990–91, giving the percentage increase over the previous year in cash, real and volume terms.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The gross allocation to Lothian health board for 1989–90 is £295·956 million. The figure of £319·217 million which I have announced for 1990–91 is likely to be supplemented later in respect of breast cancer screening, waiting list initiatives and a number of minor services. The announced figure represents an increase of 7·86 per cent. in cash terms or 2·73 per cent. in real terms. No separate NHS pay and prices index is maintained for Scotland and it is not therefore possible to calculate the increase in volume terms.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs have fallen to regional authorities in Scotland as a result of provision of services which otherwise would have been provided by the ambulance service during the current ambulance dispute.
  875
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Police costs will be reimbursed by the Common Services Agency. Regional authorities have not been asked to provide any other services.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of a settlement for ambulance personnel in Scotland of(a) 6·5 per cent. from April 1989 to 1990, backdated to April 1989 with an additional 3 per cent. from April 1990 with an offer of further negotiations in October 1990 and (b) 9 per cent. from April 1989, backdated to April 1989 with an offer of further negotiations in October 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Based on the 1988–89 pay bill of £21·6 million for ambulance men and women in Scotland, the cost of a settlement would be £2·45 million in case(a) and £2·91 million in case (b).

  Revenue Support Grant
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether under the community charge system in Scotland it is possible to identify the amount of revenue support grant attributable to each regional council and to each district council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes. Details of the amounts of grant payable to each local authority in Scotland in respect of 1990–91 were specified in the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990.

  Civil Engineers
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil engineers are employed in Scotland in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures requested are not recorded separately in Government employment statistics. Such information may be available from the Institution of Civil Engineers. Periodically it publishes details of its members and their employment.

  Grant-aided Colleges
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will announce the allocations of grant in aid for recurrent expenditure to the grant-aided colleges in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of State has made the following offers of grant in aid for recurrent expenditure to the 17 grant-aided colleges for the financial year 1990–91. The offers, which are conditional on parliamentary approval of the supply estimates, are as follows:

  Offer 1990–91 £ million

  Central Institutions

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  3·844

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  7·273

  Edinburgh College of Art

  3·973

  Glasgow College of Technology

  12·588

  Glasgow School of Art

  3·557

  Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh

  18·441

  Paisley College of Technology

  10·661

  Queen Margaret College

  4·603

  876

  Offer 1990–91 £ million

  Queen's College, Glasgow

  3·183

  Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology

  11·953

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  2·468

  Scottish College of Textiles

  2·403

  Colleges of Education

  Craigie College of Education

  1·555

  Jordanhill College of Education

  10·534

  Moray House College of Education

  7·906

  Northern College of Education

  6·337

  St. Andrew's College of Education

  3·803

  Comparisons of these grants in aid against those made in 1989–90 need to take account of the shift of public funding towards fees and other factors. The offers are designed to ensure that no college will receive an increase of less than 3 per cent. or more than 13 per cent over the initial allocations made in 1989–90. Because the colleges will also benefit from substantial savings as a result of higher rates relief for charities, this should allow expenditure to increase by at least 5 per cent. in 1990–91, and for most colleges by substantially more.

  Excluding the effect of the shift of funding to fees. which will be neutral in terms of public expenditure, but bringing into account the savings that will accrue to the colleges from changes in rates relief for charities, the overall level of public funding for the colleges will be some 11 per cent. higher than in 1989–90. I am pleased that we have been able to provide such an increase in funding, which should enable the colleges to further expand student intakes, notably for pre-service courses of teacher training.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Arms
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a meeting with his counterpart in Buenos Aires to discuss the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans yet to meet the Foreign Minister of Argentina.

  UN Convention on Rights of the Child
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government intend to sign and ratify the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and what reservations Her Majesty's Government intend to enter on various articles of the convention.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We intend to sign and ratify the convention on the rights of the child as soon as possible. We are currently considering what reservations, if any, may be necessary.

  Yanomani Indians
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any discussions through United Nations organisations on the Yanomani Indians in Brazil; and if he will make a statement.
  877
  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have not had discussions specifically through United Nations organisations, but my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment both raised this question with the Brazilian president-elect when he was in London on 8 February.

  Green Island, Hong Kong
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total area of Green Island, the total area of the building in which the Vietnamese boat people are held and the total number of people so held.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Green Island has a total land area of 13·4 hectares. The reception centre, where all asylum seekers arriving in Hong Kong are first taken for the normal port, health and immigration procedures before being transferred after a few days to one of the main detention centres, is situated on a site of 4,150 sq m. The two dormitories in the centre can normally accommodate 480 people but are currently being used to house 500 people. The combined floor area of the two dormitories is about 600 sq m.

  Refugees
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the UNHCR lays down any minimum floor space standards for refugees pending examination of their cases.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The UNHCR has not established any minimum floor space standards for asylum seekers held pending examination of their cases.

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Panamanian relations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We now enjoy good and friendly relations with the Republic of Panama.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 9 January,Official Report, columns 581–82, what information he has now of the number of deaths and injuries among civilians arising from the invasion of Panama by the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest information available to us indicates that 203 Panamanian civilians and three American civilians were killed. No figures have been released on the number of civilians injured.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current arrangements exist in the United Kingdom to represent the interests of the Panamanian Government.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Panamanian Government are represented by their chargé d'affaires at the embassy of the Republic of Panama in London.

PRIME MINISTER

  Press Office
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the estimated cost of her Department's press office in 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  The latest estimate of total expenditure by my press office in 1989–90 is £361,520.

  West German Railways
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to meet Chancellor Kohl; and if she will raise with him his Government's railway investment policy.

  The Prime Minister
  I next expect to meet Chancellor Kohl at the annual Konigswinter conference on 29 March. I do not expect to raise the question of his Government's railway investment policy with him.

  Blaby
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to visit Blaby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to visit Leicestershire.

  German Unification
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's current policy towards the pace and scope of reunification between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government, in common with the other western allies have always supported German unification provided that it comes about as a result of the freely expressed choice of the people of the two German states. It must respect the relevant agreements and treaties and all of the principles of the Helsinki final act. The Government's aim has been to see a framework within which the full implications of Germany's unification could be properly worked out. We very much welcome the achievement of that framework with the agreement at the open skies conference in Ottawa to start meetings of the four powers and the two German states.

  Barley Mow Estate, Limehouse
  Ms. Gordon
  Q.171 To ask the Prime Minister whether she will visit the Barley Mow estate in Limehouse.

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

  Environment (International Co-operation)
  Mr. Hunter
  Q.183 To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to international co-operation on environmental issues.

  >The Prime Minister
  The Government work to protect the global environment through a wide range of international organisations including the European Community, the United Nations and the OECD. Our £3 million annual contribution to the United Nations environment programme is the third highest in the world. In my speech to the United Nations General Assembly last
  879
  November I drew attention to the problem of global climate change, one of the greatest threats to the world environment. I also reiterated our call for an international framework convention on climate change which has been widely supported. We are playing an active part in the intergovernmental panel on climate change and we have committed an additional £100 million over the next three years to help conserve tropical forests.

  Downing Street Services
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what services at 10 Downing street are contracted out; what is the cost per service per year to public funds, respectively; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The contracted-out services regularly used by my office include the following:

  Service

  Estimated Annual Cost

  £

  Window Cleaning

  3,000

  Catering

  24,570

  Laundry and Dry Cleaning

  4,800

  Taxis

  7,420

  Switchboard

  223,000

  In addition, in the current year, my office has made use of other contracted-out services for minor maintenance and redecoration and the management of refurbishment of the state rooms. The costs of all these contracted-out services are met from moneys voted by Parliament.

  Downing Street (Security)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what level of public scrutiny exists over the provision of security expenditure associated with Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure associated with 10 Downing street is carried on the Cabinet Office (OMCS) class XX, vote 1 and is brought to account in the annual appropriation account which is audited and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Engagements
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

HEALTH

  Food Safety
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legislation to safeguard health is being considered in respect of blood gel plasma meat products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 16 February at columns 444–46. As with any other food, fitness for human consumption is subject to the Food Act 1984 and regulations made under that Act. There is no need to legislate separately on safety grounds.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department plans the contracting out of any additional services; and whether self-governing trusts will be allowed to contract out nursing or medical services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans for another central initiative for additional specific NHS services to be subject to mandatory competitive tendering. Competitive tendering does, however, offer scope for increasing effectiveness and value for money across a wide range of services. We shall continue to support and encourage its extension. NHS trusts will be free to decide how best to provide services in order to fulfil the contracts that they make with health authorities and other purchasers.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the number of mentions of rape or incest in certificates for abortions performed on pregnancies of 18 weeks' or more gestation, but excluding any mention of statutory grounds 1, 4, 5 and 6.

  Mr. Freeman
  There was one abortion notification form received for England and Wales during 1988 for an abortion performed at 18 weeks' or more gestation, under either grounds 2 or 3 of the Abortion Act 1967, on which rape was mentioned. There were no mentions of incest in the same categories.

  It should be noted that neither rape nor incest are in themselves statutory grounds for performing an abortion, and are not required to be specified on the notification form by the certifying doctor. The available data, therefore, can be compiled only from occasions on which such information is volunteered on the notification form.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has any evidence as to whether women are at risk of contracting toxic shock syndrome through using tampons;

  (2) whether his Department has evidence to confirm or deny the United States Federal Drugs Agency's list assessment of contracting toxic shock syndrome at one to 17 per 100,000 women and that there is a risk of death.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information received from the public health laboratory service (PHLS) suggests that
  881
  in recent years there has been on average one death per year from toxic shock syndrome (TSS) associated with tampon use in the United Kingdom. The public health laboratory service intends to publish data on the incidence of toxic shock syndrome shortly—which will include data on tampon-related toxic shock syndrome.

  Tampons
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to introduce standardised absorbency regulations for tampons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This Department and the Department of Trade and Industry have asked the industry to show the grades of absorbency of tampons clearly on the packets.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is aware of any research which has been conducted to ascertain whether tampon usage may be linked to the incidence of cervical cancer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are not aware of evidence of a causal link between sanitary protection products and cervical cancer.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will conduct research into the health effects of tampon usage including toxic shock syndrome, vaginal ulcerations and the possibility of tampon fibres becoming attached to vaginal membranes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no present plans to do so.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has conducted any research into links between tampon absorbency and the incidence of toxic shock syndrome.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No, but there has been such research in the United States.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish of 12 February,Official Report, column 26, relating to arrangements for patients in Denton and Reddish, if he will make a statement on the implications for these arrangements of the proposed reforms of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Stockport and Tameside, in common with other district health authorities, will soon be making arrangements to discuss with general practitioners treating residents in their areas what future arrangements should be made for contracts for hospital treatment in a wide range of hospitals, including NHS trust hospitals, hospitals they manage themselves and those managed by other district health authorities. The reform of the National Health Service will provide for better treatment and better value for money leading to more treatment for more patients as the standards achieved by the best hospitals are rewarded by the flow of additional resources.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the new tranquilliser Flucto-Trazepan has yet been submitted for approval; and whether it is being tested to ensure that it is not addictive and does not have dangerous side effects.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not usual practice to disclose information about whether or not an application for a product licence has been received or the progress of any such application.

  Nursing Staff, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing staff have yet to have their regrading resolved or are currently awaiting appeals in(a) Leeds Western health authority and (b) Leeds Eastern health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 7 February,Official Report, column 706, if he will seek a further assurance from the chairman of the North Western regional health authority about expediting a reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe of 16 January to the chairman of the North Western regional health authority about the urgent problems facing the regional cardiac unit, raised with the right hon. Member by all the consultant cardiologists and cardiac surgeons at Wythenshawe hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that Mr. Bruce Martin, chairman of the North Western regional health authority replied on 21 February 1990 to the letter of 16 January 1990 from the right hon. Member.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will open discussions with the South Manchester and Trafford health authorities to explore the possibility of a rationalisation of Wythenshawe hospital's services in conjunction with Trafford general hospital rather than Withington hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for the North Western regional health authority to consider, with South Manchester district health authority and other district authorities affected, the proposals made by the South Manchester authority to rationalise acute and priority services at the Wythenshawe and Withington hospitals. The regional health authority is well aware of the contribution that Wythenshawe hospital makes to the hospital care of residents in South Trafford, and it should certainly take account of this in considering any proposals for significant change made by the South Manchester district health authority.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the cost of a settlement for ambulance personnel in England of(a) 6·5 per cent. from

  883
  April 1989 to 1990, backdated to April 1989 with an additional 3 per cent. from April 1990 with an offer of further negotiations in October 1990 and (b) 9 per cent. from April 1989, backdated to April 1989 with an offer of further negotiations in October 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The increase in employers' pay costs for ambulance personnel in England for each of the proposed 18-month settlement options is as follows:

  Option (a): £25·5 million

  Option (b): £30·3 million

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the total cost of using private ambulances during the current ambulance workers' dispute;

  (2) what has been the total cost of using taxis in lieu of ambulances during the current ambulance workers' dispute.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost for items other than labour

  Food Poisoning

  Salmonella

  S. Enteritidis

  S. Enteritidis PT41

  S. Typhimurium

  Campylobacter

  Listeriosis2

  OPCS Formally Notified

  Otherwise Ascertained

  1980

  10,318

  —

  10,806

  816

  n/a

  3,509

  8,956

  75

  1981

  9,936

  —

  10,600

  1,110

  n/a

  3,691

  12,168

  86

  1982

  9,964

  4,289

  12,051

  959

  n/a

  5,337

  12,797

  77

  1983

  12,273

  5,462

  14,288

  1,537

  n/a

  6,741

  17,278

  115

  1984

  13,247

  7,455

  14,094

  1,554

  n/a

  6,369

  21,018

  115

  1985

  13,143

  6,099

  11,765

  2,520

  n/a

  4,780

  23,572

  149

  1986

  16,502

  7,446

  14,800

  4,001

  2,271

  5,885

  24,809

  137

  1987

  20,363

  8,968

  17,552

  5,784

  3,861

  6,400

  27,310

  259

  1988

  27,826

  11,887

  23,821

  13,051

  9,062

  5,566

  28,761

  291

  1989 (prov)

  39,125

  15,588

  25,188

  13,232

  9,749

  6,182

  32,590

  251

  1990 To week 06 (prov)

  2,656

  1,216

  2,227

  1,168

  898

  459

  2,969

  8

  1 Data on S. Enteritiosis PT's was collected from 1986 onwards.

  2 From 1983 Laboratory reports to CDSC and DMRQC data were pooled resulting in increased ascertainment.

  n/a Not available for this year.

EMPLOYMENT

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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. Eggar
  At present the following firms provide security for the Department:

  Reliance Security Services

  Compass Security

  Group 4 Security

  High Peak Security Services

  Chubb Wardens Ltd.

  Securicor Ltd.

  Securiguard Ltd.

  Armaguard

  Century Security

  Stirling Guards

  Securisystem Ltd.

  Dagenham Motorsecurity Ltd.

  Mint Security

  884
  arising from the current ambulance workers' dispute in the following regions: (i) Nottingham, (ii) Manchester, (iii) Essex, (iv) West Yorkshire and (v) Northumbria.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  This detailed information is not collected centrally.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the number of cases notified to him of the following for each year since 1980 until the latest date for which figures are available:(a) food poisoning in general, (b) salmonella, (c) salmonella enteritidis, (d) salmonella enteritidis P4, (e) salmonella typhimurium, (f) campylobacter and (g) listeriosis, respectively;

  (2) if he will list the number of cases notified to him of the following for January: (a) food poisoning in general, (b) salmonella, (c) salmonella enteritidis, (d) salmonella enteritidis P4, (e) salmonella typhimurium, (f) campylobacter and (g) listeriosis.

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

  £000s

  1984–85

  300

  1985–86

  331

  1986–87

  427

  1987–88

  502

  1988–89

  444

  1989–90

  540

  Total

  2,544

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many newly established factory premises were registered with each of the Health and Safety Executive's area offices in each of the last five years.

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

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the annual allocation of work permits for unskilled applicants from Hong Kong will be completed.

  Mr. Eggar
  An announcement about the arrangements for the 1990 dependent territories quota will be made soon.

  Work Permits (Domestic Servants)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits were granted in 1989 to foreigners described as domestic servants.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of 36 work permits were granted for employment in this category under the provision of the dependent territories quota which allows a limited number of overseas nationals from the remaining dependent territories to come for work below the normal occupational skills criteria of the work permit scheme.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what employment regulations govern persons brought into the country as domestic servants by(a) foreigners and (b) agencies based in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Such people, once they have established that they ordinarily work in Great Britain, are covered by the employment protection legislation in the same way as British employees.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what regulations govern the establishment of agencies in the United Kingdom which import domestic servants from abroad.

  Mr. Eggar
  Employment agencies, including those which recruit domestic servants from abroad, must be licensed under the Employment Agencies Act 1973. Regulations made under the Act (SI 1976 No. 715) set standards of conduct to protect the interests of workers and clients.

  Further Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out, in 1987 prices, the expenditure on work-related further education in(a) 1986–87, (b) 1987–88, (c) 1988–89, (d) 1989–90 and (e) the projected expenditure for 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total expenditure on work-related further education by the Employment Department Group Training Agency (and its predecessors, the Training Commission and the Manpower Services Commission) is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  110·0

  1987–88

  106·7

  1988–89

  106·3

  1989–90

  93·1

  1990–91

  89·8

  The figures shown are at constant 1986–87 prices and were calculated by use of the GDP deflator index.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the total expenditure on the action for jobs campaign in 1988–89 was attributed to printed material; how much was attributed to television advertising; and how much was attributed to other expenditure.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure on action for jobs printed material in 1988–89 was £287,000; expenditure on action for jobs television advertising in 1988–89 was £123,000; and other expenditure relating to the action for jobs campaign in 1988–89 was £190,000.

  Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number and percentage of(a) people who started training with a training manager from the guarantee group and (b) people who started training with a training manager from the aim group between September 1988 and December 1989 inclusive for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: A total of 79,000 people (14 per cent. of all entrants) entered employment training from the guarantee group and 173,000 (32 per cent.) from the aim group between September 1988 and December 1989.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number in employment training of(a) people aged 18 to 25 years who have been unemployed for between six to 12 months and (b) people aged 18 to 50 years who have been unemployed for over two years in each of the months September 1988 to December 1989 inclusive for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The information is provided in the table:

  Employment training aim and guarantee group entrants September 1988 to December 1989

  Month

  Guarantee group

  Aim group

  September 1988

  3,600

  7,900

  October

  5,100

  11,300

  November

  5,400

  12,700

  December

  4,600

  10,600

  January 1989

  5,500

  13,000

  February

  6,700

  15,200

  March

  6,600

  13,600

  April

  5,700

  11,400

  May

  4,800

  9,100

  June

  5,600

  10,800

  July

  4,700

  9,800

  August

  4,100

  8,300

  September

  5,400

  13,200

  October

  4,400

  10,400

  November

  4,400

  10,800

  December1

  3,100

  7,600

  1 Provisional.

ENVIRONMENT

  Association of District Councils
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of District Councils; and what issues were raised.
  887
  Mr. Chris Patten
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities addressed the Association of District Councils national symposium on 23 January. He spoke about the revenue support grant settlement.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the proposed rate of poll tax for all councils and districts which have declared a rate, together with the average rate per head payable in the current financial year.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of charging authorities which have community charges higher than the Government estimate and how many are less than that estimate; and if he will list the authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 21 February.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the figure of £2,280·12 in paragraph

  Standard spending assessments

  Education

  Personal social services

  Highway maintenance

  Other services

  Capital financing

  Total

  £ per adult

  £ per adult

  £ per adult

  £ per adult

  £ per adult

  £ per adult

  Waltham Forest

  510

  170

  36

  193

  93

  1,002

  Enfield

  452

  110

  38

  134

  82

  816

  Redbridge

  414

  99

  36

  136

  65

  751

  Haringey

  561

  230

  35

  251

  104

  1,181

  Hackney

  701

  344

  40

  359

  124

  1,569

  Barnet

  389

  103

  35

  128

  52

  707

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what gain or loss has resulted for Brighton borough council as a consequence of the reduction in the standard spending assessment for the borough; what was the comparable grant in the previous four financial years; and on what basis the assessment was reduced.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Brighton borough council's standard spending assessment (SSA) for 1990–91 reflects a 2·7 per cent. increase over the comparable figure for 1989–90 grant-related expenditure (GRE). It is not possible to determine what grant gain or loss has resulted for an authority as a consequence of a variation between its adjusted 1989–90 GRE and its 1990–91 SSA, because the methodology for calculating grant entitlement under the community charge system is different from that used under the domestic rating system. Brighton borough council's SSA was calculated on the same basis as that used for all other district councils, that is, the basis set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England).

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the detailed criteria leading to the standard spending assessment for Solihull borough; and what assessment he has made of the resultant effect of his calculations.

  Mr. Chope
  The details of the method of calculating the standard spending assessments for all local authorities are set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report
  888
  3.1a of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) was arrived at; and what effect the choice of this figure has on standard spending assessments arrived at for Grimsby.

  Mr. Chope
  The figure referred to was arrived at by my right hon. Friend after full consultation with local authority respresentatives. It has no effect on the standard spending assessment for Great Grimsby since, as a non-metropolitan district, Great Grimsby is not responsible for social services for children.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set out the reasons for the variations in the standard spending assessment on a per capita basis between the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Enfield, Redbridge, Haringey, Hackney and Barnet.

  Mr. Chope
  The standard spending assessments have been calculated according to the formulae set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). The results of these calculations for each service element are listed in pounds per relevant adult for the London boroughs requested:

  (England) approved by the House on 18 January. The result of the calculations for Solihull is an assessment of £103·664 million.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an estimate of the total number of households in the London borough of Hillingdon that will be eligible for relief under the community charge transitional relief scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  I estimate that about 6 million individuals will be entitled to transitional relief in England. No estimates have been made of the number of persons eligible at the level of individual local authorities, but I understand that the London borough of Hillingdon has estimated that residents of more than 33,000 properties in the borough are potentially eligible for transitional relief.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance the London borough of Hillingdon will receive under the community charge transitional relief scheme; and what estimate he has made of the amount of transitional relief available on a notional charge of £359, excluding any overspending by the council to(a) a single occupier whose rateable value does not exceed £94 and (b) two occupiers whose rateable value does not exceed £257.

  Mr. Chope
  For the proposed arrangements for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of the community charge transitional relief scheme, I refer my
  889
  hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) on 15 February, Official Report, column 405. In general, the transitional relief scheme provides assistance where the assumed community charge next year is more than £156 above the assumed rates bill (defined as the rateable value times the assumed rates poundage) this year. In the examples quoted, however, the assumed charge or charges is less than £156 above this year's rates bill and no relief would therefore be payable.

  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the estimated yield for the community charge in the year beginning 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not possible to make an estimate of the actual yield until charging authorities have set their charges. However, if authorities spend in line with the assumptions used for the settlement, charge payers will have to find about £7·55 billion, after rebates and transitional relief, towards spending of £32·8 billion. If authorities increase their spending, the burden on charge payers will be higher.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the elements which make up the standard spending assessment relevant to local authorities for the purpose of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  The details of the method of assessing standard spending assessments are set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) approved by the House on 18 January.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the rate of inflation assumed for local authorities for the purposes of standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Chope
  There is no specific assumption about inflation incorporated in standard spending assessments. However, total standard spending for 1990–91, from which standard spending assessments for 1990–91 are derived, is 11 per cent higher than the equivalent figure for 1989–90.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about local authorities requiring community charge payers to make their payments by direct debits, standing orders or cash but not by cheques drawn on their bank accounts.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for local authorities to agree with charge payers which method they will use to make payment. I should expect the local authority to have regard inter alia to convenience for charge payers and the cost-effectiveness for the authority of particular methods of payment. I am not aware of any authority that is refusing to accept cheques in payment of the community charge.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) for calculation purposes to determine rate support grant in(a) Middlesbrough, (b) Stockton and (c) Langbaurgh, how many (i) one-parent families and (ii) black families were assessed as resident in the relevant areas;

  (2) how much Langbaurgh would receive under the new grant scheme for local council support following the introduction of the community charge if (a) 2,000, (b) 5,000 and (c) 10,000 of its residents were black; and how much it is currently expected to receive;
  890
  (3) what weighting is given in calculating the rate support grant to the proportion of immigrants in the population from (a) the West Indies, (b) Pakistan, (c) Bangladesh, (d) Nigeria, (e) India, (f) Hong Kong, (g) Israel, (h) Australia, (i) New Zealand, (j) Canada, (k) Eire, (l)EEC countries, (m) Turkey, (n) Greece and (o) the United States of America;

  (4) which are (a) the five local authorities which receive most support in cash terms and (b) the five authorities which receive the least support in cash terms under the current rate support grant scheme by virtue of the number of black heads of households.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today written to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) in real terms what was the annual local government net current expenditure per head of population in Stockport during each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (2) in real terms what was the annual local government net current expenditure per head of population in (a) Manchester and (b) Trafford during each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Net current expenditure per head in real terms (1989–90 prices)

  £

  Manchester city council

  1987–88

  804

  1988–89

  676

  1989–90

  704

  Trafford borough council

  1987–88

  493

  1988–89

  503

  1989–90

  494

  Stockport borough council

  1987–88

  475

  1988–89

  487

  1989–90

  466

  Notes:

  1. The GDP deflator has been used to convert cash values to constant prices.

  2. Population figures used to derive per capita values are Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid year estimates of total population.

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

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of the amounts of the additional £250 million given to local authorities to deal with homelessness according to(a) explicit or earmarked purposes, (b) region and (c) money to tenants to enter owner-occupation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is currently considering bids for the £112 million to be made available to local authorities for schemes to relieve homelessness in 1990–91. The Housing Corporation is also considering bids for the £36 million to be allocated to housing associations for similar schemes. Announcements on the projects to be supported will be made as soon as possible.

  Water Companies
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people who applied for shares in the privatised water companies have not yet received their shares despite having their cheques cashed.

  Mr. Trippier
  At the end of last week the receiving banks for the water share offers were dealing with about 970 outstanding requests for replacement interim share certificates.

  Archaeology
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now publish guidance on archaeology and development.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued today, for public consultation, draft guidance aimed at providing local planning authorities in England, developers, archaeologists, amenity societies, property owners and the general public with advice on Government policy on ancient monuments and archaeological sites and on the handling of archaeological remains and discoveries in the planning process. Its key message is that developers and local planning authorities should discuss outline development proposals at an early stage so that the needs of archaeology and development can be reconciled. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which years before 1 April 1989 the number of members of the Nature Conservancy Council has exceeded 18.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Before 1 April 1989, the number appointed to serve on the Nature Conservancy Council rose to 19 only during the year April 1981 to April 1982.

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

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The estimated average gross mortgage interest rates of building societies for the periods March 1974 to May 1979 and June 1979 to December 1989 are 10·8 per cent. and 12·5 per cent. respectively.

  River Rother
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans for a major review of consent procedures in relation to discharges into rivers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The NRA is already conducting a review of the way in which discharge consents for all types of discharge are set, and the way in which compliance with the terms of consent is assessed, to ensure that the consent system can effectively protect water quality and enable pollution control standards to be enforced. I await the NRA's conclusions with interest.
  892
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instigate an official inquiry into all discharges into the River Rother; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not consider that it would be appropriate for him to institute such an inquiry. This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority, which is under a statutory duty to review, from time to time, all consented discharges, and is responsible for securing such improvements as it considers will be needed to meet new statutory water quality objectives to be set up by the Secretary of State. I understand that major improvements to sewage and industrial discharges are already planned or under way which are designed to raise the quality of the River Rother.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the breaches of consent relating to the discharges into the River Rother, and the number of prosecutions, since 1980 to the present time.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Details of all breaches of consent are available on the public register maintained by the National Rivers Authority. For information on prosecutions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 18n January 1990, at column 360.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the ability of the National Rivers Authority to test for any substances that it considers may endanger health.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for maintaining and improving the quality of controlled waters. The most up-to-date analytical techniques are used to test for a wide range of substances. The authority has commissioned three additional laboratories which will be in operation during 1991.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what costs have fallen to local authorities in England and Wales as a result of provision of services which otherwise would have been provided by the ambulance service during the current ambulance dispute.

  Mr. Chope
  Information is not held centrally about the cost of any arrangements which may have been made between local authorities and health authorities for the provision of assistance during the ambulance dispute. The cost of assistance provided by military, police and other organisations will be met by the relevant health authorities.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made to reduce the level of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Stratospheric chlorine levels are expected to start falling when the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is cut by 85 per cent. In the current
  893
  renegotiation of the Montreal protocol, the European Community position, based on our own proposals, is to require this by 1995, earlier than any other proposal. British consumption of CFCs has already been cut by over 50 per cent., 10 years earlier than the protocol currently requires.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of benzene contamination is acceptable in drinking water; and what are the standards required in Britain, the rest of the European Economic Community and the United States of America, respectively.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, which incorporate the requirements of the EC drinking water directive, set a standard of 10 microgrammes per litre for dissolved or emulsified hydrocarbons, which includes benzene; however, the regulations do not contain a specific standard for benzene. The World Health Organisations guideline value for benzene in drinking water is 10 microgrammes per litre and the United States maximum contaminant level is 5 microgrammes per litre.

  Transferred Property (Sales)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy relating to requests for his consent under section 105 of the Housing Act 1988 to sales of transferred property, where a disposal cost was attributable to that property on transfer.

  Mr. Chope
  Subject to certain exemptions, notably sales under the right to buy, section 105 of the Housing Act 1988 provides that new landlords under part IV of the Act—tenants' choice—may not dispose of property acquired by them under part IV from a public sector landlord, except with the consent of the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Chope
  Subject to certain exemptions, notably sales under the right to buy, section 105 of the Housing Act 1988 provides that new landlords under part IV of the Act—tenants' choice—may not dispose of property acquired by them under part IV from a public sector landlord, except with the consent of the Secretary of State.

  The statutory arrangements for valuation of property transferring under part IV take into account the cost of any works needed to bring property up to the state of repair required by the public sector landlord's repairing obligations. Where there is a disposal cost—"dowry"—however, the valuation cannot make provision for any additional works of improvements going beyond repair. Tenants may wish these to be carried out, particularly where the properties are below current accepted standards of amenity, as may be the case where dowries are payable. Disposals of some transferred assets may offer a prospect

  My right hon. Friend will consider applications made to him for disposal consent on their merits, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. However, in instances where a dowry was attributable to the property under section 99 of the Act, he will, in principle, be prepared to entertain such applications, where proceeds from the disposals are to be used to fund improvements to, or demolition and replacement of, other acquired dwellings, for continued letting at rents within the reach of those in low-paid employment.
  894
  My right hon. Friend is also required, by section 105(4) of the Act, before giving consent to satisfy himself that appropriate steps have been taken to consult any tenants of the property to be disposed of, and to have regard to their responses.

  Under section 105(4) as amended, my right hon. Friend may impose conditions on his consent, requiring the new landlord to make a payment to the public sector landlord from whom he acquired the property. Again, he will consider individual cases on their merits. However, it is his general intention that the new landlord should be required to pay to the public sector landlord the excess of any proceeds of the disposal over the amount reasonably required to fund works appropriate to the circumstances, after allowing for any contribution which might he made from projected rental income, dowry payments, or right-to-buy sale proceeds in excess of those assumed in determination of the dowry.

  House Renovation Grants
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the new system of house renovation grants provided in part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will be brought into effect in England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I have considered very carefully requests by the local authority associations and others that introduction of the new system should be deferred to allow further consultation on the rest of resources regulations and to give local authorities more time to prepare for implementation.

  In the light of these representations we have therefore decided that the main provisions of part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 should be brought into effect on 1 July 1990 and not from 1 April as originally planned. From April to June the existing system of home improvement grants will remain in force.

  We have, however, decided to bring into effect the new assistance for minor works on 1 April. This will enable local authorities to continue to provide help for insulation measures for those on certain state benefits, and also for certain other purposes such as repair work for the elderly.

  Part VII of the 1989 Act, introducing renewal areas in place of housing action areas and general improvement areas, will also be brought into force on 1 April, together with a number of provisions in part IX of the Act dealing with unfit housing.

  My Department and the Welsh Office are writing to all local housing authorities with further details of how these provisions in respect of the repair and improvement of private sector housing are to be implemented. Advice on all those provisions coming into force on 1 April will be issued shortly before then, and further advice on the new grant system will be published well before 1 July.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the leaflet for the public on the new grants legislation will be available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: A new edition of "Housing Booklet 14" describing grants for the repair and improvement of private sector housing will be published before the new system is brought into force on 1 July 1990.
  895
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the prescribed form for application under the new grants system will be available.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: We are still considering whether to prescribe an application form for the new grants system.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the regulations on the new test of resources for assessment of housing renovation grants will be issued; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Officials wrote to the local authority associations with a draft of the test of resources regulations on 19 January, and consultations are continuing. The regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after consultation has been completed, and will be issued to local authorities thereafter.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will delay the date of implementation of the new housing renovation grants system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department intends to publish guidelines to parts VII and VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 February 1990]: I have announced today that part VII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will be implemented on 1 April, and the new grant system in part VIII on 1 July. My Department will issue advice to local authorities in advance of those dates, as well as publishing a booklet for the general public on the new grant system.

  Buildings (Cleaning)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any information on the annual cost of cleaning urban buildings blackened by smoke in the United Kingdom; and what his Department estimates to be the relative contributions to such blackening from the combustion of(a) coal, (b) smokeless fuel, (c) fuel oil, (d) gas oil, (e) motor spirit, (f) derv, and (g) other sources.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: My Department does not collate information on the specific costs of removing black smoke deposits from urban buildings. However, it is estimated that the total United Kingdom stone-cleaning market is of the order of £75 million.

  There are no figures available for the relative contributions of fuel combustion to blackening. However, estimates of the percentage contribution of the combustion of different fuel types to black smoke emissions in the United Kingdom will be published in the next air quality statistical bulletin 90(1) of the digest of environmental protection and water statistics.

  The two major sources of black smoke are domestic coal combustion and diesel fuel. Since the introduction of
  896
  the Clean Air Acts (Great Britain 1956 and 1968, Northern Ireland 1964) emissions of smoke from all sources have fallen by over 85 per cent. The United Kingdom Government have long recognised the need to curb emissions from diesel engines and are pressing the European Commission to produce proposals for an EC directive providing strict standards for emissions, including particulates, from HGVs and buses. In 1988, the EC Environment Council agreed a directive setting tight particulate emission standards for cars.

  New Grants System
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants have been assigned to prepare the regulations and procedures for the new grants system; what legal assistance they have; and when the work will be completed.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  If the hon. Member cares to say in which new grants system he is interested, we shall write to him.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year for the last 10 years, the number of service men serving on(a) Valiant and (b) Churchill class nuclear submarines, who have been diagnosed as suffering from radiation contamination.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No personnel in any class of Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine have received a radiation dose from radioactive contamination during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the results of the inspections carried out on the five Royal Navy Valiant and Churchill class nuclear submarines, in respect of suspected reactor faults.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on specific features of the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarines. The programme of inspections of all the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarines is continuing.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected service life of(a) Valiant and (b) Churchill class nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We expect Valiant and Churchill class submarines to remain in service for their design lives of about 25 to 30 years.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contributions his Department will make to the NATO exercises due to be held in Norway during March.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no NATO exercises due to be held in Norway during March. A Norwegian national exercise, designated "Cold Winter", is planned to take place in which several members of the Alliance, including the United Kingdom, have been invited to take
  897
  part. Three Commando Brigade Royal Marines together with several Royal Navy ships and RAF aircraft will form the British contribution.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in regard to the appearance of Ministers and civil servants from his Department before the Defence Select Committee inquiry into the Colin Wallace affair.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend's policy will be to respond as helpfully as possible, in accordance with normal conventions.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total man hours performed by Army personnel involved in ambulance duties in the United Kingdom during the current ambulance workers' dispute.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 960,234 service man hours were deployed in the period to 20 February.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total number of man hours performed by Army personnel during the current ambulance workers' dispute in the following regions; and how many of these hours were paid at overtime rates:(a) Nottingham, (b) Manchester, (c) Essex, (d) West Yorkshire and (e) Northumbria.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Military ambulances have not operated in Nottingham, West Yorkshire or Northumbria during the current dispute. In Manchester and Essex the number of service man hours deployed up until 20 February were 4,600 and 19,740 respectively. Service personnel are not eligible for overtime payments.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average hourly rate of pay for Army personnel employed on ambulance duties during the current ambulance workers' dispute.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Rates of pay vary according to a number of factors, such as rank and qualification. An average hourly rate of pay could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Officer Courses
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make arrangements for hon. Members to visit courses for prospective officers of the armed forces and higher courses for serving officers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  If the hon. Member would care to write to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces with details of what he has in mind, my noble Friend will be glad to consider his request.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the April 1990 income support allowances for(a) single people and (b) married couples
  898
  represents compensation for the 20 per cent. community charge contribution; and if he will consider increasing the community charge element within the allowances if the average community charge payable in 1990–91 is higher than anticipated.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 5 February at column 524.

  The level of income support is reviewed each year as part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's obligations under section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of income support in(a) west Leeds, (b) Leeds, (c) west Yorkshire and (d) England as a whole; and what are the corresponding figures for those in receipt of supplementary benefit for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the table:

  Supplementary benefit/income support live load

  Leeds West

  Leeds

  West Yorkshire

  England

  1985–86

  11,744

  69,972

  198,797

  4,240,546

  1986–87

  11,939

  71,146

  200,432

  4,308,787

  1987–88

  12,545

  71,917

  199,886

  4,251,651

  1988–89

  11,054

  63,634

  177,182

  3,651,273

  11989–90

  10,538

  62,374

  175,827

  3,602,366

  1 Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action, which include a number where benefit payment has ceased but other action is continuing.

  Note: Data for earlier years are unavailable.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make it his policy, when considering claims for income support and family credit, that the same methods are used in respect of each benefit for calculating the number of hours worked by claimants;

  (2) if he will set out in the Official Report the detailed methods used to calculate the numbers of hours worked by claimants when determining eligibility for (a) income support and (b) family credit;

  (3) why different methods of calculation are used in determining the numbers of hours worked by claimants when considering claims for income support or family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The method used to calculate the number of hours worked is the same in both income support and family credit. The rules are set out in regulation 5 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 and in regulation 4 of the Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987. The application of these rules in individual cases is a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities.

  Occupational Deafness (Refusal of Benefit)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to identify those claimants who were wrongly refused disablement benefit for occupational deafness in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment in McKiernon's case.

  Mr. Scott
  The implications of this judgment are still being considered.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a chart or table showing for each academic year since 1979 the average amount of benefit or support, of each kind, received by a student in full-time higher education.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about the amount of benefit claimed by students is not routinely collected and is not therefore available in the form requested. However, details of students' income from all sources are contained in surveys carried out by Research Services Limited on behalf of the Department of Education and Science. Copies of the surveys, which cover the 1986–87 academic years, are available in the Library.

  Disability
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will take steps to ensure that people in the areas covered by the Derby social security offices who were entitled to a severe disablement premium prior to the amendment of regulation 3(2)(c) of the Income Support (General) Regulations on 9 October 1989 receive appropriate arrears of benefit at the earliest possible date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Entitlement to the severe disability premium is a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities, including social security appeal tribunals. In some cases, awards of this premium by such tribunals have been suspended pending appeal, by the adjudication officer, to the social security commissioners. We are not aware of any delay in paying arrears of other awards of this premium by tribunals, but if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind perhaps she will write to me.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people, in the period 10 December 1989 to 11 January 1990, who have been excluded from unemployment benefit by the new £43 weekly earnings rule.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 21 December 1989 at columns 404–5 which gave our estimate of the numbers who will lose unemployment benefit. Figures of the number of disallowances of unemployment benefit are not yet available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people between 10 December 1989 and 11 January 1990 who have been excluded from the unemployment total by the new £43 limit on weekly pay introduced on 10 December 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Anyone working and earning in a week at least the amount of the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions will have any claim to unemployment benefit in that week disallowed. Such people are not excluded from the unemployment count and will be included in it if they continue to register as unemployed.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cost to his Department to date of advertising family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the financial year1988–89 the following amounts were spent on advertising family credit:

  Amounts spent in 1988–89 financial year

  £

  TV

  2,304,617

  Press

  587,667

  Radio

  173,052

  Total

  3,061,336

  Amount spent in 1989–90 financial year

  TV

  4,047,612

  Posters

  1,313,333

  Press

  475,000

  Total

  5,835,281

  GRAND TOTAL

  £8,897,281

  All sums include VAT, production and COI 1 per cent. commission.

  Attendane Allowance
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that full advantage is taken of the extension of attendance allowance to children under the age of two years; and if the entitlement will be on the same basis as children under the age of 16 years currently receiving attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about the extension will be included in a new edition of the attendance allowance leaflet to be published in April. This will be supported by information for doctors, health visitors and others who may be advising parents. The publicity will be timed to coincide with the extension and will be maintained thereafter to inform the parents or guardians of newly eligible children of their entitlement. The regulations which I will be laying before the House will extend attendance allowance to children under two satisfy the entitlement conditions which currently apply to children up to the age of 16.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to alter the social fund budget allocation for 1990–91 in the light of the release of £3 million to supplement 1989–90 social fund expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We are currently considering the amount to be allocated to individual local offices for 1990–91 and will make an announcement in due course.

  Relocation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement regarding the changes in the timetable of the London Department of Social Security relocation programme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Experience in relocating the first group of offices was that conversion of cases to the income
  901
  support computer system took longer than expected because of the number of cases requiring information or action to resolve errors. Therefore we have decided to adjust the timetable of the next group of offices, all of which have large income support loads.

  The eight-week conversion period in the second group has been extended to 13 weeks as follows:

  Euston—17 April 1990 (no change)

  Paddington—16 July 1990

  Highgate—15 October 1990

  Finsbury Park—28 January 1991

  The timetable for the transfer of income support cases to other social security centres remains unaltered.

  It has also been decided that pensions and incapacity benefits cases will now be relocated simultaneously on the dates published for the transfer of the latter.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in the light of the abolition of the earnings rule for retirement pensions what guidance his Department now gives to those approaching retirement as to the financial benefit of either claiming or deferring their retirement pension especially for those who have a deficient contribution record.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is the Department's policy to make information available to help individuals make informed choices and plan for their retirement.

  Information on deferring retirement and contribution conditions for retirement pension is in leaflets produced by the Department. The retirement pension forecast advisory service provides individuals with a valuable forecast of their entitlement based upon their existing and forecast future contributions record.

  Also, as part of the retirement pension claims package, which is sent to individuals four months before they are due to reach pensionable age, there is information on the effect on their pension of deferring their claim and the contribution conditions for retirement pension.

  Computers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what hardware and software packages relating to social security have been sent out for tender.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department has a large number of contracts with the private sector for the supply of hardware and the development of software in support of the social security operational strategy and other programmes of computerisation.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what software packages relating to social security have so far been developed with regard to benefits and especially incapacity benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Most social security benefits have some form of automated assistance; we are at present in the process of developing a computer application for incapacity benefits.

  Contingency Reserves
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what process was used to determine the allocation to local Department of Social Security offices of the £3 million released from the social security contingency reserves.
  902
  Mr. Scott
  The additional allocations to local offices were made from money recovered during 1989–90 from social fund loan repayments. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 31 January 1990 at columns 194–95 regarding the basis on which those allocations are made.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether foster parent allowances will be treated as income when calculating entitlement to community charge benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The community charge benefit scheme will not treat as income any fostering allowance made to a claimant.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of applying individually to a husband and wife the £8,000 limit on assets which cause a community charge payer to be ineligible for rebates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the individual capital holding of members of couples is not available.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the likely cost of community charge rebate for 1990–91; and how much that would increase if savings were to be disregarded.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: Expenditure on community charge benefit in England, Wales and Scotland in 1990–91 is currently forecast to be £1·75 billion. Information is not available to make precise estimates but it seems probable that expenditure would increase by between £250 million and £300 million if the capital limit was abolished and no income was assumed to be derived from capital holdings.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy that when a woman writes a letter to his Department in respect of her entitlement to benefit his offices will reply to the writer of that letter rather than her husband.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is already the policy for officers of the Department to reply direct to the writer of any letters rather than to a third party. I am aware of a particular case of a letter having been sent in error to the husband of one of the hon. Member's constituents, for which the local office manager has now apologised.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink farms are currently in operation in each county and region in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and what were the equivalent figures 12 months ago.

  Mr. Maclean
  Fifty mink farms (premises) are currently in operation in the United Kingdom, compared with 61 a year ago, as follows:
  903

  As at 31 March 1989

  As at 20 February 1990

  England

  Northern

  16

  13

  Humberside

  2

  2

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  West Yorkshire

  11

  8

  Midlands and West

  18

  15

  Cheshire

  2

  1

  Lancashire

  14

  12

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  Eastern

  7

  7

  Herefordshire

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  4

  4

  South Eastern

  5

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  2

  Isle of Wight

  1

  1

  West Sussex

  1

  —

  South Western

  6

  4

  Cornwall

  2

  2

  Dorset

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  Wiltshire

  2

  1

  Total England

  52

  43

  Scotland

  8

  6

  Northern Ireland

  1

  1

  Total United Kingdom

  61

  50

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will instruct his officials to reinspect all mink farms to ensure that after the recent storms they continue to comply with current regulations;

  (2) if he will revoke the licence of the mink farm in Stansted, Essex, following the recent large-scale escape of mink into surrounding countryside and buildings;

  (3) what information he has on the escape of farmed mink following damage to their cages in the recent storms;

  (4) whether he has revoked the licences of any mink farms following damage during the recent storms;

  (5) whether he intends to review the conditions of the Mink Keeping Order.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 25 January very severe winds damaged a mink farm at Stansted and several animals escaped when their pens broke open after being blown through the perimeter fence. The owner fulfilled his statutory duty by notifying MAFF immediately, and as soon as the storm subsided the damage was repaired. Most of the escaped mink have been recaptured or accounted for, but eight are still missing. The licence of the farm has not been revoked. The circumstances of the escapes were wholly exceptional and the pens and fence have been made secure. This was the only notification of escaped mink following the storm.

  All farms are visited at least annually by MAFF inspectors to check that the conditions of their licences are being respected. The Mink Keeping Order expires at the end of 1992 and its renewal will be reviewed well before then.

  North Sea Dumping
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's definition of inert or harmless as a description of substances permitted to be dumped in the North sea by the 1987 North sea agreement.

  Mr. Curry
  Her Majesty's Government accept the definition of"inert materials of natural origin"

  contained in Oslo Commission decision 89/1 of 14 June 1989. This is
  "solid, chemically-unprocessed geological material whose chemical constituents are unlikely to be released in the marine environment".

  They include such materials as sand, gravel, stones and rock material originating on land as well as colliery waste; none of which have been contaminated by anthropogenic processes.

  No comparable definition has been adopted for "harmless". This is a quality which has to be assessed on a case by case basis in the light of careful scientific assessment.

  I can give some examples of characteristics of liquid industrial wastes which the Government consider harmless. They include wastes which are very rapidly neutralised in the sea into substances which are naturally present in the sea, such as salts and water. Organic constituents at trace levels are rapidly biodegraded and so can have no effects on marine life. No trace of wastes can be found by the most sensitive means of analysis within five minutes of dumping. Constituents of the wastes are tested on oyster embryos to ensure that they have no effects on particularly sensitive life forms in the sea.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under which section of the 1987 North sea agreement is the authorisation being granted by the Government for the dumping of paracetamol in the North sea.

  Mr. Curry
  The issue of licences for the deposit of substances from the United Kingdom in the sea is subject to the provisions of part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. In considering whether to grant such licences we take into account paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 1987 North sea conference declaration which permit the dumping of harmless industrial waste until practical land-based alternative means of disposal are available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is undertaking or planning to investigate the increase of detritus and domestic rubbish being entrapped in commercial fishing nets in the North sea.

  Mr. Curry
  The directorate of fisheries research is planning to monitor the incidence of litter in commercial fishing nets in the course of forthcoming cruises of fisheries research vessels.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends that dumping at sea of industrial waste covered by the 1987 North sea declaration will cease.

  Mr. Gummer
  Ever since the 1987 North sea declaration we have been working hard to identify acceptable land-
  905
  based means of disposal for the industrial wastes which we have licensed for disposal at sea. I am very glad to be able to announce that we intend that none of these wastes will continue to be dumped at sea after the end of 1992. In two cases, however, it might not be technically feasible to meet this deadline. We will extend the licences for these two last wastes into 1993 only if absolutely necessary on technical grounds and for the shortest possible part of that year.

  I am also glad to emphasise that we have already stopped the dumping at sea of more than half the industrial wastes which were licensed in 1987. Only nine wastes covered by the 1987 North sea declaration remain and some of these will cease to be dumped at sea in the course of this year.

  The identification and implementation of acceptable land—based disposal alternatives on this times scale requires a high degree of commitment by the companies concerned. However, although the 1987 North sea declaration accepted that wastes such as ours which do not harm the sea could continue to be disposed of at sea as long as no practicable land-based means of disposal was available, the Government have been determined to ensure that these wastes ceased to be dumped at sea as soon as possible. I am extremely pleased that we have now been able to set a firm timetable for ending all these disposals at sea.

  Bottled Water
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any representations were made by his Department to the importers of Perrier water about traces of benzene identified in tests by the food safety directorate since August 1989; and when such contamination was first identified in Perrier water in Britain.

  Mr. Maclean
  Preliminary results from the food safety directorate's tests of United Kingdom supplies of Perrier water became available on 14 February. My officials made clear to the company that, although the levels detected here and in the United States posed a negligible risk to health, the Government were concerned at what appeared to be adventitious contamination by benzene.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines govern the quality and safety of bottled water sold in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Community directive on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (80/777) requires, inter alia, that all natural mineral waters must be officially recongised and monitored by a competent authority and that certain chemical and microbiological criteria must be met.

  Other types of bottled drinking water are covered by the EC directive relating to the quality of water for human consumption (80/778). If the Food Safety Bill is passed, I would intend to use powers therein to make regulations specifically covering such bottled water. In the meantime advice to local authorities on the type and frequency of sampling water intended for bottling is contained in Department of the Environment circular 25/84 (Welsh Office circular 51/84).

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle confirmed as bovine spongiform encephalopathy sufferers have, immediately prior to notification, been the subject of bovine somatotropin experimentation; and what percentage these constitute of the total number of bovine somatotropin-treated cows.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware that any animal in which BSE has been confirmed has previously been the subject of bovine somatotropin experimentation. Epidemiological studies conducted by the Ministry have not found any connection between the incidence of BSE and the use of pharmaceutical products.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those species of animals known to him as having a vertically transmitted form of spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  Scrapie, which occurs naturally in sheep and goats, is the only spongiform encephalopathy which is definitely known to be transmitted maternally. It is likely that the lamb or kid may become infected at birth or soon after being born, but whether true vertical transmission—i.e. infection contracted in utero before the lamb or kid is born—can occur is not certain.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of recommendations of the British Cattle Veterinary Association, he intends to act by prohibiting surgical interference with suspect bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The Ministry does not encourage unnecessary surgical interference with bovine spongiform encephalopathy suspects, but the decision as to whether or not surgery is appropriate in any particular case is a matter of veterinary judgment and professional ethics in the light of individual circumstances.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy were reported in Lancashire from August 1988 until 14 February 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  From 1 August 1988 to 14 February 1990, 218 suspected cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy were reported in Lancashire.

  Wild Birds (Poisoning)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce measures to prevent the use of alphachloralose for the purpose of the illegal poisoning of wild birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  Alphachloralose is widely available, not just as a pesticide. The Government seek to deter illegal poisoning of wildlife by investigating every notified incident and pursuing those where the evidence suggests that pesticides have been abused. The cost of this is defrayed from the levy on holders of pesticide approvals.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning Grants)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about decommissioning grants available to fishing vessels
  907
  and the amount put in by European Community sources for decommissioning for (a) Holland, (b) France, (c) Denmark, (d) the United Kingdom and (e) Spain.

  Mr. Curry
  There is provision under EC regulation 4028/86 for decommissioning grants over the period 1987 to 1991. They are available to all member states.

  The information requested on EC funding is not centrally available, but I will supply the information as soon as I have obtained it from the commission.

  Carbadox
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his reasons for banning the feed additive carbadox.

  Mr. Gummer
  Carbadox is an active ingredient used in growth-promoting feed additives. It is not banned in the EC but is authorised, subject to strict conditions by the Community directive governing feed additives. This is binding on all member countries although no product containing carbadox is currently licensed in the United Kingdom.

  Bananas
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the plans by the Dominican Republic to export bananas to the European Community.

  Mr. Curry
  Our policy on the import of bananas permits the United Kingdom to fulfil its long-standing commitment to provide preferential access for bananas from our traditional suppliers, Jamaica and the Windward Islands.

  During the negotiations last autumn on the renewal of the Lomé Convention and on the accession to it of new members, the Dominican Republic gave certain undertakings to Caribbean members of the group of ACP countries with respect to exports of bananas. We consider that it is important that the DR should abide by its undertakings and hope that it and the ACP will be able to discuss and resolve their differences.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what, in each of the last five years, has been the increase in reported incidents of violent crime.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what in each of the last five years has been the change in reported incidents of violent crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  Between 1984 and 1988 the average annual percentage increase in recorded crimes of violence was 7·9 per cent. Full-year figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Prison Recidivism
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce prison recidivism within the 15 to 22 years age groups; and if he will make a statement.
  908
  Mr. Mellor
  Our proposals for punishing more young offenders in the community should help to reduce reoffending. When young people receive custodial sentences, our aim is to help to prepare them to lead law-abiding and useful lives on their release, with greater emphasis on the development of personal responsibility.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received over the last 12 months about concessionary television licences for pensioners.

  Mr. Mellor
  In my reply to the hon. Member's question of 22 January I confirmed that in 1989 we received 212 letters and four petitions about reduced-price or free television licences for pensioners. Since 1 January 1990 we have received a further 46 such letters, 23 of them from hon. Members.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale).

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands showing on what date and on whose initiative Assistant Chief Constable Tom Meffen interviewed the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Mr. John Patten
  No report from the chief constable is called for because the facts are well known to my right hon. and learned Friend. On 2 September 1986 the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), after discussing the contents of his book with officials of the Home Office criminal department, agreed to meet officers of the West Midlands police. But when the hon. Member was seen by the assistant chief constable on 23 September 1986, and was asked to provide information supporting his claim to have interviewed people who had committed the Birmingham pub bombings, he declined to do so, and has refused to do so subsequently.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many hours his force devoted in(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d) 1989 to investigating the claim of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to have traced and interviewed all the persons responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 25 January at column 1036. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the failure of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South to disclose the names of those whom he states are responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings. A considerable amount of time, particularly in 1986, was spent by West Midlands police in attempting to identify those persons whom the hon. Member has in

  909
  mind. The results of the research were discussed with him, but he neither confirmed nor denied the possible identifications which had emerged.

  No records were kept of the specific number of hours dedicated to this research.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering very carefully the further material which has been presented to him by a solicitor acting on behalf of the six men convicted of the Birmingham public house bombings, and will decide as soon as possible whether it justifies any intervention on his part.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consideration of the new evidence in the case of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consideration of the new evidence in the case of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consideration of the new evidence in the case of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet completed his consideration of the further material which has been presented to him by a solicitor acting on behalf of the six men convicted of the Birmingham public house bombings. He will decide as soon as possible whether it justifies any intervention on his part.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department first became aware of the claim by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to have traced and interviewed the persons responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings; and what action was taken.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office first became aware of the claims of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in May 1986, when extracts from his forthcoming book "Error of Judgement" were passed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). We later obtained a full copy of the book shortly after publication in July 1986. These claims were made before the decision of my right hon. Friend on 20 January 1987 to refer the whole case to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South has been repeatedly asked to make available any relevant material to substantiate his claims. He has not done so.

  Wapping Dispute
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had concerning the publication of the report by the Northamptonshire police into the policing of the industrial dispute at Wapping.
  910
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mullin
  (18) To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has anything to add to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 304, concerning DS Brian Morton.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).

  Parole
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on his proposals to retain his discretion to refuse parole in the most serious cases.

  Mr. John Patten
  The White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" (Cm. 965) makes it clear that the Home Secretary will continue to consider the release of those offenders serving determinate sentences of seven years or more. These will have committed the most serious crimes and may be a serious risk to public safety.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on his proposals for the supervision of prisoners released on parole and the liability of such prisoners committing further offences to recall to prison, and to serve all the outstanding sentence in addition to any new sentence imposed.

  Mr. John Patten
  Chapter 6 of the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" (Cm. 965) sets out the Government's legislative proposals on parole. All prisoners serving imprisonment of more than one year will he supervised on release until three quarters of their sentence. All released prisoners will be liable, if convicted of another imprisonable offence committed before the end of the original sentence, to recall to prison to serve up to the rest of their sentence.

  "Error of Judgement"
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department first received a copy of the book "Error of Judgement"; and what action was taken.

  Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department first received "Error of Judgement"; and what action was taken.

  Ms.Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department first received a copy of the book "Error of Judgement"; and what action was taken.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office obtained a copy of the book "Error of Judgement" shortly after publication in July 1986. On 2 September 1986, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) discussed the content of his book with officials of the Home Office criminal department, and subsequently discussed a number of the points raised in the book with an assistant chief constable
  911
  of the West Midlands police. The book was considered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), among a number of representations which had been made to him about the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six, before his decision on 20 January 1987 to refer the whole case to the Court of Appeal.

  Fines
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his proposals to ensure that fines more closely reflect an offender's ability to pay.

  Mr. John Patten
  The White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", published on 6 February, sets out our proposals for ensuring that fines are more closely related to an offender's means. We have invited comments by 30 April.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for the number of neighbourhood watch schemes now operating in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of December 1989 there were estimated to be over 81,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, covering over 4 million households.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has as to the number of neighbourhood watch schemes now operating in the north-west of England.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of December 1989 there were estimated to be 19,500 schemes in the area covered by the Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside police forces.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he plans to involve the private sector in providing bail hostel places.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have a programme to create 1,000 new bail places at approved hostels between April 1988 and April 1993. About 160 of these places are already on stream and some 500 more are at various stages of development. Although there are no plans for privately managed bail hostels at present, we believe that there is scope now for further private sector involvement in this programme in terms of planning, building, delivery and contracting out of services.

  Tyneside Metro
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration was given to the cost of policing the Tyneside Metro when establishing manpower levels for the Northumbria police force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend approved 38 extra police posts for the Northumbria police as from April 1990. Twenty of these are to deal with general problems of rising crime in the areas in which the 912
  metro operates. The cost of a further 10 posts, specifically for policing the metro system, is reimbursed by the passenger transport executive.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on electronic tagging.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on electronic tagging.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to a question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss crime prevention initiatives.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has at present no plans to meet the AMA to discuss crime prevention. However, the association has been kept closely in touch with the preparation of fresh interdepartmental guidance on crime prevention and it and others have been invited this week to comment on a new draft circular on crime prevention issued on 19 February. Comments should be submitted by 3 April.

  Prisons (Vegan Diets)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when regional catering officers last met representatives of the Vegan Society to discuss vegan diets in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The principal catering manager for the prison service met the prison liaison officer for the Vegan Society on 9 October 1989. The prison liaison officer was also invited to speak to "in charge" catering officers at the prison service national catering school on 13 December 1989 about the vegan philosophy and diet.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what future steps are being taken to reduce the time taken by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to deal with applications for compensation.

  Mr. John Patten
  We authorised the board in December to recruit 10 extra staff. We have now agreed that 50 more staff may be recruited as soon as possible. This meets in full the recent request of the chairman and the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee (Second Report, Session 1989–90-HC92), for 60 more staff to help the board deal with the expected level of new applications and to reduce arrears.

  The reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 8 December at columns 409–17, set out the revised criminal injuries compensation scheme and described other steps

  913
  already take to improve the board's performance. The first phase of the board's major computer project referred to in that answer will begin in March. The board proposes to use the discretion conferred under the new scheme to delegate to staff decisions on a limited range of cases from 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to inform the social services departments of all local councils that criminal injuries compensation is available to all victims of child abuse or marital violence.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board wrote to all social services departments in Great Britain in October 1989 giving details of the application of the scheme to victims of violence, and in particular to child victims of such crimes.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce computers into the offices of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  Portable computers have been in use at the board since 1987. A major computer project—case location and information management system—was approved in December 1989. This is a centralised database system using the mainframe Home Office computer. Training has begun on the first phase of the project, which will go live in March and provide for the registration and acknowledgement of all new claims and the issue of medical and police inquiry forms. Subsequent phases will allow for monitoring of case progress, the issuing of reminder and other letters and accounting and statistical facilities.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for sums between £550 and £750; and what percentage this represented of the total number of awards in those years.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for sums between £550 and £750; and what percentage this represented of the total number of awards in those years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The breakdown of awards by size of award is given in paragraph 8.1 of the board's annual report for the year ended 31 March 1989 (Cm 900). These figures indicate that the number of awards of between £550 and £750 in the three years ended 31 March 1987, 1988 and 1989, were about 3,800, 3,700 and 5,700, a percentage of the total awards in these years of 17·3, 17·7 and 20·6, respectively.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the payment of a bounty or other remuneration to encourage recruitment of special constables.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This has been considered a number of times by the Police Advisory Board, most recently in 914
  October 1988, and the conclusion each time was that an incentive award (bounty) was not necessary. However we are asking the board to consider the option of running pilot schemes on an experimental basis in some forces when it discusses further initiatives to strengthen the special constabulary on 27 February.

  Football Exclusion Orders
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of exclusion orders imposed on football supporters for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The exclusion order provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 came into force on 1 August 1987. The number of exclusion orders recorded by the Football Association since then is as follows:

  Number

  1987

  1320

  1988

  1,029

  1989

  1,038

  1 Five months.

  Central European Time
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to publish the responses he received in respect of the Green Paper on central European time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received with regard to central European time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received with regard to the proposed changes in British summer time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be announcing a breakdown of the responses to the consultation exercise in the near future.

  Electoral Systems
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to the reform of electoral voting systems in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Pornography
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his EEC opposite numbers about harmonising the laws relating to the display and sale of pornographic films and magazines.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no personal discussions on this topic, but the Department has contributed to the work of the Council of Europe in encouraging its members to strengthen controls against the distribution of videograms having a violent, brutal or pornographic content, and to the work of the Council and the European Community in securing international
  915
  agreement on minimum standards in broadcasting. We shall continue to stress to our European partners the need to maintain high standards in published and broadcast material. Within the European Community, article 36 of the treaty of Rome allows member states to prohibit or restrict imports on grounds of public morality, provided that there is no arbitrary discrimination or disguised restriction on trade between member states. We intend to maintain strong controls over the display and sale of pornographic material within the United Kingdom.

  All-seater Football Grounds
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the financial implications of the proposed installation of all-seater stadia for football grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand the football authorities provisionally estimate the cost to be £130 million for clubs in the English football league. But, as set out by Lord Justice Taylor in his final report, the cost could be lower. The Football Trust has indicated that about £75 million should be available to the professional game over the next 10 years. This is in addition to any income from television and pools companies which currently amounts to about £26 million each year.

  Prison Officers Association
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met officials of the Prison Officers Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend met members of the Prison Officers Association on 18 December. The terms and conditions of service for prison officers, resources, the possibility of agency status for the prison service and the possible use of the private sector to escort prisoners and to run remand centres were discussed.

  Permanent Residents
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the net inflow or outflow of permanent residents of the United Kingdom for the last full year for which data exist.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available data on net migration to or from the United Kingdom are the estimates produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from the international passenger survey. This defines a migrant as a person leaving one country where he has been resident for more than a year with the intention of residing in a new country for a year or more. The 1988 estimates were of a net outflow from the United Kingdom of 21,000 migrants, resulting from an inflow of 216,000 and an outflow of 237,000. These figures include British citizens and are on a different basis from the figures of people subject to immigration control accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom. More detailed information on these migration estimates is published by OPCS in "International Migration 1988".

  Welsh Broadcasting
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the heads of BBC Wales and HTV; and what matters were discussed.
  916
  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet met the heads of BBC Wales and HTV, either jointly or separately, but he may have the opportunity at some time in the future.

  Taylor Report
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received following the publication of the Taylor report and his statement on 29 January, regarding proposals contained within the report.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received 13 letters from hon. Members and 52 letters from members of the public. In addition, the Football Supporters Association has requested a meeting to discuss the role that supporters can play in implementing the report.

  Distress Warrants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of persons against whom distress warrants were issued in 1987, 1988 and 1989 were dependent on state benefits.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of distress warrants issued by magistrates courts in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  Around 185,000 distress warrants were issued by magistrates courts in 1987 and 560,000 in 1988. Information for 1989 is not yet available.

  Metropolitan Police Commissioner
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend last held a meeting with the Commissioner on 21 December 1989, when the Commissioner's strategy statement for 1990 was discussed.

  Crime Detection
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the crime detection rate in the west midlands in 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  Incomplete information for the West Midlands police force area for 1989 indicates the detection rate could be slightly lower than the 42 per cent. for 1988.

  Vagrancy
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to repeal sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government have no present plans to repeal sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, as amended.

  Victim Support Schemes
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victim support schemes there are in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Three hundred and fifty-five.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of Government funding for victim support.

  Mr. John Patten
  For this year £3·7 million has been granted for victim support schemes in England and Wales. Subject to parliamentary approval, around £4·5 million will be granted for 1990–91. This represents a 200 per cent. increase over four years.

  Senior Police Officers
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to improve the selection and training of senior police officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government's response to the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on higher police training and the police staff college outlined their plans to identify at an early stage those officers with the ability to reach chief officer ranks and to provide them with the training they need to perform their jobs effectively.

  Assaults on Police
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of serious assaults committed against police officers in the north Wales area during 1989; and what were the comparable figures for(a) 1979, (b) 1983 and (c)

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of North Wales that there were 308 assaults on members of his force in 1989. There were 109 assaults in 1979, 81 in 1983 and 91 in 1986. Information on the number of serious assaults is not readily available.

  Dogs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs are kept as domestic pets in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office collects no statistics on the numbers of domestic pets. A report prepared by the London School of Economics for the RSPCA in 1988 estimated the United Kingdom dog population to be 7·3 million.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many were in prison at the most recent count.

  Mr. Mellor
  On Friday 16 February there were 47,103 people held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. This represents a fall of 2,288 people since the same time last year.

  Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received calling for an increase in the staffing level at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am not aware of any such representations. The staffing ceiling of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory is set by the Commissioner, within the total ceiling for civil staff set by my right hon. and learned Friend as the police authority.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current establishment at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory; and in how many months in each of the past three years the numbers in post reached full complement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that the current complement of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory is 297, of which 279½ posts are currently filled. The numbers in post have not reached full complement during the last three years.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the performance of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that no systematic management information about the performance of the laboratory is available, but that the time taken to deal with some types of case, particularly the less serious, has increased in the last year or so. We are discussing with the receiver a case for pay improvements to help deal with staffing problems, and we shall be looking at other management issues and their effect on performance.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the change in the workload of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that no management information system exists to provide data on workload, as opposed to the cruder measure of caseload. However, the available figures show that cases dealt with by the laboratory fell from 27,985 in 1987 to 18,053 in 1989, a fall of 35 per cent. I understand that this reduction reflected in part a decision not to carry out forensic examination in certain types of low priority case, such as possession of cannabis cases where a guilty plea is expected.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that no systematic management information about the performance of the laboratory is available, but that the
  919
  time taken to deal with some types of case, particularly the less serious, has increased in the last year or so. A factor affecting performance is difficulty in retaining scientific staff, though I understand that the staffing position has recently improved and that the laboratory is now within 5 per cent. of its authorised complement for forensic scientists. We are discussing with the receiver a case for pay improvements to help deal with staffing problems. However, it is important that we look at all the management issues which may have a bearing on performance—not just pay.

  Prisons (Fire Inspections)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to lift Crown immunity in relation to fire inspections in prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  Although prisons are exempt from the arrangements for fire certification under the Fire Precautions Act 1971, governors are instructed to arrange periodic fire surveys by the local fire brigade, and the advice of Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate is taken if necessary, with the aim of meeting the joint objectives of fire safety and prison security. I see no compelling need to alter these arrangements.

  Pregnant Prisoners
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider setting up an independent inquiry into the treatment of pregnant women in Holloway prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Criminal Justice White Paper
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received to his criminal justice White Paper.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have invited comments on the proposals in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" (Cm 965) by 30 April. The initial reaction has been favourable and my right hon. and learned Friend's statement of 6 February received widespread support in both Houses.

  South Yorkshire Police
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current manning levels in the South Yorkshire police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of December 1989 there were 2,946 police officers on the strength of the South Yorkshire police matched against their establishment of 2,978.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has approved an increase of 20 posts for the force establishment subject to the police authority's confirmation of its willingness to meet its share of the cost.

  Police (Operational Duties)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the additional police posts announced for 1990–91 will be deployed on operational duties.
  920
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The deployment of police officers is an operational matter for chief officers of police. Of the 1,008 extra police posts for provincial forces announced for 1990–91, however, 953 were intended for deployment to operational duties.

  The deployment of the 150 posts approved for the Metropolitan police has yet to be decided, although the great majority will go on operational duties.

  Coach Parking
  Mr. Adley
  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 level of observance of "no coach parking" signs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that no separate figures are recorded for non-compliance with "no coach parking" signs. Police and traffic wardens take action against instances of illegal coach parking whenever possible, which may include the removal of offending coaches to police car pounds. The Metropolitan police will be conducting a special coach parking advice and enforcement campaign during the summer months in the central London area.

  Disturbances, Granby
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a report from the chief constable of Merseyside police concerning the recent disturbances in the Granby area of Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are informed by the Merseyside police that at about 8.20 pm on 5 February a police inspector and a sergeant responded to a report of youths, armed with bricks, gathering in Granby street, Liverpool 8. The officers were driving along Granby street when their car was rammed by a stolen vehicle. Bricks were thrown at the police vehicle. The sergeant suffered minor facial injuries.

  Two police vehicles summoned to assist the two officers were also attacked.

  Three other vehicles were later set on fire. When the Merseyside fire service arrived they were attacked with missiles and withdrew. Police reinforcements and a police helicopter were then deployed. The youths dispersed and order was restored by 11 pm. The police estimate that about 200 people were involved in the disturbances. Following the disturbances one person was arrested and charged with violent disorder and criminal damage to a police vehicle.

  Prisons (Education and Training)
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for increasing the educational and training opportunities for prison inmates.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is estimated that between 1989–90 and 1992–93 expenditure through LEAs for educational provision in prison service establishments will rise from £19·152 million to £27·387 million. Between 1987·88 and 1988–89 student hours rose by 23 per cent. and attention will continue to be paid to both efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of education in prisons. The prison service is exploring the implications of the national vocational
  921
  qualifications initiative and progress on this and other developments will be contained in the annual reports of the prison service.

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to further disperse the immigration and nationality department to the regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 31 January at column 205.

  NACRO
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives from the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders; and what was discussed.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman, director and an assistant director from the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders on 23 January. The meeting provided an opportunity for the representatives of NACRO to give a presentation of their work and to discuss their ideas about criminal justice issues.

  Visas
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in respect of implementing a common visa regime for the European Economic Community after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to questions from the hon. Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 25 January 1990 at columns 1037–39.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce his decision on whether to implement the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor to create three new specific offences to tackle football hooliganism.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) earlier today.

  Crime (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for recorded crime in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1988 was published in tables 2.5 and 2.7 of "Criminal statistics England and Wales, 1988", Cm. 847, a copy of which is available in the Library. Further detailed figures for the 12 months to the end of September 1989 for local police areas have also been placed in the Library. In the 12 months to September 1989, Devon and Cornwall police recorded 74,905 offences, 1,046 more than in the previous 12 months.

  Mr. Kenneth Carter
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now reply to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton, South about. Mr. Kenneth Carter, a prisoner in Durham prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have today replied to the questions tabled by my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why deductions are being made from Mr. Kenneth Carter for association expenses in Durham prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: It has been common practice in all Her Majesty's prisons for a small deduction to be made from inmates' earnings as a contribution to the establishment's general purposes fund. This practice has been reviewed and instructions are to be issued for it to cease.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will arrange for Mr. Kenneth Carter, prisoner No. AD3434, to be transferred from Durham to another prison;

  (2) on how many occasions Mr. Kenneth Carter, prisoner No. AD3434, has moved cell in Durham prison; and what was the reason in each case;

  (3) what complaints he has received concerning harassment of Mr. Kenneth Carter, a prisoner in Durham prison, following the death of his former cellmate; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) when a representative of the board of visitors of Durham prison last met Mr. Kenneth Carter, prisoner No. AD3434;

  (5) why Mr. Kenneth Carter, prisoner No. AD3434, has been recategorised as category A in Durham prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: Mr. Kenneth Carter has been charged with the murder of a former cellmate at Durham prison on 5–6 January 1990. For this reason his prison security status is now category A and he will stay at Her Majesty's prison Durham until his trial.

  No record is kept of cell movements, but immediately after the death of his former cellmate, Mr. Carter was moved to the prison hospital to which members of the board of visitors make regular visits. Mr. Carter saw a member of the board of visitors on 11 February 1990.

  Other than a letter which my hon. Friend forwarded to me on 16 January 1990, no complaints about harassment of Mr. Carter have been received.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement about the allocation of shoes to Mr. Kenneth Carter, a prisoner in Durham prison;

  (2) why Mr. Kenneth Carter, a prisoner in Durham prison, was denied an exercise period on 29 and 30 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 29 January 1990, inclement weather prevented Mr. Carter from taking exercise. On 30 January 1990 he took no exercise as he had been refused a request to wear slippers while on exercise. There are no medical reasons why Mr. Carter should not wear the prison shoes with which he has been issued.

  Rottweiler Dogs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to prevent further attacks in the light of recent attacks by rottweiler dogs on children; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has any proposals to restrict the domestic ownership of rottweiler dogs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of recent incidents involving rottweiler dogs, he will seek powers to introduce a total ban on such breeds of animal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The law concerning attacks by dogs was strengthened only last year by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. We are studying recent incidents closely and will consider whether the law would benefit from further revision.

  Police Rent and Rates Allowances
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in police rent and rates allowances have been made to coincide with the abolition of domestic rates.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects shortly to lay regulations changing the police rent allowance arrangements with effect from 1 April. The main changes will be that the new housing allowance for each force will no include an element for the reimbursement of rates; the community charge will not be reimbursed; the new housing allowance will be updated biennially in line with movements in the retail prices index; and compensatory grant will be abolished. Special arrangements will, however, be made to ensure that police officers who are in receipt of rent allowance and compensatory grant on 31 March will receive no less than they were receiving on that date.

  Immigration (Domestic Servants)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Kuwaitis entering the United Kingdom in 1989 were permitted to bring with them domestic servants;

  (2) how many Saudi Arabians entering the United Kingdom in 1989 were permitted to bring with them domestic servants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if all persons described as domestic servants brought into the United Kingdom by foreigners require entry visas; and what steps are taken to ensure that such persons are treated in accordance with United Kingdom law;

  (2) if all persons described as domestic servants brought into the United Kingdom by foreigners require work permits; and what steps are taken to make sure such people are treated in accordance with United Kingdom law.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under exceptional arrangements outside the immigration rules and the work permit scheme 924
  a domestic servant who has worked abroad for at least the previous 12 months for an employer who comes to the United Kingdom will normally be admitted to continue working for that employer here. Prior entry clearance is necessary if the servant is a visa national or if the employer is coming in a capacity for which he needs an entry clearance. While in the United Kingdom domestic servants are entitled to the normal protection of our law.

  Homosexuality
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is held centrally relating to discrimination against lesbians and homosexual men; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has to deal with discrimination against lesbians and homosexual men with regard to(a) the age of sexual consent, (b) the right to serve in the armed forces and (c) legal recognition of long-term homosexual partnerships;

  (2) what proposals he has to improve the legal rights of lesbians and homosexual men; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what provision exists in the European social charter on the rights of homosexuals; whether he has any proposals for legislation arising from Britain's obligations under the charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 1 February 1990 at columns 304–06.

  Drug Command Informant Scheme
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the drug command informant scheme;

  (2) if he will require the drug command informant scheme to publish an annual report describing the general nature of cases handled and the level of reward given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that the Community Action Trust, a registered charity, intends to launch in the near future an informant reward scheme entitled drug command. The scheme will be funded entirely by the trust but will be operated in close consultation with the enforcement agencies. Publication of reports about the operation of the scheme is a matter for the Community Action Trust.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the minimum permitted space per prisoner.

  Mr. Mellor
  The prison design brief for training establishments published in 1989, which will form the basis for the design of other categories of establishments, lays down the standards for new prison buildings. The brief requires an area of 6·8m2 to be provided for a single-person cell with integral sanitation. The area of a cell without integral sanitation in existing establishments built to earlier standards varies.

  Armley Prison, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the prison officers' dispute at Armley prison, Leeds.

  Mr. Mellor
  Officials of the local branch of the Prison Officers Association at Armley prison, Leeds have advised the governor that they are in dispute over staffing arrangements. A meeting between management and union representatives under the agreed disputes procedure has been arranged for 23 February.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has issued guidelines to police authorities on charging for cover during the ambulance dispute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  Guidance was issued in October to chief officers and police authorities on the arrangements which might be made for reimbursement by regional health authorities when the police were called upon to assist in providing an ambulance service.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total man hours performed by police personnel involved in ambulance duties in the United Kingdom during the current ambulance workers' dispute.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the total number of man hours which forces have provided in assisting ambulance services in England and Wales up to and including 13 February has been about 1·1 million.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total number of man hours performed by police personnel during the current ambulance workers' dispute in (i) Nottingham, (ii) Manchester, (iii) Essex, (iv) West Yorkshire and (v) Northumbria; and how many of those man hours were paid at overtime rates.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested readily available up to 13 February is shown in the table:

  Approximate number of man hours

  Number

  Nottinghamshire

  1,130

  Greater Manchester

  14,930

  Essex

  28,930

  West Yorkshire

  53,300

  Northumbria

  66,000

  All these man hours were paid at overtime rates.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average hourly rate of pay for police personnel employed on ambulance duties during the current ambulance workers' dispute;

  (2) what is the hourly overtime rate of pay for police constables involved in ambulance duties in (i) Nottingham, (ii) Manchester, (iii) Essex, (iv) west Yorkshire and (v) Northumbria;

  (3) what is the hourly overtime rate of pay for police personnel of ranks other than constable involved in ambulance duties in (i) Nottingham, (ii) Manchester, (iii) Essex, (iv) west Yorkshire and (v) Northumbria;
  926
  (4) what is the hourly rate of pay for police constables involved in ambulance duties in (a) Nottingham, (b) Manchester, (c) Essex, (d) west Yorkshire and (e) Northumbria;

  (5) what is the hourly rate of pay for police personnel of ranks other than constable involved in ambulance duties in (a) Nottingham, (b) Manchester, (c) Essex, (d) west Yorkshire and (e) Northumbria.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Police pay for each rank is on a scale connected to number of years' service. It is not, therefore, possible to give an hourly or overtime rate per officer for each force or nationally.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of(a) converting a police van for use in ambulance duties and (b) reconverting a police van after use in ambulance duties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that in converting vehicles some forces have simply removed seats but others have done more work including the installation of some special equipment. The costs range, therefore, from minimal to several hundred pounds per van.

  No vans have yet been reconverted.

  Art Galleries (Thefts)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of theft have been reported to the Metropolitan police by museums and art galleries in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information in the detail requested is not collected.

  Metropolitan Police (Damages)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much in compensation, both in court and in out-of-court settlements, the Metropolitan police has paid to members of the public who have brought civil cases for damages since 15 December 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the amounts paid by the Metropolitan police under awards made by the courts and in settlements out of court arising from allegations of wrongful acts by Metropolitan police officers are as follows:

  Awards made by the courts

  Settlements out of court

  £

  £

  1988(16–31 December)

  5,500

  18,831

  1989

  252,904

  266,850

  1990 (to 21 February)

  65,000

  160,050

  Downing Street
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost in each year since 1979 arising from the presence in Downing street of police officers from the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not the practice to give details of security costs.

  Community Penalties
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the development of community penalties for offenders.

  Mr. John Patten
  The White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" (Cm 965) sets out our proposals for providing a wider and more flexible range of strengthened community penalties to reduce reliance on custody for less serious offenders.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on his proposals to enable sentencers to sentence above the normal for the particular crime where the offender's record is such that he is a danger to the public.

  Mr. John Patten
  The White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" sets out our proposals for empowering the Crown court to give custodial sentences longer than would be justified by the seriousness of the offence alone to persistent violent and sexual offenders, if this is necessary to protect the public.

  Durham Prison
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the number of suicides in Durham prison in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: The table gives the numbers of deaths at Durham prison since 1975 for which a suicide verdict was returned at the inquest:

  Number

  1975

  —

  1976

  —

  1977

  —

  1978

  2

  1979

  —

  1980

  —

  1981

  —

  1982

  1

  1983

  —

  1984

  1

  1985

  2

  1986

  —

  1987

  3

  1988

  1

  1989

  2

  11990

  —

  1 To 8 February 1990.

  An inquest has yet to take place on a death in Durham prison in January 1990.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Act,

New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Act,

Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Act,

Isle of Wight Act,

Buckinghamshire County Council Act,

United Medical and Dental Schools Act,

London Local Authorities Act,

Penzance Albert Pier Extension Act,

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Act,

Clergy (Ordination) Measure.

Waste Paper Recycling
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they are giving to local authorities and voluntary groups about waste paper recycling, in view of the present depressed state of the waste paper market.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, our consistent message has been that anyone who is involved in collecting waste paper should keep in close touch with their local waste paper merchant so that they know about the state of the market. The Government share the concern about the present glut of low grade paper, although there are signs that the market is again picking up and we are doing all that we can to encourage this.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am not quite sure what he hopes will result from keeping in touch with the waste paper merchants. The city of Cambridge set up a collection in response to government exhortations. It now finds itself told by its merchants that the value has fallen from £18 to £14, then to £10, £5 and now to nothing. Is the Minister aware of the damage that is caused by setting up the mechanism
382
necessary, both in voluntary groups and local associations, which rely on the co-operation of people collecting the paper, only to find that the demand disappears? Can the Government do nothing to encourage markets?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the situation is in part a victim of its own success. However, I can assure your Lordships that further capacity will come on stream within the next two or three years. That is why, in my Answer to the noble Baroness, I indicated that we saw reasons for believing that there would be a restoration of market prices.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend where a lot of the surplus waste paper from the Palace of Westminster goes, and how much there is of it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I can assure your Lordships that all the paper and cardboard from the Palace of Westminster is sent for recycling. How much there is I am afraid I am unable to say.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister understand that words and encouragement are not enough? If the local authorities and the major waste disposal authorities have a large part to play, it is essential that the Government recognise that there needs to be government involvement in the market mechanism. Is the noble Lord aware that literally billions of tonnes of paper could be salvaged and reused? That paper is simply being thrown on the waste heap. Is this not another case of the Government encouraging themselves to put their money where their mouth is?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is suggesting that the Government should purchase recycled paper for no use whatsoever. What the Government can do is this. My colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry have a recycling forum where consumers and markets are brought together and encouraged to provide the result which we all wish to see: a great increase in the recycling of waste paper.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is it true that we import large quantities of waste paper for recycling from the United States? Do the Government think that this is a good idea when there is not enough capacity in this country for the collections which are carried out so efficiently by local authorities such as, for example, Westminster?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am pleased to hear an endorsement of Westminster City Council by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I can assure him that one of the difficulties is that there are many different classes and grades of paper which are suited to different uses and the different requirements of the market. I am sorry to say this but it is a rather more complicated issue than simply a case of paper being turned into a simple product.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, when my noble friend says that more capacity will be available, will that capacity generate more waste paper or consume it? Would he agree that a reduction in legislation might go some way towards helping to solve our problems?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can assure the House that the capacity to which I was referring was of recycling waste paper.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the DoE uses recycled paper for its parliamentary correspondence? Will he encourage other departments to follow that admirable example?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I can assure your Lordships that the amounts of recycled paper consumed vary from between 50 per cent, to 100 per cent, in that department.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is it not a fact that the country is awash with unsolicited paper? It comes not only to the Palace of Westminster but through everybody's letterbox every day. Can the Government do something to reduce this enormous pile of paper which eventually becomes unsaleable waste paper?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would not expect me to interfere in free and lawful communication. However, I am sure that all of your Lordships are aware that later on this year the Green Bill will appear in your Lordships' House. There will be much discussion then on the matter of paper lying about the countryside.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Government rely upon the business efficiency of the industry and the beneficence of local authorities in subsidising collections. Can the Government consider as a third possibility, that in order to encourage recycling from the collection of paper, they themselves should make grants or give assistance through the rate support grant to local authorities like Cambridge? Those authorities may have spent a considerable amount of capital in order to do the Government's job.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at the end of the day it will be the demand for paper in the market that will drive on the success of the recycling, which will be initiated by the assistance of the Government in letting the market and the consumer come together.

Public Holidays
3.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have now reached a decision on the rearrangement of the dates of public holidays.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, no. A number of differing views have been expressed about the pattern of public holidays, including the position of the first Monday in May. We continue to keep this matter under review.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the course of that review will my noble friend take into account—he will be aware of this fact if he looks at his diary—that in the six weeks from 16th April to 28th May of this year there are three Bank Holidays, that is one a fortnight? However, during the following seven months until Christmas there is only one Bank Holiday. From the point of view of the public and of employees and employers is that not a nonsensical distribution? Is it not time that the Government's prolonged consideration of this matter reached a conclusion?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the analysis of my noble friend sounds reasonable. In 1990 and in 1992 there will be some quite severe bunching as regards the three main Bank Holidays at Easter, May Day and at Whitsun. However, the matter is not quite so simple as my noble friend suggests. There are a number of factors to take into account. As I said, we are still looking at the situation carefully to see whether or not a consensus will arise.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister take into account in his continuing consideration the fact that other member states of the EC often have a far greater number of holidays than is the case in this country? It might aid the bunching to which the Minister has referred if we had some bunching at the other end of the year.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it comes as no surprise that the noble Baroness would like us all to have more holidays. However, as is so often the case, comparisons between what we do in this country and what is done on the Continent are not entirely fair. A casual look at any good diary will show that there is no conformity on the Continent as is the case in the four constituent parts of Great Britain. Therefore, I do not think the suggestion of the noble Baroness is necessarily a good one.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, has the Minister considered the suggestion that I have made on many occasions and which is linked to the Question of the noble Lord, that if we had a four-term year that would work out much more neatly as regards holidays? So far as I know, universities and other institutions are in favour of that solution. I ask the Minister to look once again at that solution to the problem.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the point of the noble Baroness will be considered as part of the review which is considering how to deal with the Bank Holidays.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Easter Monday can occur so late as to fall only one week before the May Day holiday? Is that a satisfactory situation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the reason for that is that Easter is a movable Feast. We have discussed that matter on many occasions. We have suggested that the interested bodies, particularly the Churches, should reach some kind of consensus on that point.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, will the Government consider the merits of a mid-summer holiday around the end of June?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there have been a whole variety of suggestions. People have suggested a Churchill Day, a Trafalgar Day, a St. George's Day and even a Waterloo Day on 15th June. As we have a Labour Day on 1st May some consider that we should have a Conservative Day. That demonstrates the problem as regards the whole of this issue.

Marine Nature Reserves
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can yet announce a date for designation of the proposed marine nature reserve at Skomer and whether any progress has been made on the other five sites identified in 1981.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I cannot announce a date for the designation of the proposed marine nature reserve at Skomer but I understand that it is intended to publish the notice of the draft order within the next month. The Nature Conservancy Council published its consultation paper on the proposed marine nature reserve at Menai Straits in September 1988 and has been seeking through consultation to resolve the objections received, which have been mainly from yachting interests. It is now redrafting the consultation paper and hopes to submit its formal application for designation to the Secretary of State for Wales later this year.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, it is depressing that these sites were identified in 1981 but we are still apparently not in sight of a conclusion. The Minister has only mentioned Skomer and Menai but there are three other sites which have also been identified about which he said nothing. Will it take 10 more years in each case or 10 years consecutively to reach a conclusion on those sites? How can we take the Government's commitment to marine conservation seriously if they appear to put so little effort into the creation of marine nature reserves?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope I can put the mind of the noble Baroness somewhat at rest on this matter. At St. Abbs Head and on the Isle of Lundy the voluntary arrangements that are in place are considered by the Nature Conservancy Council to be working very well. The activities that have been taking place with regard to Skomer have held up two other sites, but I can assure the noble Baroness that we believe passionately that in the case of marine reserves, which are the most difficult of all reserves, we have to achieve consensus with all those who use and might possibly abuse the reserves.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I understand that Lundy has been designated a statutory reserve and is not a voluntary reserve.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I stand corrected by the noble Baroness.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend has raised matters of considerable public importance. Is it not the case that the applications to designate Skomer and the Marloes Peninsula were made in 1984? Those and other applications seem to have been shelved without any urgency of action for several years in respect of that area and other areas. Will the Minister explain to the House the cause of the delay of several years in coming to a conclusion on Skomer and Marloes?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord should feel that it is taking a considerable period of time to resolve this matter. However, we feel it is absolutely imperative that we achieve the right arrangements because it is impossible to ring-fence a marine site. That is why it is so difficult to reach a satisfactory conclusion where everyone is in agreement so that marine nature reserves work successfully.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that we must obtain the maximum amount of co-operation in these cases. However, following on from the question of my noble friend, will the Minister confirm that the sub-aqua divers association is the main obstacle to declaring a marine reserve in Cardigan Bay? That position has lasted for some time and the association has declared itself opposed to marine reserves in principle and therefore will never agree to any such reserves.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am a great believer in the powers of persuasion.

The Community Charge and Second Homes
3.18 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailesbury The Marquess of Ailesbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why local authorities are permitted to raise from the owners of second homes a standard community charge which is twice the personal charge.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe it is right that owners of second homes should contribute towards the cost of fire, police and other local authority services from which they benefit. A local authority may set the standard charge on second homes at any one of five multiples between 0 and 2 of the personal community charge for its area. That is a discretion which enables authorities to balance service costs with what would be appropriate in different types of circumstances.
The Marquess of Ailesbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, does he appreciate that some of us who support the principle of the community charge—namely, that every individual should contribute towards the cost of services—regret the abandonment of that principle in this area?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said in my first Answer, we feel that if an individual owns a property he should make a contribution. We have left it to local authorities to determine what they feel the contribution should be in fixing the multiplier, or a series of multipliers if they feel that is appropriate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are some circumstances where the proposed charge is very onerous, for example where a person is not purchasing a second home but is for a period in possession of a second house because he cannot sell his first house due to market conditions? Such a person is in danger not only of paying exorbitant mortgage rates but also of being trounced as regards the poll tax. Is this not yet another example of the stupidity of the poll tax?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the regulations reflect those that existed with the system of rates, which is that for the first three months after a house has been vacated no community charge is liable. It is only after that period that it is payable, as was the case formerly under the rating system.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is not the logic behind the poll tax supposed to be that it is a contribution for services? Do not most people make far more use of the services in their first home than those in their second home? Yet those people will pay a higher charge for their second home. Have any special arrangements been made for people who require a second home not as a holiday home but because, for instance, they have to work in London while they have obligations in the country? I am thinking of Members of Parliament of both Houses. Have any special arrangements been made in their case?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the case of an individual who owned a house in London and also a house in the country it would be perfectly possible for the community charge registration officer to designate the London house as the home where the individual and his wife lived and for the children to be educated by the local authority in whose area the house in the country was situated. In those circumstances he would probably gain more in terms of services.
Regarding the situation as it affects Members of your Lordships' House, noble Lords will be able to offset the cost of one standard community charge, regardless of the multiplier applied, in respect of additional accommodation which they occupy wholly or mainly for the purposes of attending the House against the overnight subsistence element of your Lordships' reimbursement allowance.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain how that can be claimed? Is it claimed against the expenses that noble Lords claim? The provision in expenses in relation to rates is only about £70.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not believe that I can usefully add to the information that I have already given.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the Minister did not answer the previous question fully. Do Members in another place, most of whom have second homes, have to pay a community charge on both?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, their tax treatment is entirely different. Members with constituencies outside London may in certain circumstances be eligible to claim against the additional cost allowance for the reimbursement of the standard community charge payable on a second home.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we do not legislate primarily for the benefit of the Members of this House or of the other place? Does he also agree that the majority of the people in this country do not have two houses and many of them do not have one? Is it not the case that many of us would be very happy if the charge for a second house were three times instead of twice the personal charge?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper and rather broadens the scope of the Question.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there were those of us who had an inkling two years ago that the poll tax was not the best tax to charge? Is he further aware that the convolution of his answers has led me to the conclusion that in no way will it last as long as rates—which were founded by King James I of blessed memory—and that there is no way in which the community charge will last 300 years?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, one of the great joys of our country is freedom of expression and opinion.

Business
3.22 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Committee stage of the Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill will be taken.

Government Trading Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Capital Allowances Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise to extend the usual courtesies and to thank the members of the committee drawn from both Houses for their efforts in going through what was, in this case, a very complicated consolidation Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in thanking the committee for its efforts in what he has correctly described as a complicated consolidation. I should also like to thank the Law Commission and the draftsmen for their efforts.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 24 [Rights of audience]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("is granted") and insert ("has").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 103 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 104 and 106 to 109. The amendments give effect to the principle contained in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, Amendment No. 139ZJ, which he tabled at Committee but kindly withdrew pending my further consideration as to how best to put it into effect.
The amendments seek to ensure that only current entitlements to exercise rights of audience confer such rights. They provide that where a person has been granted a right of audience by an authorised body, a court or any enactment, he or she shall no longer possess that right if that authorised body or that court withdraws it. Similarly, there will be no right if the provisions of that enactment are disapplied or the right is otherwise granted temporarily or conditionally and subsequently lapses. The disciplinary powers of authorised bodies shall thus be preserved. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is the first of a number of amendments to be moved today by my noble and learned friend to deal with points which I and others raised at Committee stage. 1 should like to say now that I am grateful to him for what he has done in connection with this amendment, which is quite an
390
important small change. To save the time of the House, I hope that my noble and learned friend will take it for granted that we shall be grateful to him on each of the matters to which he will refer later.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I am also grateful for the time-saving way in which he has expressed his gratitude for later amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 19, line 17, after ("proceedings") insert ("granted").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 19, line 19, leave out ("and rules of conduct").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. It arises out of some concern which was felt by members of my side of the legal profession over an idea that was floated by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls and was also contained in the judges' response to the Green Papers. That was the suggestion that there should be a division between those who prepare cases for litigation and those who present those cases in court. In putting forward the idea the noble and learned Lord flattered my side of the profession, referring to those who prepare cases as the "think men" and those who present them as the "speak men".
The consequence could be that the advisory committee or even one designated judge exercising a power of veto under paragraph 11 of Part II of Schedule 4 to the Bill could disapprove of rules of conduct, either of the Bar or of solicitors, unless there was such a division between those who prepare and those who present cases in court. That is so notwithstanding the terms of the statutory objective contained in Clause 14 because of the proviso contained in that clause of maintaining the proper and efficient administration of justice.
I disagree with the proposition that there should be a division between those who prepare cases and those who present them to the court, but there is a respectable school of thought which thinks otherwise. That possibility has clearly been taken into account in the drafting of Clause 20 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which is also before your Lordships' House and which relates to extended rights of audience for solicitors in Scotland. Under the scheme in that Bill solicitors will be entitled as of right to full rights of audience when they have satisfied the equivalent of the qualification regulations. Those are the regulations which concern education and training.
Those regulations or rules, as they are referred to in the Scottish Bill, have to be approved by the Lord President and the Secretary of State after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading. Although solicitors also have to abide by rules of conduct, such rules have to be approved by the Lord President and the Secretary of State. The making of such rules is not a condition precedent to the acquisition of rights of audience by solicitors. Therefore, under Clause 20 of the Scottish Bill, no regulations or rules

391
relating to conduct which require the approval of the Lord President are a condition precedent for the acquisition of full rights of audience. That must be contrasted with the way that the matter has been structured in the Bill.
I put the amendment before noble Lords as a probing amendment, probing perhaps not only of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor but also of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls—the think man and the speak man. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question. The words,
"have been approved for the purposes of this section, in relation to the granting of that right,"
refer exclusively to the right of audience at line 13 and there is therefore no problem such as was suggested by the noble Lord. I hope that noble Lords may consider that references to the judge's veto are not altogether too well conceived.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may make a short plea to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. From his point of view, it is one which will fall onto ears that are ready to listen. Would it not be advisable to ensure so far as is possible that our laws, especially those governing professions of a similar nature, are the same both north and south of the Border? Is not this a case in which consistency with the Scottish Bill will be brought into our own Bill? Is that not a good reason for accepting the amendment?
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am not sure whether the term "probing amendment" has a slightly different meaning on this occasion and whether I am being probed. The suggestion that I would in some way use my powers as a designated judge to favour a separation of functions, because I may personally believe in such a separation, is misconceived.
As I understand and approve of it, under the machinery of the Bill the advisory committee, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the two branches of the profession together with the designated judges, will discuss all the different views that have been put forward in the press and elsewhere as to the way in which litigation should be conducted, both in respect of separation and in other respects. They should be guided by the interests of justice, which is the paramount consideration. Indeed, the interests of the two branches of the profession do not matter at all. It is the interests of the clients who are involved and, above all, the interests of justice which matter. I have no idea how those conflicting views should be resolved. I should value the views of others on the matter and should obtain them as a result of the machinery.
It may be that the ultimate answer is that there is no case for separate preparation and separate advocacy. It may be that there is a case, but that it arises only in relation to particular proceedings. At
392
present there is a wide field of litigation in which it does not apply; namely, the county courts. I merely want to make it clear that my mind is certainly not closed and I am confident that of the minds of the designated judges none are closed. We want to hear the views of everyone and, in the light of those views, in so far as any of us have formed provisional views, they will be modified.
As I understand it, the amendment would prevent anyone from approving the rules of conduct of the professions, with the possible exception of the Law Society, which would be stuck with me under the residual powers under the Solicitors Act if the amendment were accepted. I should have thought that from its point of view it might be better to have three other minds to influence my mind, but that must be a matter for the Law Society.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may make one limited observation on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. There is much to be said for consistency between Scotland and England. I support that. Under the Scottish Bill there is to be no advisory committee. I strongly support that. Under the Scottish Bill the Lord President—the equivalent of our Lord Chief Justice—is to have concentrated into him substantial powers. I support that. Under the Scottish Bill, as I read it, the Lord President decides who are to be the judges of the Scottish Court of Appeal. I support that. Finally, under the Scottish Bill, there is no question of laymen—my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor knows what I mean by that term; I mean non-lawyers—becoming judges. By all means, let us have consistency, but let us be wholly consistent.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the question of consistency with Scotland will produce interesting discussion as we move through the amendments, including one to be moved shortly by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
It is fair to say that the legal systems of Scotland and of England and Wales have distinctive features which it is wise to recognise. The solution that may be appropriate for England and Wales is not necessarily appropriate for Scotland. With regard to the amendment, I regard it as crucial that rules of conduct should be taken into account in considering the question whether a person should be able to exercise a right of audience in relation to a particular court. The question of what the rules should be is a matter for consideration under the machinery which the Bill sets up. Any question about distinction between preparation and presentation in relation to particular cases should be resolved under that machinery. It is perfectly clear that different considerations might apply to different types of proceedings, as my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls said.
That kind of matter could develop with experience over the years. However, it is important to retain as part of what is to be considered under the machinery not only the qualifications but the rules of conduct. I understand that the Lord President and the Secretary of State have the same type of jurisdiction in relation to rules of conduct regarding Scotland as

393
I propose for the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges in England and Wales. It does not by any means follow that the rules which would be regarded as appropriate there would be regarded as appropriate here or conversely.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will withdraw his amendment. I should like to conclude by saying that the rules are matters on which I personally have no concluded view and it would be inappropriate to have a concluded view. Like my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, we expect the matter to be discussed in detail within the machinery. I hope that we shall then be able to agree on a concluded view. However, it would be inappropriate for me to express any concluded view on the kind of question that the noble Lord has raised by way of example or by way of probing at this stage.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he say what are the distinctive characteristics of the Scottish legal tradition and history which justify the various differences between the Scottish and English legal systems, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that it might be possible to summarise those characteristics at some time. All that I am concerned to point out at the moment is that there are distinctions between the two systems which are relevant. For example, solicitors in Scotland have wide rights of appearance in criminal jury trials. That is one of the important distinctions between Scotland and England with regard to this aspect of the matter. I suppose that the reasons are those of development and history, and of course the Treaty of Union has something to do with the preservation of the distinctiveness of the Scottish system.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls for giving their observations upon this issue. This was a probing amendment and I am delighted to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 106 to 109:
Page 19, line 22, leave out ("is granted") and insert ("has").
Page 19, line 23, after ("proceedings") insert ("granted").
Page 19, line 25, leave out ("is granted") and insert ("has").
Page 19, line 26, after ("audience") insert ("granted").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 103. With your Lordships' leave I propose to deal with them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 19, line 32, at end insert ("or the County Court").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to subsection (2)(e) of Clause 24, which refers to the role of,
394
"a solicitor's clerk, or corresponding employee of a recognised body, and the proceedings … being heard in chambers in the High Court".
The reason for this amendment is to reflect the current position with regard to solicitors' clerks. They enjoy an extensive locus standi in chambers in both the county court and the High Court. I feel that this amendment would be an improvement to the Bill in so far as it reflects the current position with regard to their rights of audience in chambers in both the High Court and the county court. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Morris—the amendment is tabled in my name also—and in doing so I should like to widen our discussions and refer your Lordships also to Amendments Nos. 112, 117, 138 and 139. The last named amendments are grouped together on the list.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may just mention that Amendment No. 117 raises a quite different point from Amendment No. 110 which has been moved and which we are now considering.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I have to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but perhaps I may develop my arguments so that your Lordships may see how Amendment No. 117 fits the same problem on which I seek to address the House. The amendment concerns the legal executive's right of audience. Your Lordships may recall from the Committee stage that the discussion breaks down into two parts: those amendments which are designed to preserve the current rights of audience of legal executives and the one amendment (Amendment No. 117) which seeks to set up a mechanism for obtaining modest extensions of the rights of legal executives under the umbrella of the Law Society. In that sense it is separate from the earlier amendments. However, all the amendments are directed toward legal executives' rights of audience.
Your Lordships may recall from Committee that currently the legal executives—solicitors' clerks—have a right of audience in the High Court in chambers. That was established a long time ago by Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy in the Meadowcroft case. In the county court and other tribunals, such as legal aid tribunals, before which legal executives regularly appear, they do not have a right of audience.
As the noble and learned Lord told us in Committee, the appearance of legal executives in chambers in the county court is a discretionary exercise by the court; similarly, it is only a discretionary exercise when legal executives appear, for example, in front of other tribunals and in arbitrations. In the very clear terms in which Clause 24(2) is drafted, once this Bill becomes law persons will only have rights of audience under the specified categories set out in that subsection. It seemed therefore that this was an opportunity, as it were, to turn a convention into a right. I refer in particular to the convention of legal executives appearing in chambers in front of county court judges and registrars.

395
There are two ways of tackling this problem. One is for the noble and learned Lord to exercise his right to give a direction under Section 61 of the County Courts Act 1984. The alternative is to put it plainly in this Bill by inserting in Clause 24(2)(e) the words:
"or the County Court".
Another way of tackling the problem is to use the deeming rights set out in Clause 29(1), and that is the effect of my Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. A third way of tackling the problem is the way apparently chosen by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as contained in his Amendment No. 112. The difficulty about Amendment No. 112 is that it does not truly cover the situation before county courts in chambers and tribunals because solicitors' clerks do not there have a right of audience. As I said, it is a matter of discretion.
I know that the noble and learned Lord keeps in close contact with the courts which are under his supervision, but he may not know of an event that occurred last week (or the week before) in Gosport County Court. A young advocate—he may well be a young advocate who has assiduously read your Lordships' Hansard—took the point in front of a judge that a solicitor's clerk did not have the right of audience to appear before him in chambers. I was told that, when that point was taken, the learned county court judge rejected the proposition and permitted the solicitor's clerk to appear in front of him. Nonetheless, that illustrates the uncertainty of the situation. Certainly one does not want to have that point taken up and down the country, particularly when it has been long established and accepted that solicitors' clerks do have that right of audience—by discretion or convention—in front of the county court judge in chambers.
As regards the mechanism for obtaining modest extensions of rights of audience—Amendment No. 117 under the umbrella of the Law Society, referring to Clause 24(7)—future rights of audience for legal executives and indeed future rights to conduct litigation could be achieved by various routes. For example, they could be achieved by the Institute of Legal Executives being made an authorised body under the terms of the Bill. As I understand it, that is the point to which the amendments, Amendments Nos. 115 and 129, of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, are directed. Alternatively, they could be achieved by the institute applying to be a designated body under the provisions of Clause 26. However, that does not accommodate what I suggest is the reality of the position of solicitors' clerks.
Noble Lords know from other observations made during the passage of this Bill that there are a great number of solicitors' clerks. There are somewhere in the region of 50,000 currently working in solicitors' offices. They do not work separately from the solicitors' profession. They work with the solicitors' legal profession and inside their offices. It does not seem to me to be desirable—and I put it in the context of the public interest—to have legal executives spinning off to form a separate legal force holding itself open to conduct advocacy and litigation throughout all fields of the law. I am told
396
that the institute, unless it is compelled to take that course, does not wish to do so. I am also told that the Law Society does not want it. Both the institute and the Law Society value their close association. In particular, the Law Society greatly appreciates the large contribution made to the provision of legal services by solicitors' clerks.
For those reasons I suggest that the approach I have sought to make in Amendment No. 117 is the right approach and represents the reality of the present position.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have an open mind on the amendment strictly under consideration, namely, Amendment No. 110, by my noble friend Lord Morris. I shall be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has referred to a number of other amendments, some of which are grouped with Amendment No. 110, and some not. But they all raise separate issues from those referred to in Amendment No. 110. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I should have thought that the anxieties and doubts that he has expressed are all met in substance by Amendment No. 112 on the Marshalled List which will be moved by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I should have thought, quite frankly, that it confuses the issues raised in Clauses 24 and 29 if we were to accept those amendments as well as Amendment No. 112 in the name of my noble and learned friend.
We need to be very careful. It is a fairly confusing Bill in places anyway. We want to be quite sure that we have left the drafting clear and that we have not created an over elaborate system of consultation and administration. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I should have thought that most of his amendments should not be moved.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I can put my point in a couple of sentences. Regardless of everything else, I can tell the House with a humble sense of authority that if solicitors' clerks were not allowed to appear in the county court, practitioners would not be able to continue to accept the burden of work that they have at the moment.
I therefore put my proposition in this way. If the noble and learned Lord is satisfied that solicitors' clerks have that right of audience, we shall listen to what he says, I am sure, with great respect and welcome it. If he feels that the amendment clarifies the issue—as indeed I believe it does—he will accept it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the situation with regard to solicitor's clerks is regulated in the High Court by the judgment to which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred. It is the unambiguous effect of that judgment that solicitors' clerks do not possess rights of audience to appear before county court judges or registrars in chambers. It has been the custom for judges and registrars to exercise their discretion to permit clerks to be heard. So far as I know, it has never been found in any way unsatisfactory. The ability for judges and registrars

397
in all courts to continue to do this is protected by the provisions of Clause 24(2)(c). If this amendment is not passed, solicitors' clerks will be left with exactly the same rights of audience as they currently possess.
I had not intended in this part of the Bill to grant any individual or group of individuals any new rights of audience under the Bill because I took the view that the framework that we have set up is designed to deal with that. On the issue of legal executives, the correct course is to apply the system that we are seeking to set up. I shall consider what is said in later amendments on whether the Law Society should be able to take them under its umbrella in some way. That is a different point.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Morris is conferring a new right on solicitors' clerks. From my own point of view, I do not see much harm in it, but it is going outside what I had intended this part of the structure to be dealing with. I have tried to preserve all existing rights. The existing situation for solicitors' clerks in the county courts seems to be satisfactory in that judges and registrars are normally prepared to hear them, and to exercise their discretion in that way.
As matters stand, I would prefer to leave the amendment out. I do not see much harm in it except that it is an innovation on what I was seeking to achieve under this part of the Bill; namely, to preserve the status quo and provide a machinery for changing it under the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may emphasise the word that he used. He said that it was "normally" permitted. Therefore there could be some abnormal cases of which he would disapprove because he feels, as I understand it, that the discretion that is normally given is the right discretion. Could he therefore remove the abnormal case which would be a nuisance to everybody, by including these words?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if there were a general agreement about that I would be quite content to do so. In the light of the situation that I am in I have sought to devise a system for providing new rights of audience keeping in place all the existing rights. If I were to accede to this amendment, I should be making a change in that policy.
As I have said already, as at present advised I would not see much harm in it. On the other hand, unless the present situation is producing harm it might be wise to leave it as it is because I have not had many views about the matter. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, feels strongly about it, and knows of cases where the present system has not worked satisfactorily, I might be prepared to reconsider. However, so far as I know the present situation has worked perfectly satisfactorily. I am therefore inclined to leave matters as they are.
I do not find it easy to be in a situation where the Bill is conferring new rights of audience instead of restricting itself to providing machinery for determining that question. I can see in later
398
amendments other suggestions for new rights of audience which may or may not commend themselves to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Whether or not they do, they may not commend themselves to others. I find it difficult to step over that boundary even in this rather minor, although not unimportant, case.
Lord Morris: My Lords, it is obvious that I did not make myself clear. The amendment does not seek a new right. It boils down to this question: When does a convention, a practice, become by custom a right? As we have heard, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it has been the practice for many years for solicitors' clerks to be heard in chambers in the county court. This amendment is an attempt to place the current position in the statute. There is nothing new about it.
It is not a matter of great moment in the sense that it is not creating a great change. In the light of the suggestion by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, that it is possible that he might consider this matter further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I should like to come back to it because I believe it is important that the statute reflects the current practice in the county courts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 19, line 32, at end insert—
(" () Nothing in this section shall permit an employee of a prosecuting authority to have a right of audience in relation to trials on indictment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is one of substance and provides that:
"Nothing in this section shall permit an employee of a prosecuting authority to have a right of audience in relation to trials on indictment".
The amendment raises a matter of principle which, I suggest, is of sufficient importance to engage the most careful and considered attention. During our debates on the Bill we must keep in view its implications. We are examining the future administration of justice in the criminal courts and the quality of the judges who will preside over them in the future.
Unamended the Bill will permit the setting up of a state advocacy service across the whole of England and Wales. There will be employed advocates—that is civil servants—conducting all prosecutions in the Crown Court. Noble Lords will appreciate, as the Philips Royal Commission pointed out at paragraph 7.23:
"We know of no common law jurisdiction … either covers an area with anything approaching the population of England and Wales … or deals with a crime load of anything like the same order of magnitude".
Having regard to the comments made by the noble and learned Lord in respect of the previous amendment, on that basis the commission particularly distinguished the procurator fiscal system in Scotland which it examined.
The amendment seeks to prevent so momentous a change taking place simply by the operation of the

399
noble and learned Lord's "mechanism", as he calls it; that is, of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee and the designated judges. Of course, the purpose of setting up such a national advocacy system would be to try to solve the chronic recruiting problem faced by the Director of Public Prosecutions by making the conditions of service of prosecutors appear more attractive. Surely that is not a good basis for such a fundamental change in our system. If it is to occur it should do so as a result of a decision taken by Parliament after a full debate.
I wish to spell out some of the objections upon which the amendment is founded. First, if all prosecutions are undertaken by employed lawyers, all defences will be in the hands of private advocates. A polarisation will take place of prosecutors on one side and defendants on the other, as is the situation in the United States of America. I remind your Lordships that the United States Chief Justice came to this country especially to try to persuade the Royal Commission not to allow that situation to happen here.
Secondly, it cuts across the whole cab rank principle now enshrined in the Bill: state prosecutors being insulated from it and defence lawyers subject to it. Thirdly, I suggest that it will remove the essential independence of the prosecutor in serious crime. No longer will he be manifestly independent to juries and the public in the Crown Courts, acting as a detached and independently-minded officer of justice as the principle now exists: that is, independent of the police, the prosecuting authority and of any government department; having no personal interest in the success of the case; and no conflict of duty with the court and his own interest in the results.
Further, it will remove a whole reservoir of advocates from promotion to the Bench. Surely all noble Lords agree that it would be inappropriate to appoint as a judge an advocate who had conducted only prosecution cases. The central quality of a judge is balance. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said in Committee, years of prosecuting tends to produce a certain cast of mind.
If, as was suggested in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, employed lawyers conduct only the simpler and shorter cases and experienced, independent advocates are briefed to conduct the heavier and more difficult cases, there will be no experienced and independent advocates because that can come only from long and continuous practice in the handling of the so-called "simple and short" cases. In any event, it is a myth that one can judge the difficulty or the responsibility necessary by the length of the case.
The matter was examined by the Royal Commisson chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. A remarkable fact of our debates, and of the White Paper which preceded them, is that, whereas the Civil Justice Review is quoted extensively as supporting the views of the Government, the huge research and detailed conclusions of the Royal Commission on Legal Services—it sat for four years and is the subject
400
matter of the Bill—is never referred to, and its conclusions are never dealt with. According to the commission, it was vital to ensure that:
"the Crown Court case is put by an advocate who is independent of the police and of the prosecuting authority for this serves an important public purpose".
Later the report states that that is crucial to the proper administration of justice. It further states that prosecutions are to be conducted:
"by one who, in the nature of his training and daily practice, is more likely to bring the essential quality of detachment and balance to bear".
The Philips Royal Commission, on whose finding the CPS was created, set out the functions of such a service as being three: first, the conduct of all criminal cases after charge by the police; secondly, legal advice to the police; thirdly, provision of advocates in the magistrates' court in all cases and the briefing of counsel in all cases tried on indictment in the Crown Court.
I make no apology for raising the matter again, because of the nature of the reply given by the noble and learned Lord in Committee. It gave rise to great concern among those who at present have the conduct of prosecutions. On 29th January, at col. 43 of Hansard, the noble and learned Lord said:
"The idea that merely because someone is employed he cannot be independent is absolute nonsense".
Later he described such a view as "indefensible". I am bound to ask whether the noble and learned Lord has studied the evidence and the conclusions of the Royal Commission. Did he really mean to describe the noble Lord, Lord Benson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, Mr. Dahrendorf and their colleagues as talking "absolute nonsense" and their views as being "indefensible" when they said that the matter was crucial to the proper administration of justice?
The Marre Committee described that independence as a safeguard against the risk of wrongful conviction. I ask again: does the noble and learned Lord suggest that that committee was talking nonsense? When the principle was publicly upheld by the present Attorney-General in 1985 and in 1987, and upheld in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were they and are they also talking nonsense?
The noble and learned Lord's own Green Paper as recently as one year ago states at paragraph 4.15:
"advocates who provide represenation in the more serious cases which are tried in the Crown Court should not, in any given case, have been involved also in the investigation of the evidence".
Of course it is one of the main jobs of the Crown Prosecution Service to be so involved. The undesirability of polarisation was entirely ignored by the noble and learned Lord when we discussed this in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and certain other noble Lords raised the question in Committee that if the CPS could be independent in the magistrates' court, why should it not be independent in the Crown Court? I can only say to them that the conduct of the prosecution before a jury and a Crown Court judge for a serious crime is totally different from dealing with matters of careless driving, small theft or assaults in the magistrates' court.
As I reminded the noble and learned Lord when we last dealt with this Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, the late Lord President, and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, in the debate on the Scotttish Bill both emphasised what the noble and learned Lord called the real and striking difference in Scotland between the sheriff court and the High Court. The difference was absolute.
Those are the matters which I put before your Lordships in urging this amendment. I ask the noble and learned Lord on this occasion to deal with the fundamental matters of principle raised by the Royal Commission to which I have referred because it was the failure to do that which has encouraged me to table this amendment again at this stage.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the noble Lord's speech has referred to the dangers which would flow if, using his words, all prosecutions were conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service. His amendment provides that no prosecutions should be carried out by that service. Does his argument rest on the word "all" or is there a half-way house with which he would be happy?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the noble Lord will see that the amendment applies only to trials on indictment. Those are the only matters to which it refers.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, in other words, the amendment says that no prosecutions in trials on indictment can be conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service. As I understood the noble Lord's argument—and no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—he is saying that the dangers will flow if all prosecutions are conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service. There is a large gap between those two points.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that "any" is the way in which I put it. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in favour of what the noble Lord has just said to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. There are only two points which I wish to make because I made a third in Committee and I shall not repeat it.
I once had a very great friend at school who ultimately went to the Bar. His name was Reggie Manningham-Buller. He sat where my noble and learned friend is now sitting and the actual article of furniture was never quite the same again. During the war, unlike myself, who had a rather different military career, he joined the JAG's Department and became for that purpose a Crown prosecutor. He was a formidable character was Reggie Manningham-Buller and he told me this about prosecuting for the Crown under a salaried prosecuting service. He said that when he prosecuted in a court martial and returned, the prisoner having been acquitted, he was always asked by his superior officer, "What went wrong?" In a brief sentence that
402
illustrates the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was trying to make in the civilian field.
Of course Reggie Manningham-Buller, as he then was, was a disciplined soldier as well as a Crown prosecutor and I make full allowance for that fact. However, I do not believe that a salaried prosecutor in the Crown Court should be in that sort of position because it is the organisation of the Crown Prosecution Service which has decided upon the prosecution. I think that that makes all the difference.
Anybody who tried to intimidate the late Reggie Manningham-Buller was a very strong character, because I should never have attempted that myself. However, I do not believe that it is fair for a Crown prosecutor to be in a salaried service in the Crown Court.
When my noble and learned friend replied to the debate in Committee he seemed to think that it was somehow a slur on the magistrates' court—prosecuting is confined as at present to briefed counsel in the Crown Court—that persons there should be prosecuting who are in one way or another salaried servants of one organisation or another and now, usually, under the Crown Prosecution Service.
My noble friends who were in government with me know that I was always rather queasy about the whole idea of having a Crown Prosecution Service at all. At the moment I am not wearing a white sheet for having been rather queasy on that score. Time will show which of us was right. I have tried to put all my prejudices aside. However, I must say that proceedings in a magistrates' court, where a case is tried and controlled by a Bench of three very reputable, rather well trained, although not legally qualified, magistrates when it is disputed, is a very different affair from jury advocacy. It is far easier to pervert the tribunal of fact in a Crown Court, namely the jury. It is far more important for independence to be shown by the advocate in the Crown Court, where he is addressing 12 randomly selected jurors taken off the voting list than in a much more minor case when addressing three very experienced magistrates who will very soon put him in his place.
Therefore, it is far from being a slur on the petty sessions. In Committee my noble and learned friend put the argument that it was perfectly reasonable to insist that a trained advocate who is independent when addressing the jury and not salaried should be the sole method of conducting prosecutions in the Crown Court. But it by no means follows that a similar practice should be followed in the magistrates' court where magistrates are not only the tribunal of law but also of fact. I think the magistrates' court can very well control a salaried prosecutor. I shall not give any further anecdotal evidence, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was right in seeking to move his amendment and it perhaps did not get quite the treatment at the earlier stage that it deserved.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is right that each of us should examine this matter with the greatest of

403
care. We have heard some very reasonable speeches in favour of the amendment. There are some aspects of this matter that worry me, but I want to try to keep an open mind and listen to the debate. It may well be that from the very Benches which I occupy someone will say something quite different, and I think that is extremely healthy.
The first aspect that we want to consider is the prosecution service itself: the type of lawyer we are trying to encourage and not only whether we shall produce a prosecuting service with a properly full establishment—which it does not have at the moment—but whether we shall fill that establishment with exactly the type of people we want. We do not have them at the moment and I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will be the first person, whatever his views about the prosecution service, who, once we have it, will want it to be a success.
It has been put as though the prosecution service will consist of young men who have had no previous experience at the Bar or as solicitors; that they will go into the prosecution service and there they will be, year after year, having done nothing at all except prosecuting. I can envisage, and I believe it was envisaged at the Committee stage, that we want to encourage into that service somebody who has been at the criminal Bar for some little time and who has had a great experience on both sides; or perhaps just experience of defendants' work. He would then enter the prosecution service as a career, but with the experience of knowing what it is like to defend and defend and defend. He would know how annoying it sometimes is that prosecuting counsel seem most unreasonable in bringing a case which ought never to be brought at all.
Do we want to say to somebody who is entering the prosecution service as an employee, "You have had quite a bit of experience at the Bar but I am afraid you will not be prosecuting if you are an employee of this service. You will not be allowed to if the matter goes to trial on indictment. You will be doing the little work in the magistrates' court"? That is my first point.
The second point which worries me is the inference that an employee is somebody who merely looks for promotion; somebody who would be frightened of the reprimand almost by a senior officer. I did not know Reggie Manningham-Buller as well as the noble and learned Lord, but I respected him greatly and because I respected him so much and did not know him so well it seems impertinent to call him Reggie Manningham-Buller. However, since he has been so called I know I shall not be thought offensive if I use that term, even in the absence of his son, who we are always delighted to see in this Chamber.
Do we want to encourage in this service the type of employee who will say "Dear me, this is very bad. I have been given 10 cases to prosecute and only have seven convictions so far. My word, I must see that I get another couple out of the next few charges for which I an responsible"? If we have that sort of person in the prosecution service, forgive me for saying it, but God help the prosecution service.
404
That is the second point which makes me somewhat apprehensive. The third and final point was discussed in the always interesting contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I have in mind a picture of a judge in the Crown Court sitting absolutely silent while prosecuting counsel exceeds his bounds and not reprimanding him and telling him what he should be doing; in his summing-up to the jury he gives no hint that anything untoward has happened. Then I have in mind the picture of three lay magistrates in the magistrates' court having all the perspicacity and all the courage in the world, frowning at prosecuting counsel and intervening in what they consider to be his rather aggressive and improper conduct of the case, saying "Dear me, our experience shows that we must reprimand you for the way you are conducting this case".
Forgive me for saying this, but to me that is a Gilbert and Sullivan situation. I believe that when one is contrasting or comparing the need for care, the care should be in the magistrates' court. In the Crown Court there is a very experienced judge and 12 good men and true who look after the accused.
A noble Lord: And women!
Lord Mishcon: Quite right, and women, I am sorry, I should have said that. However, it is little Mrs. Smith who is charged with shoplifting who needs all the care in the world from a prosecutor who may be dealing with the evidence in a way which may be too aggressive and too unfair. I should have thought on balance that this amendment contains grave imperfections. However, as I said before, I am more than willing to listen to the debate.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will consider the case of the little shoplifter who recently had to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I know I am a toffee-nosed old Etonian, as I was so described this morning by the judge in question, but I am bound to say that I do not think she got a very fair crack of the whip from the experienced judge who tried her.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not intend in any way to indulge in your Lordships' House in either criticising or praising individual judges.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment in principle. Some of the reasons for my support I gave at Second Reading (at cols 192–3 of Hansard). Throughout, in principle, this amendment must be right.
First, I thought it was common ground that in criminal cases it is most undesirable that in trials on indictment the person who interviews the witnesses and prepares the case for trial should also have the actual conduct of the trial as an advocate before the jury, especially if he is the prosecutor. I thought that that was common ground. I thought that that was written somewhere in one of the government papers.
Secondly, the concept of any type of approach towards the United States system, a state prosecution

405
service, is abhorrent. The polarisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred is a serious and real objection.
Thirdly, with regard to the problems of staffing, pay and recruitment to the Crown Prosecution Service, it is unrealistic, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested, to expect experienced practitioners from the criminal Bar to offer their services when the pay is not sufficiently attractive. This problem therefore leaves a very large question mark over the experience, qualifications and expertise of anyone who happens to be an employee of the CPS having the right of audience in serious criminal trials on indictment.
I am open to correction, but as I understand the position at the moment, the general efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service is giving ample cause for anxiety and is the subject of consideration by a Select Committee of another place. If the Bar, solicitors and others are to compete on more or less equal terms on rights of audience, is it acceptable to countenance this form of putative monopoly in the CPS on trials on indictment?
There is another matter which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and it is this: at the end of the day the quality of justice in an adversarial system such as ours is largely dependent on the quality of representation. It is of particular importance that in any trial on indictment the standards now observed by the prosecution should be maintained by advocates independent of the Crown Prosecution Service and in-house representation should be proscribed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to two reports, one of which stated that that was crucial, and the other that it was a safeguard against wrongful conviction. Surely, those findings are not to be ignored. As always I come to deal with the objection of my noble friend Lord Boardman who first raised the objection at Second Reading which I sought to answer. That answer appears in Hansard on 19th December 1989 at column 193. In effect that objection has been answered not only by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, today, but also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. Your Lordships may well think that the objection was dealt with most effectively in the memorable speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, at Second Reading of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, reported in Hansard on 30th January 1990 at col. 184. It is a short quotation but I make it because it goes to the heart of answering the oft-repeated objection of my noble friend Lord Boardman. The noble and learned Lord said this:
"Is experience, over however long a period, of part-time sheriff court practice likely to offer a fair basis on which to make a judgment of an individual's competence to plead in the superior courts?"
As your Lordships know, solicitors in Scotland also have the right to plead in superior courts.
The hope is that noble Lords will look with favour on this amendment: but, more than that, that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who keeps an open mind though provisionally opposed to this concept, might take this matter back to consider whether it is really right to throw the reins of
406
representation over the neck of the Crown Prosecution Service horse so that any employee, without any form of restraint or regulation, can, so to speak, appear with rights of audience in a criminal trial on indictment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, as I recall, the raison d'être of the Crown Prosecution Service was that it should be independent of the police. However, its independence in relation to the activity of prosecution is quite another matter. I entirely appreciate the point which my noble friend Lord Mishcon made that career employees of the Crown Prosecution Service may have had their experience largely in defence work. With respect to my noble friend, that does not entirely meet the point of principle which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, brings before your Lordships' House by way of this amendment.
The questions of principle appear to be these: to what extent should a prosecutor, in a criminal case in court, be independent of the interest of the prosecuting authority which he represents? That leads to a second question; namely, to what extent is his independence qualified if his work and his employment is dependent on a contract of employment with the prosecuting authority which, in the ordinary way, will be terminable on short notice?
I assure my noble friend Lord Mishcon that neither he nor I would seek to abuse or devalue the moral quality of the persons who work under a contract of employment. However, the point is to recognise the vulnerability of employees under a contract of employment in a matter of constitutional importance; namely, the independent prosecution of alleged crime. These are questions of first principle. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when replying, will not seek to answer these important points by reference to analogies from the magistrates' court. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that such analogies are of no consequence: it is a question of principle which the noble Lord brings before the House, regardless of what happens in the magistrates' court.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, the definitive evidence on this matter has been given to the Benson Committee and the Marre Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, perhaps I may be permitted some anecdotal evidence from the time when I had the conduct, the power and the responsibility for prosecution in England and Wales. Some of the recollections go back to the days under Sir John Hobson, which is about 28 years, but more latterly I refer to my own responsibility.
There were occasions when the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecuted with counsel nominated by me as Attorney General. At the conclusion of a trial the representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions sometimes complained because a counsel had, in the exercise of his discretion, taken a plea to a lesser charge, or he may have followed

407
some course which that officer of the Director of Public Prosecutions did not think was right. That happened on one or two occasions. I made it perfectly clear to that officer that such a decision was the responsibility of the independent nominated counsel who was in charge of the prosecution. It was a lesson to myself.
As regards the magistrates' court, it is in the recollection of most of us here that in the old days it was the representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions who used to present the cases at the committal for trial in the magistrates' court. It was a very difficult task conducted with great skill by extremely experienced officers of the Director of Public Prosectutions who, when it came to the trial on indictment, then handed the cases over to the nominated counsel to conduct.
At that time I did not find that there was any lack of ability or attraction of persons who had been recruited into that service. They were content to do that job and they did it extremely well. The point has been made that people will not be recruited into the Crown Prosecution Service if they are not given the right to conduct prosecutions on indictment. I do not believe that is so.
Above all, I urge your Lordships to take seriously the point that it is essential to have independent nominated counsel who has complete control over how the case is conducted. In that case he is bound by his duty as an officer of the court. One will find a great deal more fairness afforded defendants if one continues with that system.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges, a highly responsible body on this subject, reported as recently as nine months ago in answer to the Green Paper. In the preface it indicated just to what extent the circuit judges are consumers, if I may use that phrase, of advocacy talents. The council said this:
"The most recent statistics (1987/1988) show that of the total judicial days sat in cases of first instance and the Crown Court (excluding judicial assistance from Deputies, Recorders, Assistant Recorders, and work carried out by Masters and Registrars) 85 per cent, were by Circuit Judges and 15 per cent, by High Court Judges".
This is what the council said on the subject of the Crown Prosecution Service:
"If rights of audience were granted to the CPS we envisage an unhealthy divide whereby the CPS would monopolise the presentation of prosecutions, whilst barristers"—
I emphasise this—
"and solicitors would be left with defence work. Thus the vital experience of appearing on both sides and developing a balanced view, an essential factor in the proper training for judicial office, would disappear.
Apart from cases which can be presented in a very short time (generally in the Magistrates' Court) we consider that a lawyer employed by the CPS would never be able properly to devote himself to a case which took over a day to present. The pressure of disposing of pending office work and his workload, and transferring work to a colleague because the instant trial could not be concluded as early as expected, would provide harmful distractions".
It concluded with these relevant observations:
"The Director of Public Prosecutions and his department are undoubtedly independent in their own sphere. But their function
408
is not that of advocate. The question is begged by any such comparison. Furthermore, Treasury Counsel are not employees and retain freedom of decision because of their training in and membership of a completely independent profession of advocates. It is an obvious advantage to the administration of justice that prosecutors in the superior courts are represented by independent counsel and it would be regressive to remove it".
I make two final points. One deals with a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He has his traffic directions flowing in exactly the wrong way. There will be employees from the Crown Prosecution Service who, having developed an expertise, will go to the criminal Bar, to the advantage of the criminal Bar and to the advantage of themselves; but the traffic will be only in that direction. Successful members of the criminal Bar will not go to the Criminal Prosecution Service, not merely because of money but because of the independence and the attractiveness of being a member of that profession.
I was deeply worried to see reports in the press that, in the course of a Select Committee of another place taking evidence, the Director of Public Prosecutions, for whom I have the very greatest respect, expressed his deep anxiety that if solicitors in private practice were given rights of audience in the Crown Court he would find it even harder to recruit into the Crown Prosecution Service unless it had similar rights of audience. Is the quality of the administration of justice in this country to be determined on the basis of how we recruit into a government department? If that is to be so, we are moving towards very sad times indeed.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, in moving his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to the consequences that he believed would flow if all prosecutions were conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service. I entirely share his views on that. It would be completely wrong. But his amendment goes to the other extreme and says in effect that no prosecutions on indictment should be conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service. That is going to the other extreme. It would eliminate from the ranks of those prosecuting people with the experience to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred—people who have the qualities to carry such prosecutions and who might wish to cross the Crown Prosecution Service back to the Bar. In his amendment the noble Lord could have referred to a limit of some kind—how the percentage would be defined I know not—but to bar all prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service is going too far.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to our exchange at Second Reading on the role of the magistrates' court. My noble friend said—and I am sure it was a slip of the tongue—that a lower standard of justice must be expected within the magistrates' court. I do not accept that we can have a lower standard of justice in the magistrates' court.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. What I meant to say and should have said, and said later—I corrected it—was that it is a different system. It is a different system and a different standard.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I fully accept what my noble friend says. I raised the point to give him the opportunity to respond. We cannot accept any lower standard of justice in any part of the courts, whether it be the magistrates' court or the High Court, whether it be for trial on indictment or otherwise. Of course different skills may be needed before the magistrates' court from those required for trial on indictment. In this respect I go with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Surely therefore the Crown Prosecution Service should be in a position to train and provide people with those various skills for the magistrates' court and for the High Court. It would be wrong if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, barred all prosecutions on indictment being carried out by anyone within the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate but what I have heard has disturbed me considerably. I find worrying the suggestion that has been put around the House on this issue that it is only within the capability of the so-called learned professions to understand and take to their hearts and minds the concept of independence in the interests of justice. This is a monstrous concept.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Morris: My Lords, I shall not give way. The noble Lord has a right to reply and he has spoken already. It is a monstrous concept when one considers the independence of our Civil Service, of the armed forces and of many other people in employment. To concede that one has to be a member of an independent profession in order to bring these standards to bear is very disturbing indeed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest at the outset in that I am neither a barrister nor a solicitor. It is rather necessary to say that in this debate because members of those professions have been abused in the press as a result of the positions they have taken on the Bill. It is the first occasion on which I have spoken.
One point with which I am particularly anxious to deal is the present position of the Crown Prosecution Service. I believe that the central reason for the Government's position on the matter, although not the only reason, relates to the present low state of morale within the Crown Prosecution Service. There is a subsidiary reason given by Sir Robert Andrew in his report on Government legal services, which is attractive to the Treasury, that it would cost less than the present system.
Like many, I welcomed the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, indicated a moment ago that he had had his doubts, but, as I recall the debate which we had in this House, there was total support from all quarters for this proposal.
Unhappily, as a result of a serious misjudgment at the time, the service was chronically underfunded
410
from the day of its creation. The result has been that its staff have been submerged under a tidal wave of criticism, which has done serious damage both to its reputation and inevitably to the morale of the staff of the organisation. One has only to look at some of the most recent criticisms made about the CPS. Perhaps I may deal with that because it is highly relevant to the discussion we are having at present.
I would like to refer to evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. First, I quote the findings of the Criminal Bar Association after having consulted its members:
"It was an all but unanimous view that the current position was a disappointment. Of the options given—
that is, to people who were involved in their survey—
"all barring a small fraction settled for 'worse' than before 1985. The fraction settled for 'no different'. Only two were found who responded to the general question with which the poll started by giving it as their opinion that the system was working 'better' than before".
There were a number of other criticisms. It was said:
"It is a commonly held view that deterioration is most noticeable in the largest bracket of prosecutions—what might loosely be called 'the lower end'. Yet a disturbing number recount that it is encountered even in the most serious cases …
"Nearly 95 per cent, answered unfavourably a general question as to whether the standard of preparation of cases had fallen".
It is said that there was
"failure to spot evidential problems and lacunae: (there were tales of elementary mistakes persisting even now); embarrassing applications for adjournments flowing from a failure to communicate information (often specifically requested) to the defence; failure to act on the written advice of counsel; poor drafting of indictments; the arrival at the Crown Court of cases plainly unsupportable by the evidence in the committal papers".
Then there is a report by the South Eastern Circuit. The paper they put to the Home Affairs Committee said:
"The general opinion of members of the South Eastern Circuit who were consulted on the subject of the Crown Prosecution Service is that it is understaffed, overworked and of low morale".
They add that the words most commonly used to describe the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service within the magistrates' courts were "a shambles".
I then turn to the evidence of Sir David Hopkin, the chief metropolitan stipendary magistrate, who referred to the late delivery and late review of papers creating a crisis situation at many courts.
Then there is the evidence of the Association of the Chief Police Officers, as follows:
"The 1988/89 Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report elaborated on the staff shortages mentioned earlier. The most startling figure was the £15 million used to pay agents who undertook 40 per cent, of the case load. It follows that the quality of agents varied considerably, and many forces voiced this concern. Lack of commitment to the prosecution, loss of papers, and the option of plea bargaining were common complaints and even an occasion when one agent appeared to represent both the prosecution and the defence".
That is a summary of some of the matters that were raised in evidence very recently to the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. The position is that the service is still well over 20 per cent, below its establishment and is unable effectively to discharge its responsibilities in the magistrates' courts.

411
Yet this Bill, unless amended, may give members of the service the right of audience in the Crown Courts. Some members of the service undoubtedly want that. Indeed they said so to Sir Robert Andrew when he conducted his inquiry into Government legal services; but I see some objections to that.
First, I fear there would be too great a temptation for Ministers to make a commencement order as far as this part of the Bill is concerned in order to meet their serious anxieties about the morale of the Crown Prosecution Service. It may be said that that is an unfair suggestion, but we are confronted with a sad situation.
We have seen the recent experience of the Serious Fraud Office, which was created as the result of the Roskill Commission. It was set up with very high expectations of success—again with total support of all sides of the House—yet we find it is now grossly under-resourced. We have seen the dreadful situation in many magistrates' courts when, because of the acute shortages of justices' clerks, many court sittings have had to be abandoned. We have had the evidence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others about the position in the county courts.
In each case the problem is that adequate resources are not being made available to discharge the important responsibilities in our courts system. Yet we are solemnly discussing a situation in which we are prepared to contemplate passing on new responsibilities to a service which at the moment cannot carry out its present responsibilities. It seems to me that this is entirely mistaken.
5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by pointing out that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is utterly mistaken in suggesting that a provision in this Bill will confer a right of audience on employed members of any prosecuting authority. This Bill sets up a framework under which matters of rights of audience and the conditions under which they can be exercised are to be determined in the light of advice from an independent advisory committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with rules to be proposed by the professional bodies, which will become effective only if they are approved by the four heads of division, the designated judges, and the Lord Chancellor.
That is what we are concerned with. There is no question of my having put forward this Bill in order to bring rights of prosecution to the Crown Prosecution Service except in accordance with decisions taken under that machinery.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has referred to views expressed on behalf of certain of the judiciary on these matters, and I will come back to those. But the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has to be aware of the fact that there is no question of a right of audience being conferred in respect of this type of situation except in accordance with the ultimate views of the designated judges, who are responsible for their position as very senior
412
and quite independent judicial officers in the administration of justice.
Here we are concerned with an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington which, before we decide anything else, will completely restrict the operation of the mechanism in that way. It states:
"Nothing in this section"—
that is the section which introduces the mechanism—
"shall permit an employee of a prosecuting authority to have a right of audience in relation to trials on indictment".
The effect of the amendment, as my noble friend Lord Boardman pointed out, is that no person employed by a prosecuting authority will have any right of audience in the Crown Court in any circumstance, even if the CPS in years to come were the most excellently funded service in the public sector. No employee of a prosecuting authority is to have a right of audience in relation to trials on indictment. The fundamental proposition which underlies the amendment is that no employee can be sufficiently independent to be entrusted with that responsibility. That is the issue.
I am not here to deal with the details of the CPS, although since the matter has been raised and elaborated upon, I should perhaps refer to the speech of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General in the other place in which he answered the Adjournment Debate that had been initiated by Mr. Keith Vaz. I shall quote one passage, "The hon. Gentleman", that is Mr. Keith Vaz—
"asked whether I ageed that there was a serious crisis affecting the Crown prosecution service. The answer is no. I acknowledge readily the handicaps that have always affected it and which continue to do so, but they are diminishing. In the words of the Director of Public Prosecutions in his recent evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the service is 'making progress' towards its objectives. There is no crisis. Nor do I consider there to be feuding with the police or anything like it and I shall take more time on that shortly".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/90; col. 64.]
The Attorney-General then goes on to deal with a number of criticisms, but I do not regard that matter as of direct relevance to the present question. I do not propose that the CPS should conduct all trials in the Crown Court by salaried employees or anything of the kind. I suggest that it is not right at this stage, without putting the subject into the mechanism which we have devised with a great deal of care and balance—I believe that I am right to say that the House agreed on the basic structure and principles upon which those questions should be decided, subject perhaps to some later amendments—to decide that no employee shall be allowed to have a right of audience in trials on indictment in the Crown Court.
Just to show how extraordinary some of the argument has been, I should point out that my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie, spoke of the Sheriff Court in Scotland for the purpose of distinguishing between the Sheriff Court and the High Court. Of course there is a distinction, but in Scotland, as I am sure most of your Lordships are aware, salaried officials of the service corresponding to the CPS have a right of audience injury trials on indictment in the Sheriff Court where the sheriff can impose up

413
to three years' imprisonment. Whatever may be said, I do not believe that the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie can be prayed in aid in support of a proposition that it is altogether wrong ever to allow a salaried employee of a prosecuting authority to conduct prosecutions on indictment.
The fundamental question is whether a person who is an employee can be independent. I have quoted before, but it is worth quoting again, a passage from the judgment of Lord Devlin when he was sitting at first instance in a case called the Potato Marketing Board v. Merricks 1958 II Queen's Bench 316 at page 335, which refers to the word "independent":
"I agree with counsel for the respondent that independence ordinarily denotes financial independence, but I do not think that is the only sense in which the word can be used. I think that the word may be used to refer to a person who is permitted—and, perhaps, indeed required—by the man who employs or retains him to bring an independent mind to bear on a particular problem",
and for good measure he gives a solicitor as an example.
The idea that one cannot be employed and have an independent mind is, as I said in Committee, an absurd notion. I said then—this is the passage to which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, referred in his opening today:
"The idea that merely because someone is employed he cannot be independent is absolute nonsense".—[Official Report, 29/1/90; col. 43.]
I adhere to that view. I am not saying, and I have never said, that the conclusions of the Royal Commissions of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, or Sir Cyril Phillips, were characterised in that way. That is not the point with which I was dealing. I was dealing with the idea that merely because someone is employed he cannot be independent, and I say that that is nonsense. I strongly adhere to that view. That does not mean that it would be wise that all prosecutions should be conducted, even if it were thought than any should be, by employed persons. The noble Lord was perhaps not taking account of that part of what I said in Committee. I can well understand what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham had to say, and what my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, on that occasion about the desirability of someone having experience of both sides so that one does nothing but prosecute or defend. I pointed out that one might have continuous periods on either side. I instanced the idea of short-term contracts.
There are people at the Bar who would value the possibility of having some degree of financial security for a period, and short-term contracts are possible; but I am not here to advocate that point one way or another. I am here to point out that to make that decision an impossible one to entertain for the advisory committee and the designated judges in conjunction with the professional bodies, is utterly wrong. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
I entirely accept the view that there are important considerations as to what extent any part of the prosecuting service—that refers not just to the CPS but to all prosecuting authorities—should use
414
salaried employees to present cases at any stage. That is an entirely different question. This issue is merely whether the advisory committee, the professions and the designated judges should be debarred, for as long as the provision lasts, from even considering the question of granting rights of audience to a person who is employed by a prosecuting authority to enable him to conduct the prosecution in a criminal trial.
It would be wrong to answer that question "no" for all time, in the way that the amendment suggests. As I have said, that does not mean that I consider that it would be desirable to have a state prosecution service conducting all trials on indictment, or anything of the kind. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who spoke on that point earlier, will share that view. That is a different question altogether. The question we are considering is whether anyone who is a salaried employee can be sufficiently independent to be allowed to conduct a trial on indictment.
I should perhaps refer to what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell said about people complaining to him subsequently about a decision taken by counsel; for example, to abandon a trial or accept a reduced plea. I contemplate that if a barrister were employed by the CPS to represent it in a criminal trial on indictment, that person appearing for the Crown would have the responsibility and power to make the decision about whether, in the course of the trial, to accept a plea, discontinue the prosecution or whatever.
It is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships that the mere fact that someone has been retained does not necessarily mean that he will be completely independent in the sense that he may have to look to the CPS for further work. One of the difficulties that can arise is where somebody takes a decision of which another person does not approve. The latter may decide that the person whose decision has been impugned should not again be instructed without any right of appeal. However, under our legislation nowadays an employee has the possibility of protection in that situation. I hope that your Lordships will not agree to the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. Does he make a distinction between being an employed person in general and being a person employed by a prosecuting authority? Surely it is by whom one is employed that matters, not whether a person is employed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can distinguish between a person employed by a prosecuting authority and one employed by somebody else. However, the mere fact that someone is employed by a prosecuting authority does not mean that he cannot bring an independent mind and independent judgment to the problems before him. I do not wish to pursue this too far, but the essence of the reason for the existence of the Crown Prosecution Service is that independent and proper decisions will be taken as to the institution of prosecutions themselves. It is generally the employees of the

415
Crown Prosecution Service who take that decision. It is vitally important that the decisions be taken independently and as the result of the application to the case—where it has to be decided whether the case should be taken—of the independent judgment of the person in question. He is not precluded from having an independent judgment in the matter simply because he is employed.
I said before, and I repeat in regard to the magistrates' court, that it is not that there is no distinction between the magistrates' court and the Crown Court and the others. The independence of judgment by those concerned in the institution and carrying on of prosecutions is essential at every stage. Anything that would cast doubt on that, or seek to impugn it, is counter-productive to the whole idea as a result of which or on the basis of which the Crown Prosecution Service was set up. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, approves of that because he does not approve of the idea that the decision whether or not to carry on a prosecution should be taken independently of those who investigated, namely, the police.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may respectfully ask him whether he accepts the rectitude of the principle that the person who takes the statements from the witnesses and who prepares the case should not have the conduct of that case for the prosecution as an advocate. Does he accept that?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in his earlier submissions the noble Lord referred to one of the government papers. I think he probably referred to the first of the three Green Papers. I said there that an example of a code of conduct provision might be that the person having the responsibility for the investigation of the case should not have the responsibility for its presentation. I said that in relation to the more serious cases taken on indictment. It does not necessarily apply to all cases on indictment. This is a matter for consideration as part of the rules. However, that is an entirely different question from whether or not the person who presents the case could properly be an employed person.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as one who thinks that—
Noble Lords: Order!
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I think that I have the privilege of replying to the debate which we have had on the amendment. I wish to take a few moments in reply to the noble and learned Lord by making one or two points about what has been said by other noble Lords. I am grateful to them for their contributions.
The noble and learned Lord has reiterated repeatedly, as he did at Committee stage, that the question in the amendment is whether an employee can exercise an independent mind in relation to
416
prosecutions. With the greatest possible respect to him, that is not the question in the amendment, as I ventured to try to explain on the last occasion. The question is whether a salaried employee of the Crown Prosecution Service can be described as an independent advocate. It is a perfectly simple question. We have only to ask ourselves whether it would be appropriate to appoint such a person to the Bench. The answer will surely come back, "Of course not, because it is essential that a judge should have balance". Someone who has served in the prosecution service as a salaried employee would surely not be an appropriate person—however honourable, however efficient, however good—to be appointed to the Bench. As all noble Lords appreciate, salaried employees in the Crown Prosecution Service will have annual reports made upon their performance. Their promotion within the service will be considered. With great respect, that is not independence.
What the amendment is all about is whether the advocate conducting the prosecution in serious crime can be regarded by the jury, by the judge and by the public as an entirely and completely independent person. All the amendment seeks to do is to ensure for the future that an employee advocate is not the person who will conduct the prosecution. This makes no criticism of the independence of any particular individual. The Customs and Excise staff, the Inland Revenue staff, the staff of the district attorney in the United States of America, the staff in New South Wales, in Hong Kong, where all these questions have arisen in a difficult form, no doubt have employees of perfectly good independence of mind. That is the point of the amendment.
If I may say so, I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord has not covered the matter of principle which was dealt with in such depth and at such length by the Royal Commission, when this point was taken and answered. It is not a matter of the individual but of principle.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that when he stated that he would keep an open mind, I entirely accept that he meant that. It was a genuine observation. Throughout the Bill and beforehand on almost no point have he and I differed. We have always felt that the matter could have been cleared up quite easily in regard to the whole Bill if only the noble and learned Lord had got myself and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, around a table. We should have resolved the problem in a short time.
When the noble and learned Lord says that it is a question of what type of service we want in the Crown Prosecution Service, I say that that is not the question. It is a recruiting matter. He has only to look at the staff of the DPP which includes barristers who have a right of audience. They take the cases in the magistrates' court, they commit the cases and have always done so. But when it comes to who is to conduct the case in the Crown Court, it is handed over to an independent advocate. The inference is not that the barrister who works in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is a non-independent, second-rate person. The conduct of the case is handed over in order to maintain the

417
principle of total independence. I am sure that the Crown Prosecution Service will in due course recruit people of the same quality as have worked hitherto in the director's office.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind giving way for one moment so that we can present the full position. I know that the noble Lord always wishes to present the full position. Does the noble Lord consider that if, at the end of presenting a case to go for trial, there was a submission that there was no case to answer, the director's representative in the magistrates' court would not be fit to conduct that case becasue he could not be independent?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the noble Lord still seems incapable of seeing the point of the amendment. Of course that person would not be incapable. The whole point is that when the case reaches the Crown Court the prosecution must be conducted by someone who is clearly independent as a matter of principle. It is not a question of his competence.
I should repeat the point that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, in Committee, on the matter of independence. He found when he was Attorney-General that because certain Treasury counsel had conducted prosecutions for such a length of time at the Central Criminal Court they became prosecution-minded. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred to that. As a result of that the noble and learned Lord introduced certain reforms. I refer to that only to show that even advocates who have worked for 10 years in a mixed practice in chambers and who later become Treasury counsel can, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, discovered, adopt a prosecution-minded approach. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord introduced reforms which still apply. That is an example of how independence can disappear if one is conducting only one kind of work.
I apologise for interrupting the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. The noble Lord said that he objected to the view that it was only the learned profession of barristers who could be independent. I have never suggested that for one single moment. The noble Lord has not appreciated that the Bar accepts entirely that solicitors and perhaps other persons should have rights of audience in Crown Courts. This amendment has nothing whatever to do with questions of barristers and solicitors. There will be barristers and solicitors in the Crown Prosecution Service. Now there will also be laymen in the Crown Prosecution Service. There is also a suggestion later on in the Bill that such laymen may conduct bail applications before High Court judges. I wish to reject the constant suggestion that amendments that one moves have something to do with one's own profession. That is not so. This is a matter of principle. Having regard to the support which I have received from all around the House I feel it is incumbent on me to take the view of the House.
5.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 110A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 143.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

[Teller.]

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aldington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Meston, L.

Amherst, E.

Moyne, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mulley, L.

Beloff, L.

Northfield, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Rees, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Foot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grimond, L.

Seear, B.

Hacking, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Somers, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

White, B.

Havers, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Diamond, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Downshire, M.

Arran, E.

Dundee, E.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Aylestone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Balfour, E.

Elton, L.

Barnett, L.

Ennals, L.

Bauer, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Birk, B.

Gainford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Blatch, B.

Geddes, L.

Blease, L.

Gisborough, L.

Blyth, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Boardman, L.

Haddington, E.

Bottomley, L.

Hankey, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hayter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hemphill, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Brookes, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hives, L.

Caithness, E.

Holderness, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hooper, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Colwyn, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Joseph, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Killearn, L.

Cox, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Crickhowell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Knollys, V.

David, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Layton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Limerick, E.

419

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Quinton, L.

Long, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Longford, E.

Reay, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Renwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rodney, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Romney, E.

Malmesbury, E.

St. Davids, V.

Mancroft, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Seebohm, L.

Mersey, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Shannon, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Morris, L.

Stedman, B.

Mottistone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Munster, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Swansea, L.

Nicol, B.

Terrington, L.

Norrie, L.

Teviot, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Onslow, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Tryon, L.

Pender, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Peston, L.

Ullswater, V.

Phillips, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 19, line 32, at end insert—
("(2A) No person shall have a right of audience as a barrister by virtue of subsection (2)(a) above unless he has been called to the bar by one of the Inns of Court and has not been disbarred or temporarily suspended from practice by order of an Inn of Court,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment at Committee stage. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that he could accept it in principle but wished to consider the drafting. That was on 29th January. Today is 22nd February. I should like to know whether my noble and learned friend now considers that the drafting is as perfect as the four present treasurers of the Inns of Court and four of their predecessors think it to be. I should have thought that if he were in a sporting mood he could take the risk of accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble friend said, I accepted the amendment in principle at Committee stage because I am entirely in sympathy with the point that is made. My noble friend does not need me to tell him that the arrangements that exist between the General Council of the Bar and the Inns of Court are just a little intricate. I have not had as full an opportunity as I should have liked to consider the full implications of the amendment.
However, in order to make progress I propose to recommend to your Lordships that the amendment should be accepted. My noble friend will understand if, as we examine the matter further, additional action has to be taken arising from the amendment. On present advice it appears to be acceptable. We
420
have tried to examine the implications for the future. If my noble friend can accept my agreeing to the amendment subject to that proviso, I shall be very happy to do so.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend and congratulate him on his sportsmanship.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 19, line 41, at end insert—
("(5A) Where, immediately before the commencement of this section, no restriction was placed on the persons entitled to exercise any right of audience in relation to any particular court or in relation to particular proceedings, nothing in this section shall be taken to place any such restriction on any person.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 112 and 128 are designed to clarify the position with regard to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation.
First, with regard to Clause 24, my intention is to ensure that the list of categories of persons who may have rights of audience does not exclude any person who currently has a right to appear before any court. The definition of court in Clause 83(1) of the Bill includes an arbitrator, however appointed, and whether the arbitration takes place under a reference by consent or otherwise. At present, no restrictions upon who may exercise a right of audience before such an arbitrator exist, and the amendment seeks to ensure that the status quo in that regard is not disturbed. It is intended to cover every existing right of audience.
With regard to Clause 25, there currently exist no restrictions upon who may exercise a right to conduct litigation in respect of tribunals, all of which fall within the list of tribunals reviewed by the Council on Tribunals. All such tribunals are contained within the definition of a court set out in Clause 83(1). The amendment seeks to ensure that no person who, before the clause comes into force, has any right to conduct litigation before a court or tribunal which does not restrict who can appear before it will lose that right.
The purpose of the amendments is to do no more than give effect to an undertaking that I gave in the White Paper, and on several other occasions, to ensure that no person or group of persons loses any rights to conduct litigation or right of audience which they currently possess by virtue of the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I rise to my feet to put in a marker. I commented on the amendment when I spoke in support of Amendment No. 110. In my submission it does not deal with the situation that faces solicitors' clerks for the reasons that I developed; namely, that they do not have a right of audience in chambers in the county court. If the issue of whether solicitors' clerks should appear in chambers before county court judges and county court registrars had come before Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy in 1901, I have no doubt that Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy would have pronounced the

421
same way as he did concerning rights of audience in chambers. However, that matter did not come before him and it is still open. I should therefore be grateful to learn from the noble and learned Lord whether he still has an open mind about my amendment, Amendment No. 110.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly I do not intend the provision to foreclose the questions raised in relation to Amendment No. 110. Amendment No. 111 makes certain that nobody loses an existing right of audience. Amendment No. 110 deals with an entirely different matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, seeks to confer a right of audience, albeit in practice generally granted by discretion at present. Amendment No. 111 simply preserves all existing rights of audience and was not intended to deal with the noble Lord's problem under Amendment No. 110.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 113:
Page 19, line 43, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("coming into force").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is designed merely to bring the language of the subsection into line with that of Clause 88. If my noble and learned friend is disposed to accept the amendment I shall move it now; otherwise perhaps it had better be left to the discussion that he so kindly offered.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may say that I wish to consider the point he has raised in the amendment with parliamentary counsel and perhaps report the result to him at the discussion that we have arranged.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in that event, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 19, line 43, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the numerous clauses and provisions of the Bill may come into force on different dates. The term "commencement of this Act" is therefore open to several interpretations. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the provisions of subsection (6) of the clause apply to all relevant courts as soon as the provisions of this clause come into force and that no relevant court is omitted merely as a result of those provisions being implemented on a different date from any others. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris Lord Morris had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 115:
Page 20, line 13, after ("Society") insert—(" () the Institute of Legal Executives;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, spoke so
422
eloquently to the amendment in the course of our discussion on Amendment No. 110, which somewhat surprised me, and, more importantly, in view of the fact that my noble and learned friend has made it clear that the term "authorised body" within the Act should refer only to those bodies which would, within the spirit of the Act, be authorised bodies as of now, and that there is within the Bill the means whereby interested parties could apply to become authorised bodies, it would be best for the amendment not to be moved.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 20, line 13, after ("Society") insert—
(") the Institute of Trade Mark Agents;
() the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 130, 142 and 143.
All the amendments relate to rights of audience and the right to conduct cases in relation to patents and trade mark matters. It has been said on many occasions during the course of the Bill that patents and trade marks are extremely important matters in national and international trade.
Perhaps I may first take Amendments Nos. 116 and 130 together. Each deals with Clause 24 in relation to rights of audience and Clause 25 in relation to the right to conduct a case. Both amendments are in two parts. Clause 24(2) states:
"A person shall have a right of audience before a court in relation to any proceedings only in the following cases".
The only persons having such a right are those who have been appointed by the appropriate authorised body. In each case the appropriate authorised body is said to be the General Council of the Bar or the Law Society. Through the amendments I seek to add to that list the Institute of Trade Mark Agents and the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents.
Perhaps I may deal first with the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. We discussed the scope of the membership of the advisory body and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor kindly wrote to me in that connection on 19th February. He said that, although he rejected the view that patent agents should be members of that advisory body, when seeking lay members from the background designated as being desirable under Clause 16(5),
"[I] would certainly expect to consult the Institute of Patent Agents when seeking candidates".
In support of my contention that they would be helpful, the amendments seek to expedite the course of justice in relation to patents and trade marks and to reduce the costs of litigation. It is suggested that the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents should be a member of the authorised body. In that connection I must invoke Section 292 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which is of great significance. Section 292(1) states:
"A registered patent agent may do, in or in connection with proceedings in a patents county court"—

423
the amendments are concerned only with county court proceedings—
"which are within the special jurisdiction of that court, anything which a solicitor of the Supreme Court might do, other than prepare a deed".
Under that section, a registered patent agent may do in a patent court exactly what a solicitor may do in the Supreme Court. I believe that some sympathy should therefore be extended to Amendments Nos. 116 and 130 as they relate to registered patent agents and should therefore be included in the definition of "authorised body" and thus the definition of "appropriate authorised body".
On the question of trade mark agents, I am on less secure ground. Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 stand alone in relation to the rights of trade mark agents. Both amendments are framed in virtually the same terms save that one deals with rights of audience and the other deals with the right to conduct litigation.
Amendment No. 142 is important and helpful in relation to trade mark matters before the county courts. It states:
"On the coming into force of section 25, the Institute of Trade Mark Agents shall be deemed—

(a) to have granted the rights of audience in the county courts in relation to matters arising under the Trade Marks Act 1938 as amended to the same extent as is granted to solicitors (in their capacity as solicitors) by subsection (l)(a) of section 29;

(b) to have in force qualification regulations which have been properly approved for the purposes of section 24; and

(c) to have in force rules of conduct which have been properly approved for the purposes of section 24".

I need hardly add that at the present time the Institute of Trade Mark Agents has examinations and regulations with regard to qualifications and has a strict code of practice. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are therefore a statement of the present position. Amendment No. 142 relates to rights of audience and, as I have said, Amendment No. 143 is framed in exactly the same terms save that it is directed to the conduct of litigation whereas the other amendment is limited to rights of audience.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of the House's time on these important, practical matters. Patent agents should certainly be accredited members of the authorised body. I am on more difficult ground to press the amendments at this stage, particularly as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was sympathetic to some aspects of my submissions regarding Amendment No. 117 and invited members of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents to come to his office to discuss matters further. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we all respect the tremendous expertise in patent, trade mark and copyright work which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has acquired in his practice as a barrister—I stress as a barrister. However, what he suggests goes beyond the present structure of the Bill; namely, that two non-legal professional organisations (if I may describe them as such) should become authorised bodies under the Bill and be selected when there are a good many other non-legal professional organisations which are not mentioned in the Bill but whose claims to become authorised
424
bodies might eventually have to be considered. One thinks, for example, of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, town planning institutes, accountants' bodies and others. They are legion.
If we are to start being selective now, we could alter the whole structure of the Bill and pre-empt its machinery as envisaged by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Frankly, these are not amendments that I should expect my noble and learned friend to accept.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is right. There is already a statutory right to be heard in the patent county court granted under the Act to which he referred. To that extent patent agents are distinguished from bodies such as the Royal Institute of British Architects and others to which my noble friend Lord Renton referred. That particular right is preserved under Clause 24(2)(b). Paragraph (a) of that clause does not apply. However:
"he is granted a right of audience before that court in relation to those proceedings by or under any enactment".
So that right is conferred under the statute to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred.
I believe that so far as other rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation are concerned it would be appropriate, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, that the machinery of this Act should be applied to consider whether or not any such rights should be granted either to the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents or to the Institute of Trade Mark Agents. That system is open, if the Bill is approved, and anything that they might have to put forward would be considered under that machinery. I do not of course in any way prejudge the outcome of any such application.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his kind remarks about me. I am also obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for explaining to me that at least patent agents are in a totally different class from surveyors, having regard to the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, where it is indicated that they have rights similar to those of a solicitor.
In view of the indication given by the noble and learned Lord that under the Bill—if I quote him correctly—it would be open to chartered patent agents and trade mark agents to consider their position in so far as this Bill is concerned, given of course without any commitment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 20, line 21, at end insert ("or an employee of a member").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already addressed your Lordships on this amendment when I spoke on Amendment No. 110. I should, however, like to make one further remark. The noble and

425
learned Lord kindly agreed to make arrangements for the noble Lord, Lord Morris, myself and representatives of the Institute of Legal Executives to have a discussion with his department in the time between Committee and Report stages. Noble Lords will recall that this amendment was tabled and debated in Committee. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving us the opportunity to have a discussion with his officials.
In moving this amendment, which in my submission sets up a convenient mechanism for legal executives to obtain modest extensions to their rights of audience under the umbrella of the Law Society, I should like to emphasise that it in no way stops the Institute of Legal Executives from applying under Clause 26 to be designated as an authorised body. For example, if at any time the institute did not feel that it was obtaining sufficient rights of audience under the umbrella of the Law Society, it would always be open to it to exercise its rights under Clause 26 of the Bill.
However, at the moment all legal executives who are members of the institute and all solicitors' clerks conduct the entirety of their rights of audience and rights of litigation under the auspices of members of the Law Society. It is that realism that I seek to reflect in this amendment, which has the support of the Law Society and the institute as well as, I believe, that of the Bar. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, unfortunately, I do not have with me my copy of the Solicitors Act. However, I entertain some doubts as to whether there is a power in the Council of the Law Society to make rules which are directly binding upon legal executives. If one looks at the rules of conduct in this clause, at line 29 one finds that rules of conduct:
"in relation to an authorised body, means rules (however they may be described) as to the conduct required of members of that body".
If this paragraph with which we are concerned is to read:
"of which that person is a member or an employee of a member",
I think that we have to find somewhere rules of conduct which directly bind the employee. I am not at the moment quite clear about where we get them. I may be very forgetful about such matters but I do not remember ever being asked to approve rules under the Solicitors Act which directly bound legal executives. It may bind solicitors contractually to give instructions to legal executives and it may bind the solicitors in the sense that they may be vicariously responsible for the legal executives; but that seems to be rather different from extending the matter and treating the legal executives as being part of the Law Society in some way.
They are very respected members of the profession but they are, so to speak, associate members. I should have thought that to extend this right to associate members would require quite extensive redrafting in other parts of the Act apart from this one.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not know whether I can be of any assistance in this matter. As one would expect, the Master of the Rolls is absolutely
426
right when he says that solicitors are personally responsible for their employees in regard to their professional conduct.If indeed an executive errs in a professional way, the matter can come before the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal and that executive can be stopped from being employed by any member of the Law Society if that executive has behaved badly. However, there may be something more in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls because I have merely dealt with what he said was vicarious responsibility.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment would suggest that the authorised bodies named in the Bill—the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar—would be expected to exercise a disciplinary authority over, and have training regulations and conduct rules for, individuals who are not their members. That would be quite contrary to the general principle contained in Clause 14(3) which, as your Lordships know, requires every person exercising rights of audience himself to be a member of an appropriate authorised body which can maintain standards of qualification and conduct. In fact, such employees not only might be members of those bodies, but in some cases—for example, legal executives—they might be members of completely separate professional bodies.
The detrimental effect on these professional bodies, their status and authority, would surely be considerable if another body were the authorised body for the purposes of this Bill for some or all of their members. Rather worse would be the situation in which the employees' own professional body was an authorised body for some proceedings and their employers' for others. The possibilities for confusion are clearly rather serious. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that the correct approach here must be for the various professional bodies to which these employees belong to become authorised themselves—that is appropriate—for the purpose of granting rights of audience to their members. Only by that means can appropriate standards of competence and conduct among practitioners be maintained.
The idea of personal responsibility is quite important in this area. I would wish to adhere to it. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that in the circumstances it would not be wise to press the amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to press the amendment. However, there is a practical problem that I have tried to explain to the House. At the moment that practical problem is not resolved. I have made the points that I felt should be made in support of the amendment. I have heard the noble and learned Lord. I leave the position as it is at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 20, line 34, after ("solicitor)") insert ("and section 25 of that Act (costs where unqualified person acts as a solicitor)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Bill provides a framework whereby people other than solicitors will have the right to conduct litigation. It is right that those who do such work should be able to recover costs. These amendments are consequential in that, and seek only to ensure that, a person who is not a solicitor but who is granted a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation by virtue of the provisions of either Clauses 24 or 25 shall not thereby be unable to recover his or her costs on the grounds that he or she is an unqualified person acting as a solicitor. This might be the case were the amendment not to be approved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Rights to conduct litigation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 20, line 40, leave out ("only").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 121.
These two amendments seek merely to improve the grammar of the drafting of this clause, which, if left, might give rise to misunderstanding. The amendments clarify the fact that a person shall have a right to conduct litigation in relation to any proceedings only in the cases listed in subsection (2), and not that a person shall only have a right to conduct litigation as opposed to having a right of audience or holding any other relation in respect of any proceedings in the cases listed. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the word "only" is one that frequently becomes misplaced under strict grammatical rules. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord goes some way towards placing it in the right position. It is certainly an improvement.
However, I should like to suggest to him that it would be even better to put it at the end of line 41:
"any proceedings in the following case only".
Perhaps he would like to consider that for the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 20, line 41, after ("proceedings") insert ("only").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. If I am not mistaken, I believe that I am here doing what the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, asked, and putting "only" at the end of line 41. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is putting the word "only" after "proceedings" in line 41. I am suggesting that it should come after the word "cases" at the end of line 41.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, I shall certainly consider whether the provision can be improved even further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("is granted the") and insert ("has a").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendment No. 122 and speak to Amendments Nos. 123 to 127 inclusive. These amendments are designed to achieve the same aim in relation to rights of audience under Clause 24 as I achieved in respect of earlier amendments in fulfilment of an undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Renton.
The amendments seek to ensure that only current entitlements to exercise rights of litigation confer such rights. They provide that where a person has been granted a right to conduct litigation by an authorised body, a court or any enactment, he or she shall no longer possess that right if that authorised body or that court withdraws it. Similarly, there will be no right if the provisions of that enactment are disapplied, or the right is otherwise granted temporarily or conditionally and subsequently lapses. The disciplinary powers of authorised bodies are thus preserved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 123 to 128:
Page 20, line 44, after ("proceedings") insert ("granted").
Page 21, line 1, leave out ("is granted the") and insert ("has a").
Page 21, line 2, after ("proceedings") insert ("granted").
Page 21, line 4, leave out ("is granted the") and insert ("has a").
Page 21, line 5, after ("litigation") insert ("granted").
Page 21, line 11, at end insert—
("(3A) Where, immediately before the commencement of this section, no restriction was placed on the persons entitled to exercise the right to conduct litigation in relation to a particular court, or in relation to particular proceedings, nothing in this section shall be taken to place any such restriction on any person.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 123 to 127 with Amendment No. 122. I have spoken to Amendment No. 128 with Amendment No. 112. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 123 to 128 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 129 to 130 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 21, line 32, after ("solicitor") insert ("and section 25 of that Act (costs where unqualified person acts as a solicitor)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 119. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Authorisation and Approval]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 132:
Leave out Schedule 4.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the apparent robustness of the amendment is entirely out of character with the mover. It was put down

429
because I was told that it was the only way to discover what was going on with Schedule 4. The schedule was to be the subject matter of considerable amendment. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor dealt with the matter in the debate at Committee stage on 29th January—that is nearly four weeks ago—with considerable co-operation and with characteristic charm and courtesy. Since nothing has happened, either by communication with me or on the Marshalled List, I am advised that this is the only way of getting further and better particulars of the position, if there are any. That is the purpose of moving the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the situation is that I had hoped that I might be able to have the necessary amendments put down in time. However, as the noble and learned Lord has said, I had undertaken to look fairly extensively at Schedule 4. It is important to get it right.
We have not finished the work required to give effect to my undertakings in Committee. We are pressing ahead. Considering the time the Committee stage lasted, we have done a good deal of work in the meantime in presenting amendments to take account of undertakings. I am sorry that I have not been able to complete that. It is not for lack of will. It is a matter that I should very much like to have completed. But the difficulties and the amount of work involved mean that I am not yet able to present an amendment. I hope that in the light of that report on progress the noble and learned Lord will be kind enough to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor be indulgent enough to let us have informally in advance some indication as to how the matter is progressing? I understand that the time normally permitted between the Report stage and Third Reading is very restricted and that the timings that we have been permitted between the Second Reading, Committee stage and this stage have been, so I am told, the minimum possible. I should find it very difficult if, with a schedule of this complexity, one had a couple of days at most to consider it. I appreciate also, as do noble Lords, that in parliamentary matters I am a child, although the pressure of leading a dual existence is having an ageing process hourly.
On that basis perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can assist by making some indulgent move to make sure that we do not waste time in the final stages arguing about matters that do not require argument.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to do anything I possibly can to prevent any premature ageing settling down on my noble and learned friend. I shall do my best to enlighten him when we have completed the necessary work.
I hope—that is the best that I can say—that I shall be able to present something to him informally to give him time to consider it before we come to Report stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he gave a courteous reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, saying that he would be informed informally of the progress in regard to Schedule 4. May I take it that the same courtesy applies to all of us who have been interested in the matter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am happy to inform all noble Lords who are interested. That may be rather a wide class, but I shall certainly seek to inform the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about my progress. Perhaps anyone with a particular interest in Schedule 4 will contact me and I shall try to copy any correspondence I have with my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and pass it to them.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, for me hope has been the main form of buoyancy throughout the debates and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [The General Council of the Bar]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 23, line 13, at end insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 134 and 137. We return to the mysteries of Clause 28. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I questioned the meaning of Clause 28(2)(c) and (3). The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us that they refined the White Paper proposals and left open the possibility that the existing regulations and rules of the Bar Council might be altered. The same mechanism applies to the Law Society under Clause 29. The fact remains that the provisions qualify the statements contained in the White Paper that the current rules of the Bar Council and the Law Society will remain in force.
The amendments seek to ask what may happen to the existing rules, when that may happen and how. The clause is concerned only with rules governing rights of audience, although it is not entirely clear what the rules might be. Neither is it clear in what circumstances such rules may be scrutinised, when the scrutiny will take place and what critieria will apply.
As regards the circumstances in which consideration of the existing rules may occur, Clause 28(3) refers to the event of "any question arising". Are those words meant to be as broad as they appear? Also, how long after enactment of the legislation may such questions arise?
As regards the criteria to be applied on consideration of the existing rules, we can assume that the rights of audience rules will not be subject to the proposed restrictive trade practices criteria, because paragraph 11.2 of the White Paper states that. Therefore, what are the criteria?
The anxiety held about these matters is based on the fact that, at worst, the existing rules of the Bar and the Law Society may be struck down. The profession is concerned to know why they may be

431
struck down, in what circumstances and whether there will be any recourse. Therefore, I ask the question: what in reality is added by the last part of Clause 28?
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that it added nothing except obfuscation. If that is right I submit that it should be removed. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor persuades the House that the provisions contained at the end of Clause 28 are necessary we shall accept them. However, perhaps they may be more acceptable if the provision contained in Clause 28(3)(c) was altered as I suggest in my next amendments, Nos. 135 and 136. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I need only add that on the previous occasion we noted that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made clear that the existing rules of the Bar Council—that is, those which existed when the Bill came into force—would receive deemed approval. However, it is not clear whether members already called to the Bar, whether practising or not, will have the right of audience. That point also arises and needs clarification.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, in the light of the discussion I raise a point which my noble and learned friend may wish to examine. It is the question of whether the provision relates to the existing rules which are deemed to be approved. The point had not occurred to me until I listened to the debate and recollected that consultation documents have been circulated in relation to the Law Society's rules, in particular its publicity code. I suppose that, quite unreasonably, the Law Society could make those rules before the Bill comes into force, subject to the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls. The same would apply to the Bar Council. After a quick glance it appeared that the Bar would be deemed to have granted rights of audience to the extent that barristers would have those rights immediately before 7th December, They would be deemed to have had their rules approved, but not necessarily those which were in force on 7th December. I raise the matter because suddenly it appeared to me to be a little odd.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall deal first with the point raised by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls. The intention is that the rights of audience are defined by reference to the situation on 7th December 1989, when the Bill was published. The regulations which are given effect are those which exist on the coming into force of Clause 24, dealing with the rights of audience. However, rules which are made now by the General Council of the Bar or the Law Society under another clause will have effect if they are not altered before the clause comes into force.
The intention is to provide that they are deemed to be approved, for reasons which I explained on the last occasion. However, they can be deemed to be approved for all purposes only if there is an
432
opportunity to question any provision of the rules. It is helpful in the sense that any rules which are approved by the mechanism which we have set up will not be affected by any other authority under the policy set out in the White Paper on restrictive trade practices.
The intention of the provision is to enable the rules to be scrutinised, if any question arises about them, and to go through the ordinary procedure. Instead of putting them all through the normal procedure, which would be one option, we have sought to leave with deemed approval rules in respect of which no question arises. We have done so in order to save trouble and to concentrate only on rules in respect of which a question requires to be determined. I believe that the noble Lord was raising a question on subsection (5), which states:
"Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of anything done in reliance on any provision of regulations or rules at any time before … it is determined in accordance with subsection (3)(c) that that provision is deemed not to have been approved".
In other words, the rules continue to have effect until they are not approved under the procedure. That is the purpose of this provision. I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, our procedure is somewhat difficult on Report, as he will appreciate. When perfectly pertinent questions are asked by the mover of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord is courteous enough to answer and then one is deemed to be or has to be silent. Therefore, I only have the opportunity of asking the noble and learned Lord a question before he sits down.
Does what the noble and learned Lord has said mean that if either the Lord Chancellor or any one of the designated judges has doubts about a provision, automatically the protection which is given from the competition authority would go? If that is so, that lands us in a very difficult situation. On this matter, I speak on behalf of the Law Society
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the idea is that if there should be a question about any of the rules then that question should be submitted for consideration in the ordinary way under the machinery. The advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor and the four designated judges would have to look at the rule to see whether it should be approved. In other words, the deemed approval will apply to everything in respect of which there is no requirement to go through the procedure. That strikes me as the safest and easiest way.
The alternative is to require approval for all the rules. I felt that it was much better to leave the rules as they are with a deemed approval unless a question is raised about them. For example, let us suppose that one of the designated judges wishes to raise a question about one of the rules of the Law Society. In the light of the expressed views the Law Society may decide itself to change it. It might well say that the learned judge has made an obvious point and that there should be change. If that was so, the change would have to be examined by the advisory

433
committee and approved through the usual machinery. However, if the Law Society felt it wanted to maintain the rule, it would say so, the advisory committee would consider it and the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor would examine the question in the light of that advice and decide whether or not the rule should be approved. That is the system which I have in mind.
I always try to wait until everyone who wishes to speak has spoken before I speak on Report. However, I quite understand that if my answer is not entirely clear there is a difficulty. I believe that the procedure of asking a question before I sit down is a way of dealing with that matter which, generally speaking, works reasonably well. I am not certain whether that is so on this occasion.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does that mean that if any one of the designated judges disliked the provision, which until then had been deemed to be passed, then the protection against the competition authority would be removed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the rule would be considered, and if it was then approved by the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges it would have protection from the competition authority. A possible scenario is that the Lord Chancellor would raise a question about the rules. Speaking generally, I see the draft rules before they are approved as regards education and training for the Law Society, and I have always been courteously afforded a sight of the rules of the Bar. However, if any question arose about a rule then I should require to put that rule through the procedure.
The purpose of that is to give the benefit of deemed approval to all the rules which can be passed without question. If there is a question, it should be considered in the ordinary way. That is the purpose of the mechanism. It is designed to give protection in the simplest way possible to all the rules which do not raise any questions for the advisory committee, the designated judges or the Lord Chancellor. I believe that that is the simplest system which I can offer.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his questions. It seems to me that the phrase:
"In the event of any question arising",
is meant to be as wide-ranging as it seems to be. It is still a little unclear how, when and why such a question might arise. Apparently it might arise in the mind of a designated judge or the Lord Chancellor, and might arise at any time.
Therefore, it also seems to me that this part of the clause qualifies the unqualified promises in the White Paper. There is an anxiety as to what might be struck down. I do not wish to make heavy weather of this and it is certainly not a matter which I shall press to a Division.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am very happy to discuss this
434
matter with him further if there is any problem. The intention is to confer a possible benefit, and it is only in that sense that it goes a little further than the White Paper. That was going to leave the existing rules without any sort of approval. However, if the noble Lord would like to discuss this matter with me on a more informal basis, I shall be happy to do so.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 23, line 25, leave out ("not").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a few moments ago I ventured to suggest that the noble and learned Lord might wish to consider a slight redrafting of this part of Clause 28, and the intention of Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 is to produce such a redrafting. They alter the wording without, I hope, altering the intention of Clause 28 so far as the intention can be understood. Of course, I am particularly grateful for the explanation which we have this evening.
However, the mechanism of Clause 28(2)(c) and Clause 28(3)(c) is not easy to envisage because it requires an actual consideration of whether a rule which exists is deemed to be approved. That is a somewhat speculative exercise. I suggest that the mental gymnastics involved may be reduced by these amendments, by altering the emphasis of Clause 28(3)(c) so that it reads: "that provision shall be deemed to have been so approved unless the Lord Chancellor and each of the designated judges determine otherwise".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said a few moments ago that this was intended to be the simplest of all procedures. With respect to him, I would argue that my amendments further simplify the procedure and make the procedure a little easier to understand. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I did not add my name to the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I should like to support him. I do so not only for the reasons he has given but also because it appears quite clearly that the main purpose of Clause 28 is to maintain the status quo as at the time the Bill comes into force or the 7th December, as the case may be. We are more likely to give the impression of trying to maintain the status quo if, instead of putting this in the negative, as the Bill now does, we allow the assumption that the provision has been approved unless the Lord Chancellor and each of the designated judges determine otherwise. That is more consistent with what has gone before and, I hope, more consistent with the intention of my noble and learned friend, as I am sure it is the intention of your Lordships.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am most unwilling that there should be any misunderstanding or ambiguity as to what all this

435
means, so I ask for help. No doubt if it arose after the Bill is enacted somebody would have to address us learnedly about this, but perhaps I could try to see whether I have it right.
Under Section 28(1)—I only take the General Council of the Bar; the same will apply to the Law Society—the General Council of the Bar is deemed:
"to have in force qualification regulations … and rules of conduct which have been properly approved for the purposes of Section 24".
One starts with that assumption and then goes on to find that those qualification regulations and rules of conduct are deemed to have been approved only in relation to rights of audience. I understand that; it is not right across the board, it is only in relation to rights of audience.
There is therefore a deemed approval in relation to rights of audience. They are deemed to be approved only so far as they would have been approved for the purposes of Section 24. However, we already know that they have been properly approved for the purposes of Clause 24 under Clause 28(1). Is this, so to speak, a factual inquiry under subsection (3) or is it a construction inquiry? Is one concerned to see whether a particular rule relates only to rights of audience or is one concerned, on the wording, to go into the merits of the rule? I fully appreciate that the intention is that we should go into the merits, otherwise there would be no point in going to the advisory committee and the director. As long as the noble and learned Lord appreciates that it is clear, I am quite happy, but I find it difficult working my way up, down and around.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is on the assumption that it merely deals with merits. We support this amendment on the basis that an existing rule relating to rights of audience should only be challenged, if I may put it that way, and certainly only be done away with if there is a unanimous view of the Lord Chancellor and each of the designated judges. That is what this amendment does.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, surely the exchange that took place between the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, before either sat down on the last occasion demonstrates plainly that this amendment is right. Existing rules should survive unless it is plain that they are wrong. As the provision stands only one of the designated judges has to have some doubt and the existing rule goes, because they shall be deemed not to be so approved unless the Lord Chancellor and each of the designated judges is positively satisfied that it is right. Surely that puts the onus entirely the wrong way. One should strike down an existing rule only if everyone is convinced that it is bad. That would be the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and I venture to suggest that it is right.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not only a question of dealing with existing rules; it is applying to these existing rules a deemed approval. That is the point. It is not only dealing with existing rules and challenging them; it is providing them with a deemed approval.
436
There are two courses open. The first is to say that all of these rules, before they are approved, would have to go through the machinery if they were to get approval. In other words, unless and until they are approved they do not have that cover. That is a possible way of taking forward the policy of the White Paper.
However, in order to leave out unnecessary work, in this provision I sought to say "deemed approval" for all the rules; in other words, they will all carry my approval and the approval of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. They will all be deemed to have our approval. That is all right, but if any one of us felt that a rule should not be approved, it would not be approved. It is therefore right that if there is a question about a particular rule it should not carry that deemed approval but should be submitted to all of us for consideration in the same way as if it were a rule we were looking at for the first time.
The protection for the existing rules is provided by the closing words of this clause, which make it clear that nothing which has happened or is happening will be affected unless and until the rule is not approved for the purposes of this clause. That therefore gives the benefit of a deemed approval to all the rules immediately and without question unless there is a question about a particular rule. In so far as there is a question about any rule, then that rule is submitted for the ordinary procedure to apply to it and all the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor will have to approve the rule before it will carry that approval from that time forward. That strikes me as a reasonable arrangement.
The alternative arrangement is to require all the rules on the date that the Bill comes into force to be submitted for approval and to go through the full procedure. That does not seem to be necessary unless there is a question—and I hope there will not be—about a particular rule or more than one rule. We will then concentrate only on that and apply the procedure only to that. That is what the provision seeks to do.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, what then happens if one designated judge does not like an existing rule and all the rest of them like it? That means neither the existing rule is approved nor can any other rule be approved because the other designated judges think the rule should stand as it is. The Bar or the Law Society has existing rights of audience and there is no rule at all governing some important aspects of the matter. Surely it should be right that all the rules stand unless and until this body unanimously disapproves a rule so that something has to be put in its place.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it depends on what value one attaches to approval of the rules. The point is whether one wants these rules to carry approval. That is the need for the procedure. There is no question of no rule at all applying. The rule in question would be considered and a rule that would apply from that time forward would be the rule that the judges and the Lord Chancellor considered to be

437
appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice. That is the purpose of this provision and it is intended to give the protection of approval to the existing rules so far as that can properly be done.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the support I have received to these amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I looked at them in terms of trying to impose a presumption in favour of the status quo. I am also reassured that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls does not find this clause easy. It seems to me, yet again, to beg the question of when any question may arise as to whether a provision is deemed to have been approved. Frankly, it is a tortuous clause. It is a matter which will need to be looked at yet again, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.]
Clause 29 [The Law Society: rights of audience]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 138:
Page 24, line 3, after ("solicitors") insert ("solicitors' clerks or corresponding employees of a registered body").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose in tabling this amendment was to preserve the rights of audience currently held by solicitors' clerks. Since tabling that amendment your Lordships have approved Amendment No. 112 in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In more general terms this amendment preserves inter alia the rights of solicitors' clerks and although it does not do so with the same precision, I am content to acknowledge that it does so sufficiently. In the circumstances I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 140:
Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
("(aa) to have granted to solicitors rights of audience in all interlocutory proceedings in the High Court;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated this matter very late at night in Committee. The purpose of the amendment is not to attempt to obtain additional rights of audience which are currently not held by solicitors, but to preserve their current rights of audience in the High Court in interlocutory matters. The situation arose because proposals have been put to the Supreme Court Procedure Committee that interlocutory proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division should no longer be heard in chambers but in open court.
It is right to record that a good deal of pressure is being put on the Supreme Court Procedure Committee. For example, since the Committee stage I have received a letter from the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. We have a number of important matters to discuss further at the Report stage. The Supreme Court Procedure Committee could take the
438
line not to agree to the transfer from chambers to open court of interlocutory matters held in the Queen's Bench Division until the advisory committee, under the provisions of this Bill, has decided what further rights of audience it is prepared to grant solicitors in the High Court, including rights of audience on interlocutory matters in the Queen's Bench Division.
Therefore, because we have a number of important matters to discuss further, unless any noble and learned Lord wishes to speak to this amendment, I would prefer to leave this matter to the good sense of the Supreme Court Procedure Committee and not to move on this issue until the matter of rights of audience has been resolved. I see that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls wishes to speak and therefore perhaps I should formally move the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord is aware that it is not for the Supreme Court Procedure Committee to decide on rights of audience. At present it is for the judges to decide.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, then I am very happy for the matter to rest in the hands of the noble and learned Lord and his fellow judges.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 141:
Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
("(bb) to have granted to solicitors rights of audience in all criminal proceedings in the Crown Court other than a trial on indictment at which a plea of not guilty is entered?").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment in order to probe my noble and learned friend as to whether there were reasons why—apart from the desire that all extensions of rights of audience should be dealt with by the advisory committee—he had changed his mind between the appearance of the Green Paper and the White Paper as regards granting rights of audience in pleas in the Crown Court and the like. I feel it is desirable that we should get on to a subject in which I am particularly interested; namely, the extension of conveyancing rights. In the circumstances I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 143A:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Judges' recommendations concerning regulations and rules of authorised bodies.
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor or, acting jointly, the designated judges, may at any time make to the General Council of the Bar, the Law Society or any other authorised body such recommendations (including recommendations for additions, omissions and other changes) as they think appropriate concerning any aspect of that body's qualification regulations and rules of conduct and practice, whether or not relating to advocacy or the conduct of litigation.
(2) Any body to which a recommendation under this section is made shall have regard to it.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment only because I raised the matter about four weeks ago. The function of the amendment was that designated judges should be able actively to initiate the process of change and where appropriate make alterations to existing regulations and rules. An immediate intervention followed from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which I am happy to read out again because, coming from him he paid that most valuable of all things, an unequivocal compliment, which I treasure. He immediately said:
"May I say how sensible the amendment is".
That compliment was followed with the usual slightly without prejudice applause from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Here we are, four weeks on, and I still do not know whether that applause has ripened into anything or whether it has abated. That is the purpose of my taking up the time of the House. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I took this matter to be part of the rearrangement suggested in respect of Schedule 4 and what I said in respect of that also applies to this amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, all I can say is that if I had been told in advance I would not have worried the House. I now cease to worry the House further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, hope still springing eternally, but perhaps there will be an end even to that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Provision of conveyancing services by authorised practitioners]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 27, line 34, after ("body") insert ("(other than a rule imposed by the General Council of the Bar applying only to barristers in independent practice)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the point I wish to raise concerning this amendment I raised in slightly different circumstances at the Committee stage on 29th January. What occurred was brought to its culmination as reported in Hansard of that date at col. 138 when my noble and learned friend said:
"I intended to say that I would consider that point. I believe it is capable of being dealt with".
If my noble and learned friend gives an indication, even by a nod of the head, that I need not take up the time of the House, then I shall formally move my amendment. Otherwise, I believe I should explain once more the point that I wish to make. My noble and learned friend has nodded his head, so I shall sit down. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a point of importance and there are somewhat related points to be dealt with in connection with later amendments. From all I have seen, what I seek to achieve may be possible of achievement within the restrictions proposed by these various amendments. I am
440
considering how Clause 33 might be amended to deal with the matter. The intention certainly was not to overrule the ordinary rule about indirect access which the Bar presently has. There was no intention of doing that. I wish to see whether I can devise a form of words which makes it plain that that is so without having to apply it specially to the Bar, but a rule which would apply equally to the solicitors and which would have the right effect. We shall no doubt be discussing some aspects of this matter under later amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. I look forward either to hearing from him or perhaps he will send me copies of any amendments which are to be drafted to cover the point. While I am on my feet I should draw attention to a very strange Hansard misprint. I do not blame the Hansard reporter. I used the word "client" and that has been changed to "clerk". There are two references here to "lay clerks" when I meant to say "lay clients".
The point I was making was that we do not want conveyancing barristers, of whom there are a number among my friends in Lincoln's Inn, to be subjected to approaches direct from lay clients; they should come from solicitors. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend and I live in hope. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 27, line 35, after ("person") insert ("or any employee of such person").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I intervene in this kind of debate with no legal knowledge whatever. I have been persuaded by my friends in the Council for Mortgate Lenders and some in the building societies to say that there is a need for clarification of this clause. As I understand it, Clause 33 seeks to ensure that Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which limits the provision of conveyancing, will not apply to authorised practitioners, their officers or employees. Clause 33(2) seeks to prevent a professional body, such as the Law Society, from imposing rules on qualified persons; preventing them from acting as authorised conveyancers, or employees or officers of authorised practitioners, or on behalf of authorised conveyancers. There are those, including those who have been advising me, who feel that this clause is unfortunately worded and that it could give the impression that the Law Society would not be able to prevent a qualified person from acting for an authorised conveyancer but would be able to prevent an employee of an authorised conveyancer from so doing. My two amendments seek to reconcile that.
Surely no professional body can be permitted to frustrate the will of Parliament by forbidding its members from participating in an activity approved by Parliament which is in the interests of the consumer. For example, a solicitor himself will be able to become an authorised practitioner and be able also to be employed by one. It is clearly in the public interest that banks, building societies or other

441
institutions which already employ a number of solicitors and barristers should be able to staff their conveyancing operations as professionally as they needed to. Indeed, in Clause 37 we are providing for the Lord Chancellor's regulations to ensure proper competence and qualifications in the staff of those practitioners.
Clause 33(2)(c) is vital. It will ensure that solicitors are able to do conveyancing while remaining in independent private practice on a sub-contract basis for an authorised practitioner institution. This is an option as an alternative to their own in-house operations with employed solicitors, which many of the lenders are keen to have. Therefore Amendment No. 145 takes account of the fact that a professional body may have via its members a degree of control also over their employees. The professional body may well have extensive powers in relation to its members which relate to their staff, be they qualified or unqualified. The Law Society, for example, has disciplinary powers whereby it can direct solicitors not to employ particular persons. Amendment No. 145 seeks to take account of that possibility.
Amendment No. 146 is a purely technical amendment which is similar to the phrase already in Clause 33(1)(b) and in Clause 74(6)(d). It simply recognises the fact that in some institutions a relevant person may hold a senior position as a secretary, director or other officer. There seems to be no reason why for consistency these amendments should not be acceptable. If Clause 33(1)(b) assumes that an officer or employee may do acts in connection with conveyancing, surely Clause 33(2)(b) should logically follow that line. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has moved the amendment with great ability. I emphasise that because it is so refreshing to have an amendment moved by someone who is not a member of the legal profession. Some of us could learn from her not only by the able way in which she moved it but by the economy of words which she used.
I intend to follow her example. This is not an acceptable amendment. It is generally accepted that conveyancing services which are to be provided by authorised practitioners must be undertaken by or supervised by solicitors or licensed conveyancers. In order to see that the public are properly dealt with in regard to the professional assistance they receive, it is absolutely essential that the Law Society in protection of the public should be able to place restrictions on the activities that may be undertaken by unqualified staff employed by solicitors. If the Law Society were to attempt to impose unreasonable or wrong rules, those rules if they were new ones would be subject to a restriction, a qualification or indeed a cancellation. But the Law Society must have the right to impose those rules.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in complimenting the noble Baroness on the clarity with which she moved the amendment. It is a technical area, but a technical area enlightened best, perhaps, by lay people.
I wish to limit the effect of Clause 33(2) to the extent necessary to ensure that the authorised
442
practitioner scheme can work effectively. This is to ensure that conveyancing is personally supervised by a qualified person. I want to ensure that a qualified person is available to supervise the work. It is essential that the public are not in any way deprived by the scheme of the skill, knowledge and integrity of qualified practitioners. All I am concerned to do is to make it possible for their services to be available in a way different from that which is presently available through building societies and the like.
The need that I have mentioned does not apply to employees of qualified people. I do not wish to interfere with professional rules more than is absolutely necessary to achieve the purpose. I believe that the amendment goes beyond the aim of the clause. I do not mean for a moment that the Law Society would do this, but if, for example, the Law Society made a rule that an employee of a building society who was a solicitor could not supervise any of this work the whole scheme would collapse. On the other hand, if the Law Society made a rule about an employee of a qualified solicitor the scheme would not collapse. So long as the qualified solicitor could do it, what happened about his employee would not matter.
This amendment goes further than is necessary for the purposes of the clause. The disapplication of the professional rule is to allow the qualified person to act as an authorised practitioner, or as an employee or agent of an authorised practitioner. Professional rules apply only to the members of the profession, not to their employees or agents, unless of course these are also members of the profession, in which case they would also be subject to the profession's rules. Merely because they were employed would not make them any less solicitors than they were before, the same perhaps being true of other branches of the profession.
The amendment serves no useful purpose but might be regarded as an unnecessary extension of interference with the rule-making powers of the professional bodies. I do not wish to do that except in so far as is necessary to secure that the scheme can go ahead using either independent practitioners or employed practitioners, according to the circumstances. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 145.
As regards the second amendment, Amendment No. 146, so far as I know no current professional rules would prevent members of professional bodies from acting as officers of authorised practitioners. To go further than employees and include officers of companies or bodies who are not also employees goes beyond what at the moment I consider to be necessary to achieve the purpose required. For the reasons that I have just mentioned I do not wish to go further than is necessary to achieve the purpose. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel that I have given sufficient explanation in relation to the second amendment to enable her to be satisfied about that.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. As I said, I am a lay person in these matters. Far be it from me to try to

443
push too far or to try to institute some interference in what is going on. I think I am somewhat satisfied with what the noble and learned Lord said. I shall study his words in Hansard, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion may I suggest the Report stage begin again at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—{Baroness Robson of Kiddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness Cox in the Chair.]
Clause [Timetables]:
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("bring about the total elimination of) and insert ("prohibit the production and use of).
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. It strengthens the sense of the Bill and does away with a certain degree of ambiguity. "Total elimination" can mean various things. I am suggesting the words "prohibit the production and use of, which takes the prohibition to its source. I believe that with the substitution of those words the intention and effect of the Bill will be strengthened. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I am very happy to accept the amendment. When I introduced the Bill on Second Reading I was unhappy about the wording because it implied what is perhaps impossible to enforce. I was unable to think of better wording, and I am only too happy to accept the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.
There is an additional advantage: during the Second Reading debate questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, about exports and imports of CFCs, and the wording that he has introduced, "to prohibit the production and use of," clarifies the matter, and I am very pleased to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("he may determine") and insert ("defined in the annex to the Montreal Protocol").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. This is purely an amendment to clarify what the Bill is about. The original wording was:
"chlorofluorocarbons and such other ozone-depleting substances as he may determine by 1st January 1995".
As the whole Bill aims at speeding up or putting pressure on the acceptance and introduction of the Montreal Protocol, I think it is right that it should be written into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may begin by expressing the sadness of my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, who is unable to be with us this evening and who played a major part in the discussions on the Bill at Second Reading.
I rise to support the good sense of what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has proposed. Although the Montreal Protocol is not the be-all and end-all, it is a substantial benchmark and measuring rod, and wherever we can write such an international agreement into the Bill not only do I believe that it improves the words but it gives it much more meaning. Secondly, marginally it takes away from the Secretary of State what he can do in this field. Of itself that is a very good reason for the amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I have one reservation only about the amendment. I understand that the Montreal Protocol includes five CFC gases and three halons, but it does not include a number of gases that were mentioned during the Second Reading debate. For example, it does not include HFC134A, HCFCs, methyl chloroform, or carbon tetrachloride.
I would hope that by the time we reach the end of the Committee stage the subsequent amendments will cover this point. If so, that is fine, but I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Montreal Protocol does not include all the dangerous gases, the production of which we want to see abolished. With that reservation I support the noble Baroness.
Lord Reay: Perhaps it might be for the assistance of the Committee if I set out at this stage the Government's attidude to the amendment. In the debate on Second Reading I set out some of the Government's reservations about the Bill. They would be considerably increased by the adoption of this amendment.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to adopt timetables for all ozone-depleting substances defined in the Annex to the Montreal Protocol, so that they are eliminated by January 1995. The Annex covers two groups of chemicals, that is CFCs and halons. When the protocol is amended in June, other chemicals will almost certainly be added, particularly methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride.
Some countries would also like to see the HCFCs covered by the protocol. These are new chemicals under development and will do typically some 2 per cent, to 5 per cent, of the damage to the ozone layer done by the CFCs themselves. Moreover, in order to stop using CFCs in refrigeration, rigid polyurethane

445
foams and other applications, we must be able to use the HCFCs instead until new, completely ozone-friendly susbtitutes are developed.
In order not to inhibit the development, testing and production of the HCFCs, the Government, and the European Community, are opposed to their inclusion in the protocol, but some countries want them in, and we must accept their inclusion as a possibility.
For a variety of reasons, the Montreal Protocol sets out separate schedules for the reduction of CFCs and halons, and will propose a separate schedule for each new class of chemical.
If the protocol is changed to include HCFCs, then the amendment would require their elimination by 1995. It is expected that of current CFC use 30 per cent, will have to be replaced by using HCFCs. We must ensure that HCFCs are used in such a way as to minimise their emission to the atmosphere, and thus the damage that they do.
Many countries agree that HCFCs should not be regulated under the protocol. Even those countries which favour their inclusion specify dates for their elimination ranging from 2010 to 2060. To stop using them by 1995, to take but two examples, would disrupt the world's food supply by destroying much of the refrigeration industry, and would increase the demand for energy by removing many of the most effective forms of insulation. It is the CFCs which do the most damage, and it is those which are most easily got rid of, whether by 1995 as the Bill requires, or by 2000 as the governments of the world believe.
In that respect we are fortunate. We in this country have cut our consumption of CFCs by over 50 per cent, from the 1986 levels. We are pressing for the protocol to require 85 per cent, cuts by 1995. The other ozone-depleting substances do much less damage. They require a range of different responses to minimise their emission to the atmosphere, but those responses should not, in our opinion, involve elimination by 1995, as the amendment requires.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most impressed by what the Minister has told us of the Government's intentions in this matter; but surely the Minister and his colleagues should take a more positive attitude to the Bill. If the Government want to see a timetable, but not the timetable mentioned in the Bill, it is open to them to improve it here or at a later stage in another place. The Minister must understand that the purpose of the Bill is to try to persuade the Government to be more positive in their attitude than they have been in the past.
Lord Reay: We are being extremely positive. The Government support the objectives of the Bill, but we have reservations about the way it is sought to carry them out.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The Minister is saying that we must take the lesser of the two evils, but no one knows at the moment which is the lesser of the two evils. He talked about HCFCs and HFCs. It is reasonably well established that they are not such strong agents for depleting the ozone layer; but the
446
Minister has not answered the point I raised on Second Reading: both those gases are detrimental and add to the greenhouse effect. He did not mention that point.
Again on Second Reading I suggested that it was a negative action to exchange one polluting agent for another. The Minister talked about the possible inclusion of the two gases he mentioned in the Montreal Protocol in June. What is the Government's response to the fact that they both deplete the ozone layer, although not as much as CFCs, and greatly increase the extent of the greenhouse effect?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: The Bill has been introduced in this place and this is its Committee stage. So far as I am aware, the annex to the Montreal Protocol does not as yet contain many of the substances to which the Minister referred. We are dealing with what the annex contains at the moment. Other countries have accepted that those substances should be eliminated by 1994. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me the translation of the order which is in force in Sweden.
We have a later amendment which deals with what might happen in the future. I would ask the Committee to accept that, as the Montreal Protocol provides at the moment, 1995 is a reasonable date.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("(e) any substitute for CFCs that has the potential to damage the environment.").
The noble Lord said: I wish to reinforce a great deal of what I have already said about the alternative gases which are being developed by the chemical industry to replace CFCs. The chemical industry is now developing various alternative chemicals and some of us are worried about the effect that those chemicals will have.
HCFCs, as I have said, still deplete the ozone layer. They have a deleterious effect on the greenhouse problem. They are not as destructive of the ozone layer as are CFCs but they add to the greenhouse effect. Some scientists argue that the hole in the Antarctic ozone layer will never recover if HCFCs remain in use. HFC134A is a powerful greenhouse gas. I said on Second Reading that it is estimated that it is two-and-a-half thousand times as dangerous as carbon dioxide.
As we know, ICI is already planning to open two plants to produce HFC134, one in Runcorn and one in the United States. That is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. If this country is to make a determined effort to deal with what will be a major human problem over the next 10 years, we must consider the whole environmental impact of any substances which we allow to be produced. We must be especially vigilant about those substances which will be used to replace CFCs.
The Minister did not answer the point that I made on the previous amendment. What is the

447
Government's attitude to the effect that those gases will have on the greenhouse syndrome? I know that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the word "potential" and I accept that the amendment might need redrafting by the time we come to Report stage. With our present knowledge we can state what substances have the potential to damage the environment. Their production, use and export should be prohibited. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The amendment makes good sense. We are discussing legislation which deals not just with what we know but what might possibly happen. The amendment is drafted to deal with that position. With the reservation that my noble friend Lord Hatch put forward, I believe that the amendment will strengthen the weapon that the Bill gives to a future government. It has my support.
Lord Reay: The amendment seeks to add,
"any substitute for CFCs that has the potential to damage the environment"
to the list of chemicals in Clause 1 of the Bill for which the Secretary of State will determine a timetable to bring about its elimination. The words,
"potential to damage the environment"
are a broad rather than an ambiguous term. It could be said to apply to all industrial processes.
Substitutes for CFCs are not only the new HCFC and HFC chemicals, some of which do very small amounts of damage to the ozone layer, and all of which contribute to the greenhouse effect, albeit at about one-tenth of the level of the CFCs which they replace. Substitutes also include propane and butane, which may contribute to photochemical smog in a very small way. Of course propane and butane are widely used but only a fraction of their use is as a CFC replacement. I cannot see any great prospect of being able to establish a timetable for the end to their production and use.
CFCs are used in insulating foam and there are many other means of insulation, even though they are almost all less effective. As with any manufactured product, even bricks can be said to have the potential to damage the environment. But to fail to use insulation also damages the environment, through increased energy use. Refrigeration is another area where the direct potential of chemicals to damage the environment has to be weighed against the energy use of different processes.
As the supply of CFCs is phased out, their use as solvents will be replaced by new chemicals and by water-based cleaning methods. The dirty water has to be disposed of, with implications for the environment. At the extreme interpretation, this amendment would require an end to the process of cleaning things with water.
The Government would be extremely reluctant to prohibit industrial products and processes without some idea of what is to replace them and of the implications of such replacement. For the new chemicals being developed specifically as CFC
448
replacements, the answer is to do all we can to ensure that their release to the atmosphere is kept to a minimum. This is often best achieved through codes of practice and voluntary agreements rather than the blunt instrument of legislation. The relatively high cost of such chemicals will provide a good incentive for this. As these chemicals are developed and introduced we will be keeping such matters under review.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I have much sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. However, I have one problem with it. Having listened to the Minister, I wish to emphasise that when, under the reasonably tight timetable, CFCs are eliminated there will inevitably be a period when a substitute will have to be used. I ask the noble Lord whether he would contemplate coming back at Report stage with this amendment, putting a different timetable to it from the 1995 date. In Scandinavia the Government contemplate something like 1998 or 1999, which might be more realistic. In essence I am 100 per cent, behind the aim of the amendment that we should make certain that the substitutes for CFCs are not equally dangerous.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I may add one small point to what the noble Baroness has just said. It seems to me that if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is to bring the amendment back at a later stage, he would do well to remove the word "environment" and specify the damage which he is trying to eliminate. That might be helpful because there is something in what the Minister said—that almost everything we do damages the environment in one way or another.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses. I accept the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that I should come back at Report stage. However, I do not accept the argument put by the Minister. He seemed to alternate between an attitude of reductio ad absurdum by talking about bricks, dirty water and so on without addressing himself to what he knows is the real issue raised by the amendment. The real issue is whether we shall allow CFCs to be replaced by other substances that we then discover will possibly damage another part of the environment. We know that they will still deplete the ozone layer, but we also know, as I have pointed out, that they are extremely damaging as concerns the greenhouse effect.
Quite frankly, I totally reject the other part of the noble Lord's argument that this is better done by voluntary agreement than by legislation. All the history of the subject shows that, as has been demonstrated in the Scandinavian countries in particular, when there is legislation there is action. When there is agreement there are compromises. We find that we are not tackling the immediate problem, a problem of this decade. We are not seeing action taken. So I totally reject that part of the noble Lord's argument.
I accept the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that we should re-examine the wording of

449
the amendment. I shall consult my advisers and look at the wording and possibly also the timetables. In that spirit, I suppose that the best thing I can do is withdraw the amendment tonight with notice that I shall come back again at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("(f) all new manufacture and sales of halons by 1st July 1991 and a complete ban on the use of halons by 1st July 1995.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will see that there is a timetable in this amendment which brings the deadline further forward than that for the rest of the substances dealt with in Clause 1. We do this because halons are a great danger particularly to the Antarctic ozone layer. I understand that they account for between 15 and 30 per cent, of the depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer. Halons are used largely in fire fighting equipment. They are powerful in destroying the ozone layer—much more powerful than CFCs.
Under the Montreal Protocol there is a requirement that there should be a freeze at the 1986 levels. Because large amounts of halons are stored in fire protection equipment, it is essential that we put an end at an early date to both production and sales. I understand that at present the Swedish Government are considering proposals from their environmental agency to apply such controls by 1st July 1990, with a total phase-out five years later, on 1st July 1995.
For these reasons it seems to me to be important that these gases should be included in Clause 1 and that the timetable should be much shorter than that for other gases. If the Swedes can end the use of these gases by July this year, I suggest that we take no more than another year to do the same and completely ban their use five years later, on 1st July 1995. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has explained, this amendment concerns halons. Halons are used in fire-fighting. They are very effective, and have unique properties which at this stage we cannot duplicate in any substitute agent. Each alternative has its disadvantages. Carbon dioxide, for example, puts out fires by reducing the amount of oxygen to a level where combustion cannot take place. The resulting shortage of oxygen would mean that people would have to be evacuated from the area concerned. That is dangerous if that area is, for example, the control room of a nuclear power station. That is impossible if it is an aeroplane. Water does great damage to documents and works of art, and as it conducts electricity it cannot be used where sensitive electronic equipment has to be kept going. Other fire-fighting agents have similar problems. It is highly unlikely that all of these problems can be resolved before the turn of the century at the very earliest.
There may indeed be some scope for using existing halons more effectively and diverting them from less
450
essential areas. In the current renegotiation of the Montreal Protocol we are pressing for the restrictions on overall production and consumption which would encourage these processes, and we are examining what more needs to be done within this country. I see little prospect, however, of this enabling us to follow the sort of timetable which the amendment would require.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I support this amendment as the mover of the Bill. I do not accept that it is impossible to follow the timetable suggested in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. If that can be achieved in other countries, it can be achieved in this country also. That provision is already on the statute book in Sweden. It is essential that we impose a timetable in the Bill that does not stretch too far into the future. If we are to achieve an improvement as regards ozone depletion we must be quite firm about what we shall do with the gases that we have been discussing. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support. I need to say very little more than she has done. I do not accept the brief that the Minister read out. Every time we raise these matters the Government say, "This is difficult. We shall have to find some other way of doing this", or, "We shall have to use this instead of that". It is the Government's job to use their scientists and to fund scientists in the academic world to find the means of achieving a solution. We simply cannot continue to emit gases into the atmosphere when, as I have pointed out, halons are calculated to be somewhere between three and 10 times more powerful than CFCs as regards depleting the ozone layer.
It is just not good enough for the Government to say that it is difficult to phase out those substances. It is the job of the Government to do that. We are trying to help the Government in that task. As the noble Baroness has said, if other countries can achieve this measure so can we. We have to achieve it if we are to save this planet from what I am sure the Minister agrees is a direct, immediate menace to life on it. I am reinforced by the support of the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
(" () In the meantime the Secretary of State shall ensure that all manufacturers who make or use CFCs and other ozone depleting substances or CFC substitutes shall publish, every six months, a complete inventory of all such substances made, used, sold, exported or imported.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the matter of commercial confidentiality. I could speak for a long time on that matter because it has been raised on so many occasions with regard to different issues. Indeed, I received a letter only yesterday from the Secretary of State for Energy which emphasised the importance of commercial confidentiality.
However, it is not good enough to stress commercial confidentiality if that confidentiality is

451
used as a cover to produce substances that are damaging the planet now and will leave the planet gravely damaged for our children and grandchildren. It is not good enough to repeat this parrot phrase of confidentiality.
My amendment proposes that it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to,
"ensure that all manufacturers who make or use CFCs and other ozone depleting substances",
publish what they are doing. This is an interim measure until the provisions of the Bill take effect. Unless that is done we know that behind this mask of confidentiality all kinds of experiments will take place and all kinds of dangerous gases and other materials will be produced within the chemical industry. There will be no accountability. This amendment gives to the Secretary of State the responsibility for ensuring that all manufacturers of all these dangerous substances are accountable to him and that they report to him.
At the moment I understand that data are collected in secret from companies in 24 of the major industrial OECD countries. Data are also collected from India, Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela. Those data are collated by the Chemical Manufacturers' Association. The data are published only on a regional and not on a national basis. However, Denmark and Sweden already publish their CFC consumption figures. If they do that, why cannot Britain? The Prime Minister claims that Britain is in the vanguard of the green movement and that it is in the vanguard of the attack on those elements which are destroying the planet. If we are, let us show it. Let us show that we are at least as concerned as either Denmark or Sweden to ensure that the use of these dangerous gases is published.
Confidentiality only damages what is now an essential provision, that is the international debate. It damages the debate throughout the world and the collection of knowledge throughout the world as regards what is happening to our planet. Confidentiality also covers up some of the realities. It is constantly stated, for example, that India and China are among some of the major users or potential users of CFCs. India's current total annual use of CFCs by its 800 million people is 4,500 tonnes. That is equal to only 15 days' production of CFCs in the United Kingdom. That is an example of the distorted pictures that are created by the use of the phrase "confidentiality".
There has to be public access to the information. One of the most important elements of the campaign is public education. To be realistic, public education can only be based on genuine information. Without public access to that genuine information all kinds of distortions will appear.
I hope that the Government will recognise that the issue goes beyond ordinary commercial considerations. It goes right to the heart of public accountability and the right of the public to know. I trust that the Committee will support the amendment so that the Government, Parliament and the people know what is happening in this vital area of national life and there can be informed public debate. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Manufacturers of CFCs and halons are already required under European legislation to report to the Commission and to their national governments their production, import and export of these substances. Discussions are taking place over the reporting regime which should apply for the new substitute chemicals. As the noble Lord revealed he knows, the data cannot be published as they are commercially confidential.
The development of CFC substitutes is a highly competitive business. If commercially sensitive information was to be given away companies might not produce the substances that we need. The cases of Denmark and Sweden are different. They do not have producers of CFCs or CFC substitutes who could be damaged by disclosure.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: Does the Minister agree that the type of information which he tells us is being collected, but which is not for publication, could be made available to the committee that will be set up under the Bill?
Lord Grahan of Edmonton: Does the Minister not understand the very real anxiety which is reflected in the amendment? We all understand what commercial confidentiality means. We also understand that often it is a cloak for avoiding releasing information. Very often the Government have to release information which they would rather not publish because it could be embarrassing, but they accept that responsibility. In this case we are speaking of an issue which could affect the life of the planet.
Even if the Government are unwilling to accept the amendment, it would be helpful—not only to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, but also to the people of this country—if the Minister could say something that would persuade my noble friend to consider an alternative form of words that might be more acceptable. Simply to say that it is not possible—in other words, that it is not desirable—because commercial issues are at stake, is not acceptable. We are not only talking about commerce, we are talking about life itself.
Lord Reay: The noble Baroness asked me a specific question. I am given to understand in respect of her proposal that it would depend on the rules that applied to the conduct of the committee. If the committee agreed to keep the information confidential that might be considered.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: All the noble Lord has said is that the matter is commercially confidential. He has not said why it is commercially confidential, except that it might affect the bidding in prices. That is a trivial argument to use on such a vital question.
The Committee may be interested to know that yesterday I received a letter from the Bird Group of Companies, which is very concerned about the Bill. The Company works with ICI and local authorities to recover CFCs from certain cooling circuits. It has taken sufficient interest in the Bill to send me a long letter on the subject. I shall content myself with quoting a paragraph which relates directly to the

453
attitude that has been adopted by the Minister. The letter, from the group environmental controller of the Bird Group of Companies, concludes with these words:
"I believe legislation is required, or at the least very strong guidance, to ensure that society accepts the direct costs of protecting the global environment.
"Since Swedish and German authorities are taking positive action, there is a chance for the United Kingdom to take the lead to make an important impact to reduce a significant amount of CFC being released from the traditional disposal methods of refrigerators and freezers, not to forget building insulation and packaging materials".
That commercial company says that legislation is required. If a commercial company is convinced that the issue is so important that it goes beyond the normal range of commercial practice, I should have thought that the Government, who claim to be in the lead on environmental issues, would have seen that this issue supervenes normal commercial arrangements and traditions and the profit and loss account. The public, the Government, Parliament, and the committee established under the Bill have a right to know exactly what is going on in the chemical world concerning the production and use of CFCs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
(" () Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent the continued use of CFCs in aerosols used—

(a) in the treatment of asthma and

(b) for other pain-relieving purposes and for which there are, at present, no alternatives.").

The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, for their advice during the Second Reading debate. They pointed out areas where my proposals for the prevention of the use of CFCs were too restrictive. I have therefore tabled an amendment to the effect that, for the treatment of asthma and for other pain-relieving purposes, the use of CFCs may be allowed until there are alternatives. Obviously, none of us wants to introduce something which would cause great suffering to some people. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I welcome the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. I understand that the use of CFCs in aerosols is very small. As she said, it would be a great pity to deprive those who need it of the facility.
Lord Reay: The Government are of course concerned that there should be sufficient time for the proper evaluation and testing of alternatives before CFCs are withdrawn from use as propellants in medical aerosols. At present we do not find it possible to put a date on that, but I am confident that it will be before the end of the century, which is the date by which we consider that all CFC consumption can safely be ended.
The Committee will be aware that there are indeed many applications for CFCs where we cannot estimate when acceptable alternatives will be available. Those include medical uses, whether or not in aerosols, and other uses from which society
454
obtains great benefits. It is for that reason that our approach is to limit the overall supply of CFCs, so as to encourage all users to find alternatives, and to set a realistic date for their total elimination.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8 p.m.]

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 33.
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 27, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) prevents rules made by the Council of the Law Society securing that the terms and conditions on which solicitors may act as agents of authorised practitioners do not restrict or prevent those solicitors from offering independent legal and financial advice to clients in connection with the provision of conveyancing services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. I am sorry to see that the House appears somewhat diminished, certainly in quantity if not in quality. I shall proceed to move the amendment and hope that noble Lords will be patient with me.
We should be looking at subsection (2) of Clause 33 which states:
"Any rule imposed by any professional or other body which purports to restrict or prevent a qualified person from—

(a) providing any conveyancing services as an authorised practitioner;

(b) acting as an employee of an authorised practitioner in connection with the provision of any such services; or

(c) acting on behalf of an authorised practitioner in connection with the provision of any such services,"

and then come the brave, bold and clear words:
"shall be of no effect".
At Committee stage in an attempt to protect the public—and I emphasise that that is the whole purpose of my amendment and it has no other purpose—some concern was expressed that this subsection could create a very dangerous situation in regard to rules that ought to be made to protect the public in conveyancing matters. As I understood it, the noble and learned Lord was at that time reluctant to see the complete removal of this provision. So in deference to him we have thought very carefully about how we should now seek to do two things—not to remove this subsection, but, first, to amend it and, secondly, to amend it in such a way as to make absolutely clear the evil that we seek to prevent. It was not that we wanted to be able to

455
make rules of a very general nature which might offend the spirit of subsection (2). We were anxious to counter what we thought was an evil—certainly a possible evil.
I turn at once to the way in which we seek to accomplish that purpose. We are dealing with a clause which says that any rule of the nature that I have just indicated "shall be of no effect". The amendment adds a subsection which states:
"Nothing in subsection (2) prevents rules made by the Council of the Law Society"—
and then we get at the danger from which we are trying to safeguard the public—
"securing that the terms and conditions on which solicitors may act as agents of authorised practitioners do not restrict or prevent those solicitors from offering independent legal and financial advice to clients in connection with the provision of conveyancing services".
Perhaps I may break off for a moment to tell your Lordships that since the issue of the Green Paper the Law Society has received from solicitors over 120 examples of how the public, had they not received protection from members of the solicitors' profession—in some cases unfortunately they did not receive the protection in time—would have walked into very disadvantageous transactions indeed. I shall give only one solid example. In fact I could quote worse examples but this is a very clear one.
Mr. H and his sister had been left a property by their parents and Mr. H wished to raise a mortgage to buy his sister's share. He was told by an estate agent that he had to have an endowment policy. The solicitor to whom he went arranged for a repayment mortgate for him. Subsequently the estate agent wrote to the solicitor stating that the solicitor had not "played the game" by persuading Mr. H not to take out an endowment policy. The estate agent said that he would lose a very great deal of commission and that he would not recommend clients to go to that solicitor in the future. Subsequently the life insurance representative visited the solicitor. He was extremely angry and threatened to blacklist the solicitor's firm for dissuading a client from taking out a policy with his company.
That is just one example. I am not in any way saying that every life insurance company, every life insurance company's representative, any estate agent or any employee of an estate agent must be deemed to be dishonourable. I do not say that at all. I do say that there is a very great danger of some representatives behaving as those representatives from the estate agent and the life insurance company behaved.
As a result of this Bill, together with the other legislation which has been passed, what do we think will happen which will enable life insurance companies, building societies and banks to set up solicitors' departments if they so desire? Perhaps I may be allowed to use such shorthand. I think, and your Lordships may agree with me, that they will find it rather difficult. It would be much simpler and less expensive for them if they were to get hold of firms of solicitors and say to them, "Please, we should like you to act as our agents". The Law
456
Society is frightened—and I repeat that the sole purpose of this amendment is the protection of the public—that contracts may be entered into between life insurance companies, banks or building societies with a firm of solicitors to do all the work of a conveyancing nature that may fall to that building society, insurance company or bank in a certain area. At the present moment, such solicitors could not enter into such a contract and see the client who was the vendor, purchaser or mortgagor, and act for that vendor, purchaser or lender. That prohibition is consistent with the policy of the Government on conflict of interest in conveyancing as laid down in 1985.
What the Law Society wants to be able to do is to ensure that it has the possibility of making proper professional rules that will govern the conditions of any such contract entered into by a member of the Law Society with a bank, an insurance company or for that matter an estate agent. We want to do it—the Law Society wants to do it; my side of the profession wants to do it—in protection of the public. What we are afraid of—indeed, we have reason to be afraid of it—is that if one reads again the subsection that I read out at the commencement of my remarks it could well be said that that was a rule imposed by a professional body (the Law Society) which purported to restrict or prevent a qualified person from providing conveyancing services or acting on behalf of an authorised practitioner, and so on.
The subsection imposed a very proper rule to ensure that the contents of any such contract should impose a duty upon the solicitor to act as though he were an independent adviser, as the member of the public would be entitled to assume, and not to act as an agent of anybody in seeing that endowment policy arrangements were not interfered with by the solicitor concerned.
We feel that it is an extremely important amendment. It amends the provisions that the noble and learned Lord thought should be in the Bill, but it is a specific amendment dealing with a specific area in which the public may be in danger. I hope that the noble and learned Lord—who seeks to do everything he can to ensure that the public receive proper independent advice, as he has made clear, and that nothing in the Bill will interfere with the right of the public to be independently advised—will consider that we have gone all the way to meet the point that he made in Committee. I hope that he will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am extremely sympathetic to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I shall not repeat the grounds that he has given in support of the argument. I found them convincing. All the information that I have been given fully justifies them. Indeed, there are many instances of abuses to which he has referred. Those are likely to be aggravated if the Bill remains in its present form.
I refer to one matter that I believe is important. In the Bill as it now stands, a high street solicitor can act in two capacities. He can be an independent operator and adviser, able to give the full services

457
to which my noble and learned friend referred in Committee as available from the high street solicitor. If he acts as an agent to a building society or bank, whatever it may be, he will be confined to giving a different level of service. That is confusing and unfair to the customer. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to console me about the dangers that otherwise lie ahead.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. It is very nice to hear the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Boardman, standing up for the independence of individuals on behalf of the public. I only wish that they had been able to do the same when the matter arose earlier.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should very much like to support the powerful case that has been presented by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. He referred to the possible evil that may flow unless this clause is amended. The real fear must be that where the authorised practitioner's services are provided by its solicitor agent, the client will be denied independent legal or financial advice. If that were to happen it could open the door to the evil to which my noble friend has referred, or at least to a diminution in the standard of service.
It is my experience that under the present system the solicitor will almost invariably offer advice if he senses that there are grounds for believing that the terms of the deal should be questioned because they are too onerous or because they stretch his client's financial means unreasonably. The point should be made that under the present system the purchaser-borrower will often be in touch with his solicitor while he is negotiating the terms of the loan or of the purchase and will receive a great deal of guidance and advice. However, under the new system, the client will first meet the solicitor when he is looking to an authorised practitioner for the provision of services after the solicitor has received his instructions from the authorised practitioner.
As I understand it—I am subject to correction—the only duties of the solicitor will be to ensure that the client fully understands the terms of the transaction and that he realises the effect of signing a contract or mortgage deed, but that the duty does not extend beyond those two considerations unless the client is buying the property when the solicitor has to ensure that the purchaser obtains a good title.
If the duties of the solicitor agent of the authorised practitioner are confined to those two or three areas, a valuable shield will be lost. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord this question. If the clause is to stand, will there be a duty on the solicitor agent to say to the client, "You have to look elsewhere for independent legal advice on this transaction. You have to look elsewhere as to whether or not these terms are fair and reasonable and whether the repayments are within your means"? I hope the House will say that the solicitor agent should be under a statutory duty to provide independent legal advice.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support the amendment not as a legal person but as the woman
458
on the Clapham omnibus, or however one may describe the non-professional.. Eighteen months ago I sold and bought a flat. I should have been extremely uneasy had I thought that the solicitor had any kind of relationship with the bank, the estate agent or any other party to the deal. The solicitor was acting for me and only for me. I wanted my solicitor to be deeply suspicious of all the other parties to the deal and therefore he must be completely independent.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, if the Law Society does not have the powers for which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asks, not only will the public be in danger but the legal profession will be irreparably damaged when it becomes known that there are firms of solicitors to whom the public go which will not give a fair deal.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Baroness told of her experience. I was not certain whether any mortgage facilities were involved and, if so, who acted in connection with the conveyancing in support of the mortgage. However, there is no doubt that independent solicitors in private practice act for the purchaser and the person who provides the mortgage. That happens in a high percentage of cases and, I believe, with no detriment to anyone.
In the provision to which the amendment relates I merely wish to prevent rules being made which would frustrate the scheme contained in the Bill for the provision of conveyancing services to the public by banks or building societies. It is advantageous to what has been described as the "network" of solicitors, so I am particularly anxious that a way should be open for banks, building societies and the like to provide that service by utilising the services of solicitors in private practice if they are willing to provide them. Therefore, I have little difficulty with the principle lying behind the amendment.
I envisage a solicitor in private practice being willing to provide to a purchaser at the request of a building society, say, the services that the purchaser requires in connection with conveyancing, and, further, to provide to the building society the services which it requires in connection with the transaction; namely, the conveyancing necessary to secure a proper mortgage on the property. I see nothing inconsistent with the idea of the solicitor being able to provide services to the clients over and above what may have been provided to the client at the request of the building society. The building society price, whatever that is, will cover defined services. If the client wants only conveyancing services at that price he can obtain them.
I understand that the amendment is in accordance with those ideas. It will allow the solicitor in the kind of transaction that I have in mind to say to the client that the transaction should be modified in some way so as to be in the best interests of the client.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is most courteous in allowing me to intervene. I wish him to follow the kind of danger we envisage and if he has not done so it is my fault and not his.

459
Will he take for granted that, in order to carry out general work for the building society, insurance company or whatever institution, the solicitor is asked whether he will have a contractual arrangement to do so? Will he also take it that there is a clause in the contract which states that in no circumstances will he advise the client not to enter into a policy negotiated with the insurance company or building society before he came along?
If the Law Society properly in accordance with the noble and learned Lord's wishes tried to make a rule which provided that solicitors must not enter into any such contract in regard to conveyancing services, and that the professional right of the solicitor was restricted in certain ways in order to safeguard the public as I and other noble Lords indicated, the clause as it stands in the Bill could well prohibit the Law Society from making any such rule. That is the danger with which I am dealing.
Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not agree that, as it stands in the Bill, the clause will have that effect. However, we are at one on the policy. I do not wish to prevent the solicitor from giving such advice if he deems it appropriate. Whatever the Law Society rules, I do not want the building society to be able to prevent the solicitor from offering such advice and I do not believe that the clause as presently drafted, allows that. However, if it does I shall take steps to clarify the matter.
The principle of the amendment is acceptable to me. All I wish to prevent is the making of a rule which will render it impossible for a solicitor in private practice to have an arrangement with a building society under which he provides conveyancing services to the clients of the building society and also acts for the building society in connection with the title to the mortgage. There is no other remit from the building society, only that in relation to the title of the mortgage. The solicitor is acting for the private client only, the building society paying for that on agreed terms. That is the type of transaction that I have in mind. I do not believe that there is any provision in the clause which will prevent the solicitor from giving independent advice, financial or legal, if he wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested that there should be a statutory duty on, I believe, the solicitor, to give independent advice. As far as I know there is no such statutory duty at present but only a reservation of conveyancing in favour of solicitors, barristers and licensed conveyancers. All I wish to do is open that up to the extent of allowing those services to be provided either by arrangement with the building society or by an employee of the building society who is properly qualified.
From my understanding of that explanation, the amendment is perfectly acceptable to me. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will allow me, I should like to take advice on the way in which it will fit into our proposals from the drafting point of view. The principle is absolutely consistent with what I am seeking to achieve. As the noble Lord knows, I am anxious to do everything that I possibly can to
460
prevent arrangements under which members of the public are conned into accepting insurances which are not the best for them in the circumstances perhaps because the arrangements which are made in respect of commission favour those who proffer the policies. I am entirely against the public being subject to that.
As noble Lords know, the Government have initiated steps to widen the matter considerably in relation to estate agents and the like. The Director General of Fair Trading is considering these matters, as we announced some time ago, because the sort of difficulty to which the noble Lord referred exists at present. He gave examples of things which can happen. I believe that he said that in the case to which he referered the evil had been prevented. However, from the 120 cases which were referred to, he illustrated other situations in which the evil had not been prevented. Therefore, those evils can happen under the present system.
I am anxious to avoid those and to make no step in the new system which would make it any less effective in preventing that sort of difficulty which arises at present. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is prepared to allow me time to consider this amendment with my drafting adviser, I think I can assure him that it will receive the most favourable consideration.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I ask the noble and learned Lord a direct question. In these circumstances, is the solicitor's primary loyalty to the building society or to the individual purchaser?
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is what I have set out before and it is the same here. I regard the arrangements as being that a solicitor will have all the responsibilities of a private solicitor to his client. The only responsibility which he will have to the building society is to secure for the building society a proper title in respect of the mortgage. The arrangements which I have in mind will secure that. In other words, the building society is providing a solicitor for the client, either a solicitor employed by the building society or arranged by it if the client wants that. That does not prevent the client going to another solicitor altogether if he so wishes. There is no suggestion that this arrangement is compulsory. It is merely a facility which the building society will be able to offer to the client if the proposals of this scheme go through.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, one of the first lessons which an advocate learns—and nobody knows this better than the noble and learned Lord—is that if the judge is with you, for heaven's sake be quiet and sit down. I merely make the excuse of saying anything else in view of the fact that I wanted to make something abundantly clear.
This amendment gives the power to the Law Society—so that there is no doubt about it—to see to it that arrangements are not made on an agency basis with solicitors which would prevent them from giving independent legal and financial advice to

461
clients in connection with the provision of conveyancing services. It is limited to that. It makes the clause clear. However, I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord who has told me that the most favourable consideration will be given to seeing that a suitable provision is put in if the wording of this amendment is not acceptable. Therefore, I unreservedly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 27, line 44, leave out ("notary") and insert ("duly certificated notary public").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 98. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Authorisation of practitioners];
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 28, line 10, after ("person") insert ("and that it is conducted with prudence and integrity and with adequate professional skills").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 153. At this stage I seek some clarification as to how the noble and learned Lord sees the position which we are putting to him.
Amendment No. 149 seeks to ensure that when considering applications for authorisation as a conveyancing practitioner, the board is satisfied that the applicants are fit and proper persons to carry out their duties with prudence, integrity and adequate professional skills. In suggesting that in this amendment we are importing two of the relevant criteria of prudent management from Section 45(3) of the Building Societies Act 1986, to which the building society authorised practitioners will be subject in any event.
It also seems appropriate that those criteria should apply to other practitioners. They would give the board important additional grounds to the fit and proper one which is already stated in considering the applications for authorisation. Perhaps it may be suggested that the two phrases which we are using are in effect synonymous. However, I believe my proposal in Amendment No. 149 would make the clause more specific in what it says.
The purpose of Amendment No. 153 would be to require the board to take an existing authorisation into account not only for the purposes of the fit and proper requirement of subsection (l)(a), but also when considering whether the applicant will comply with the Clause 34(7) requirements relating to compliance with the relevant rules and regulations, having satisfactory arrangements to meet claims and so on. I am arguing that an existing authorisation as a building society, insurance company or bank is relevant in regard to these matters as well as the fit and proper requirement. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, prudence, integrity and adequate professional skills are all matters which concern me. I believe, however, that the present Bill and the proposed regulations will
462
adequately cover the aim of this amendment. Clause 34(1)(a), to which the noble Baroness referred, requires an applicant's business to be carried on by fit and proper persons or, if an individual, by a fit and proper person, The provision for the manner in which those persons are to operate is set out elsewhere. Under subsection (l)(b) the board must be of the opinion that the applicant will comply with the requirements of subsection (7). It is these requirements which will govern how the work is to be done. In particular, Clause 37(1) provides for regulations to secure that authorised practitioners maintain satisfactory standards of competence and conduct and that clients' interests are satisfactorily protected. Clause 37(2) also covers other matters which may be included in the regulations, such as the efficient transaction of business and supervision by qualified persons.
The noble Baroness will know, from indications which I have already given, that I propose that the regulations should cover in some detail the standard of supervision to be required, including the provision of a personal interview at the outset of the conveyancing transaction.
Therefore, my approach to the amendment of the noble Baroness is that the principle of it is entirely acceptable to me and entirely appropriate. However, I believe that the necessary professional skills and the manner in which the transaction is carried out requires to be more closely regulated than those words of generality. Therefore, this matter is appropriately dealt with by detailed regulations. That is the way in which the Bill proposes to take forward the aims of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. It has given some clarification and I am satisfied that, by regulations, he will be able to cover the points which I made. I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 28, line 40, at end insert—
("() submits to the Board annually a report by an accountant as to whether in his opinion the accounts of the authorised practitioner have been kept in accordance with regulations made under section 37(2)(f).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the accountant's report plays a key role in the procedures which are designed to protect clients' money. We believe that he can, and should, play the same role in monitoring the practices of the authorised practitioner. If we rely on the accountant's report, if something is amiss with the way the authorised practitioner handles his client's money, it should be spotted by the accountant at an early stage and attention drawn to it in his report.
We appreciate that Clause 37(2)(f) makes it possible for regulations to cover the handling by authorised practitioners of their clients' money, but we consider that that is not specific enough or does not go far enough. We want to see on the face of the Bill a requirement that the authorised practitioner files with the conveyancing board an annual report

463
that the accounts have been kept in accordance with Clause 37(2)(f).
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated that reliance should be placed on the information received from the conveyancing ombudsman and other regulatory bodies. The snag with that is that much damage will already have been caused before the circumstances come to the attention of the conveyancing ombudsman. Therefore, what is required is an early warning system, and the accountant's report is the best warning method available.
Again in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that the requirement in the Bill that an accountant's report be filed would impose an unnecessary burden on the authorised practitioners and could entail expenditure of time and expense which eventually would have to be borne by the client. The Law Society has considered that response and does not attach so much weight to that particular argument because in any event an accountant will invariably be instructed for various other purposes.
The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to plead for the accountant's report to play a significant role as far as the procedures of the authorised practitioners are concerned. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said in Committee in response to a similar amendment, the existing powers already set out in the Bill are adequate to allow regulations to ensure what is required without imposing unnecessary burdens. In addition, Clause 32 provides that, in discharging its duty to supervise the activities of authorised practitioners, the board shall make arrangements designed to enable it to ascertain whether authorised practitioners are complying with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor under Section 37. I do not believe that it is necessary to make specific provision for an annual certificate by an accountant to be provided in this particular way. If the board finds, in the light of experience, that this is necessary for supervision, then there are adequate powers for it to make such a requirement. If, on the other hand, the board considers such a requirement to be unnecessary, the only thing the amendment would achieve is to increase the cost for the client.
Perhaps I may take an illustration. Let us suppose a building society were to arrange its affairs, so far as conveyancing was concerned, in the manner we were discussing in the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, by using an independent solicitor. In that situation such a requirement would not appear to be necessary because the actual conveyancing would be handled by someone whose accounts were already subject to the surveillance of the Law Society.
I entirely accept the spirit of the amendment in the sense that we want to have power to make sure that what the authorised practitioners' board and the Lord Chancellor's regulations require are being fulfilled, but it is not necessary to tie ourselves down
464
in primary legislation to this particular method of enforcement. There are other methods which might be more suitable in the circumstances.
The noble Lord may take it therefore that I wish to secure that the regulations are complied with, but that I do not believe it is necessary to tie ourselves down to this particular method; this method being open should circumstances suggest that it is the appropriate one. I am sure the noble Lord has no more desire than I have to impose unnecessary costs on companies or on clients. If this is a necessary cost, in the light of all the circumstances, it would be right to impose it, but if it turns out not to be, then I believe the right thing to do in that situation is not to impose it. To leave the flexibility with the regulations is, in my submission, the appropriate course.
In the light of that explanation I hope the noble Lord may feel that the purpose of moving the amendment has been served.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am somewhat dismayed by the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We believe that we are possibly exaggerating the financial burden which would be borne by the authorised practitioners. I am told that any company or firm offering conveyancing services would almost certainly need to instruct an accountant for various other purposes, such as the Companies Act, auditing and the production of accounts for tax purposes. The accountant instructed for these purposes is unlikely to charge the institution a considerable additional sum if he is instructed to produce a report certifying that the institution had complied with the regulations made under Clause 37(2)(f)
I am satisfied that we have raised this issue and I very much hope that the mischief which we fear will not arise. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 28, line 42, leave out ("a bank") and insert ("an institution").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which brings the definition of "bank" in this clause into line with that used in Clause 44. The main reason for the proposed alteration is that an institution may be authorised under the Banking Act 1987 if it has minimum net assets of £1 million. An institution may, however, only call itself a bank if it is a company incorporated in the UK and has paid-up share capital and/or undistributed reserves of £5 million in accordance with Section 67(2)(a). It was not intended to exclude those institutions whose minimum paid-up share capital was less than £5 million but were nevertheless authorised to take deposits in the United Kingdom under Part I of the Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 28, line 43, leave out ("operate") and insert ("carry on").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 162. These are technical amendments which bring the terminology of the clause into line with that used in the Banking Act 1987. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 29, line 5, at end insert—
("(8A) The Board shall maintain a register of authorised practitioners which shall be open to inspection, at all reasonable times, without charge").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment I bring forward to implement an undertaking given in Committee to consider favourably an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which required the conveyancing board to keep a register of authorised practitioners which could be inspected by members of the public free of charge.
This amendment fulfils that undertaking and contains the results of my consideration. I hope it is acceptable to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his favourable response.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 154A:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Fiduciary relationships in relation to conveyancing services.
(".—(1) A fiduciary relationship shall be deemed to exist between an authorised practitioner and any person for whom the authorised practitioner provides any conveyancing services.
(2) The extent of the fiduciary relationship imposed by subsection (1) shall be the same as would exist between a solicitor and his client for whom similar services were being provided.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment goes to the heart of a problem debated at some length on previous stages of this Bill; that is, the conflict of interests. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is not in his place because I should like to reassure him that on this amendment, as indeed on every other one to which I have spoken—and indeed on every amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has spoken—we have been concerned with the interests of the consumer and not with specifically narrow interests. I hope I misunderstood what he said in his comments, but I should like to get it clearly on record for my part—and certainly I am convinced also on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—that that is so.
This issue of conflict of interest was debated fully on 1st February. There was very wide concern coming from all parts of the Committee at the conflicts of interest that could arise, particularly when authorised practitioners were part of a group with varied activities such as estate agents, insurance agents and the rest. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor fully recognised that. As I understand his comments, he said that the protection against that would be adequately provided by the
466
personal interview with the solicitor or licensed conveyancer that would have to be provided by the authorised practitioner.
The noble and learned Lord said, as reported in Hansard at col. 461:
"But I consider that there may be conflicts of interest depending on individual circumstances … I have asked myself how one can deal with that. I took the view that the way to deal with it is that the professional person should have the responsibility of saying whether there was a conflict of interest in relation to the transaction, and if there was, the building society or the bank would not be able to act. That is the purpose, among other matters, of the initial interview; namely, that that would be a matter for determination by the professional person in the light of his standards of competence and conduct as laid down by his own professional body".
My noble and learned friend went on to say at col. 463:
"I envisage that the regulations under this clause—as set out in the White Paper—will provide that the qualified person in charge of the transaction should have a personal interview with the client at the beginning of the transaction. A number of points should then be considered, the most important being whether there is any likelihood of a conflict of interest. I also envisage that the qualified person will advise on the nature of the services he can provide and whether there are any other legal services related to the transaction which he is not able to provide. He should then indicate to the client that those services are desirable but not available from him. That is a perfectly reasonable requirement to deal with the type of problem raised by my noble friend".
It begs the question as to whom the professional person conducting the interview is accountable. That matter was raised during the debate and was dealt with by my noble and learned friend in col. 466, where he said:
"We have provided, and I intend to provide, that if the solicitor employed by the building society undertakes a transaction for a client, then his primary duty will be to the client. There is nothing to prevent that happening merely because he is employed. The terms of employment can secure that position. Therefore, his mandate from the employer will be to secure for the employer a properly secured mortgage on the property in question".
I fully support what my noble and learned friend said there. He went on to say that he was extremely open to proposals which might improve the measure of protection. It is with that in mind that my amendment has been tabled. I believe it does precisely that. It makes quite clear where the primary duty lies, which is to the lay client with whom the fiduciary relationship will be established. It places a responsibility on the professional adviser, the authorised practitioner, to have that duty to the lay client who is seeking advice.
The matter goes somewhat further than that. The fiduciary relationship would also overcome certain other matters of concern. It would ensure that there is equal treatment between the authorised practitioner and the independent practitioner, the high street solicitor, on such matters as disclosure and accounting. These matters were debated in Committee and it was decided to accept an amendment which said that the Lord Chancellor may make—I stress "may"—provision for disclosure and accounting.
I believe that duty should be even more. A fiduciary relationship would make it a statutory duty that the authorised practitioner must accept the same obligations as a private solicitor would accept with

467
his client. As we were told in Committee, that duty includes disclosing any amounts that he receives and accounting to his client for them. I believe that is a duty which should be accepted by the authorised practitioner. If there is received an insurance commission on an endowment policy or whatever it may be, the solicitor must be accountable to the customer client for that.
In the course of discussing various amendments we have spoken of the need for level playing fields. I certainly believe that this is an area where we should seek to get level playing fields between the independent high street solicitor and the authorised practitioner. If my amendment were accepted, both the independent solicitor and the authorised practitioner would be on equal terms. That is consistent with the decision that the House made on Tuesday concerning the cab rank rule; namely, those who accept extended rights—in this case it would be the authorised practitioner—should also accept the same duties as those with whom they would be in competition.
I hope that those who felt the need to vote in favour of the extension of equal rights under the cab rank rule will be no less convinced of the need to support an amendment which provides for equal rights between the independent high street solicitor and the authorised practitioner. I believe that this is an essential requirement for the protection of the consumer. It is the consumer who is entitled to have the best advice, to be protected, and also to know that he is getting independent advice; namely, the kind of advice to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred concerning an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment for the reasons given so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I believe it is axiomatic that anyone providing conveyancing services should be under a fiduciary duty to the client and that any derogation from his duty, however allowed, is entirely against the interests of justice. It seems to me that whether or not it is the case that an authorised practitioner is under this fiduciary duty, it should be spelt out on the face of the Bill where we are dealing with authorised praactitioners who, in the majority of cases, will not represent organisations which have in the past subjected themselves to the kinds of responsibilities which they should and ought to be assuming if they are to provide conveyancing services.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I see it, the essential point is that the person who is acting as the qualified person—namely, the solicitor or licensed conveyancer—should owe the proper professional duty to the client whether he is an employee or acting as an agent of a building society. This clause as drafted would go further than that. The idea must be that the conveyancing work is done by a person who owes the client the proper professional duty, and that should rest on the professional person.
468
For example, suppose that a building society arranges for a solicitor to do my conveyancing work. I believe that it would be perfectly reasonable to arrange the matter in such a way that the solicitor doing that work was under a duty to me and that duty to me was the same kind of duty as if the solicitor was employed by me directly without the intervention of the building society. That is what I believe to be the correct situation. As regards this clause, I am not sure to what extent this fiduciary duty is supposed to extend. The amendment states:
"(1) A fiduciary relationship shall be deemed to exist between an authorised practitioner and any person for whom the authorised practitioner provides any conveyancing services.
(2) The extent of the fiduciary relationship imposed by subsection (1) shall be the same as would exist between a solicitor and his client for whom similar services were being provided".
The extent of that duty is restricted to the conveyancing work. The building society, for example, will be giving a mortgage to the client. That mortgage cannot be in pursuance of a fiduciary duty. If the fiduciary duty is the duty in relation to the conveyancing services, I suggest to my noble friend that it is much better put upon the professional person who is required to supervise the transaction. It is by that method that the interests of the client will best be safeguarded. That fiduciary duty, as I explained, is already implied by the arrangements that I have made. But to seek to make the building society itself subject to a fiduciary duty when it is, for example, a lender to the client would have consequences that my noble friend does not have in mind.
9 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, perhaps I may try to clarify the point. I see the duties of the authorised practitioner in so far as he is doing the work that was otherwise done by the high street solicitor to be identical, and it is for the building society, if it is employing a professional person in order that he may do the conveyancing work, to accept a fiduciary responsibility to that person that a firm of solicitors would accept from its client. That includes such matters as disclosure of commission, accounting, and so on.
The drafting of the clause may be inadequate for carrying out the wish, which my noble and learned friend and I share, that the client should be properly advised. If my noble and learned friend felt that we could have something to put that principle more firmly into the Bill I would welcome it. But unless that happens there will be concern regarding the position of a solicitor or professional person employed by a building society to which he looks for his salary, pension, and so on, as distinct from his duty to the person who has come to him from the estate agency. I believe that the establishment of a fiduciary duty could reinforce the point. I hope that that may be helpful to my noble and learned friend.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what my noble friend has said is helpful. He wishes to establish that the professional person who is in charge of the transaction, even if he is employed, has a fiduciary

469
duty to the client. As I understand it, the amendment seeks to ensure that the professional person, even if he is employed by a building society, will have a fiduciary duty to the client which will override any duty that he may owe to the building society by which he is employed. If that is my noble friend's point, I do not have any difficulty in trying to achieve that. I doubt whether the amendment does it. The amendment is directed to placing a fiduciary duty on the authorised practitioner who may be the employer. My noble friend has just said that he wants to be sure that when the solicitor is acting, even if he is an employee of the building society, he will act for the client in the same way and with the same responsibility as if he were acting for the client and was not employed by the building society.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. If I have understood him correctly, he accepts the obligation for the professional person acting in the matter to accept the same fiduciary duties as a solicitor has to his client. If my noble and learned friend feels able to look at that point to see whether he can bring something forward to underline that duty, I shall happily not proceed further with the amendment. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend is able to give that assurance.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to read the report of our discussions. So far as I have understood my noble friend's point, I believe that I can favourably consider bringing forward an amendment to make it clear that where the authorised practitioner is providing these services, the person who is responsible for the transaction at the professional level shall have the responsibility to the client in carrying out the transaction that a solicitor would have in relation to the ordinary practice. There may be difficulties about that. My noble friend will, I am sure, take that into account. I shall look carefully at this point to see to what extent I can meet his concern.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. In anticipation of his being able to achieve something to meet my problem—I recognise the drafting difficulties—I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Regulations about competence and conduct of authorised practitioners]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 30, line 25, at end insert—
("(c) that authorised practitioners do not engage in unfair competition by settling their prices for the provision of conveyancing services at a level that fails to provide a reasonable rate of return on the costs of providing those services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order that noble Lords may have a full understanding of this important amendment perhaps I may ask them to
470
refer to Clause 37 of the Bill. Against the clause there is the marginal note:
"Regulations about competence and conduct of authorised practitioners".
Noble Lords will see that this is an empowering clause for the Lord Chancellor to make provision by regulation as he considers expedient with a view to securing satisfactory standards of competence and conduct and ensuring that the interests of the clients are satisfactorily protected. At first sight one sees that, both by the marginal note and much more importantly by the wording of the clause, this enabling power to make the regulation is restricted to competence and conduct and the interests of clients.
In his speeches both in this House and outside the noble and learned Lord has made it perfectly clear that the last thing in the world that he would want to see is unfair competition in regard to charges that would have, as he himself has admitted or as he himself has confirmed, the very damaging effect of closing up the little high street solicitor who is of such great advantage to the public who want legal advice. The Green Paper and the White Paper were awfully keen on this point.
I ventured to move an amendment at Committee stage which went somewhere near the amendment that I am in fact moving today. I want to base my amendment very clearly on government policy. That is why I made the introduction that I did as to the White Paper and to the noble and learned Lord's own views, as I know them.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I quote the relevant paragraph of the White Paper, so that there is no misunderstanding. It is paragraph 5.14, and I am omitting a few words that are irrelevant to my argument. It says:
"…the Green Paper proposed that unauthorised practitioners should be prevented from offering conveyancing services at less than their true cost, and that their annual accounts would have to provide proof of that… It was argued"—
that was during the consultation period, if I may make that intervention—
"that an annual requirement to demonstrate in the accounts that there was no predatory pricing would impose very substantial costs, and might also lead to increased qualification of accounts. In the light of the consultation response, authorised practitioners will be required to submit to their regulatory bodies each year details of the prices they charge for conveyancing services, certifying that those prices have been settled on a fair and reasonable basis to provide a reasonable rate of return on costs of providing those services alone. This aims to remove cross-subsidy on a significant and systematic basis".
Nothing could be clearer, that this was to protect the solicitor—I repeat it—the high street solicitor in particular, from unfair competition by way of pricing, because obviously the large financial institutions will not aim to make their money out of conveyancing costs. They will aim to make their money out of all that goes with it, in regard to mortgage loans, endowment policies and perfectly honourable matters of that nature. But from their point of view that is where the money will be.
The CBI, of all people, saw that and they fully suppported the amendment which I moved at Committee stage. They said that one of industry's grave concerns was the effect of the proposals in the

471
Green Paper, and then the White Paper, and the effect that they might have of a damaging nature unless there was proper, fair competition in regard to prices.
The noble and learned Lord knows that I always speak with deep respect in regard not only to him personally, but in regard to the interpretation that he gives us and as he sees it of the provisions of the Bill. As I understood him he seemed to take the point at Committee stage, but to say that Clause 37 enabled him to make regulations which would protect the position that I had mentioned in this amendment, and that therefore one need not worry about it because, quite obviously, he had clearly in mind the policy in the White Paper. That was why I asked your Lordships, in your kindness, to refer first of all to the provision in Clause 37. I would merely remind your Lordships of what I read out and what was the margin note, which is the shorthand for what really is set out fully in the Bill:
"Regulations about competence and conduct of authorised practitioners".
I concede at once that, although the matters raised in the amendment are so very definitely spoken of in the White Paper as government policy, at all events it strains interpretation to say that these matters are covered by competence or the conduct of authorised practitioners.
The noble and learned Lord seems to have the great ability not only to sit at late hours and keep clarity of mind, but even at a late hour to hear two arguments going on at once. I must say that he is the envy of every one of us.
I was saying that the interpretation was at all events strained; but whatever it be, is it not at least arguable—I put the submission at the lowest that I can—that someone would later say that they could challenge the Lord Chancellor's right under Clause 37 to make a regulation which operates against charges being unfair or cross-subsidised? I give him—I do it most respectfully—the opportunity to see that any such argument has no chance of success, by the Bill clearly stating that such a power exists and, as he has expressed the willingness to carry out the policy of the White Paper, to see that on the face of the Bill that regulatory power is open to him, and is one that will be carried through.
I also want to make it clear, because of what was said in Committee, that the question of predatory pricing and cross-subsidy being prevented is vital, and that they are two different, although somewhat connected, matters. Therefore it is against both evils—if I may put it that way—that the regulation should be made pursuant to the White Paper policy; namely, that there should be neither predatory pricing nor cross-subsidy, and that the conveyancing costs should stand on their own and should be shown to be fair and attributable to the conveyancing department of the institution concerned. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I do not know whether one is allowed to interfere in what is a
472
two-man argument, but I am interfering because, although I respect totally the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I disagree with the amendment. I disagree with the amendment because, although there is clearly a balance to be achieved in the Bill or by subsequent regulation, there is the argument relating to the interference with commercial practice; there is the argument as to whether the competition legislation would bite on that situation, and there is the argument, which I believe my noble and learned friend put up in Committee, which I support, that the solicitor in the high street would not capitulate merely because he found that the conveyancing part of his business was becoming competitive.
Despite the fact that the CBI has supported the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, there is a consumer interest in the position. I feel passionately that much progress has been made towards benefiting the consumer, and I feel that the substance of the amendment would be far better in regulations than in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is asking me whether the regulation-making power, as drafted in the Bill, is wide enough to enable me to make the type of regulations that he has in mind. I have sought advice upon that point, but in view of the question that the noble Lord has asked, I shall look at the matter again.
I would not wish to restrict the unfair competition aspect to the one that the noble Lord has suggested. That is one aspect, but there could be other aspects of unfair competition which might require to be dealt with. One which is important and which arose in the Green and the White Papers, was the system whereby, if the costs were incurred by a private solicitor, they would not be added to the mortgage but, "If you take our service", they will be added. That is a type of tying-in which is brought within Clause 72. There are other aspects of unfair competition, apart from this one, which I would wish to have in my sights in case they should develop. The precise way in which this aspect of unfair competition should be dealt with is a matter of some judgment.
When we drew up the White Paper, I had intended that the different institutions would be answerable to their own prudential regulations—the building societies, the building societies registrar and so on, each being separate. Following recommendations and suggestions made to us by the Law Society among others, we have now put all the authorised practitioners under one board. That makes it much easier for the board to take a bird's eye view of all that is happening. It will see all the prices. It may be much easier for it to tell what is going on in a particular area because it will have the high street solicitors' prices, the prices of the various authorised practitioners available to it for the various services. In that way they may be able to operate an even more efficient method of getting at the problem than I had originally thought of when I was putting the White Paper together.
The board has a duty to promote competition. While the noble Lord was putting forward his

473
argument I was looking at a certain passage and I received an item of information from his noble friend in passing, rather than listening to the argument. I thought of suggesting that, as in Clause 32. we insert:
"to seek to develop fair competition"—
I think that is implied but not expressed—
"in the provision of conveyancing services".
It may be that I ought to have a provision mirroring that at the beginning of Clause 37. If the noble Lord will leave the matter with me, I shall be happy to consider it further in the light of what has been said.
The policy I have is to seek to ensure that the competition is fair. That is in the interests of the consumer. I do not wish to propose any improper protection from competition for any of those providing conveyancing services, but I wish to do my best to ensure that the arrangements that we make provide for fair competition in the interests of the client.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as I understand the noble and learned Lord, he has been good enough to say in reply to the amendment that he will look into whether Clause 37 would give him the power to make a regulation dealing with fair pricing, fair costing and cross-subsidy. Secondly, he would wish in any regulations he made to carry out the policy in the White Paper, an extract from which I read. Thirdly, he will obviously have in mind, when we come to the third stage, putting down an amendment if he finds that it is necessary after examining the powers under Clause 37 which will deal with these matters. On the basis that I have understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment. However, I should like him to confirm that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wish to make sure that I have the necessary power to ensure fair competition in all aspects—price, cross-subsidy and so on, and any other matters that may occur to us as we develop the proposals for regulations. The main heading in issue here is fair competition. We wish to see as we go along the precise way in which these aims may be achieved, but that is the purpose that I have in mind. I believe that what the noble Lord says is in accordance with what I propose.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think this is important. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will say that he in no way seeks to differ now from the policy set out in the White Paper.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all I am saying is that the precise manner in which the policy is carried out is different from what we had in the White Paper. I am not sure now, for example, that the best way of securing what I had in mind in the passage which the noble Lord read from the White Paper is the statement annually to the prudential authorities. It may be much better to look at their prices and judge whether the prices are fair, rather than relying on certificates and so on. I do not want the noble Lord to be misled. What I have in mind is to achieve the aims that were set out in that passage of
474
the White Paper. The precise manner in which we shall achieve them will be developed in the course of consultation on the regulations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it was of course the aims of the passage that I had in mind. I understand that the machinery can obviously be dealt with after consideration as regards the best machinery to be employed. I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 30, line 34, leave out ("each transaction to be") and insert ("any transaction to remain").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of an amendment that was tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton. I notice that the next amendment that we are to discuss is identical with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Evans. However, this time it stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I may in pursuing my amendment, be open to the charge that the Liberal Democrats are never satisfied. However, I think there is common ground between us that paragraph (c), which we are discussing, is not satisfactory as it stands. It makes use of the expression "each transaction". Assuredly, people will take the words "each transaction" to mean every transaction. They will think that paragraph (c) therefore states that every transaction shall come under the overall control of the same member of a firm, however large the firm.
I understand that that is not at all the intention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as he expressed it in Committee. The intention is simply that each single transaction will remain under the control of the same member of a firm throughout its course so that the client does not get pushed around from one member of the firm to another. This amendment replaces the words "each transaction" with the words "any transaction" and therefore ensures that we are talking about transactions taken one at a time. The amendment introduces the words "to remain" instead of the words "to be" so as to emphasise the continuity of supervision which is, I believe, very much part of the intention of the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would never occur to me to suggest that the Liberal Democrats were never satisfied. However, we had intended to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, whom I am sorry cannot be with us. However, I understand perfectly the reason for that. I thought that in satisfying the noble Lord I could do no better than carry out what he suggested. However, I am advised that what I am proposing in Amendment No. 158 would have the effect that each transaction—that is to say, each individual transaction—would be under the overall control of one individual. That is what I wish to achieve. I

475
believe my amendment does achieve my intention; namely, that a particular transaction should be under the overall control of a single identified person from start to finish. This is perhaps a matter of style and judgment. As I have accepted in effect the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, may feel that it is appropriate to leave the matter at that. However, I am of course in his hands.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, no doubt my noble friend Lord Evans would be pleased to learn that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had moved an identical amendment to his on Report. Therefore, in that case I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 30, line 35, leave out ("the same") and insert ("one").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is the amendment that we discussed. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for taking the trouble to suggest an amendment. I am sure that he did so before he knew what I intended to do. I am extremely grateful to him for accepting what I have proposed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 159:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
("Safeguarding clients' money etc.
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall, for the purpose of safeguarding clients' money and clients' affairs, by order provide for—
(a) the circumstances in which the Board may intervene in the conveyancing business of an authorised practitioner; and
(b) the powers which the High Court and the Board may exercise on an intervention under this section.
(2) An order under this section shall, in particular, empower the Board to intervene where—
(a) an authorised practitioner ceases to conduct conveyancing business; and
(b) the Board has reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of an authorised practitioner or an officer, employee or associate of an authorised practitioner.
(3) an order under this section shall, in particular, on an intervention under this section—
(a) empower the High Court to order that no payment shall be made without the leave of the court by any bank, building society or other person or any money held by it or him on behalf of the authorised practitioner; and
(b) empower the Board to require an authorised practitioner to deliver to the Board documents in its possession relating to its conveyancing business.
(4) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to enable the Lord Chancellor to make an order by statutory instrument empowering the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board to intervene in the conveyancing business of an authorised practitioner where it is necessary to do so to safeguard clients' money. An amendment was
476
moved by my noble friend Lord Mishcon at Committee stage which was designed to achieve the same end as this amendment.
The Law Society is empowered to intervene in a solicitor's practice in certain circumstances where clients' money and clients' affairs require to be safeguarded. Similar powers are vested in the Council for Licensed Conveyancers and I understand that Sections 64 to 71 of the Financial Services Act 1986 contain detailed provisions regarding powers of intervention.
In Committee, in response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he felt that the Bill as drawn gave sufficient control to the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board without attempting to give it the full panoply of intervention powers of a professional body. That is a role which the noble and learned Lord felt was unnecessary and unsuitable for the board. The noble and learned Lord referred the Committee to certain duties and powers which were conferred on the board under Clause 32(1)(b), Clause 32(2) and Clause 36(3)(d). However, the power of intervention is missing from all three clauses. Therefore my noble friend Lord Mishcon was unhappy with the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and reserved the right to return to the matter. Having received advice from the Law Society we have tabled the amendment which is now before the House.
It is generally felt that the response of the noble and learned Lord at Committee did not address the vital point that where a business handles large sums of clients' money it is essential that the regulatory body has emergency powers to intervene swiftly if it learns of a breach of regulations in order to safeguard such money. In our submission, it is not sufficient for the Bill to require the board to supervise the activities of authorised practitioners under Section 32(1)(b) or to require it in Clause 32(2) to make arrangements to ascertain that authorised practitioners are complying with the relevant regulations. Those powers will not enable the board to intervene.
Moreover, it should be said again that if the board is to be given the power of intervention it must be such as to enable the board not only to bind the authorised practitioner but also third parties such as banks and building societies which hold money on behalf of the authorised practitioner. None of the provisions in the Bill as currently drawn would create such powers which would be binding on third parties.
It is fair to say that in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to Clause 36(3)(d) which enables the board to make rules concerning transitional arrangements for dealing with work in hand should an authorised petitioner's authorisation be revoked or suspended. However, in practice, there is likely to be a considerable lapse of time after the board learns of an alleged dishonesty or malpractice and before the authorised practitioner's authorisation is revoked or suspended. The transitional provisions would be used only once revocation or suspension had taken effect. The missing element is the power for the board to intervene quickly and decisively where it is necessary

477
to do so in order to protect clients' money and affairs. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the powers that the Bill confers on the board are aimed to enable it to perform its duties of authorising and supervising practitioners in a way that is light and flexible as well as effective. The board has a general duty to supervise the activities of authorised practitioners and it will have to make arrangements designed to enable it to ascertain whether authorised practitioners are complying with the extensive regulations which the Lord Chancellor will make if Parliament so decides. In addition, the board may make rules concerning transitional arrangements for dealing with any work in hand should an authorised practitioner's authorisation be revoked or suspended.
As I said in Committee, I do not consider it necessary to give the board the full panoply of intervention powers which the Law Society has. That is because the board is not in a similar position to the Law Society. It is a regulatory body similar in many ways to the Building Societies Commission and the Bank of England. Those institutions provide a more appropriate model for the kind of powers that it needs to carry out its supervisory and disciplinary functions. I am therefore considering whether the board should have intervention powers similar to those provided by Section 55 of the Building Societies Act 1986 which would provide that the board may appoint one or more competent persons to investigate and report to it on the state and conduct of the business of the authorised practitioner concerned, or any particular aspect of that business. That, together with the specific statutory powers to call for an authorised practitioner's documents which I propose to provide, and the powers which are already given to the board, give the board ample powers to carry out its duty of supervising authorised practitioners in connection with their provision of conveyancing services.
A number of the bodies that we have in mind will already be subject to prudential supervision by other authorities such as the Building Societies Commission. We want a reasonably self-consistent system. Where it is a question of conferring power on the board, it is probably wise to confer those powers in the primary legislation rather than by order, as in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, although I understand the reason for his choice. In my further consideration of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the last occasion and in preparing to address the amendment. I took the view that any additional powers that we thought of providing should probably be provided in the primary legislation.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. However, I believe that the full panoply of powers of the Law Society would probably not be appropriate here. To that extent, there is something between us. On the other hand, I cannot expect the noble Lord to express a concluded view until he sees the proposal with which I shall come forward, but I am certainly working on that aspect of the matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reassuring response. I take the point that he does not consider that the Law Society's powers are a precedent in that respect, but we are nevertheless pleased that the matter is being given further consideration. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 160:
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule
("SCHEDULE

Probate
Advice from the Advisory Committee
1.—(1) Where the Lord Chancellor receives an application from a professional or other body ("the applicant") for approval under this Schedule, he shall refer the application to the Advisory Committee.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to consider the application and to give to the Lord Chancellor such advice as it considers appropriate.
Advice from the President of the Family Division
2.—(1) When the Lord Chancellor has received the Advisory Committee's advice he shall refer the application, together with that advice, to the President of the Family Division.
(2) It shall be the duty of the President to consider the application, in the light of that advice, and to give to the Lord Chancellor such advice as he considers appropriate.
(3) If the President asks the Committee to give him advice with respect to the application, it shall be the duty of the Committee to do so.
Information to be supplied by applicant
3. The applicant shall provide the Lord Chancellor, the Advisory Committee and the President with any information that they may reasonably require.
Approval by Lord Chancellor
4. Having considered the advice given to him by the Advisory Committee and by the President, the Lord Chancellor may by order approve the application if, but only if, he is satisfied that the applicant has in force suitable arrangements—

(a) for training; and

(b) for ensuring that any person to whom the applicant grants the exemption mentioned in section 44A(1) will at all times, while exempt, comply with the requirements of section 44A(2)(a) to (e).

Refusal to approve
5.—(1) If the Lord Chancellor porposes to refuse the application he shall give the applicant written notice of his proposal.
(2) The notice shall—

(a) give the Lord Chancellor's reasons for proposing to refuse the application and

(b) inform the applicant of the effect of sub-paragraph (3).

(3) Where such a notice is served, it shall be the duty of the Lord Chancellor, before determining whether to grant or refuse the application, to consider any representations duly made by the applicant.
(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), representations are duly made if—

(a) they are made to the Lord Chancellor before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served; and

(b) unless the Lord Chancellor directs in a particular case, are in writing.

(5) If the Lord Chancellor refuses the application he shall give notice to the applicant in writing.
(6) Any notice given under sub-paragraph (5) must give the Lord Chancellor's reasons for refusing the application.
Revocation of approval
6.—(1) The revocation of any approval given under this Schedule shall be by order ("a revoking order") made by the Lord Chancellor.
(2) A revoking order may only be made if—

(a) the approval body has made a written request to the Lord Chancellor asking for it to be made;

479

(b) the approved body has agreed in writing to its being made; or

(c) the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the circumstances at the time when he is considering the question are such that, had that body then been applying to become an approved body, its application would have failed.

(3) A revoking order may make such transitional and incidental provision as the Lord Chancellor considers necessary or expedient.
(4) Where a revoking order is made—

(a) the exemption granted to any person by the body with respect to whom the order is made shall cease to have effect, subject to any transitional provision made by the order; and

(b) the Lord Chancellor shall—

(i) give the body with respect to whom the order is made written notice of the making of the order;

(ii) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to bring the making of the order to the attention of members of that body; and

(iii) publish notice of the making of the order in such manner as he considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons (other than those members) who, in his opinion, are likely to be affected by the order.

Role of the Advisory Committee
7.—(I) Where the Lord Chancellor is considering whether to make a revoking order by virtue of paragraph 6(2)(c)—

(a) he shall seek the advice of the Advisory Committee; and

(b) the Advisory Committee shall carry out such investigations with respect to the approved body as it considers appropriate.

(2) Where—

(a) the Lord Chancellor has not sought the advice of the Advisory Committee under sub-paragraph (1); but

(b) the Advisory Committee has reason to believe that there may be grounds for recommending that a revoking order be made under paragraph 6(2)(c) with respect to an approved body,

it may carry out such investigations with respect to the approved body as it considers appropriate.
(3) If, on concluding any investigation carried out under sub-paragraph (1) or (2), the Advisory Committee considers that there are grounds for recommending the making of a revoking order with respect to the approved body concerned, it shall advise the Lord Chancellor accordingly.
Notice to approved body
8.—(1) If the Advisory Committee advises the Lord Chancellor that there are grounds for recommending the making of a revoking order with respect to an approved body, the Lord Chancellor shall send written notice of that advice, and of the effect of such an order, to that body.
(2) Any such notice shall invite the approved body to make representations in writing to the Lord Chancellor or such person as he may appoint for the purpose.
(3) Any such representations must be made before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which the notice was given.
Notice to members of approved body
9.—(l)Where—

(a) the Lord Chancellor has given notice to approved body under paragraph 8(1); or

(b) is proposing to make a revoking order with respect to an approved body, by virtue of paragraph 6(2)(a) or (b),

he shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to bring the matter to the attention of the members of the approved body and of any other persons who, in his opinion, are likely to be affected by any revoking order made with respect to that body.
(2) Any such steps shall include inviting those members and other persons to make representations to the Lord Chancellor or (as the case may be) to the person appointed by him for the purpose.
(3) Any such representations—

(a) shall, except in such circumstances as the Lord Chancellor may specify, be in writing; and

(b) must be made before the end of the period of three months beginning with such date as may be fixed by the Lord Chancellor.

Consideration by Lord Chancellor and President
10.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to consider—

(a) any advice given to him by the Advisory Committee under paragraph 7; and

(b) any representations duly made under paragraph 8 or 9.

(2) Having done so, the Lord Chancellor shall—

(a) send to the President a copy of any such advice and of any such representations (including a note of any oral representations); and

(b) inform the President of his view as to whether or not a revoking order with respect to the approved body concerned should be made.

(3) It shall be the duty of the President—

(a) to consider the information sent to him by the Lord Chancellor;

(b) to inform the Lord Chancellor of his own decision in the matter; and

(c) to give his reasons, in writing, for his decision.

(4) No revoking order shall be made with respect to the approved body unless the Lord Chancellor and the President agree that it should be made.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I undertook in Committee to give further thought as to whether or not the provisions relating to the authorisation of new classes of probate practitioner provided proper client protection. The amendments represent the fruit of that consideration.
First, I took the view that entitling "classes" of people to prepare papers for probate was probably not specific enough. I therefore decided that the field of those who could apply for authorisation should be narrowed to "a professional" or other body which is approved by the Lord Chancellor under the schedule.
More important, I considered that these new classes of "probate practitioner" should be required to comply with certain standards of competence and conduct. The amendments therefore provide that, before the Lord Chancellor may approve an application to be authorised to grant the right to prepare papers, he must be satisfied that the applicant has in force suitable arrangements for training, and also for ensuring that any person to whom the applicant grants the exemption from Section 23 of the Solicitors Act will comply with certain requirements as to conduct and competence. These are that the applicant should be fit and proper; he, and any person employed by him in the provision of probate services, must be suitably trained; there must be satisfactory arrangements in force at all times for covering adequately the risk of any claim made against him in connection with the provision of probate services by him, however arising; he has to be a member of, or otherwise subject to, a complaints scheme and have in force satisfactory arrangements to protect his clients in the event of his ceasing to provide probate services.
I also deemed it wise that I should seek specific power, having had advice from the advisory committee and with the agreement of the President

481
of the Family Divison, to revoke approval where I considered that the body was not meeting the requirements for authorisation. I hope that the House will accept that I am committed to maintaining proper standards of competence and conduct, and I believe that the amendments will ensure that these new classes of "probate practitioners" are suitably supervised and regulated. This is in response to the concerns expressed in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we were very pleased indeed to read the amendments tabled by the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor and we are grateful that he has moved to meet the concerns that we expressed in Committee. I understand that the Law Society is also pleased with the amendments, though it believes that they may not go far enough to meet its anxieties. However, I understand that it proposes to study the amendments further and it may well be that the other place will come back to this amendment for further consideration.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is a truly astonishing amendment—a complete new schedule brought forward at Report stage. There has been no attempt to re-commit the Bill so that it can be properly considered. Not only is it quite astonishing that a new schedule of more than three pages should be tabled at Report stage and that it is brought forward at twenty to ten at night with a sparse House, but the content of the schedule is truly astonishing.
Modern schedules in modern statutes tend to fall into two classes: those that try to teach grandmothers to suck eggs and those that try to set out administrative instructions suitable for departmental standing orders. Astonishingly, this schedule manages to do both.
I ask your Lordships to consider merely the first two paragraphs. Under the Bill, and in the eyes of my noble and learned friend, the advisory committee is central. My noble and learned friend attaches great importance to it. But do we need to stipulate that the Lord Chancellor shall consult and ask advice from an advisory committee? Yet that is the first thing that is done. Do we need to say that the advisory committee shall consider any request from the Lord Chancellor? Do we need to say that it must communicate that advice? Since it is a high-powered advisory committee can its members not be trusted to behave like sensible men constituting such a committee?
Then, having enjoined it to give its advice, can we not trust the Lord Chancellor to consider the advice? One does not attain one of the highest offices in the state—in fact the highest civil office in the state—without having proved oneself not only as a famous lawyer but as an admirable man of business. Can he not be trusted to consider the advice that is tendered to him, without a statutory authority?
Then we have the President of the Family Division, who oddly enough, is responsible for undefended probate business, the principal probate registry and all the district probate registries. Again, he is not appointed unless he has proved himself capable of transacting public business. Do we really
482
have to write into a statute that he must consider any communication on the subject from the Lord Chancellor? Do we really need to say that he must answer the letter in writing? Do we need to say that the Lord Chancellor must then consider what he has received from the President of the Family Division?
At this time of night, with the schedule not recommitted, of course it would be absurd to divide against it. It is brought up in an empty House at the time of night that I have indicated. No doubt the Government business managers have learned a lesson from what happened on Tuesday. I do not doubt that there is a silent and deaf majority faithfully assembled by the noble Lord the Chief Whip ready to vote down any attempt to defeat the schedule. However, one cannot let it go by without pointing out how absurd, how wrong it is, to swell a statute book with such rubbish.
A short time ago we had a debate on the subject of the swelling statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, drew attention to the way in which it has expanded. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew similar attention in relation to the volumes of statutory instruments. Shall we really do nothing to try to halt the swelling by introducing completely flatulent and unnecessary legislation—the volumes of the statute book that have to be typed out, printed, read, and every stage of draft approved, at enormous expense? In the glad, glorious morning of Thatcherdom, economy was one of the considerations. Is it not time that that was considered again; and considered, incidentally, in the sphere of preparation of legislation?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for uttering a word, since I had not heard much of his moving of the amendment. However, having heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I feel bound to make three comments.
First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was himself the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division which preceded the Family Division. He therefore has very good reason for knowing what he is talking about.
Secondly—I am glad to see that my noble friend the Chief Whip is within hearing—in your Lordships' House we do not, as a matter of routine, as is done in another place, have the system of recommittal at or before Report stage of matters of substance which were not before the House before the Report stage. Essentially this matter would have been suitable for recommital.
Thirdly, at paragraph 125 of the schedule we reach a position where, after the various pieces of machinery have been covered, the Lord Chancellor is in the position of overruling consent given by the president of the Family Division. The public regards the administration of the system of justice as being primarily the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. However, the public does not expect to see any disagreement between the Lord Chancellor and the heads of divisions of the High Court publicly expressed in a way which is provided for by statute.

483
It is most unusual and it is a feature of the schedule which should arouse your Lordships' curiosity.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that the last thing which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wants is a defence from this Dispatch Box provided by me. He does not need it and, for all I know, it may embarrass him. However, I wish to answer the points that have been raised. The time of night has not diminished the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, nor the power to speak in his usual forthright way.
During the Committee stage I tried to plead with the noble and learned Lord—if that is not putting it too high—to deal with probate matters in the same way as he dealt with conveyancing matters in order to ensure that the public was properly protected. I pointed out to him most respectfully that possibly the public needed a little more protection in the administration of estates than would normally be required in conveyancing matters. It needs protection in both, and I made that point.
If those points are raised in Committee it is a little extraordinary to find that there is criticism of the noble and learned Lord, who listened to what was said and who has produced an answer in a speedy but nevertheless efficient way. However, as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, it may be that certain amendments must be tabled in another place. If on Report a concession is made to what was said in Committee it is hardly a matter for complaint. In sheer fairness I say that it is not a case of the Government coming forward with something that should have been thought of a long time ago but was not.
It is only fair to say that we have talked many times in this House about the value of judicial review. In the normal case that is possible only where the citizen can point out to the court that a Minister has not carried out the machinery of consultation and of considering advice clearly imposed upon him by statute. If one gave arbitrary rights to Ministers, even to great Lord Chancellors, on the basis that they are capable administrative men, fine lawyers and are people to be trusted, the first complaint would be that this was giving to Ministers powers that nobody should give them.
When you put carefully into a statute that there must be consultation and that that consultation must be considered, the citizen has a right to say, "Oh, statute, Parliament has imposed a procedure which has not been carried out and therefore I, the citizen, shall ask for judicial review and I shall ask for this matter to be considered in accordance with the regulation of statute". I thought it only fair that I should make those remarks.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, how can anybody know whether the Lord Chancellor has considered the advice tendered to him?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I explained, this amendment was brought forward in order to seek to satisfy the matters raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I have sought to set
484
out a procedure under which an order would be made by the Lord Chancellor, which of course is a statutory instrument requiring parliamentary procedure.
I have sought to set out a reasonable procedure for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, explained. I have sought to do that in as clear a manner as possible. I believe that it is advantageous to set out those matters so that, when an application comes in, it is dealt with fairly and, if more than one application comes in, they are dealt with on the same basis.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has unique experience in the field of probate, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, as the president of the division as it was in his day which has now become the Family Division. It appears to me to be right that the judge who should have a concern and responsibility for those matters should be the president of the Family Division. The object of the arrangement is that Parliament will be able to tell what advice the president should give. This is a perfectly open matter and I believe that it is right that it should be done in that way.
Obviously there are situations in which the Lord Chancellor consults the judges and the matters are between him and the judges. However, there are other areas and other parts of this Bill where it was felt, in the light of the consultation which preceded, that the views of the judges should be made clear and distinct from those of the Lord Chancellor.
Therefore, in answer to a request, this is an attempt to produce a fair procedure with a more elaborate protection for the public in the field of probate than had been originally proposed. I believe that one of the great advantages of parliamentary procedure is that the proposals which the Government make in Bills should be developed in the light of the discussion in Parliament. I have benefited, and I am sure that this Bill has benefited, a great deal from the contributions which your Lordships have made. I have sought to respond to those contributions and this is an example where I have sought to respond to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I have also sought to respond to contributions from my noble friend Lord Renton. I have responded to contributions from my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and I expect to do so again. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree to accept this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, does he not agree that, when his admirable response involves tabling a new schedule which is four pages long, that should be the subject of recommittal, which is possible within our procedure although very rarely used, rather than being submitted on Report, subject to the very strict rules which we then have for discussion?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that this is an appropriate way to deal with the matter and the schedule is very much along the lines of the sort of procedure which has been suggested in relation to the main provisions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Preparation of papers for probate etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 34, line 19, at end insert—
("(bb) the Public Trustee;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to include the Public Trustee in the list of those who may prepare, for reward, applications on which to found or oppose a grant of probate or letters of administration.
I believe the House will accept that the Public Trustee is a fit and proper person to carry out this work. Regarding a complaints mechanism, as the Public Trust Office is under the ministerial responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, complaints about probate services can be directed to him. Furthermore, as the Public Trustee is listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 the Parliamentary Commissioner can investigate complaints about the Public Trustee's probate services. In these circumstances it seems to me that he can be treated in the same way as barristers and duly certificated notaries public; and I do not propose that he should be a member of or subject to a complaints scheme as specified in subsection (2)(2A). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 34, line 22, leave out ("operate") and insert—("carry on").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 152. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 34, line 35, after ("subsidiary") insert—
("(as defined by section 736(1) of the Companies Act 1985)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment and it defines "subsidiary", for the purposes of this clause, in the terms of Section 736 of the Companies Act 1985, as replaced by Section 144(1) of the Companies Act 1989. 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. 164:
Page 34, line 39, leave out ("which").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, unless my noble and learned friend would like me to move this amendment with a view to its immediate acceptance I propose not to move it but to leave it for discussion. Perhaps he will indicate whether he would like me to move the amendment or leave the matter to be discussed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I should be grateful if he left the amendment for discussion. I have difficulty in understanding precisely its effect, so if my noble and learned friend is willing I would appreciate its being left to form part of the discussion we intend to have.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In those circumstances I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 34, leave out lines 40 to 44.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 165 leaves out words which are referred to in Amendment No. 168. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 160, but I should like to draw attention to that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 35, line 7, at end insert ("with respect to matters relating to such complaints").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to clarify subsection (l)(2A)(b). It was intended that the Lord Chancellor's regulation-making powers in this subsection should relate only to a complaints scheme. It was not intended to provide a general regulation-making power. Such a power is not necessary as Amendment No. 169 sets out the standards of conduct and competence which probate practitioners will be expected to meet. It appeared from the discussion in Committee that this limitation was not clear from the subsection as drafted, and I hope that the amendment now emphasises that the regulations may be made only in respect of the complaints scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 35, leave out lines 8 to 18.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 167 also has an impact on Amendment No. 168 and will require it to be moved in a different place from that indicated in the Mashalled List. I have already spoken to Amendment No. 167 with Amendment No. 160. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 35, line 12, at end insert—
("(2C) Regulations made under subsection (2A) shall make such provisions as the Lord Chancellor considers expedient with a view to securing—

(a) that—

(i) any body falling within paragraph (c)—(f) of subsection (2); or

(ii) any person falling within a class of person prescribed by order made under paragraph (g) of subsection (2)

who or which provides probate services maintains satisfactory standards of competence and conduct in connection with the provision by them of probate services; and

(b) that the interests of their clients and any beneficiaries entitled under the estate are satisfactorily protected.

(2D) The regulations shall, in particular, make provision—

(a) designed to ensure that bodies and persons providing probate services have satisfactory arrangements at all times in force for covering adequately the risk of any claim made against them in connection with the provision of probate services, however arising;

487

(b) designed to ensure that bodies and persons providing probate services are members of a compensation scheme for compensating persons who have suffered loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of such bodies or persons or their officers or employees in connection with the provision of probate services;

(c) designed to provide for the efficient administration of estates and to avoid unnecessary delays;

(d) as to the supervision, by persons with such qualifications as may be prescribed, of probate services;

(e) as to the terms and conditions on which bodies and persons providing probate services may provide such services;

(f) designed to avoid conflict of interests; and

(g) as to the handling by bodies and persons providing probate services of their clients' money.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wondered what was going to happen to my amendment and I uttered a little prayer that someone would say that it was out of order in which case I would put it down for the next Report day. I can take this very quickly. I believe the House will agree that it is sensible to have a protective procedure for the public which is roughly similar, though there may have to be differences, to that dealing with probate and conveyancing matters. I said a few minutes ago, repeating what I said in Committee, that maybe the public needs even more protection over the administration of estates than in respect of most conveyancing transactions. One thinks in terms of dishonesty, negligence, delay or incompetence in relation to such matters. I have studied the new clause tabled by the noble and learned Lord. I have tried to compare it with Clause 37 which contains the detailed regulation-making power concerning conveyancing matters. I have made some observations about the possible limitations of that clause. I note that clear regulation-making power, and my proviso.
When one looks at the regulation-making power in regard to the probate services, I do not find it at all clear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could or could not include in those regulations. Perhaps I may give an example. The complaints scheme is given no statutory power. As I see it—and those advising me are of the same view—as the clause now stands it is unlikely that those responsible for the scheme would have the power to require information and documents relevant to any investigation to be furnished to them or the payment of compensation by the provider of probate services.
Schedule 7 was introduced by the noble and learned Lord at the Committee stage. It equipped the conveyancing ombudsman with these specific powers. There is no logic in failing to equip the probate service's complaints scheme with analogous powers. It is for that reason that the amendment seeks to give the regulation-making power to the noble and learned Lord. It would seem to run in parallel with that relating to conveyancing services. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I must first explain that I believe this amendment to be slightly misdirected. The regulations in subsection (2A) were intended to relate to a complaints scheme,
488
as has been made clear by my Amendment No. 166. That said, I do not believe that it is necessary or indeed appropriate to give the Lord Chancellor a general regulation-making power. I think it would help if I first emphasise that the area which we are opening up is the preparation of applications for grants of representation in probate. The administration of estates is not subject to a prohibition on who may undertake this work. It is currently done by banks, insurance companies, other trust corporations; indeed anyone may administer an estate for reward. I therefore do not consider it necessary to make provisions in the terms of this amendment in relation to such a small monopoly area as is the probate area. I certainly do not believe, and it would be contrary to general government policy, in introducing regulation where previously no regulation existed.
As I said when moving Amendment No. 60, I am committed to ensuring that the public has proper protection. It is for this reason that I decided that all probate practitioners, other than solicitors, barristers, notaries and the Public Trustee, should be subject to, or a member of, a suitable complaints scheme. This scheme is likely to require that there should be an ombudsman who will have powers to compensate clients of probate practitioners. Banks, building societies and insurance companies are all presently subject to prudential supervision by their appropriate regulatory bodies and I can see no benefit in adding another further unnecessary layer of regulation.
So far as concerns those new approved bodies, I have set out on the face of the statute certain requirements as to conduct and competence with which the new probate practitioners will be required to comply. These relate to a "fit and proper" test, training arrangements for compensating clients in respect of claims made in connection with probate, and satisfactory arrangements to protect clients in the event of ceasing to provide probate business. In addition, these new probate practitioners will also have to belong to a suitable complaints scheme. The Lord Chancellor will not be able to approve a body unless he is satisfied, after advice from the advisory committee and consultation with the President of the Family Division, that it has in force suitable arrangements for training and enforcing compliance with these competence and conduct requirements.
I consider that the proposals in my amendment provide satisfactory consumer protection in respect of the preparation of applications while not imposing unnecessary restrictions on those who already do trustee work, or those entering the market who will be required to be suitably trained and subject to regulation by their "approved body". I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will consider that the purpose behind the amendment, so far as it is necessary and directed to the probate aspect, has been served by what I have done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall obviously have to consult with those advising me on this matter. In the meantime, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 169:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Preparation of probate papers etc:
exemption from section 23(1) of Solicitors Act 1974
—(1) The provisions of section 23(1) of the Solicitors Actl974 (preparation of papers for probate etc. by unqualified persons) shall not apply to any person to whom exemption from those provisions is granted by an approved body.
(2) An approved body may only grant such an exemption to a person who is one of its members and who satisfies it—

(a) that his business is, and is likely to continue to be, carried on by fit and proper persons or, in the case of an individual, that he is a fit and proper person;

(b) that he, and any person employed by him in the provision of probate services, is suitably trained;

(c) that satisfactory arrangements will at all times be in force for covering adequately the risk of any claim made against him in connection with the provision of probate services by him, however arising;

(d) that he is a member of, or otherwise subject to, a scheme which—

(i) has been established (whether or not exclusively) for the purpose of dealing with complaints about the provision of probate services; and

(ii) complies with such requirements as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor with respect to matters relating to such complaints; and

(e) that he has in force satisfactory arrangements to protect his clients in the event of his ceasing to provide probate services.

(3) In this section "approved body" means a professional or other body which is approved by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule (Probate).
(4) The approval of any body under Schedule (Probate) may be revoked under that Schedule.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 160. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have only one queston. Subsections (3) and (4) refer to the "Schedule (Probate)". I cannot see where the Schedule (Probate) is properly established in the body of the statute. It may be something that my noble and learned friend can answer immediately, or it may be something on which he would wish to consult with the draftsman.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the answer to my noble and learned friend's question is that the only purpose of the schedule is to say how a body becomes an approved body. Subsection (3) says:
"In this section 'approved body' means a professional or other body which is approved by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule (Probate)".
Subsection (4) says:
"The approval of any body under Schedule (Probate) may be revoked under that Schedule".
That is the only effect the schedule needs to have, and that the way in which it has been done.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I am afraid I did not make my meaning clear. A schedule is normally invoked by a provision in the statute itself. At the side of the clause there is a reference to the subsection of the Act which does it. It was to that aspect I was drawing attention.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it was to that aspect that I was seeking to give the answer. The
490
effect of the schedule is to describe an approved body. That is what subsection (3) of the clause does. It says:
"In this section 'approved body' means a professional or other body which is approved by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule (Probate)."
That is the only statutory effect the schedule needs to have. It tells us what is an approved body. That is the way it has been dealt with.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Conditional fee agreements]:
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 36, line 3, after ("agreement") insert ("in writing").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendment No. 170 and speak to Amendment No 171.
At Committee state I said I would like to consider the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, to require conditional fee agreements to be in writing, and to empower the Lord Chancellor to prescribe information which such agreements should contain. I believe my amendments achieve these purposes. Your Lordships will see that the second of the two amendments provides for the prescribing of requirements rather than information. While the former includes the latter, it also seemed wise on reflection to include the possibility of prescribing, for example, how conditional fee agreements should define success in the client's action. I believe both amendments to be real, if not major, improvements to the clause, and I commend them to your Lordships.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree that the first of my noble and learned friend's amendments, that the conditional fee agreement should be in writing, is certainly an improvement; but when he says that the Lord Chancellor should be able to prescribe various requirements, unspecified, in this new and highly controversial departure from the previous practice and etiquette of the Bar in England and Wales, I must say that I do not find his second amendment so welcome.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could give us some idea of the kind of requirements which he had in mind when he tabled the amendment. After all, we have in the clause as it stands a certain amount of statutory indication as to what the agreement could or should contain or not contain. Now, in this highly controversial matter we are adding a factor of uncertainty which, speaking for myself, I do not welcome. But I should like to hear what my noble and learned friend has to say about it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may add a sentence or two. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, put his finger on a good description of this fee when he said it was highly controversial. None of us quite knows how it is going to work. I should have thought that when one has something which is highly controversial, when one needs to see how it works out and how it ought to be regulated—indeed, how it may have to be stopped—the requirement is

491
for flexibility, to give this power to make regulations from time time to condition the fee, to limit the rights or to extend them in some way. I should have thought this was a proper amendment. We support it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I brought these amendments forward as a result of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Renton approves of the first one.
So far as the second one is concerned, with respect I think the fact that the matter is somewhat controversial is a very good reason for giving the Lord Chancellor power to make additional requirements if that seems to be necessary. It was in that spirit that I decided that it would be wise to accept the principle of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking's amendment. I can see that it could do good to have this power, but I cannot see how it could do harm. The requirements would be additional to the requirements in the statute and, to that extent, might be able to meet elements of doubt that my noble friend had about the matter. It was on that principle that I brought the matter forward. If the noble Lord thinks it is adding a damage to the clause I should be glad to know on what basis. On the contrary, it seems to me to provide a possible defence against any difficulty which may emerge in a situation which my noble friend describes as controversial.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 36, line 8, after ("circumstances") insert—
("(bb) complies with such requirements (if any) as may be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I hope that I have assured my noble friend about the matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 172:
Page 36, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2A) A conditional fee agreement shall be unenforceable so far as it provides for the amount of any fees to which it applies to be increased above the amount which would be payable if it were not a conditional fee agreement.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the new contingency fee. We spent two hours on the subject on the sixth day (the last day) of the Committee stage debate. It is now approaching 10.30 p.m. The House is virtually empty. It would be inappropriate to address the House at any length. It would be even more inappropriate for me to seek to divide the House on an issue as important as this. I do not therefore propose to move the amendment. I shall return to it on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 36, line 22, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
("(5) Any such order shall prescribe the maximum permitted percentage for each description of specified proceedings.
(6) An agreement which falls within subsection (2) shall be unenforceable if, at the time when it is entered into, the percentage specified in the agreement exceeds the prescribed maximum permitted percentage for the description of proceedings to which it relates.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is intended, in the light of the discussions that we have had, to improve the clause. Subsection (5) of the clause as drafted empowers the Lord Chancellor to prescribe maximum permitted percentages by which the lawyer's fee under a conditional fee agreement may be increased.
Subsection (2) requires any increase to be stated in the agreement. Since the power in subsection (5) is permissive, it might be argued that where no maximum has been prescribed, it is left open to the lawyer to agree an unlimited increase and that the agreement would then be rendered enforceable by subsection (3). In fact, the Lord Chancellor could effectively prevent any such development by prescribing a maximum percentage increase for every category of specified proceedings; nevertheless, I think it right to put the matter beyond doubt, by substituting for subsection (5) an absolute requirement that wherever a conditional fee agreement is to be enforceable, there must be a maximum permitted percentage increase.
The amendment to subsection (6) is purely consequential, removing the impression, which might otherwise become misleading, that an increase might be permitted where no maximum had been laid down. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder how the noble and learned Lord thinks that the amendment could, in practice, be carried out. I would understand it completely if the profession were subject to a rate card which said precisely how much a client would be charged. I could understand it if there were no such thing as an agreement between solicitor and client as to the fees that should be charged. I could understand it if it were a rule, which it certainly is not, that all clients should be charged on precisely the same basis—the wealthy the same as those who are fairly comfortably placed, and the fairly comfortably placed in the same way as the poor client. All that I could understand if one were thinking in terms of an order which laid down a percentage as a maximum; but, bearing in mind the way in which the profession works, I do not see, with respect, how the provision has any practicability at all. If I have erred, I know that the noble and learned Lord will deal with me gently. However at the moment I do not see how this can be put in a statute because as I see it the provision has no practical outcome at all.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding is that the clause already in the Bill allows a percentage increase on the fee that would otherwise be payable, assuming that there were no conditional fee agreement attached to it. What was in the Bill

493
allowed a maximum permitted percentage. I wish to be clear that no conditional fee agreement shall be enforceable unless it is within that category. In other words, if no additional fee is allowed, the agreement is unenforceable if an additional fee or additional percentage is stipulated for. I hope that I have made that clear to the noble Lord. A stipulation is allowed for, for an additional fee, but a maximum percentage is allowed for it. I indicated that I regarded it as likely that it would be small, and not a big percentage uplift.
In this amendment I provide that:
"Any such order shall prescribe the maximum permitted percentage for each description of specified proceedings".
In other words every specified proceeding must have a maximum attached to it. The second point that I provide in the amendment is that:
"an agreement … shall be unenforceable if, at the time when it is entered into, the percentage specified in the agreement",
is more than the permitted maximum. In other words it makes absolutely clear that the permitted maximum cannot be exceeded in any case and still retain the enforceability of the agreement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I understand that. It may well be that I ought to have raised this matter at Committee stage. I am anxious that before the Bill leaves the House everybody is apprised of the fact that we have allowed the Bill to go from this place in an orderly and practical way. If every bill of costs of a solicitor is taxed, it will impose a terrific burden upon the taxing office of the court, quite apart from imposing hardship upon practitioners who may have to wait a long time before they know what fee is payable by the client. What beats me at the moment is this. A fee agreement may presumably say, "Because I have entered into an arrangement with you, the client, to act for you on this matter and it is upon the conditional fee basis, if you are successful I am to be paid a sum which is equivalent to the amount of costs that I would normally have received, plus x per cent.".
I just do not know how one regulates the situation from there. Comes the day when the client is successful. All he has to do, unless every bill is taxed, is presumably to say, "Well, let me see, I would have charged you normally £1,500". He has to do this at the end of the day, not at the beginning. "My agreement says that I am entitled to charge you a percentage over and above that". The poor client does not know whether the £1,500 is a just fee or an unjust fee unless he taxes. Normally the relationship of solicitor and client is such that if there is no percentage arrangement and limit, the client agrees the fee as being reasonable. Only in very rare cases is it taxed. But how would one know whether the law was being complied with? I am not talking, I hope, about the average practitioner. All a practitioner has to do and may do is to put an outlandish sum in regard to what he says he would normally have charged and then obtain an excess merely by saying that he has complied with the maximum percentage and all he is going to do is to add x per cent, to that. I do not know how anyone will
494
regulate this matter—that is my difficulty—unless every conceivable bill is taxed to see whether the solicitor has properly complied with the law; namely, that he has in fact charged only the proper charge that he would have made theoretically if this agreement had not existed, and then added a percentage to it. That is my difficulty. I apologise if I should have raised this matter in Committee when the debate took place.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend replies I must intervene as I shall not be able to address your Lordships later. I now rise to make the rather simpler point that I was about to make when I wanted the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to get in before me. First, I am opposed to there being any kind of uplift percentage increase. Secondly, although it is not stated in the clause, I assume that this means a percentage increase over what would otherwise be scale fees as costs on taxation. But in any event I think that if there is to be an uplift, the maximum permitted percentage should of course be limited, if necessary by order, as the amendment of my noble and learned friend indicates. Therefore, I should have thought that if we are to have uplift (which I am strongly opposed to) subsection (5) is rather necessary. It follows therefore—this is the sanction to enforce subsection (5)—that if there is to be an uplift, if the uplift is exceeded it should be unenforceable, as described in the proposed subsection (6) of the amendment of my noble and learned friend. I say without prejudice to any discussion that we may have at a later stage on whether there should be a maximum permitted percentage that, if there is to be one, the proposals of my noble and learned friend ought to be accepted.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend shows every sign of asking leave to speak again, I shall make one short point that perhaps he can deal with. Why is the word "unenforceable" used in this amendment and not the word "void"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment deals with the situation that arises if the agreement is not in accordance with the prescription. As I understand the law at present, it states that a conditional fee agreement is unenforceable. Therefore I seek to maintain that state of the law in respect of any conditional fee agreement which does not comply with the requirements of the clause.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his support on these amendments, which I believe to be right. These amendments do not affect the basis of the clause except to make it clear that there will always be a specified maximum. That is without prejudice to the question of whether any uplift should be allowed at all. If an uplift is allowed it should not exceed a specified maximum in any case. If it exceeds the specified maximum the agreement is unenforceable.
So far as concerns the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, what I have in mind is that the agreement should specify that the fee is conditional

495
and may be increased over the normal fee that would have been payable had the fee not been under a conditional fee agreement. The noble Lord is right to say that in most cases it would be possible to ascertain and determine the fee without resort to taxation. The rights of the parties will be agreed between them. The solicitor may say, "The normal fee would be x. We have agreed an uplift of 5 per cent, which is applicable in the circumstances. Therefore the fee is x x 105/100". If there is a dispute about x—and I hope that disputes would be the exception—that would be determined by the taxing officer in the normal way. The solicitor would submit his account for taxation. If x was disputed, x would be determined and the percentage added. I do not see the difficulty in that.
The fee agreement could specify the fee and dispense with taxation altogether, but that would be most unusual. Normally the fee would be one that would arise in the normal course of events and it would be agreed that there should be an addition to the ordinary fee for the reasons which I explained when we dealt with the matter in Committee.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down I should like assistance in order to ascertain to what extent the client is protected. The client does not know the difference between what would result from taxation and what would result from an ordinary agreement.
In the debate my noble and learned friend was at pains to say that he was anxious that the damages which justice awarded to the successful plaintiff should come to that successful plaintiff virtually untouched. How can that be the case unless the client is given clear statutory protection so that he knows that he has, and must be told that he has, the option in every such agreement to go for taxation? It would be quite improper in such a situation for a fee to be agreed at the outset which might have little or nothing to do with the amount of work done ultimately, particularly if there is a settlement. We had a substantial debate on how the conflict might arise between the interest of the client and that of the solicitor as to whether there should be a settlement. If there is to be proper protection for a client in that highly undesirable situation, there must be some statutory obligation to inform the client that in every such agreement he is entitled to have the costs taxed, if he is so minded, before the percentage uplift—which I hope will never occur—is applied to the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not sure that that issue arises under the amendment for which I have sought your Lordships' approval. However, as I understand it, in litigation a client is always entitled to have his account taxed. I do not propose any change in that respect. All I say is that the amount that would be awarded on taxation under a conditional fee agreement could be increased by not more than the specified percentage.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked how that can work unless there is a taxation in every case.
496
The answer is that it would work in exactly the same way as in other cases in which there is no taxation; in other words, the client would accept the fee proposed under the agreement by the solicitor. If he disputes it, the remedy is by taxation. That applies as well to this as to the ordinary case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I call Amendment No. 177.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Not moved.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it may help my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale if I said that I was willing to accept his Amendment No. 177.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order or not. I thought that my noble and learned friend called Amendment No. 177 and I said, "Not moved".
Lord Renton: My Lords, on a matter of procedure, I understand that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has power to move the amendment himself, if he wishes, in order to accept it. If he does not, I shall.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble and learned friend and I are at cross-purposes. I am certainly willing to accept his amendment. I should much prefer it if he were to move it himself, but I am perfectly happy to do so.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in that case I shall move the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall be extremely glad to accept the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 37, line 5, leave out subsection (11).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Regulation of right of Scottish and Northern Ireland lawyers to practise in England and Wales]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 37, line 17, leave out from ("litigation") to end of line 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I bring forward this amendment to give effect to an undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Coleraine on the sixth day of Committee. Indeed, my amendment is identical to that which my noble friend brought forward on that occasion. Parliamentary counsel advises me that his drafting cannot be improved upon. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment and for his patience.
I gave an undertaking in the White Paper to make regulations which will ensure that United Kingdom lawyers have rights to practise in other parts of

497
the United Kingdom at least equivalent to those available to lawyers from other EC countries. The clause as drafted, however, goes further in making provisions for such cross-border practice than the EC directive did with regard to inter-state practice. That was not my original intention and I am, therefore, bringing forward this amendment to make the clause comply with the policy that I had already indicated. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend whose amendment is clearly every bit as effective as the one that I moved in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 179:
Page 37, line 27, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on this occasion I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration of the Bill on Report be adjourned.
It is most important that noble Lords should have control of the business. It is now virtually a quarter to eleven. It is not for the government business managers to fix a target—Amendment No. so-and-so—and threaten to vote down any attempt to rise earlier. Already perhaps the most important amendment on the Marshalled List—that of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner relating to contingency fees up-lift—has been withdrawn owing to the lateness of the hour.
In view of the fact that so many amendments have not been moved and have been postponed virtually until Third Reading, I do not think that we shall have much difficulty in completing the business on the third day of Report. However, since your Lordships and not the Government's business managers are in control of your business, I submit that noble Lords should say that at a quarter to eleven enough is enough.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.—(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government would have no objection at all to finishing now. I think that the House has laboured long and hard. I look at other noble Lords—at my noble and learned friend who is in charge of the Bill and whose Bill it is, at the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and at the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. They may like to say a few words. The Government would be particularly happy to accede to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggests.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps I may first put one point. I have stayed in your Lordships' House especially to thank the noble and learned Lord for Amendment No. 183. I should be disappointed not
498
to be able to express those thanks this evening. I think that we have perhaps only about two minutes more of business left.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I think that we agreed to go to Amendment No. 183. It would only take a short time to get there and it might be a good idea to finish that tonight.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is a matter for the House. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal accepted that if it were the view of the House we should adjourn now. I think the general feeling of the House is that we should go on up to Amendment No. 183. In that case, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Right of barrister to enter into contract for the provision of his services]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 38, line 3, leave out ("with his client").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this clause on the sixth day of Committee. With the agreement of the House, I hope it will be helpful if I speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 182 at the same time. The purpose of this clause is to abolish any rule of law which prevents a barrister from entering into a contract for the provision of his or her services as a barrister. During our discussion on the sixth day of Committee, my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls indicated that he thought that some doubt existed as to whether "client" in the clause as originally drafted included lay client as well as professional client. The government amendment is designed therefore to remove any question of doubt. It simplifies the provision, so that it would be clear that any rule of law preventing a barrister from entering into a contract for the provision of his services as a barrister is abolished.
As I understand the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, it seeks to restrict the ability to make contracts to making contracts with barristers' professional clients. Such an amendment defeats the object of the clause. Its purpose is to ensure that there are no rules of law preventing contracts. Clause 48(2) makes clear that it will remain open to the Bar Council to make rules which restrict a barrister's right to enter into contracts and I would argue that such rules would be the appropriate place for restricting the making of contracts to a barrister's professional clients.
The result of that is to make the arrangements completely a matter for the General Council of the Bar to regulate. That is the purpose of the clause. However, at the moment I am dealing only with Amendment No. 181. It is clear that if Amendment No. 181 is agreed to, Amendment No. 182 is pre-empted. I therefore thought it right to make clear that that would be the effect. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, to me it is absolutely unthinkable that a barrister could enter into such a

499
contract as this, which is not possible at the moment and has never been done, except with a professional client. For him to deal direct with a lay client would be absurd.
My noble and learned friend says, "Ah, but the Bar Council can ensure that. That is all right". But what are we bothering to enact if the first subsection says that there can be a contract with any client and then it is understood that the General Council of the Bar will restrict it to a professional client?
We are proposing provisions in legislation which are not necessary and only cause doubt and confusion. However, if we are to have this measure, we should make it abundantly plain by keeping the words "with his client" and adding my one word "professional" to make it clear that it is only with the professional client that any such contract could be made, if at all, and subject to what the Bar Council says.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I did not speak when the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made his proposal that the House do adjourn. I make the point completely out of order, but it seems to me that the amendment raises a matter of very considerable importance which ought to be discussed in a fuller House with people more wide awake than they are at this time. I do not know whether there is a way out of this difficulty, but I think it most unfortunate that we proceed on this matter at such a late hour in an empty House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness has said. However, with a view to further discussion, perhaps I may ask this question on Amendment No. 181. Your Lordships discussed the immunity rule earlier, I believe at Committee stage. Under the immunity rule an advocate has immunity for his performance in court. He has that immunity because he owes a supervening duty to the court and it is highly undesirable that he should be looking over his shoulder to see whether he might be criticised, litigated against, by his client. The case of Rondel v. Worsley was a warning. But that is as far as the law gives immunity. If a lawyer is advising, other than in performance in court, he has no immunity. I am not sure what is the position with regard to solicitors, but that is the position with regard to counsel.
In view of the point that the noble Baroness has made—that this matter ought properly to be considered at a more suitable hour—my question is this. Would it be possible under this amendment for any lawyer to stipulate in the contract that he should not be liable in negligence or in breach of contract? Obviously that would be subject to the control of the Bar Council. However, leaving that matter aside, would such a stipulation be possible?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I have a certain amount to say on this matter. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House can indicate whether we can defer further
500
discussion about this or whether we are now committed to going on?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am advised that one of your Lordships may propose the adjournment of this particular amendment, and then we propose the adjournment of the Report stage. But, for once, it is one of those occasions where I do not think that I can help the House very much further. I have no objection to ending now, but it is a matter for your Lordships.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to respond to the generous offer made by my noble friend the Leader of the House. I beg to move that further consideration of Amendment No. 181 be adjourned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
A message was received from the Commons that they concur in the Lords Message of Monday last.
House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  MR. DORAJ ASGOR
  MR. DORAJ ASGOR
  ARCHAEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT: GUIDANCE
  ARCHAEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT: GUIDANCE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING ACT 1989, PART VIII: IMPLEMENTATION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING ACT 1989, PART VIII: IMPLEMENTATION
  JUBILEE LINE: EASTERN EXTENSION
  JUBILEE LINE: EASTERN EXTENSION
  MOTORWAY HARD SHOULDERS; ACCIDENTS 1984/86
  MOTORWAY HARD SHOULDERS; ACCIDENTS 1984/86
  DISABLED PEOPLE: TRANSPORT
  DISABLED PEOPLE: TRANSPORT
  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: BANANA EXPORTS TO EC
  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: BANANA EXPORTS TO EC
  STUDENTS LIVING IN HALLS OF RESIDENCE
  STUDENTS LIVING IN HALLS OF RESIDENCE