Sitting of 23 January 1990

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

  UNIIED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
  Sir John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with private business first.

  BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL
  Considered.
  Amendment made.
  To be read the Third time.
  Sir John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that a number of the names of those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to ask questions of the Prime Minister have been omitted at the end of the printed list.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not in my knowledge, but I shall have the matter looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Community Care
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations concerned with community care he has met since the publication of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations concerned with community care he has met since the publication of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We regularly meet local authorities, health authorities and voluntary organisations. They all have vital roles to play in the provision of community care.
    Mr. Rogers: The Government, in their proposals, and in the answer that the Minister has just given, have rightly emphasised the part that the voluntary organisations can play in this sector. If that is the case, why do not the Government give adequate time to consult those organisations on the proposals contained in the Bill? Can
    724
    we have an assurance today that the Government will provide enough funds for voluntary organisations fully and properly to carry out their functions?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The whole spirit of the proposals, leading on from the original Griffiths report, "Community Care: Agenda for Action", has been on the basis of consultation with voluntary organisations and local authority associations. About 280 representations were made on the original report. Since my right hon. and learned Friend's statement last July, about 100 further representations have been made. Since the publication of the Bill I have been involved with local authority associations and voluntary organisations in carrying forward these important plans. We have made it clear that adequate resources will be available.
    Mr. Martlew: Had the Minister held discussions with voluntary organisations, perhaps the future role of hospices in community care would have been raised. Will she explain why hospices in Scotland are funded pound-for-pound by the Scottish Office, yet, despite repeated requests from my hon. Friends and me, the Minister steadfastly refuses to do the same for those in England and Wales? Will she explain to those involved with the Carlisle hospice appeal why they are working so hard to build a hospice in my constituency when nine miles up the road in Scotland the Government provide money? Is it not time that the Government stopped discriminating against the terminally ill in England and Wales?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman may have been drawing attention to the way in which matters have developed in Scotland. One way in which we manage matters is to have some variation between different parts of the country. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity publicly to pay tribute to the voluntary hospice movement which has been a major force for good. I draw his attention to the announcement that I made shortly before Christmas of a further £8 million for the voluntary hospice movement to be distributed by the regional health authorities. That will greatly add to the financial assistance that they already receive.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that all organisations, with the exception of the Labour party, welcome the Government's proposals for community care, which are largely in line with the Griffiths recommendations? What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Association of Directors of Social Services, particularly in respect of funding and the timetable for implementation?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The proposals offer a major opportunity to improve care in the community, and many people have long looked forward to them. The key is now to make a reality of them. We have held discussions with local authority associations on the ways in which we can work together on projects and in giving guidance and training. I reiterate that we made it clear that adequate resources will be available, taking account of demographic factors. At present, many resources are misspent, without any proper assessment of the necessity, for example, for residential care. The proposals provide an opportunity to ensure that the frail and vulnerable are well cared for in the community.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has my hon. Friend had any contact with the National Schizophrenia Fellowship.

    725
    SANE Concern or allied organisations about the over-rapid closure of pyschiatric hospitals and the placing of their former patients into the community when there are inadequate facilities, and an inadequate number of qualified persons, for looking after them? Sadly, those people are going off medication, sleeping under arches, and in some cases ending up in prison.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend draws attention, rightly and properly, to a particularly vulnerable group. There is general recognition that the great swing to remove people from psychiatric hospitals—in which many of them were quite improperly incarcerated a generation ago—needs tempering. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health has presented proposals for dealing specifically with that needy group.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Is the Minister aware that local authority social services departments are examining local plans for delivering community care? The hon. Lady will be aware of the concern expressed by many voluntary organisations that, in view of their increased responsibilities, local authorities are taking insufficient account of their views in the consultation process leading to publication of community care plans. What guidance are local authorities being given to consult voluntary organisations before publishing such plans?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Clearly, we want community care plans to be discussed with voluntary organisations and the users of services, and, above all, with carers—who have so often been overlooked and neglected in the past. We are giving local authorities precise guidance on the importance of preparing their plans properly, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the role of voluntary bodies in community care is perceived to be enormously important. We want a mixed economy of voluntary organisation, local authority, and private and independent provision. We want choice and dignity for the vulnerable.

    Psychiatric Care
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to provide psychiatric care for homeless people who need such care.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The responsibility for providing psychiatric services for people who need them rests with district health authorities and local social services authorities. However, the Department is presently exploring what practical steps might be taken to assist such people who are homeless.
    Mr. Day: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern expressed in the House and outside. Will he confirm that Ministers will not approve the closure of any hospital for the mentally ill without first demonstrating that adequate alternative facilities exist? I cite as an example the £3 million project for a mental illness unit at Manchester royal infirmary, which is to start this year.
    Mr. Freeman: I confirm my hon. Friend's remarks about the facilities at Manchester royal infirmary, which I visited recently, and which has excellent plans to meet the needs of patients from Cheadle hospital. I confirm that no
    726
    hospital for long-stay psychiatric patients will be allowed to close until the National Health Service is satisfied that proper facilities exist in the community.
    Mr. Frank Field: Although the House welcomes the Minister's last statement, does he accept that over the past 10 years, more than 40,000 long-stay patients have been dumped in the community with nowhere to go? Is he aware that many of them are homeless and are wandering the streets? While we are grateful for the Government's concern, at least as expressed in words, how much new money is being put up front?
    Mr. Freeman: There is no question but that some discharge policies by some hospitals were ill-advised by present standards. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it is of concern to the House, and to the Government, that some people are now homeless or roofless. We have outlined specific policies so that no one should be discharged from any psychiatric hospital unless a care programme is agreed for the individual. We have also made provision for the year 1991–92 for a specific mental illness grant, to be distributed through the regional health authorities, to help local authorities to improve the quality of social care in the community.
    Dame Jill Knight: The House will be pleased to learn of the sums of money that have been allocated to deal with this problem, and to know that specific instructions are being sent to local authorities to deal with the issue. How long will it take before those plans reach the point where they are helping people who have been released from hospital?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend refers to district and regional health authorities' responsibilities, and those are separate from the responsibility of the consultant and the authority in charge of the hospital. I have stressed that no patient should now be discharged without a proper care programme. By April 1991, every district health authority should have a proper care programme for all patients who have been discharged or will be discharged. We will provide additional funds for local authorities to enable them to improve the quality of social care.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Minister seen the report in The Lancet on homelessness over Christmas, which says that mentally ill people are now living:
    "like feral children…scavenging for food"?
    Is not that a bitter criticism of the Government's community care policy at a time when The Sunday Times has shown—I speak as a trustee of Crisis at Christmas—that there is massive public backing for more humane provision? Is there not now an urgent and compelling case for full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986?
    Mr. Freeman: I read the article in The Lancet, but I think that, unfortunately, it was written too early to take account of the Government's new proposals on care for the mentally ill. As for roofless people in our cities who have a history of mental illness, the Government recognise that that is a problem and hope to bring forward proposals to deal with it in due course.
    Sir William Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that mentally ill people in my constituency have been discharged from Cane Hill hospital and put in bed and breakfast accommodation by the local authorities? They

    727
    are walking the streets. It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that that will be fixed in 1991, but what will happen to them between now and then?
    Mr. Freeman: We must be careful to distinguish patients who are discharged from hospital properly, because they are psychiatrically and medically cured and have the same rights as other people. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the past discharge policies. We have given all district health authorities due notice that they must make progress within 12 months. It is not possible to reform procedures overnight. We have made substantial progress, and I shall study the example that my hon. Friend has cited and write to him.

    Stockport District Health Authority
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about funding for Stockport district health authority.
    Mr. Freeman: Stockport district health authority will benefit from the increased cash resources announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretry of State for Health on 14 December last year for the North Western region amounting to £77·8 million, representing a cash increase in resources amounting to 7·21 per cent.
    Mr. Bennett: Exactly how much will be received by Stockport, as opposed to North Western region? Is the Minister aware that since 1984 Stockport has lost £1·6 million in real terms, and is now being asked by the region to make cuts of £1·1 million? It has also lost out in capital terms, and the people of Stockport want to know why their health service is doing so badly under the present Government.
    Mr. Freeman: I do not agree that Stockport health authority is doing badly under the present Government. North Western regional health authority will shortly make allocations to all the districts, including Stockport, although they have not been announced yet. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has enabled the region to experience a real growth in resouces this year, especially when we take account of cost-improvement programmes and income generation, and I am sure that that welcome increase will be reflected in the allocation to Stockport.
    Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware of Stockport's application to have its general hospital on one site? Am I right in thinking that what should have been a first-class application has been bungled, and that Stockport should have had a share of the £300 million that is to be used for capital projects over the next three years? Will my hon. Friend come and see the position in Stockport for himself, and will he take it from me that, having done so, he will agree that the hospital should be on one site, not only to prevent inconvenience but to save money and lives?
    Mr. Freeman: Owing to sustained pressure from my hon. Friend for me to visit Stockport, I can now tell him that I shall be going there on 30 March. As for the specific project that he mentions, all is not lost. I understand that discussions are continuing between the district and the region, and that the region will have a chance to reconsider later in the year further construction at Stepping Hill hospital for 1993–94.

    Park Hospital, Liverpool
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the closure of Park hospital, Liverpool.
    Mr. Freeman: There are no firm proposals at present to close Park hospital, which is a mental illness hospital. The Liverpool health authority is considering how some of the patients at the hospital may be better cared for at the new acute unit at Broadgreen and other hospitals, and, of course, in the community.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware that Liverpool health authority is currently being lobbied by a committee consisting of women and relatives of patients and all the NHS trade unions? Is he aware that Park hospital has been declared a centre of excellence by the Mental Health Act Commission, and that £2·5 million has recently been spent on it? Selling off such a priceless asset would be a crime against humanity.
    Mr. Freeman: I have already said that there are no plans to close Park hospital. As the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends will know, a formal procedure takes place before the closure of any hospital, or indeed any significant change in the service. In the event of sustained opposition from the community health council, the proposal ultimately comes to Ministers, but in this instance, that has not happened.
    Mr. Terry Fields: Surely the Minister must come up to Liverpool, visit Park hospital and see the reality for himself. Staff have been told that four of the seven wards are to close. Some patients will be shunted to Rathbone hospital; others will be dealt with in the private sector and by charities. The least able members of society will be left to fend for themselves, and psychiatric patients will be forced to wander the streets of Liverpool. Despite the nonsense talked by the Minister about there being no diminution of care in the community, old people will clearly be treated despicably by the Government.
    Mr. Freeman: I have been to Liverpool six times in the past 12 months, but I have not been to Park hospital, and next time I go there I shall certainly consider doing so.
    No patients, elderly or otherwise, will be wandering the streets. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that those patients—and that does not mean all—who can be cared for better in the community, which may mean hostels or their own homes, should be cared for in that way; it is correct and the humanitarian way.

    British Medical Association
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I last met representatives of the British Medical Association formally on 18 October 1989 when we had a friendly and constructive discussion about the implementation of our proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients".
    Mr. Watson: Will the Secretary of State draw to the attention of the BMA the fact that in anticipation of changes in GP contracts and changes to the Bill some GPs

    729
    are already beginning to strike off their lists patients whom they regard as potentially uneconomic so that far from choice for patients being increased, some patients are losing the choice even to remain with their existing GPs? I know that the Secretary of State does not keep such information, but will he now undertake to do so in order that he can monitor any such changes in GPs' lists and the fate of those patients affected?
    Mr. Clarke: I personally have seen no evidence whatever that any such practice is taking place. If any GPs were striking off their lists elderly or chronically sick patients, they would be doing so on a mistaken interpretation of the contract. If they study the new contract for GPs and the proposals in the White Paper, they will see that there is no financial or other incentive to any GP to refuse to accept an elderly or chronically sick patient.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many patients, especially elderly people, have been frightened by comments made by some doctors which have fallen short of the level of objectivity and accuracy that one would expect from the profession? Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that no patients will be deprived of the medicines they need and that in particular, the indicative drug budgets are likely to be very helpful in encouraging doctors to prescribe well?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that we welcome the end to such campaigning over recent months. There was certainly no such suggestion at my last meeting with the BMA. It is extremely unfortunate that last summer a great deal of effort was put into concocting inventions about our proposals and then publicising them to patients. I hope that now we can put behind us some of the damage that did to doctor-patient relationships.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Secretary of State look into the case of Mrs. Jackson who arrived home from hospital to find on her doormat a letter from the Hillingdon FPC saying that she had been struck off her GP's list because she would require too many expensive night visits? Will the Secretary of State together with the BMA now monitor the growing number of so-called uneconomic patients who, because of the GP contract and the changes in the forthcoming National Health Service and Community Care Bill, are losing the right to stay with their own GPs?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly look into that case. I should be extremely grateful if the hon. Lady would pass on to me the evidence that she has to support it. I would strongly disapprove of anybody being struck off on that ground or any other. The only change that the new GPs' contract is making is that doctors who carry out their own night visits, or send a doctor from their own practice, or one who is likely to be known to the patient, will be paid three times as much for those visits as one who uses a deputising service. That encourages a welcome improvement in patient services. If the hon. Lady's allegation turns out to be true, I shall certainly investigate it most closely.

    Family Planning
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the increase in spending on family planning services over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Over the past three years for which figures are available, spending for family planning purposes in England has increased from £76·7 million in 1985–86 to £84·2 million in 1987–88. Family planning is an important preventive service which contributes to better maternal and child health and to the stability of family life.
    Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure we all welcome the increased expenditure on that most important service. Does she agree that family planning plays a vital role in health care? Do the Government intend to continue their financial support for the outstanding Margaret Pyke family planning centre in London?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I assure my hon. Friend that we continue to give priority to family planning services and that funding for the Margaret Pyke family planning centre will continue. It is a national centre of training in family planning, training something like 850 doctors and 60 nurses a year. It also does very important work in the prevention of AIDS.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister come clean and tell British women that family planning will suffer under the Bill as health authorities will have an incentive to close clinics, and women will be left with no choice other than their GPs and a much reduced service?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The key point about family planning services is that women and men should have a choice of services. Whether they are provided through the family health service, the family practitioner or the district health authority is a decision to be made locally. In recent years, many women have demonstrated that they would rather receive family planning advice from their practitioner than from family planning clinics. That must be a matter for them rather than a diktat from on high.

    General Practitioners (Budgets)
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to allow general practitioners more control over their own budgets.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently before the House provides for GP practices which volunteer to do so, and which meet the eligibility criteria, to run their own practice funds. This will give them additional freedom to decide how funds are best used in the interests of their patients and, in particular, to influence the way in which hospital treatment is provided. In December I issued a programme to all GPs in England for the scheme, inviting expressions of interest to regional health authorities. I am pleased that there has already been a very encouraging response.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that GP practices that decide to set up their own budgets will have access to up to £32,000 of the management charge? Does not this make nonsense of all the stories that we have heard about GPs having to spend more time on paperwork than with patients?
    Mr. Clarke: There will be £32,000 available to reimburse GPs for expenditure that they incur on the management of the practice budgets. They will use that money to obtain information technology, including

    731
    software, as well as the staff that they need to make sure that the budget can be run effectively without intrusion on their clinical duties.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State recognise doctors' genuine worries and patients' concerns about the changes in the Health Service? Today I received from a Mr. Bramald a letter enclosing a letter from his doctor, Dr. Durkin, stating that the change in payment for doctors means that they can no longer afford to keep on their lists people who require more active night calls and weekend calls, and saying that Mr. Bramald and his family were being given 10 days in which to find another doctor. Does this not show the problem, and will the Secretary of State take action to rectify it?
    Mr. Clarke: I understand that there are uncertainties among doctors at a time of change, but it is my experience, and that of everybody in the National Health Service, that those uncertainties are diminishing rapidly. GP practice budgets are entirely voluntary, and only GPs who want to take advantage of them will apply to do so. I think that the vast majority of eligible practices will apply.
    I will have a look at the letter from Dr. Durkin to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's account I can only say that, under the contract that the doctor has been given, he has no justification for making such statements. I suspect that he is yet another doctor who has been misled by some of the rather over-the-top campaigning that went on last summer about the contract, and that if he looks more closely at the contract he will see that it gives him no encouragement to take such steps against his patients.
    Mr. Michael Morris: As all GPs have tight budgets, and inevitably always will do, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider GP practice leaflets? GPs are not allowed to use ordnance survey maps unless, as I understand it, they negotiate directly with the Ordnance Survey. Is not this a case in which my right hon. and learned Friend should knock a few heads together and encourage direct negotiations between the Department of Health and the Ordnance Survey so that GPs may use those maps?
    Mr. Clark: GPs must have reasonably tight budgets for their premises and practice expenses, but, as my hon. Friend will know, the amount that has been spent, under this Government, on the improvement of premises and on practices has increased enormously with the huge expansion in the practice staff that GPs employ. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this problem. I understand the desire of the Ordnance Survey to protect its copyright, but I will look into the possibility of my Department's being able to help to sort out the problem.
    Mr. Kennedy: Has the Secretary of State recognised the genuine and legitimate anxiety of patients and general practitioners arising from the changes to the GP service that, in the shape of legislation and contracts, he has forced through this House?
    Can he not see that there continues to be legitimate anxiety arising from the peer audit to which GPs are subject, particularly on spending? It makes sense, from the point of view of the Department of Health, only if punitive action is likely to follow supposed or alleged overspending. The injection of that cash element between the family
    732
    doctor and the patient at the coal face of the Health Service is utter poison for what are supposed to be the principles of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is muddling a variety of aspects of general practitioners' work. The general practitioners' contract, for which a majority was obtained in the House, will reward general practitioners better than in the past for heavy workload and good performance. That is the point of the contract. The hon. Gentleman is referring to indicative budgets for drugs and prescribing costs, and we have repeatedly made it clear that every patient will be entitled to the drugs which, in the general practitioner's opinion, the patient requires. General practitioners will be subject to penalties under the contract only if they deliberately continue to overprescribe in the face of professional advice that points out their wasteful practices. That is not a serious intrusion into the care of patients.
    Mr. Boswell: Has it occurred to my right hon. and learned Friend that the minimum size for practice lists is approximately four or five times the size of the sample drawn by opinion pollsters to represent the population as a whole, so it is highly likely that practice lists will be representative? Will he assure the House that in the event of there being an unusual patient profile, the system will be sufficiently flexible to ensure that general practitioners do not lose out as a result of their introduction?
    Mr. Clarke: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The funds placed at the disposal of each practice will reflect the make up of its patient list. If general practitioners are not satisfied with the sum provided by the regional health authority, they can refuse to proceed with their application for a practice budget.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
    Mr. Freeman: We have always made it clear that implementation of the Act depended on identifying and making available the necessary resources without damage to other priority social services. We have already implemented six sections, which include imposing duties on local authorities to assess on request the needs of disabled people, while taking into account the abilities of their carers.
    Mr. Howarth: Does the Minister accept that if the consumer control provisions are to have any meaning at all, sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act should be implemented at the same time as the National Health Service and Community Care Bill?
    Mr. Freeman: It would be irresponsible to consider only the administrative costs of implementing sections 1, 2 and 3. We must also look at the underlying resource assumptions for providing the services. We shall be commencing formal consultations with local authorities

    733
    on the implications of implementing sections 1, 2 and 3, and other sections not yet implemented, within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Loyden: The Minister's answer falls short of giving satisfaction. Is he aware that 40 per cent. of local authorities are not making provision for wheelchair access into rooms and buildings from which disabled people can obtain information, including council agendas, so that they can be treated as citizens equal to non-disabled people? Is it not a disgrace that so long after the Act was passed, disabled people are still being treated by local authorities, encouraged by the Government, as second-class citizens?
    Mr. Freeman: The sections of the Act already implemented are clear on the obligations placed on local authorities. They have to provide services within their resources. In the coming financial year, 1990–91, we will provide £31 million through the rate support grant to help local authorities to provide services under the sections of the Act that we have already implemented.
    Mr. Hannam: I thank my hon. Friend for the £24 million already allocated this year for the implementation of the Act, but does he accept that if disabled people are to have a reasonable standard of care in the community they should have access to the assessment procedures and the right of appeal? Therefore, will he expedite the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3?
    Mr. Freeman: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall proceed as quickly as possible in our review of sections 1, 2 and 3. The social services inspectorate will be reporting shortly on the success so far in the implementation of the Act.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to early implementation of the sections of the Act that have not yet been implemented, and I am delighted that he is already consulting local government. Does he agree that it is important to rest on a consistent national framework so that all individuals who depend on community care have the same treatment?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with that. The report of the social services inspectorate, which I hope will be published next month, will make that point and comment on the differences in the standards of treatment and, ultimately, their elimination.
    Mr Tom Clarke: If the Government are genuinely committed to community care, is it not odd that they do not see this important Act as a framework for involving—[Interruption.]—disabled people, their carers and advocates in contributing to the formulation of policy which is important to them? Despite the Government's rhetoric, they have not lifted a finger to implement the remaining sections of the Act since April 1987.
    Is the Minister aware that that is being seen not simply as a scandal, but as one of the Government's greatest failures and most mean-minded acts of lethargy, if that is possible, in this Parliament?
    Mr. Freeman: It is not mean minded. We have implemented six sections of the Act, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I have given a commitment about the consultation procedure on the remaining three sections. I share his view that they are important. It would
    734
    be irresponsible to consider only the administrative costs of implementation and not to make sure that the underlying service provision increases. That requires real resources—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to listen to both questions and answers.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that Dorset local authorities are keen to pick up their responsibilities under the Act. Is he aware that local government councillors are unhappy about the grant given to local councils to fulfil those responsibilities? They believe that it will not be possible properly to fund implementation of the Act or the community care provisions when they come into force in 1991. Can he comment on whether funds will be transferred to the local authorities?
    Mr. Freeman: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Health said, community care provision in 1991ߝ92 will be properly funded.

    Children Act
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress being made with the implementation of the Children Act 1989.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The target date for implementation of the Children Act 1989 is October 1991. We are preparing the regulations, rules of court and guidance documents needed. Plans are also being made for a training and dissemination programme for local social services departments, the courts and other agencies.
    Mr. Davies: Why, when the Association of Directors of Social Services warned six months ago that record numbers of children are registered as at risk from abuse or neglect, have the Government chosen to delay implementation of the Act by another six months? Does the Minister realise the difficulties that social services departments have with inadequate staff, training and resources? Why do the Government preach the value of the family when they cannot find the money or the time to do something about the matter?
    Mrs. Bottomley: In identifying the serious problems of children at risk, the hon. Gentleman is naive about the implications of the Children Act 1989. It is a complex and important Act which co-ordinates the legislation dealing with the protection of children. It is extremely important to ensure that the necessary training is in place in local authorities and in the courts so that a comprehensive, integrated programme can make headway. In conjunction with other agencies we have embarked on plans to ensure that that programme is put in place as swiftly as possible and in time for implementation in 1991.

    Consultants (Training)
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision has been made by his Department to encourage the training of consultants in general management aspects of hospital activities.
    Mr. Freeman: In December last year I announced in the House the allocation of £1 million for this purpose.

    735
    Programmes of training are due to commence in April of this year for 100 consultants from seven National Health Service regions.
    Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, aside from the Government committing huge resources to patient services, consultants are playing an increasing part in the management of hospital activities and that training is essential? Does he agree that it would be wise to give general management training to nurses, whose clinical skills are often ahead of their managerial skills?
    Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly look at the question of management training for senior nurses. The Government believe that clinical freedom for doctors, which is vital, is perfectly compatible with doctors sharing more responsibility for helping to manage National Health Service resources.
    Mr. Robin Cook: While training consultants in management, will the Minister pay some attention to what the consultants are trying to tell him about the future management of their hospitals? Is the Minister aware that there have been a dozen ballots of staff on whether their hospitals should form trusts and that in ever single one the staff have voted to stay in health authority management? Is he further aware that consultants from Plymouth to Aberdeen have recorded votes of 75 per cent. against forming NHS trusts? If the Minister believes in letting local people take local decisions, why does he not try to listen to them and allow them to decide whether their hospitals should opt out?
    Mr. Freeman: The Government listen to the medical professions. There is substantial support among consultants for National Health Service trusts. On the point about consultants in management, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the resource management initiative, which is about getting doctors involved in the management of the Health Service.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Howarth: Does the Prime Minister accept that the rebel cricket tour of South Africa is most certainly a breach of the Gleneagles agreement in spirit and in letter? Does she accept the words of Sebastian Coe, who described the players involved as nothing less than mercenaries? Will the right hon. Lady make contact with those players and tell them to pack their bags and come on home?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport put the Government's views to those cricketers before they went on that tour. We had a duty to seek to persuade them not to go and we tried to persuade them not to go. However, their going is not contrary to the
    736
    Gleneagles agreement because it is a voluntary agreement. People were free to choose and to make their own decisions, and that is what they did.
    Sir Julian Ridsdale: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Julian Ridsdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how encouraged those who have been organising Expo 90 in Japan have been by the positive help that the Government have recently given to that project? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Royal Horticultural Society, the horticultural industry and the industrialists who have helped with the project will redouble their efforts to make sure that this important environmental Expo, which will be attended by 40 Asian countries, will be a great success from the British point of view?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in trying to persuade the Government to take part in the Osaka garden festival as part of Expo 90. Both Expo 90 and the garden festival are mainly for the private sector, but the Japanese have been keen that we should take part. In response to my hon. Friend, we have now agreed that there should be official British participation in the garden show. I understand from our Japanese friends that a commissioner-general is required to be in charge of the British participation in the garden show, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly be writing to my hon. Friend to offer him the post of commissioner-general.
    Mr. Kinnock: With business bankruptcies increasing and industrial output falling, would the Prime Minister say that her high interest rate policies are having the effect that she intended?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, there are always some businesses that go out of business and close down, but we have many new ones starting up. May I point out that in 1978, the last year under Labour, there were 6,000—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to answer.
    The Prime Minister: In the last year of the Labour Government, 6,000 more businesses closed than opened. In 1988, after some eight or nine years of Conservative Government, 64,000 more businesses opened than closed.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady appears to be interested in references to the past. Does she recall that under her Government there were a record number cif business failures—some 22,000—in 1984? Does she further recall that last year there were in excess of 18,000? Is she trying to break her own record?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman heard what I said. The critical test is how many more businesses open and flourish than go out of business. In Labour's last year in office—its most experienced year—some 6,000 more businesses closed than opened. In 1988, 64,000 more businesses opened than closed. In 1989 over 80,000 more

    737
    businesses opened than closed. That is a good Tory record, and it shows that the Tories are creating more jobs than ever before.
    Mr. Franks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the hallmark of a free and civilised society is the rule of law? Will she further confirm that the people who have power and authority are subject to that law and that all are equal before the law, no matter how high or how humble? Will she consult her Cabinet colleagues about the apparent assertion by the former Chief Constable of Northern Ireland that a man no longer remains innocent until proven guilty, and the apparent introduction by the chief constable of Greater Manchester of the concept of guilt by association?
    Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that no matter what happens in the rest of the world, in these isles justice and freedom from fear prevail?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, I confirm that the rule of law and equality before the law are the hallmarks of a civilised society. They form the cornerstone of our society. My hon. Friend feels especially strongly about this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already made it clear that he does not consider there to be a case for an inquiry. If Mr. Stalker has information that he thinks affects his case, he should make it available to the appropriate authorities as soon as possible. I do not understand why he has delayed doing that.
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Powell: I warn the Prime Minister that my question has nothing to do with the Labour Government. We all appreciate her sentiments about democracy, which she preaches throughout the world. Is it not time that she considered democracy within her own party? Is it not amazing that within seven or eight weeks of the beginning of this Session of Parliament she was challenged for the leadership of her party? Is it not strange that within a matter of weeks that challenger was deselected in the constituency of Clwyd, North-West?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask about matters relating to the Prime Minister's ministerial responsibility—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] Order. I repeat, the hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the Prime Minister's ministerial responsibility.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Although many small businesses support the new business rate in principle, many in Norfolk would like to see a longer phasing-in period. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a complete disaster if we adopted for small firms Labour's proposal to give back to local authorities the power to levy punitive business rates?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be disastrous for many businesses in the north if we gave back to Labour the power to levy punitive
    738
    business rates, which frightened many good businesses away from precisely the towns and cities which needed them. I understand that the north wants the transition period to be as fast as possible because it will gain some £900 million, while the south and midlands wish it to be much slower. We have to consider both. The present transition period is five years, but that is not an absolute figure and it could be extended if need be.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read in detail the speech in the House last week by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in which he pointed out that the Government had a clear obligation to treat each constituent part of the United Kingdom with parity? If she endorses that view, will she be encouraging the 35 rebels of last Thursday to do the same this Thursday when similar legislation for Scotland is debated, or will she continue to railroad through legislation which has the support of only 16 per cent. of the Scots?
    The Prime Minister: If there were parity for each region of the United Kingdom, Scotland would not do anything like as well as it does. It is treated most generously both in regional issues and in general public expenditure per head.
    Mr. Cash: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cash: Has my right hon. Friend noted from the "Newsnight" poll last week that only 15 per cent. of people want more power shifted from Westminster to Brussels? Furthermore, did she note that in his speech to the European Parliament last week Mr. Delors placed a new and positive emphasis on national parliaments? Does she agree that this is a very welcome move not only in the light of our well-tried parliamentary system in Westminster but for the other countries in eastern and western Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome each and every recognition of the part that national parliaments play in democratic accountability in the Community. I noted that in the speech, and it was very welcome. Ministers meeting in the Council of Ministers reach decisions, and they are and must remain accountable to their national parliaments. That is how proper democratic control is exercised in the Community and it must continue that way.
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Prime Minister aware that an ordinary family with a £20,000 mortgage is paying £50 a month more than it was only 18 months ago? Why is she so surprised that her policy of high interest rates leads to claims for higher wage rates?
    The Prime Minister: When it comes to wage rates the important thing is to keep an industry competitive. There is no point in taking wage costs way above those of our competitors. The hon. Member will have seen that the average increase in earnings in industry over this time last year is 9·25 per cent. He will also be aware that our unit wage costs are going up much faster than those of our

    739
    competitors. If people are concerned to keep their jobs, as I am sure they are, they must have regard to the future competitiveness of industries.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am in favour of the role of women in public and private life? Is she further aware that there is a growing demand for more women in the workplace? Does she agree that, admirable though that is, we must safeguard the institution of marriage and the bringing up of children?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. As usual, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the right point. It is vital that we safeguard the institution of family life, and undoubtedly the mother has the most important role in bringing up the children. But we also believe that she, too, must have the chance to work, possibly part time outside the home, or full time in a career, if she wishes, and we try to do our best to accommodate those wishes.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: The Prime Minister will be aware that in his last days in office, President Reagan approved legislation to compensate veterans of nuclear tests in the United States who were suffering as a result of being too close to such tests. Does the Prime Minister now agree that British veterans who suffered as a result of being present at Christmas island and elsewhere during the early tests should receive similar compensation? Will she look favourably at the private Bill initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and give Government support to that measure?
    The Prime Minister: The Government are ready to pay appropriate compensation wherever the Crown's legal liability is established and where there is firm evidence to show, on the balance of probabilities, that ex-service men have suffered ill-health as a result of exposure to radiation in the course of their duties as members of the armed forces. In the absence of any such evidence, special compensation arrangements for test veterans could not be justified.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that current legislation allows for the consideration of the award of a war pension if there is reliable evidence of reasonable doubt that harm may be regarded as attributable to service factors.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to reflect on your decision in respect of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who sought to raise the responsibility of the Prime Minister as head of the Conservative party? As the Prime Minister deliberately includes the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), in the Cabinet, she clearly has, as Prime Minister, responsibility for his activities and his conduct of those matters. As those responsibilities cover what has happened to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), should not questions to the Prime Minister about such matters be in order?
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows the rules about this, and they remain the same for both sides of the House. The Prime Minister must be asked questions within her prime ministerial responsibility, in just the same way as I disallow questions about the Leader of the Opposition's responsibilities for the Labour party. The same rules apply to both sides of the House.
Dr. Cunningham rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to challenge that.
Dr. Cunningham: No, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly not challenge what you said. I wish to be absolutely clear that in future, if Conservative Members raise matters with the Prime Minister or other Ministers about the Labour party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—you will rule them out of order before there is any reply from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's memory must be at fault; that has always been my practice.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the Act of Union requires that taxes in the United Kingdom must be the same in Scotland and in England. It would therefore be improper and constitutionally flawed to introduce a tax in Scotland that was different from a tax in England. I use the word "tax" carefully. I am not talking about the community charge; I am talking about tax. As that is so, would it be improper to use Scotland as a guinea pig for a new tax? If it would be, why is the Labour party proceeding down that road?
Mr. Speaker: By the wildest stretch of the imagination that is nothing to do with order in the Chamber. I now call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his daily point of order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, you did not seem to be able to call the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). We understand that sometimes it may be difficult for hon. Members to catch your eye, but as he was mentioned in dispatches, can you do something about this on Thursday?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) will be very grateful for that intervention. I will reflect on it.
Mr. Richard Holt: The selection of hon. Members to speak in debates, at Question Time or at other times, is very privileged. It seems to me, to many of my hon. Friends and to many outside the House that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) gets more than his fair share—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that that is not a reflection on the Chair. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Bolsover is a very regular attender—
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not rise while I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman knows that the hon. Member for Bolsover is a regular attender in the Chamber, especially at Question Time and in our debates.
Mr. Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What else is there?.
Mr. Holt: It is true that the hon. Member for Bolsover is a regular and assiduous Member of the House, and no one would seek to deny that. However, there are Conservative Members who are equally assiduous—and I am one of them. I sit here day after day, seeing favours being given to the hon. Member for Bolsover. From the way in which he is reported nationally, it is clear that he enjoys advantages that are not available to any other hon. Member.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman believes that he is deprived in any way, I must remind him that no hon. Member can expect to be called much more than about four times a year; it is a question of the arithmetic. In the previous Session, the hon. Gentleman was called no fewer than nine times.
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Eric S. Heffer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take further points on that. I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? I am not prepared to bandy arguments from the Chair with him.
Mr. Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is upset, but will he please restrain himself?
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am deeply reluctant to take further action—
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. I am very reluctant to have to take further action. I ask the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends to prevail on him.
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman rises once more, I would be very reluctant to take action which the whole House would regret. I am not prepared to hear a further point of order from him on this matter.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have raised this point of order on other occasions and I would like to raise it again [Interruption.] Will you be quiet for a minute? [Interruption.] I am trying to raise a point of order. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr. Heffer: I am trying to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and it would be a good idea, if from time to time—and this is the very point that I am raising—the House could behave itself. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr. Heffer: I have noticed in the past year or two that when hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition side of the House, raise matters which hon. Members on the Government side do not like they immediately begin to shout. I have suggested to you before, Mr. Speaker, that it is the responsibility and the duty of Mr. Speaker and of all of us who believe in democracy to explain to hon. Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, that we are not in the Reichstag—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and we are not in the old Soviet when Mr. Brezhnev was there. Is it not time—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. He is the Back Bencher of the year.
Mr. Heffer: Hon. Members, or certain of them, no longer listen to an argument. They think that the way to deal with an argument is to shout people down. It is about time that they were taught that we are a democracy and that we must continue to be a democracy. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not let us have a debate on this. The whole House agrees that we listen to each other's arguments here with respect. Very often we hear uncomfortable things or things with which we do not agree, but we listen to them with respect.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: If it is on a totally different matter, I will take Mr. Burns.
Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I please ask your advice on a very serious matter and seek your guidance on whether the issue that I wish to raise with you should be referred to a Committee of the House to consider?
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there is an organisation, which purports to be non-party political, called Hospital Alert. It is funded partly by Labour-controlled Hounslow council and partly by the SLD-controlled Richmond and Twickenham council.
Last Thursday night, when I returned to the House befor the vote at 10 o'clock, I found a House of Commons paid envelope on the Members' message board in the Members' Lobby which had come by the Members' internal postal service. Inside the envelope, which contained no identification of the sender, were a number of forms that Hospital Alert is using throughout the country;
744
it gets constituents to sign them and then send them to their Members of Parliament for a reply, or whatever hon. Members wish to do. These were all put together. The senders were then using House of Commons envelopes and the House of Commons internal postal system, at the taxpayers' expense, to distribute them.
This is a matter that should be looked into. A stop should be put to it, as the organisers plan to have throughout February a national campaign to lobby hon. Members. I hope that it will not be done through the House of Commons postal service.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows the regulations about the use—
Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: No, there can be no argument about this. The whole House knows that it is not in order to use House of Commons envelopes for circulars. If that is what the hon. Gentleman alleges, the matter should be reported to the Services Committee, which will deal with it.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If on reflection you take the wider action suggested by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in his allegation, will you include the use by private companies of the banqueting facilities in the basement to lobby Members of Parliament and have influence on this place? I and many people outside think that that is a far worse crime than the one alleged.
Mr. Speaker: That is also a matter for the Services Committee.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have a very important debate today on the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. A great many hon. Members wish to participate. It will take time out of the debate if we have further points of order now, particularly if they are points of order that are not matters for the Chair. If there is anything that is genuinely a matter for the Chair, I shall endeavour to deal with it.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chair is responsible for the use of language in this House. Earlier the whole House heard the Prime Minister refer to Scotland as a region. Scotland is not a region but a nation. The insult will be noted in Scotland. What influence can you exert on the Prime Minister to get her to use the correct terminology?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the answers that are given.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We on the Conservative Benches support the Chair, as well you know, no matter from which side the current Speaker comes. Unfortunately, during your term of office you have had to ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber and you have had to preside over their dismissal. Can you confirm that you have never had to order the removal of a Conservative Member from the House or to ask a Conservative Member to leave?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman does not need to ask questions like that. He knows the answer perfectly well.
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you care to reflect on the reply that you gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)? We have a developing constitution. While theoretically the office of Prime Minister is bestowed by the monarch, in practice there is an electoral process; therefore, the Prime Minister is the choice of the governing party. Perhaps I am reading too much into your answer, but surely you are not saying that the electoral process whereby that comes about is not subject to proper questioning in the House.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Cryer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is a difference. A point was raised about Conservative party organisation. We have heard that that, of course, is not a matter for the Prime Minister. But the chairman of the Conservative party is appointed by the Prime Minister and holds an office paid by the taxpayer. That is not the case with the Labour party. The Labour party chairman is elected and has no place in a Labour Government, nor any position necessarily within Parliament. So the two positions are different—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is giving an explanation. The question that was asked by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was not about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; it was about an individual Member, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). That was why I ruled the question out of order, as I would have ruled out, and have frequently done, as the whole House knows, questions touching upon the responsibilities of the Leader of the Opposition as leader of his party.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Further points of order will take a great deal of time out of the debate. I am bound to have regard for hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate rather than at this time.
Sir Hal Miller: Further to the last point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind those who have forgotten that Conservative associations are independent of the Conservative party organisation and make their own decisions?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That should be raised as a private Member's motion on party organisation.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. I have to have regard for the subsequent business. We are under heavy pressure.

BILL PRESENTED

  LOCATION OF PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. George Howarth, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and Mr.
  746
  Brian Sedgemore, presented a Bill to provide for the licensing of premises for the location of pornographic material; to create an offence of locating pornography on unlicensed premises; to extend the duties of Trading Standards Officers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (England) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 37) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Wales) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 43) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 9728/89 on veterinary rules be referred to a Standing Committee on European Documents.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Points of Order
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take points of order on matters that we have already discussed relating to party organisations.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Speaker: What is it?
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the pantomime that we had immediately after Prime Minister's questions, will you advise the House on whether that was televised? If it was, what deductions do you draw, and what lessons can be learnt from it?
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that all our proceedings are televised.
Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) alleged just now that the chairman of the Conservative party was paid as a Minister of the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a continuation of points of order. I have already told the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to choose this as a subject for a private Member's motion and debate it as such.

Protection of Badger Sets
3.52 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the protection of badger setts; and for connected purposes.
Let us talk about something important like badger setts—[Interruption.] While hon. Members scurry off to their burrows, I shall delay my speech for a moment.
I get quite depressed at the extent that I have to raise issues in the House and draw attention to the number of times that animals are subjected to cruelty and exploitation. During the past few weeks alone I have had cause to raise the issue of the slaughter of whales by the Japanese in the Antarctic and the threat to the existence of African elephants—a threat which has become much more serious as a result of the Government's recent announcement to allow the 600 tonnes of elephant ivory in Hong Kong to come on to the world market. I recently raised the issue of the use by the Japanese, Taiwanese and South Korean fishing ships of enormous drift nets in the oceans which entrap porpoises, whales and diving birds.
It seems that all around us are greedy, selfish and venal humans exploiting, often to the very edge of extinction, creatures which belong to us all. There seem to be no depths of depravity to which man's cruelty towards other life forms is not prepared to go.
Lest any hon. Member believes that I should better direct the energy of my concern for animals towards humans, I remind him that, in my opinion, the two are entirely compatible. Human and animal rights are merely points on the same continuum. Those who are capable of being cruel to animals are equally capable of being cruel to humans. Respect for life should embrace all life, both human and animal, because the two are inextricably linked.
My concern today is for badger setts. One of the presents that I bought my wife for Christmas was the BBC's tapes of Alan Bennett reading extracts from Kenneth Grahame's wonderful book, "The Wind in the Willows". That tremendously good story was enchantingly told by Alan Bennett. I am sure that all of us who listened to it found it that much more interesting and enchanting because, in the recess, it occupied the slot normally taken up by "Yesterday In Parliament."
Who would not exchange points of order, Prime Minister's Question Time and reporting late-night statutory instruments for hearing about the adventures of Mole, Ratty and Badger. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is now deep in conversation. It will penetrate to him in a moment that I am speaking about him, because anyone who sees the hon. Member for Crawley here on a Friday in his weekend clothes cannot but think instantly of Mr. Toad. The hon. Member for Crawley will have to read Hansard tomorrow to learn of the point that I was making, because I am unable to penetrate the depth of his subconscious.
To judge from the enormous popularity of "The Wind in the Willows"—and I am glad that Mr. Toad is now with us again—anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the entire country loves badgers. The vast majority of people do, but there are sick and perverted members of the population who apparently take pleasure in torturing,
748
maiming and killing badgers for what they call sport. My Bill seeks to extend the protection given under the Badgers Act 1973 to setts.
Unlike many other animals, the badger is not an endangered species. It is estimated that the current badger population is 250,000 at most. It is not a matter of conservation but of protecting the badger against cruelty. There is a great deal of exploitation and baiting of badgers in Yorkshire, and concern is being expressed that that practice is extending to the south. I assure any right hon. or hon. Member who imagines that the people of Newham know little about badger setts that within easy walking distance of my own constituency, one can inspect many excellent setts in Epping forest, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
It is difficult to comprehend how a person can take pleasure from digging out badgers and killing them with a spade or from baiting them with dogs. To me, such people are sick beyond rational appeal, and it is essential that the House ensures that they are treated accordingly.
If I obtain leave to introduce my Bill, I shall seek to give absolute protection to badger setts. Anyone found digging a sett or in the vicinity of one, or having the clear intention or the wherewithal to do so, would on conviction be fined up to £2,000 and would have confiscated all equipment, animals and vehicles in his possession at the time of the offence.
The Bill would also forbid foxhunters from stopping up badger setts. I know that that would gain the interest of the hon. Member for Crawley. Although the badger is currently protected, anyone found digging a sett can deploy the defence that they were merely digging for a fox or were trying to retrieve a lost dog. Since 1985, the onus of proof has shifted from the prosecution to the defence, and cases can be lengthy, complicated and expensive. My Bill seeks to simplify the law and to make it more consistent, by giving badgers and setts the same protection. We are concerned about not only diggers and baiters but developers, who flatten the badgers' homes and bury them alive.
Of the estimated 250,000 badger population, some 9,000 to 10,000 are killed every year because of the venal activities of diggers and baiters. May setts are hundreds of years old, and they desperately merit and deserve our protection. It is monstrous that people should be allowed to dig up setts, disturb or destroy them.
To many of us, the badger symbolises the countryside, and we have, rightly, protected that wonderful and mysterious creature. We must extend that protection to the badger's home, and that is why I seek to introduce my Bill, which I commend to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Peter Hardy, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Dr. David Clark, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Frank Cook, Mrs. Ann Clywd, M r. Ron Davies, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Harry Cohen, M r. Alan Meale and Mr. Bob Cryer.

Protection of Badger Sets
  PROTECTION OF BADGER SETTS
  Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of badger setts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 February and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

Autumn Statement
3.59 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Autumn Statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15th November 1989; welcomes the continuing reduction in the share of national income taken by public expenditure, and the provision of substantial extra resources for priority areas; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policies of sound financial discipline and supply side improvement which have been the foundation of record growth of employment, investment, and business formation; and commends the Government's determination to maintain downward pressure on inflation and to bring further improvements in economic performance.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Major: This is probably the last occasion that the House will have to debate the economy before the Budget, which I can now inform the House will be on Tuesday 20 March.
I am grateful that we are aided in the debate by a very comprehensive and helpful report on the Autumn Statement from the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). The Committee is to be congratulated on the thoroughness and the speed with which it dealt with the comprehensive range of matters covered in the Autumn Statement. I have taken careful note of its recommendations, I am studying them, and I hope that I shall be able to respond in full before the House debates the public expenditure White Paper in a short while.
In its report, the Committee also focused on the broader issues, and I wish to concentrate on those this afternoon. The annual Autumn Statement effectively serves two main purposes. It provides a mid-year forecast of the prospects for the economy, and it gives the opportunity to set out the Government's plans for public spending for the coming three years.
Our general attitude to public spending has not changed one iota since we were first elected. We believe, as do an increasing number of people throughout the world, that an economy in which the state takes and spends an increasing share of the national wealth cannot be successful—nor, by definition, can it be sustained.
Proper control of public spending—tight control—remains central to the Government's economic strategy. It has enabled us to reduce the ratio of public spending to gross domestic product to less than 40 per cent. in recent years. That is nearly 10 percentage points below the level in the mid-1970s and 8 per cent. below the peak in the early 1980s. In the next two years, the ratios will be unchanged from our plans announced last year, and by 1992–93 the ratio is expected to fall still further, to its lowest level since the mid-1960s.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman has said that a policy under which public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product increased year by year, could not be sustained. Does he think that a policy in which it is decreased year by year as a proportion of GDP can be sustained?
Mr. Major: That depends upon the amount of growth in the economy. Provided that growth in public spending is proportionately less than growth in the economy, there will of necessity be a decline in the ratio. That is what has happened in recent years. I shall return to that subject, in terms of the quantum of public expenditure, in a few moments.
The fall in the proportion of national income—the point that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) specifically referred to— has not been at the expense of real growth in spending on priority services. One of the great myths of fashionable opinion in recent years is that we have starved important public services, such as education and health, of funds. However, when more than £1 billion a week is going to social security, over £0·5 billion to the Health Service and nearly £400 million a week to education, that is a hard case for the hon. Gentleman to sustain.
Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—
Mr. Major: In my last speech I gave way on more than 20 occasions. I shall give way in due time, but a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are waiting to speak, so I shall be more stringent with interventions today than normal, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
It is true that we have reduced public spending in a number of areas. In particular, we have returned loss-making companies to profitability and transferred them to the private sector. For example, British Steel was making a loss of £800 million a year in the early 1980s and yet it is now a successful private sector company. Is not that better than keeping it as a public company, drawing £800 million of taxpayers' subsidies and perhaps taking resources that might otherwise have gone to the Health Service? As nationalised industries have improved productivity and profitability, their subsidies have also been reduced. Services have been contracted out at a lower cost to the taxpayer. A number of executive functions within Government Departments have been set up as agencies under the Next Steps initiative. That motivates people within the agency to provide a better service—and to provide it more efficiently—and it promises to be a great success.
Of course, the whole expenditure survey process is essentially about ensuring that we are getting the best possible value for the money that we spend on behalf of the taxpayer. Not least, that means taking as hard a look at pay and running costs as any private sector employer. The private sector meets pay costs out of its own money; the Government meet their pay costs out of other people's money, and we have to balance the taxpayer's interest too. We must also ensure that the money that we provide for public service is spent predominantly on services, and not on unjustified pay increases at the expense of the services for which it was provided in the first instance.
We need to review priorities constantly, and sometimes to change them—for, as an economy grows and prospers, the demands on it necessarily change as well. As output and activity increase, more freight moves around the country; with average real take-home pay over a quarter higher in real terms than it was 10 years ago, more people have cars and wish to use them. As medical science advances, more costly remedies are sought, and, in a society that is experiencing real growth in wealth, the disadvantaged and the elderly should benefit too.

751
Those are among the reasons—although they are not the only reasons—why spending on the National Health Service has increased by over a third as much again in real terms compared with 1978–79. Between this year and next year, it will grow by a further £2,400 million. With income generation and cost savings, the increase in resources will not be £2·4 billion, but the equivalent of £2,600 million—a 5½per cent. increase in real terms. A great deal of that money has been provided to finance improvement in services to patients, to allow an additional £200 million for hospital building and other capital spending and to enable the important Health Service reforms to be implemented and thus improve the service that the NHS offers our nation.
Mr. Home Robertson: The Chancellor makes great play of the expenditure on the Health Service. What is the good of investing money on improvements in the Health Service if health authorities—or, in Scotland, health boards—cannot then commission the new facilities? Is the Chancellor aware of the special problem affecting Lothian health board, in my part of the country? A shortfall of £12 million in the current year's budget has led the board to consider closing no fewer than six hospitals. Who is the Chancellor kidding?
Mr. Major: As the hon. Gentleman will know if he studies the position across the entire Health Service, the growth in provision over recent years has been continuing year-on-year in each and every part of the United Kingdom. I welcome that, and the Government have provided the resources necessary to ensure that it continues. That has been our policy, and undoubtedly—by any yardstick that the hon. Gentleman chooses to use—that is continuing and will continue in the future.
There has also been a substantial increase in spending on social security since 1979. Not only that, but we have managed to target that spending better than was the case in the circumstances that we inherited. Spending on services for the elderly has increased by £5 billion in real terms, and spending on the long-term sick and disabled has almost doubled in real terms—again, I am taking account of inflation. This year, we have announced real increases in benefits to help 1·5 million of the less well-off families. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recently announced changes in benefits for the long-term sick and disabled. When the improvements in that package are fully implemented—that is, by 1993–94—they will add a further £300 million to expenditure on that group, helping an extra 850,000 people. There is also an additional £250 million over two years for a new initiative to tackle homelessness.
Mr. John Garrett: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Major: I will give way, but I must tell the House that after that I wish to make some progress.
Mr. Garrett: Does the Chancellor agree that the relative price effect on the National Health Service in the last two expenditure programmes, to which he has referred, is a rise of 10 per cent. or more in costs? To that extent, his "extra funding" for the Health Service is significantly overstated—a point made in the report on the Autumn Statement by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
As for pensions and benefits, a higher rate of inflation applies to the expenditure of the very poor on, for instance,
752
food and housing than to the heavier spending of the rest of society on consumer durables. Is not the Chancellor also exaggerating the increase in benefits? Would he care to enlighten the House by giving the true figures?
Mr. Major: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic view of what has happened. As relative price indices turn up from time to time, it is certainly true that they go back to the days when we had volume increases in expenditure and lost control of public expenditure. Whatever indices the hon. Gentleman legitimately uses, it is undeniable upon the figures available that there has been a real and genuine increase in what can be purchased by the groups I have mentioned with the resources that the Government have provided.
We recognise no less than do Opposition Members the importance of maintaining and improving the basic infrastructure in Britain in a period of growth. What is more, we have produced the growth in the economy that has enabled us to afford to do so, unlike the 1970s when most capital programmes were cut. For example, there has been a 40 per cent. real increase in spending on motorways and trunk roads, adding nearly 1,000 extra miles. The new plans announced in the Autumn Statement include significant further real increases. Capital spending on roads will increase by about 25 per cent. over the next three years, and capital spending on railways by 75 per cent. in the same period. British Rail has now embarked on the largest programme of capital investment since the change from steam to diesel. Investment in London Underground will increase by £440 million, including the announcement that we will build an extension of the Jubilee line through docklands to Stratford in east London.
None of those improvements would have been possible without a growing and successful economy. Without that we would have faced the cuts in capital expenditure that occurred in the second half of the 1970s.
Mr. Graham Riddick: I certainly appreciate and accept that the Government have pumped a great deal more money into British Rail. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as long as British Rail is in the public sector, the increased efficiency and investment that we all seek will never come about? We must therefore move towards privatising the industry and get British Rail away from the dead hand of state control as quickly as we possibly can.
Mr. Major: I certainly share the medium-term aspirations that my hon. Friend sets out. I very much hope that the new chairman of British Rail will look carefully at ways of improving the commuter service, particularly in the stress areas around London.
The investment in London Underground to which I referred incorporates all the necessary safety elements illustrated in the Fennell report, which I know the House will welcome and will wish to see carried out as speedily as possible.
The growth in the economy during the 1980s has not only financed those increases in expenditure, but has produced material changes in the propects of large numbers of our citizens as 2¾ million new jobs have been created over the past six years. No other nation in Europe can match that rate of job creation. There has been a 40 per cent. increase in business investment in just the past three years. Both those achievements are without precedent for a generation. For eight years there has been

753
strong and steady growth of output—a clear demonstration of the very much improved supply side response which was the aim, and has been the result, of our policies to reduce direct taxation and Government intervention in industry, and to revive and deregulate the economy.
The supply side of the British economy has performed admirably in recent years. The decline in our share of world trade that had lasted for decades has been stopped. It is now almost certainly in reverse. But even in a faster growing economy, domestic supply has not kept pace with domestic demand over the past couple of years, and that has caused the increase in inflation and a rise in the current account deficit.
With hindsight it is clear that we should have acted earlier to restrain this excessive demand growth. Indeed, we acted on our concerns as early as August 1987, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) raised interest rates by 1 per cent. But that preceded the stock market crash, and the associated risk of recession, shared by Opposition Members, led us, along with all other major nations, to reduce interest rates—certainly, with hindsight, a mistake, but only with hindsight. At the time all the outside commentators agreed that policy loosening was appropriate, as did Opposition Members who were, in fact, urging far greater relaxation of policy. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was in the vanguard in expressing that view—effectively, "Cut interest rates, boost demand." That is what the Opposition wanted at that time.
Mr. Giles Radice: Did not the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in April 1988, also warn the then Chancellor of the risks of overheating?
Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend tightened policy frequently during the period that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. The underlying essence is something that the hon. Gentleman cannot deny. At the time of the stock market crash it was the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who wanted us to loosen policy far more than we did, and it would have been disastrous had we taken their advice.
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in retrospect, it is clear that it was a mistake to shadow the deutschmark and, thus become de facto members of the ERM?
Mr. Major: I think that my hon. Friend is well aware of what happened during that period. I see no purpose in trailing over that matter yet again, and have no intention of doing so.
A moment ago the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred to the position in 1988. For his benefit I reiterate that monetary policy was tightened throughout the second half of 1988 by my predecessor, and it has been tightened progressively since then as it has become clear that demand has been resilient and that the inflationary pressures remain.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman says that his solution was to tighten monetary policy, but was not what happened at the time a relaxation of fiscal policy—in particular, in respect of higher-rate taxpayers?
Mr. Major: Expressly not. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman actually studies what happened subsequently he will find it hard to say that fiscal policy was relaxed, as the public sector debt repayment grew inexorably year after year. If that is a relaxation of fiscal policy, by any yardstick I should be extremely surprised. The reality is that the cut in tax rates that I think the right hon. Gentleman has in mind produced a greater fiscal yield than do the higher rates at which fewer people pay tax.
Just as the problem took some time to develop, and even longer to become obvious, so it is bound to take some time to remedy fully. I have no doubt that the rapid growth of domestic demand has come to an end and that demand is now growing at a much more modest pace. The housing market, which was such an important factor in the upsurge in inflation, has cooled off; retail sales growth in the last year has been very modest indeed; and the trade deficit now shows signs of improvement, with our exports performing exceedingly well, but import growth moderating.
So no one should doubt that interest rates are working. There is evidence aplenty to prove it. But reassuring as those signs are, they simply tell us that we are turning the corner. They certainly do not yet tell us that we are back where we wish to be. That will take time, so I am afraid that there can be no question whatsoever of an early relaxation of policy. Interest rates will remain high for some time to come.
Mr. Roger Knapman: As a partner in a building company, let me reassure my right hon. Friend that his policies are working.
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what I take to be his endorsement.
The undeniable fact is that in our present circumstances it is right for spending and borrowing to be less attractive and for saving to be more rewarding. I understand that that message will be disappointing to home owners and business men, but it would be even more unfair to them, and to everyone else, to relax policy now and to risk the problem recurring later.
We need inflation to turn down decisively and to be confident that once it has done so it will stay down. No hon. Member wants to see a return to the 1970s and to the untold damage that runaway inflation inflicted on savers, on competitiveness, on families and on the weakest in our society. Lower inflation has been the essential foundation for success in the 1980s. Recently, inflation has risen. First we must bring it down, and then we must keep it down and get it lower still.
So I tell the House in as clear terms as I can that of course I look forward to the day when I can say that interest rates can come down, but I do not see that day as being imminent, and I do not think that it would be wise for anyone to act in the belief that it will be.
Nor is it any part of policy to restrain private spending only to let public spending grow out of control. Tight monetary policy must be supported by tight fiscal policy. Our fiscal stance clearly is tight, with the prospect of clocking up a further substantial surplus again this year, even if it is less of a surplus than once we thought.
The debt repayment this year now looks likely to be somewhat less than the £12½ billion projected at the time of the Autumn Statement. Corporation tax receipts are lower than forecast, possibly—probably even—due in part

755
to even higher levels of investment than were previously estimated, and local authorities' debt repayment has been lower than expected. None the less, I repeat that there will still be a healthy fiscal surplus this year.
The wider economic outlook for the coming year is for modest growth, with demand at home pretty flat. That is not, I know, the most appealing prospect, but the alternative, which is allowing the British economy to face the coming decade under a serious inflation handicap, would be quite unforgiveable. There are great opportunities for us in the 1990s, but they depend on our not squandering the achievements so hard won in the 1980s.
Those achievements have been considerable by any yardstick. Business investment as a share of national output has reached an all-time high. In fact, since 1980 it has grown faster than in all the other major EC countries, and in the G7 is outpaced only by Japan. Manufacturing investment, too, is at its highest level ever, having grown at an average of 8·5 per cent. a year since the low point in 1983.
Most importantly—this point constantly escapes those who take a never mind the quality, feel the width approach to investment—the quality of British investment is vastly improved. Following the corporation tax reforms of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, unprofitable investment is no longer favoured by the tax system, and industry is earning a higher rate of return than for 20 years. That point is both true and crucial, and if anyone doubts it they should look at the position in eastern Europe. The starkest lesson of all from eastern European Socialism has been that massive quantities of inefficient investment in heavy industry gets one nowhere. In countries such as Poland and Romania, investment accounted for around one quarter or more of national income, significantly higher than in this country or any other advanced industrial countries. However, we know from the dire economic straits in which those countries find themselves, that the quantum of investment means nothing. It is the efficiency with which resources are used which is crucial for the growth of an economy.
Mr. Dick Douglas rose—
Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak and I wish to make some more progress.
I regret that the tremendous improvement in investment performance receives little or no welcome from Opposition Members. Clearly, they will call for massive public subsidies to industry, whatever the state of British business. They have warned of bad times around the corner in every year that we have been in office, and I doubt whether their tune will change in the future.
Whether the Opposition can bear to admit it or not—I fear that they cannot—the fact is that British industry enters the 1990s in a vigorous and healthy condition that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. We have come a long way from the 1970s. Then we were at or near the bottom of every league and year after year we were falling further behind.
Mr. Tony Favell: The sick man of Europe.
Mr. Major: As my hon. Friend says, the sick man of Europe. That was the result of years of over-regulation, excessive union power, a culture of penal taxation and
756
pervasive subsidy, a bloated and poorly run public sector and year upon year of runaway inflation. We know the legacy that that left at the end of the 1970s.
It has taken us a decade to put all that behind us. Doing so has had a dramatic effect on motivation, as the British economy—[Interruption.] It is interesting how little the Opposition like the successes that have been achieved by the Government.
Mr. Graham Allen rose—
Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will listen. he may hear a little more of the successes.
Putting the legacy of the 1970s behind us has had a dramatic effect on motivation. The British economy, which had become a byword for low productivity, has outperformed Germany, France and Italy and the rest of the European Community on productivity growth since 1980. The Opposition dislike the fact that that has been achieved in the past decade.
Not only have British companies become more productive and profitable, there are simply far more of them. That is a point that the Leader of the Opposition failed to notice earlier. Self-employment has shot up and the small business sector has blossomed. Business start-ups have exceeded stops by 27,000 in 1986, 42,000 in 1987 and 64,000 in 1988. Even though interest rates have been in double figures for over 18 months, the growth continues apace. In 1989 Customs figures for VAT registrations—companies do not register for VAT unless they have to—showed that net business creation—that is, start-ups in excess of closures—was up, yet again, by over 25 per cent. compared with the year before, to another record.
That is a dramatic increase by any standards. That increase in the number of new businesses sharply contradicts the crude caricatures of our economic policies that we so frequently hear.
Mr. Roy Hughes rose—
Mr. Major: I wish to finish this point.
Far from being divisive, the economic and social changes that we have seen in the 1980s have positively eroded the "them and us" divide. To be an owner, a manager, or a business man is no longer the preserve of one class, one income group or one part of the country. It is now open to everyone. Masses of ordinary people, who once voted Labour, and never will again, have joined the ranks of those who work for themselves or run their own company, own their own home, have their own pension provision or shares. That is a remarkable social change in the past decade. It is the story of the past 10 years. Ownership of capital and financial independence is increasingly becoming the aspiration of, and the reality for, increasing numbers of our fellow citizens.
Of course, there is still a great deal more to be done. That is always the case and that is why we shall need a Conservative Government for many years—to continue to do it. We have still not yet exorcised the inflationary psychology of our economy, which was the curse of the 1970s—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) finds inflation so funny. Perhaps he is insulated from it, but businesses and people are not. Although he prefers inflationary policies, we do not.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Chancellor give way on that point?
Mr. Major: No. It is precisely because we do not prefer inflationary policies that we shall take action to make sure that we get inflation down. We recognise that we must not fall behind in the effort to match and to beat our overseas competitors. That means that it is essential to keep tight pressure on costs, particularly labour costs, and it means making sure that we maintain investment in fixed assets, innovation and training, as we approach the opportunities and the stiff competition that will come with the single market in Europe in 1992.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us entirely agree with him that one of the great problems facing industry is the wage increases of 10 per cent. or more that are bound to be most damaging? However, does he agree with the Confederation of British Industry that taxes on corporate incomes in this country are about 4 per cent. of GDP, against 2 per cent. in West Germany and 3 per cent. in the EEC as a whole? Does he further agree that if we could get sensible wage increases and a proper basis for corporate taxation, which a Budget should bring about, industry would have a real chance to forge forward?
Mr. Major: I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern about the level of wages and the necessity for them to be affordable unless people are to price themselves out of jobs in a fashion that we would not wish to see them do. On corporate taxation, my hon. Friend knows that the CBI regards the corporate tax reforms that were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby as a remarkable step forward. The increasing investment and profitability that have followed them have made a remarkable difference to businesses' prospects for the future.
The essence of what happens in business is not what the Government alone can do for business. We recognise that business men know better than Government what they need to do in the interests of their own businesses and I hope that in the months ahead they will have the sense of self-interest to ensure that they do it, in the interests of their own businesses.
Our prospects for the 1990s are excellent provided we stick to sound anti-inflationary policies. Britain has nothing to gain—not now, not ever—by tolerating a high rate of inflation or even a modest rate of inflation. That would be the worst possible thing for everyone—for business, for families, and for the weakest in our society.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Chancellor give way on that point?
Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not.
That is the Government's part of the bargain for the 1990s—to take whatever action is necessary to get inflation down. It cannot be done with hopes, nor with lurches in policy. But it can be done by the persistent and consistent use of monetary and fiscal policy, and that is what we shall do. To businesses, I say simply that they should look ahead, beyond the year of slow growth and depressed demand to the tremendous opportunities that exist in the 1990s. Vast new markets are opening up on our doorstep, and the changes of the past 10 years mean that British industry and commerce are better placed than ever before to capture those markets and to seize the opportunities that are open to us.
758
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind. We will bring the economy back on track, as a preparation for prosperity in a decade of promise. The Autumn Statement sets out the policies by which that will be achieved, and I commend it to the House.
4.34 pm
Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"declines to approve the Autumn Statement, deplores the continuation of economic policies which have caused a record balance of payments deficit, high inflation and the highest interest rates of the leading industrial nations; and calls for a strategy to promote investment in manufacturing industry and the public services in order to strengthen the economy, improve the efficiency of industry, and enhance the quality of life and opportunities for all citizens in the decade ahead.".
This is the first economic debate in the House in the new decade. Perhaps it is not inappropriate to seek to take stock—as the Chancellor did to some extent—of where we stand in economic terms at the end of the 1980s and to look ahead to the prospects for the 1990s. Today we had a modified version of the hype, exaggeration, self-congratulation, casuistry and complacency that have, over the decade, characterised the Government's presentation of economic policy. Unfortunately, for apologists such as the Chancellor, they have been blown apart by three stark economic facts which no Government apologists or media apparatchik can gainsay and which, significantly, the Chancellor did not mention in his speech.
The first fact is that we have the highest balance of payments deficit in our economic history. Is it not remarkable that the Chancellor can come to the House with the knowledge of such a fact, yet not manage even to mention it in the first economic debate of the decade? The second stark and unavoidable fact is that Britain's rate of inflation is the highest of the major countries in the European Community. Why should we be lectured about the perils of inflation by this Chancellor when we have a worse record than our principal competitors in the Community?
Another stark fact that the Chancellor hardly mentioned is that interest rates, at 15 per cent.—they have increased 11 consecutive times in the past 18 months—are the highest among the leading industrial nations. What a verdict that is on the so-called successful economic policies followed during the 1980s. Because reading previous speeches of Conservative Ministers is as instructive as reading their current ones, I referred back to the corresponding debate last year, when the former Chancellor said that inflation would
"edge up a little over the next few months … But then, just as it did in 1985, it will start coming down again. Let there be no doubt about that whatever."—[Official Report, 12 January 1989; Vol. 144, c. 1007.]
I remind the House that Conservative Ministers are good at the reassuring game. Whenever any awkward matter comes up, they assure us that things will be all right for the future. I will tell the House what the rate of inflation has been in the subsequent months. In January 1989, when the former Chancellor gave us that confident prediction, it was 7·5 per cent.; in February, it was 7·8 per cent.; in March, 7·9 per cent.; in April, 8 per cent.; in May, 8·3 per cent.; in June, 8·3 per cent.; in July, 8·2 per cent.; in August, 7·3 per cent.; in September, 7·6 per cent.; in October, 7·3 per cent.; in November, 7·7 per cent.; and in December—the last available figures—7·7 per cent.

759
Anyone can work out that those figures are steadily high—[Interruption.] I am reminded by Conservative Members that the former Chancellor may have been predicting that in the careful words that he used. That will not wash. He said that it would come down, but in only two of the 11 months since has it been marginally below; in nine months it has been higher. The underlying rate of inflation that the Government prefer as a criterion—they hope to exclude the mortgage interest effect from the calculation, as though millions of people did not have to suffer the burden of extra mortgage payments—was 5·5 per cent. when the former Chancellor made that optimistic statement. For the past three months the figure has been 6·1 per cent. the highest that it has been for almost seven years. We end the decade with not much success on the one front to which the Government appear willing to sacrifice all other economic objectives.
I do not think that I am the only hon. Member to sense that feeling of a decade ending and a new one beginning. During the Christmas recess, I was looking at an interesting speech by the Lord President of the Council who, since he has been relieved of some of the cares of his former onerous offices, has taken to giving his observations on the British political and economic scene. In his new year's message to the East Surrey Conservative Association, the Lord President of the Council—whom I think has the habit of giving such communications to the east Surrey Conservatives from time to time—addresses some of those questions. He tells the good folk in the East Surrey Conservative Association that the re-conquest of inflation is a vital condition for progress. It was the word "re-conquest" that attracted my attention. If we have successfully vanquished the dragon of inflation during the 1980s, why do we need to reconquer it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very careful with his words.
He went on to give some of his thoughts on how Britain stood in relation to competitor countries, and said:
"Britain enjoys no automatic pilot to prosperity. Much, much more, remains to be done if we are to match the living standards of West Germany, the public facilities of the French"—
I was not quite sure what he meant by "public facilities"; if I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was intending to be witty, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but I rather doubt that there is a hidden message there, so let us loosely interpret the phrase as meaning public services—
"or the can do entrepreneurial culture of the United States—let alone the low crime rates of Japan."
I think that there are some other features of Japanese society that we might aspire to as well as the low crime rates.
That was an interesting example of how the right hon. and learned Gentleman was beginning to understand that we were falling behind others; that is the coded message there. He has been thinking about his period as Foreign Secretary. He has plenty of time to think about it now and he has been pondering these matters.
Warming to his theme, the right hon. and learned Gentleman then tackled the question of manufacturing industry. It is almost incredible that he of all people should say this, but he said to the people of east Surrey:
"We need equally to conquer the tendency of regarding manufacturing as almost a residual element, a left-over in our economy."
Who on earth created this tendency but the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was Chancellor of the
760
Exchequer, from 1979 to 1983? I feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the most militant of the monetarists, who started this process of the decline of British manufacturing industry.
Then he turned his attention to public services. He said:
"Litter and scruffiness in our public places, and in far too many of our public services, are the breeding ground for delinquency. Poor standards of service are far too widely tolerated … Shoddy bus stations or dirty trains or noisy hospitals or cold waiting rooms are unworthy of the nation we aspire to become."
It is very interesting that after these 10 years of marvellous progress these debilitating signs should be all around us, but there we are.
He then went on to reflect further on it, and this will astound the House as well. He said:
"Putting an end to this scruffiness will require public money, of course …"
There is something going on in the brain of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
But behind all this persiflage, this circumlocution, this coded language, what is the message which some of the east Surrey Conservatives may or may not have been able to detect? I will put it simply to them and help any members of the East Surrey Conservative Association who still remain puzzled. What he is saying is very simply this. First, the battle against inflation has been lost; secondly, other countries which we were supposed to have surpassed are doing better than we are; thirdly, manufacturing industry is, after all, very important; and, fourthly, our public services are in a shocking and disgraceful condition.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in his excellent speech the Lord President of the Council also talked about the need for wage restraint, which the Opposition parties seem to be doing little to encourage? Does he not agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), Opposition Chairman of the Social Services Committee, that the Labour party's policy on wage bargaining and giving a minimum wage would cost 400,000 jobs and add 4·4 per cent. to industry's costs? How would that help industry? He should at least be honest and say what his policy is instead of knocking other people. What would he do?
Mr. Smith: I am quite happy to tell the hon. Gentleman, and I will do so. In the course of my speech I shall offer some suggestions for amendments to Government policy that come from the considerations of the Opposition. I must gently remonstrate with the hon. Gentleman. One is entitled to mock even people as great as the Lord President of the Council, particularly when they are giving us such useful messages. I am trying to help the House, as I am trying to help the people of east Surrey, to decipher the true meaning behind the somewhat Delphic statements, because these indicate a very important change.
An attempt is now being made to rewrite recent history. We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer have a stab at it in his speech today. "Not everything is perfect," is now the line; "there have been some mistakes along the way." I think that there is a tendency to seek to bury the last Chancellor's with him. I noticed that first when the new Chancellor was asked whether inflation would be his judge and jury. He said, "These are not my words." It was almost a case of "Don't watch my lips as far as this is concerned." It is now said that mistakes were made, but hon. Members will notice that most mistakes fall within the period of

761
office of the departed Chancellor. I do not think that will do, however, because the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was an enthusiastic participant, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the development of a great many of these policies. He was as guilty as any of the hype, the exaggeration, the gross inflation of the Government's alleged achievements.
Perhaps the best example came during that period of intense excitement which convulsed the Conservative party at about the time of the March 1988 Budget. Then they were telling us that Britain's economic miracle had become the outstanding reality of the decade, if not of the century. The right hon. Gentleman, opening the debate on 26 April 1988 on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, said that the Government's strategy had
"without doubt transformed the British economy.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear".] I am glad that I take the House with me, but I wonder if I shall get as ready assent for the next proposition to which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer drew attention. He said:
"During the 1960s we praised and envied the German economic miracle. In the 1980s the position has been precisely reversed."—[Official Report, 26 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 214.]
I notice that there is not quite so much baying from Government Members and that is an extremely wise position for them to adopt, because they may have noticed—it was reported in the financial news in The Guardian today—the report by Herr Haussmann, the German economics Minister, on the state of the West German industry: 3 per cent. growth predicted next year, 2·5 per cent. inflation, 7 per cent. rise in personal disposable income, 6·5 per cent. rise in consumer spending and, perhaps most important of all, a huge trade surplus last year of 148 billion deutschmarks, which in sterling terms is just over £50 billion.
What on earth do hon. Gentlemen mean when they talk about our having somehow surpassed the German economic miracle? The previous Chancellor did it as well. He said that Japan still had an economic miracle, but Germany's was in the past. Here we have facts that cannot be gainsaid and the present Chancellor, like the former Chancellor, should apologise for ever having dreamt of such fantastic ways of expressing the Government's policies, because the facts do not fit the hype.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept, however, that the German economy began from a start point far in advance of that of the British economy? The point is essentially that the Government, through their 10 years of office, have had to revitalise the economy, so deeply damaged by the Labour party, which had no interest in real investment.
Mr. Smith: I thought that the hon. Gentleman intended to chide me and give me facts to substantiate the notion of an economic miracle, but he departed from that. He said that the West Germans started from a better position at the beginning of the decade. For decades, the West Germans have been following consistently policies that have given long-term support to their manufacturing sector and have built up good public services. They have been following that path consistently, and the key to it—as I shall point out when I have an opportunity to
762
proceed with my speech—has been investment. If we have a lesson to learn from West Germany, it is the crucial importance of that factor.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider it to be entirely without significance that the British economy, whether measured from 1980 or 1979, has grown faster than that of Germany, whereas in the 1970s it grew more slowly? Does he regard that as a point of interest?
Mr. Smith: During one part of the decade we had a spurt for growth which is coming to a halt, and we shall have a repeat of the stop-go policies. If there has been a successful decade and if we have been better than the West Germans—that is the burden of what the Chief Secretary and his colleagues have been saying—why do we have a record balance of payments deficit of well over £20 billion while they have a trade surplus of £50 billion?
The Government cannot wriggle out of that. They made an absurd and ridiculous claim and, now that the facts are revealed, they will not even admit that they made such a claim. The hype and over-exaggeration has come back to haunt them, and so it should because they should never have attempted to mislead the public in that way.
Dr. John Reid: In addition to explaining the conundrum of the miracle, will my right hon. and learned Friend answer a question that I would have asked the Chancellor had he permitted me to intervene in his speech? The Chancellor claimed twice that our share of world trade had risen inexorably in the last few years. But in that time our balance of trade surplus of £4 billion has grown to a deficit of £20 billion. Does that mean, in the logic of the Chancellor, that the better we do in world trade, the bigger our trade deficit will become?
Mr. Smith: I too have been puzzled by some of the Chancellor's claims. In the early part of the decade, our share of world trade, by volume or value, dropped. It may have stabilised in recent years, and I am not certain where it is headed—[Interruption.]—and it may be at a lower level than when the Conservatives came to power. But I get the feeling, which I am sure others will have got, that a desperate attempt is being made by Conservative Members to clutch at a few straws that are about. But the major facts are there and cannot be gainsaid.
A major reason why the Federal Republic of West Germany has had consistent success is the importance that that country gives to investment in manufacturing and to public services, particularly education and training. The West Germans have by far and away the best record in the European Community on education and training, and that has stood them in excellent stead. We failed to invest in education and training in the 1980s, and we have inadequate ambitions for the 1990s.
Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the attitude of education and universities to industry in Germany is far better than it is in England? Indeed, Sir Peter Parker said that, when he was at Oxford and Cambridge, he was the only one of his year going into manufacturing industry. He said that if more encouragement was given for people to go into manufacturing industry, rather than into the social services, the professions or the City, we would do much better.
Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will give him some detailed statistics on that. Perhaps the crucial difference between Germany and Britain is that the attitude of the Government there is different both to education and industry, and they encourage both to work together to improve the quality of the staff employed in West German industry.
Concern is being expressed by British industry about the level of investment. The CBI felt moved to submit a memorandum to the National Economic Development Council about what it saw as the real problem of investment now. I remind Conservative Members that this is at the end of this so-called fabulous decade. The CBI says:
"it is no exaggeration to state that the United Kingdom economy is at a crossroads. The twin problems of price inflation and a serious deficit on the current account of the balance of payments must be tackled, without tipping the economy into recession and against the background of a pitifully low level of personal savings, which account for no more than 4 per cent. of personal disposable income, down from 13 per cent. in 1980."
One gets the feeling that the CBI does not believe that it has been the most fabulous decade of the century. It goes on:
"If the objectives of reducing inflation and the current account deficit are clear"—
and the Chancellor said nothing about an ambition of eliminating the current account deficit; indeed, I do not think he even mentioned it—
"so is the economic priority for 1990. It can be summed up in one word: investment."
The CBI goes on to express its concern:
"Yet all the indicators suggest that business investment, particularly in plant and machinery, is set to level off in the two years ahead and is in danger of falling back … it is investment—in new plant, in training and in new products and services—which is the key, not just to economic growth but to growth without inflation."
The CBI draws attention to what it calls "a worrying investment gap" between Britain and our principal competitors, and points out that fixed investment in 1988, the boom year, in Japan was £3,699 a head; in the United States, £3,234; in France, £3,190; in West Germany, £2,946; and in the United Kingdom, £2,318, the bottom of the league for fixed investment in the best year that one could take for the Government. The CBI says:
"The threat to investment is, therefore, the most significant feature of the current economic situation."
Mr. Major rose—
Mr. Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to address that point, so I willingly give way to him.
Mr. Major: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying much about investment—the underlying propositions about the importance of investment are understood as well on these Benches as on the Opposition Benches—may I ask him to remind the House which European country had the greatest growth in investment throughout the 1980s? Was it not this country?
Mr. Smith: I was about to deal precisely with that point—[Interruption.]—because it is a misleading way of presenting economic statistics. The Chancellor claims that the Government have a successful record of investment. The Government always define it as business investment. They constantly say, as the Chancellor just said, "Do not worry about it; we have a good record." One wonders why the CBI does not think that.
764
I drew attention previously to an important article by Mr. Andrew Glyn in the Financial Times on 8 November of last year. That was recently picked up by Mr. Edward Streator, president of the American Chamber of Commerce (United Kingdom), who, many hon. Members will recall, was a former distinguished Minister at the United States embassy in London and a former United States ambassador to OECD. He, too, noticed the importance of that article and the difference between business and manufacturing investment. Ambassador Streator said:
"I would refer to the work done by Andrew Glyn of Oxford, who pointed out recently the stark contrast between material production where investment was still below the level of 1979 in 1988 and the services sector where the level of investment has practically doubled. In terms of business investment, gross fixed capital stock for agriculture and industry"—
and most of it is for industry—
"actually declined 8·4 per cent. between 1979 and 1988, while it increased 93·1 per cent… in the same period for services."
He endorsed Mr. Glyn's conclusion:
"It would be a fantasy to believe that finance and business services can take over from manufacturing and generate the foreign exchange necessary to pay the import bill."
I hope that we all agree with that. That is the distinction. Manufacturing investment has languished, although overall business investment may have increased.
I will put that in starker terms for the benefit of the Chancellor, because he counts as business expenditure even expenditure on a car park outside a leisure centre or a metro shopping centre which has been built on the former site of a manufacturing enterprise. That is going on all over the country. Most of my hon. Friends have constituencies in which once there were productive engineering companies, but they have been knocked down, the sites have been cleared, and now leisure centres or large shopping complexes are being built. The Government say that such investment is as good as or perhaps even better than the previous investment. The crucial difference is that, when we had a bigger manufacturing sector, we made goods and sold them abroad. Now we have shops that import the goods that other people make, and we buy them.
Mr. Roger King: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he has given way many times. He will accept that the Ford Motor Company is one company that has invested heavily in the United Kingdom, with record investment currently under way. What advice, therefore, does he have for the tens of thousands of Ford workers who are being balloted at present on their wage agreement? Would he urge them to accept the wages on offer or to go for an ever-inflationary, higher wage increase?
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way again to Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman's question was not relevant to the points that we were discussing. I shall leave the settlement of the industrial relations dispute between the Ford management and the workers to the negotiations in which they are engaged. I must remind the hon. Gentleman—because I do not think that he was here at the time—that in the latter months of the previous Government there was an economic debate in which the Opposition took what I can only call a highly irresponsible attitude to the situation at Ford. I shall not, therefore, take lectures on responsibility from the Conservative party.

765
We know what the Government could do about investment. I must tell the House about the Autumn Statements—not only this one, but the public expenditure programme of the past decade. In the period 1978–88, in real terms, industrial research and development was cut by 30 per cent., regional development by 72 per cent. and export promotion by 81 per cent. How can a country with a massive trade and balance of payments deficit cut export promotion support for British exporters? The result is that as export markets open up in the Soviet Union and throughout eastern Europe, British companies could not be worse placed in relation to their competitors in the European Community. Year after year, the Government have cut back their support, especially for smaller businesses which have difficulty in maintaining an export service and an export initiative. Once again, the result is that, in the new trade routes which will open up in eastern Europe, Britain will be left at the back of the queue because of the activities of this Government.
Most bizarre of all in this Autumn Statement is the fact that expenditure on training is to be cut for the year to come by £110 million. If that was not enough, it is to be cut for the next year by £220 million. One of the Chancellor's elusive devices is to talk about priority areas in public expenditure. He selects some items of expenditure as priorities and he says that, although he is prudent about public expenditure, we can see how much more he is spending in the priority areas. If there are priority areas, it follows, as night follows day, that there are non-priority areas. Training is clearly a major non-priority area for the Government.
We have a crisis in training which does not seem to have penetrated the Chancellor's mind; he scarcely mentioned it once in his speech today. In case it is thought that I am seized by a sense of exaggeration to criticise the Conservative party, I shall quote from objective commentators on these matters. Perhaps I should not say "objective commentators", because I shall quote from the proceedings at a conference of the Institute for Economic Affairs. I do not claim that the conference was objective, but it is interesting to consider what was said, as described in the Financial Times on 15 January 1990. The article said:
"Mr. David Lomax, group economic adviser for the National Westminster Bank, spoke for many at last week's IEA conference in describing the standard of vocational training and education up to school-leaving age in the UK as 'appalling' and the Government's performance on education and training as 'execrable'. Another speaker, Mr. Walter Eltis, director general of the National Economic Development Office, pointed out that 90 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds in Japan and the US are in full-time education. In Britain this applies to less than 50 per cent. of 16-year-olds and only about 30 per cent. of 17-year-olds".
I hope that the Government will take account of the fact that he also cited research showing that
"an upgrading of 1 per cent. of the labour force from unskilled to skilled can boost productivity by about 2 per cent."
The work of Professor Sig Prais for the National Institute of Economic and Social Research is possibly even more interesting. He went through a number of issues of industrial importance and looked at the training record of parts of British industry. In an article on 11 January, he pointed out:
"The essential difference between Britain and Germany lies… in the proportions with intermediate qualifications,
766
such as apprenticeships, City and Guilds certificates, or … secretarial qualifications. He pointed out that 60 per cent. of the German workforce had such qualifications, compared with only 30 per cent. in the UK."
He then went through various areas in which we are losing out. He mentioned kitchen furniture in which, as we all know, British industry is losing out. He mentioned clothing manufacture, and I hope that the Chancellor will pay a little attention to this. The professor found that in clothing manufacture 80 per cent. of German machinists had completed two or three-year examined courses. In the United Kingdom plants, the survey did not come across a single machinist with such a qualification. If we do not train our people, and especially our young people, what chance do we have of competing against the country with the best education and training record in the European Community, if not the world?
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: No, I must get on. I have given way frequently.
The case for training is unassailable. When we cause people to be trained effectively, we do not create only an important economic asset. The difference between a successful and an unsuccessful economy is the investment in human resources—in training our people so that they can beat the competition. The Chancellor might also reflect—and this aspect is mentioned far too little—that an intelligent anti-inflationary policy would release labour bottlenecks by training people, reskilling them and upgrading their skills so that unnecessary inflationary impulses did not come from that sector.
Perhaps most importantly, the case for training is one of personal opportunity and of giving our young people the opportunity that young people in other countries already have. I know that the Government always say that we should look at the increase in jobs over a particular period. However, many of those jobs are part time and low skilled—what the former Chancellor of the Exchequer once called "low-tech, no-tech" jobs, which he thought were quite suitable for our young people. Young people in other countries are having their minds stretched, their ambitions enlarged, their skills developed and their personal happiness increased at the same time as their economy is being strengthened while our Government do nothing.
It is no wonder that we heard on the radio this morning from the chief inspector of education in Bedfordshire about the shambles in which the schools in his area find themselves. We can go right through the infrastructure and find examples of the Government's neglect. In the past decade, they have persistently been indifferent to the manufacturing sector and have persistently neglected the public services.
Most disturbing of all, as we consider the development of our economy at the end of the decade, is the feeling that we are adrift and that the Government do not seem to have any policy or strategy in crucial areas of economic interest. What is the Government's exchange rate policy? Has fighting finally ceased between No. 10 and No. 11? Is it true, as the former Chancellor told us, that the Conservative party would never be a party of devaluation, or is it true that the rather more surreptitious policy of the present Chancellor is to allow the pound to slide gently downwards?

767
What is the Government's strategy on inflation? How can they have a sensible counter-inflationary strategy when they have interest rate increases which provoke mortgage increases and are bound to be reflected in wage claims? They have also let loose a series of Government-caused price increases in the economy from electricity, transport and water through to other areas. What is their strategy to promote investment and to deal with the investment gap, to which the CBI rightly draws attention? Is there still a medium-term financial strategy? Those who study the history of the Conservative party must have been curious about the fact that medium-term financial strategy, which was the rock on which Conservative economic policy was based, was not even mentioned in the Chancellor's speech. I suspect that we no longer have an MTFS—a medium-term financial strategy—but an STES—a short-term electoral strategy.
What the Chancellor hopes to do is somehow to get by until the next election, stagger through the months ahead, in the hope that when she blows the whistle for the next election—and he hopes desperately that this will be the case—the economy will not appear in too unfavourable a light. That is what Government economic policy is all about. What the Chancellor said in his evidence to the Select Committee was very revealing, the Select Committee which once again gave us such an interesting report. Sometimes it is in the evidence rather than in the conclusions of our colleagues who sit on the Committee that one finds the interesting nuggets of information. The most interesting to me was when the Chancellor described—and he volunteered this; he was not led into it—managing the British economy as "surfboarding on a fairly heavy sea".
It is revealing that the Chancellor sees himself as a surfboarder. All Chancellors have some sort of image of themselves. The lately departed Chancellor, although a former naval person, seemed to think from time to time that he was an aviator: we were treated to his notions of soft and hard landings. Unfortunately, he took some advice from the Opposition and left the plane rather hurriedly. His predecessor had a slightly different image. One sometimes wondered whether he knew if he was the shepherd or a member of the flock—alive or dead—but his image was much less dynamic.
Now we have a surfboarding Chancellor. In his mind's eye he is a sort of bronzed figure in Bermuda shorts, riding the waves, practising to take on all comers at the next Commonwealth Finance Ministers' conference. But is not the reality also revealed by that imagery? Surfboarders are not much in control of the essential elements; they are at the mercy of winds, waves and hidden currents. That is what is happening now. The Chancellor is moving from wave to wave, not sure if he is heading for the beach or the rocks and in perpetual danger of suffering what surfboarders call a "wipeout". In his case, I suppose I might say—and I ask the forgiveness of the House in advance—it is a major wipeout.
That is no way to run an economy, either in imagination or in reality. We end the 1980s disorganised, uncertain, confused, not knowing what the Government's policy is—and I speak for the nation because it is a worried, perplexed and disturbed nation. That is one of the things from which Ministers seem, at their peril, to be happily insulated. They believe that variations in public opinion are merely temporary and that all will come right,
768
as it did—did it not?—in 1985: inflation came down and they went on to win the election, and it will all happen again.
Ministers are in for a very rude awakening because the people are beginning to realise that things have gone badly wrong in the British economy, and that we are slipping behind our prinicipal competitors, particularly as we face the challenges of 1992. They know, despite the hype, that the Government have been responsible for some major mistakes in the 1980s, and they know that those who made the mistakes should not be given the responsibility for guiding our affairs in the 1990s.
5.13 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: At the beginning of his speech, the shadow Chancellor told us that he would give us some indication of Labour party policy. My right hon. and hon. Friends may feel that they have waited in vain for some such revelation, so we must adopt the approach of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and see what coded message we can divine from his speech.
The core element of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the reference to ambassador Streator's remarks. If we take that, the coded message is very clear: the next Labour Government would reintroduce a selective employment tax. Apart from that, we gained very little idea about what the Labour party might do in the present economic situation.
As this is the first occasion when the Autumn Statement debate has been televised, I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his commercial for the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report. The report is a serious contribution to this debate and, as has already been pointed out, in many ways the evidence contained in it is as important as its conclusions.
The report deals with public expenditure and with general economic aspects of the Autumn Statement. The first matter, part I of our report, is probably best debated when we consider the White Paper, so I shall concentrate on the general economic aspects of the problem. I stress once again that the report of the Committee was unanimous and that its conclusions deserve careful consideration. In many ways the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was the heart of the matter. He analysed in considerable depth the causes of our present problems while at the same time fully accepting collective responsibility for the policies pursued by his predecessor. We would expect that of him.
That said, however, we now face serious problems of inflation and the balance of payments, although it is important not to underestimate the achievements of the economy under the previous Chancellor's guidance, not least the reductions in taxation, the substantial increase in living standards, the massive and unprecedented reduction in the national debt and, as my right hon. Friend tightly pointed out, the huge increases in priority areas of spending such as the National Health Service.
Nevertheless, we must analyse why many of these problems face us again. Opposition Members seem not to understand that we must fight a constant war against inflation, rather than winning a battle and that being the end of the matter. There are lessons to be learnt from the experience of the past two years, and the Committee's report seeks to show that.
Mr. Beith rose—
Mr. Higgins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief, because I believe that Privy Councillors should speak only for a maximum of 12 minutes.
Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman will have to work on the language of his ministerial colleagues, who still talk about "exorcising" inflation. If one exorcises something, it has gone for good. Is there no difference between the way he views this matter and the way they view it?
Mr. Higgins: It is a difference of rhetoric rather than of substance.
As I was saying, there are some lessons to be learnt. First, it is absolutely essential to improve our economic statistics. This is a constant burden that successive Chancellors have faced and the measures now being taken should help in that respect. Secondly, the forecasts in the past two years have been seriously misleading in underestimating the extent of the upturn in the economy; there is also some danger that they are now underestimating the downturn, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this into careful account.
Over the past 10 years, however, we have progressed fairly steadily from very simple monetarism to a degree of pragmatism, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to make his Budget speech he will set out clearly his analysis of policy and what he believes should be done. I have always believed that the right approach is an eclectic one that takes into account the views of those who may be described as monetarists and the views of those who may very loosely be described as Keynesians. There is some danger that we shall underestimate the importance of the money supply in the present approach to economic policy.
As the chief economic adviser to the Treasury said, the recent totally unprecedented fall in the savings ratio combined with an unprecedented rise in the investment ratio has caused serious problems. My right hon. Friend's approach to the rate of interest must be supported because it is right. At the same time, however, there is some confusion when we talk of monetary policy. At present, there is a concentration on the price of money—the interest rate—and insufficient attention is devoted to the quantity of money. The report tries to bring out that point. I have serious doubts whether the present approach to funding policy and control of the money supply is right. Of course, it is much easier when one has a budget surplus to deal with the problem by a policy of fully funding than it is with a budget deficit, when one must fund the deficit by borrowing from the non-bank sector.
I commend strongly to the Chancellor the important passages in our report, particularly paragraphs 83 and 87, where we urge him to consider the whole issue of funding policy. The present policy is to sell bills to buy gilts, and the opportunity for controlling the broader monetary aggregates is being ignored. I hope that he will consider the matter carefully before he delivers his Budget in a few weeks' time. That is one lesson that we must learn from the experience of the past couple of years.
The other problem—wage settlements—has only recently reasserted itself as a problem. It is wrong to say, as those with a simplified monetarist approach do, that so long as we control money supply we need not worry about wage settlements. I have gone through various cycles of so-called incomes policy, opposing successive Labour Governments who went from no incomes policy at all to
770
the most rigorous statutory policy and then, on the Government side, promoting everything from no incomes policy to a statutory incomes policy.
As the subject is coming up again, it is important to remember the lessons of the past, and in particular the very dangerous doctrine associated with the idea of productivity and comparability. Of course, overall there is a relationship between productivity and wages. That relationship may or may not be inflationary, but it is dangerous to argue, as I sought to point out at Prime Minister's Question Time a few days ago, that if productivity in a firm increases, it necessarily justifies a comparable wage increase. The relationship is not automatic. It depends also on what is happening on the demand side of that company's output and what it can charge for its products.
If a relationship is established and if other firms decide to award comparable wage increases, that is unquestionably inflationary. There is an important distinction to be made. In the private sector the Government set the framework and private negotiators for unions and employers must work out the answer. They must bear in mind the effect that those wage settlements will have and the repercussions on unemployment of comparable wage settlements. I hope that the trade union movement will remember the lessons of 1979–80; over the past 10 years trade unions seem to have realised what was happening.
Despite my right hon. Friend's determination to bring inflation under control, and despite the fiscal and monetary policies that he is adopting, inflationary wage settlements will have a most serious effect on unemployment. It is the impact of those settlements, not the Government's policy, which needs to be taken into account and where the fault will lie if that unfortunate position arises.
That is what is happening in the private sector. In the public sector, as my right hon. Friend implied in his speech, the Government have a responsibility to adopt a sensible pay policy because that has a direct impact, first, on the size of the budget surplus or deficit and, secondly, on the distribution of resources between pay and services and physical resources. It would be a total abnegation of Government responsibility not to take a serious attitude to inflationary pay settlements in the public sector.
Finally, I want to say a word about the balance of payments referred to in depth in the Committee's report. Although I recognise, as the Committee does, that this is a matter of serious concern, I believe that the measures that the Chancellor has already taken on fiscal and monetary policy will be adequate to put the balance of payments right, though not immediately. If the Government try to correct the imbalance hurriedly, the cost will be too high, as our concluding paragraph says. Over time the position will improve.
As to foreign confidence, the trend in the balance of payments is vital, both on the import side where one can see clearly that domestic demand is declining—which is likely to have an effect on imports—and externally on exports, where the fall in the exchange rate has been helpful. I believe that it is adequate to put the matter right. We may be reasonably certain that my right hon. Friend's policies will succeed.
I had a concluding passage about surfboarding, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has already referred. It was a memorable phrase. I do

771
not think that undercurrents are important in surfboarding, nor does it follow that a surfboarder does not know the direction in which he should go, or can go. It may be necessary from time to time to tack. To go straight into the wind may be a mistake, but I believe that my right hon. Friend's skill will be adequate to get us home safely to port.
5.25 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is to be congratulated, as always, on the work that he does in bringing certain matters before the House following actions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others responsible for the economy. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of money supply, but that will come as no surprise to him. I noted that the Chancellor did not deal with that in discussing monetary policy, nor did he mention the balance of payments, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) referred in his splendid speech.
On this occasion I am prepared to be generous to the Chancellor. These are early days. He is the first Chancellor of the Exchequer of this Government without responsibility for a largely blameworthy past. Of course, he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but that is not the same as having responsibility for so many economic decisions that were taken while he was at the Treasury. Some of the nonsenses of monetarism cannot be laid at his door. I had hoped that we might speak less of those today, but the right hon. Member for Worthing brought up a murky past which reminds us of the certainties that the Government once had.
I am prepared to accept the limited responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for those matters and, even more important, for the squandering of North sea oil, the only real chance the Government had to do valuable things which they failed to do. At that time there was a belief, breathtaking in its naivety, that pay demands had nothing to do with inflation—a view that even the Prime Minister does not share now. We had the associated nonsense that doubling VAT would have no effect on prices, which was effectively disproved when the RPI went up to 21·9 per cent. in May 1980. When the Government talk about their splendid record on prices they should remember that the RPI was 21·9 per cent. in May 1980, a year after they took office. So there is something to be said against the Government on inflation, even at a time when they thought they had it completely right.
Rises in inflation under the Labour Government were a consequence of the quintupling of oil prices when virtually all our oil was imported. The 21·9 per cent. inflation under this Government was entirely home-manufactured. It was brought about by a Government who, to quote a phrase, did not understand sixth form economics. Clever as they are, they are the modern equivalent of the wisest fools in Christendom. I always think that a country pays a heavy price for trying to teach parties how to govern. They subsequently regret the commitments that they enter into without the benefits of a Civil Service machine; and the country regrets them even more.
In this regard I must applaud my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East and my hon.
772
Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for not promising more than they can deliver and for laying the foundation for a responsible and reforming economic policy. The Government have had 10 years and it is sad that they have not learnt all that much.
In the famous Financial Statement and Budget Report of 1980, the Red Book, the Government mentioned some of the problems that they faced. In it they disclosed their medium-term financial strategy. The book is a prized possession of mine and bears the signature of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). In it he states:
"high nominal interest rates are a deterrent to investment."
That is what we have now. He continued:
"If interest rates are to be brought down to acceptable levels the PSBR must be substantially reduced as a proportion of GDP over the next few years."
However, the PSBR is now negative: we have a PSDR. Does that mean that there is no problem about high interest rates any more? Of course there is.
Not only did the Government get it wrong, but they got it diametrically wrong. That was their mistake and they continued with it year after year. Those of us who repeatedly attempted to bore the House knew that it was crucial to get that message across. We have finally done so because the new Chancellor of the Exchequer did not even mention that subject. We applaud him for that. The monetarist nonsense and its consequences have been scrapped, but unfortunately we now have the poll tax, the one-club activity and the scorning of the big balance of payments deficit. All those remain. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no black marks against him yet. He may be regarded as tardy, but if that were shown to be a consequence of well-laid plans we might be persuaded that the results were worth waiting for. He is on trial; that is not a bad position for him to be in. When he presents the Budget we shall know how to assess his activities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has an abominable inheritance: inflation, a balance of payments deficit and decaying public services. All those exist while everyone is fighting for the ear of the Chancellor. We must hope that he has realised that there is only one way out of the crisis, which has been held in abeyance for 10 years. The crisis did not come about until the advantages of North sea oil had been squandered and the country was once again forced to look the same recurring problems in the face. This sad aspect is like that in one of the stories of the brothers Grimm. The good fairy gave us the oil and the wicked fairy made us abuse it.
Abuse is probably the right word. We are now near the time when we can seriously question whether it might have been better not to have had North sea oil. France, Germany, Italy and Japan had no oil and prospered in the 1980s. If we had not had the oil we might have been forced to realise earlier the reality facing us. That cushion enabled the Government to ignore the pleas of our companies which shed a quarter of our manufacturing industry—one third in my constituency. Those included small and medium-tech firms which were forced to close by the 17 per cent. interest rates and a pound worth $2·40. We faced such disaster in the first two years of the Government. My town lost a great deal of its manufacturing industry and suffered unemployment levels such as no one expected.
What is the Chancellor to do? First, and most importantly, he must show that he is in charge of economic policy. He must be more than just a tenant of his next door

773
landlady. To do the minimum to demonstrate that, he must engage her prejudices head on. Any increase in mortgage relief will write him off completely. For too long we have entertained nonsense about absurd encouragement of overpriced housing. We tax almost anything. Anyone living in expensive accommodation is not only free from tax but receives a subsidy to go for a larger and better dwelling. Industry cannot get the finance it should because the investing public realise that unnecessarily expensive housing is the best investment of all. There is no schedule A tax to pay on imputed rents, no capital gains tax on main residences, mortgage relief and now the poll tax. Can anything more be given?
If from No. 10 we hear the word that there should be an increase in the limit in mortgage tax relief, we shall know that the right hon. Gentleman's effective Chancellorship is coming to an end. Future economists will conclude that we have some obsessional neurosis about this and I am not sure that they will be entirely wrong. That is what the Chancellor should not do, but what should he do? He must take action to reduce the bonanza of tax-free pension schemes for the well-to-do. That will earn him the appreciation of those who call out for the minimum of fiscal sense. Assistance for industry and training will earn him essential bonus points. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East was quite right to put this matter at the centre of his urgent call for action.
Ten years ago in Stockport and Tameside—I am associated with the two areas because they are linked—there were 20,000 skilled working engineers. Last year, there were 5,000. We have created that shortage of skills. It was created by people who retired early and will not go back to work. The Chancellor can do something about this. He may not recall this but he can learn about it: at the beginning of the war the same skill shortages existed and, in an emergency exercise, the Government set up a Government training scheme. People were paid to take a six-month course to learn basic engineering skills.
I was then an apprentice and I remember seeing such people. We scorned them because they did not have the skills that we thought that we had. However, they did a useful job and, as time went by, they were able to replace some of the skills of the other people. I am not saying that that is a model, but it is an example of what could, and needs, to be done if we are serious about this problem.
I have one other plea for the Chancellor's Budget. Setting capital allowances at 25 per cent. is unreal. If I buy a machine tool costing £1,000, the Inland Revenue will say that it has depreciated to £750 at the end of the first year. The assumption is that I can readily sell the machine tool, which I bought at £1,000, for £750 at the end of a year. That is absurd. Few machine tools can be sold on the open market for that price. If the dealer's margin is generous, it cannot be sold the following week at that price.
I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the trade press to see how much secondhand machinery fetches. In a company which needs to be not too distant from the technological frontier, it is right that it should not be disadvantaged in that way. There should be some incentive for such an investment rather than the reverse. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East said, there is no discrimination between
774
the capital allowances given for this essential investment and those for fancy city offices They are both given in precisely the same quantitative amounts.
Service industry, to which the Government were so deeply wedded, rests on the back of manufacturing industry. Financial markets follow industrial success. The service industry is no more use on its own than is the practice of taking in each other's washing. The City of London was created from a successful economy and so was New York. Tokyo and Frankfurt are rising on the strengths of their manufacturing industry. They will pose severe problems to London.
The trouble is that through most of this century this country's financial activities have been considered as more important than its industrial operations. That led Winston Churchill to ask that finance be less proud and industry more content. Of course, we need the constraining function of proper financial management. As a country, we have superb accountants, but not many good, and certainly not many adequately-rewarded, engineers. We have the snaffle and the bit—well structured and hand-tooled they are, but where is the bloody horse? The inadequacy of our training and education to provide the motive power for such people is a shaming indictment of our time.
The trouble is that the same financial activities have led the rush to London, even of our manufacturing industry. Out of the top 100 companies in Britain, 95 have their headquarters in London. Some years ago I compared that with the city of New York, the financial centre of the United States, where 29 out of the top 100 companies had their headquarters based. Companies such as 3M, Boeing, Ford, IBM and Du Pont are all geographically spread around and give value to the rest of the country. In Germany, companies such as Mercedes, Bauer and Siemens are all provincially based, giving strength to the rest of the country. In Britain, even Scotch Whisky has its headquarters in London. That leads to a centripetal effect and has consequences for our regional policy and activities.
The squeeze on credit, which started 17 or 18 months ago, is painfully slow. Society is different today. More people have capital on which they earn increasing dividends or interest, and they are not so likely to reduce their newly-accustomed standard of living. That was the case for credit controls or tax increases, and that is the case for the restoration of the investment income surcharge. It was absurd to abolish it.
Historically, it existed because it was held that capital was more secure than earned wages—but that is not so true today, when the justification for the surcharge is different. The cost of working has increased and will continue to do so. People are obliged to spend substantial sums of money on travelling to work. It is no longer a case of living just along the road from the mill or the factory. The cost of meals taken at work is also a burden, for today a sandwich often costs as much as a meal did in the past. Working clothes also must be paid for.
None of those expenses is allowable against income tax. That may have been all right when people worked at the factory bench in their old clothes, but not today. There is a real cost involved in the process of earning a living, for which the Inland Revenue does not allow. I appreciate full well the problems of opening the floodgate of the allowances to set off against tax, but in the past it operated

775
on the basis that there is a cost involved in earning a living, whereas if one only sits at home and receives dividends or interest, no such cost arises.
The major task confronting the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to ensure that the economy is restored to a non-inflationary trend. He has a task ahead in respect of the balance of payments deficit, and he can be effective only if he does something for manufacturing industry. The level of assistance that it is given will be of supreme importance.
5.41 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: I have followed the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on many previous occasions, but I do not recollect him advocating before an investment income surcharge. I thought the present problem is one of a shortage of personal savings. I ask the House to consider what the likely impact of an investment income surcharge would be on the propensity of private individuals to save, and I imagine that such a surcharge would not be recommended by members of the Labour Front Bench.
I noticed during the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that he was, as always, short on specifics when it came to taxation. He has some very worthy ambitions in respect of training and education, with which I entirely concur. However, he is not quite so forthcoming in explaining how that extra expenditure will be met. He fails to give sufficient credit to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the measures already taken by the Government and for the vast increase in expenditure that has occurred.
Every potential Labour Government have the problem of paying for the large increase in public expenditure that a Socialist programme necessarily involves. The hon. and learned Gentleman may disagree, but the fact remains that if such expenditure is to be incurred, and if we are to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in thinking that state pensions should increase in line with earnings as well as with prices, large sums of money will inevitably have to be raised by borrowing—which would of necessity mean higher interest rates. That is when the problems invariably begin, with the International Monetary Fund being called in before long.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke of the importance of manufacturing industry, and I do not dissent from that. However, page 53 of the Autumn Statement shows that over the past decade manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom increased by 5¼ per cent.—and a conveniently adjacent column reveals that the decade before that recorded the lowest increase in manufacturing output per head. That suggests that, while manufacturing investment is important, one should not ignore the rapid and considerable improvements in manufacturing output per head over the past 10 years, which I hope will continue.
Perhaps it is wrong to draw too much of a distinction between business investment and manufacturing investment. Again, I follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne concerning North sea oil.
Labour always keeps very quiet about the way in which this country's overseas assets have been built up over the past 10 years. British business has now invested £90,000 million overseas, which is the largest single amount invested by any country, not excluding Japan or the
776
United States. Manufacturing companies such as GKN now produce rather more in the United States than they do in this country, while companies such as Ford, with substantial operations in the rest of the European Community, spread their investment between one country and another. It is unrealistic to suppose that Britain can become the engine room of western Europe or play a large part in world manufacturing capacity.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people think that Britain is the 51st state of America? The reality is that investment by British companies in America is well in excess of investment by American companies in Britain.
Sir Peter Hordern: I agree entirely. It would be perverse always to look backwards and to think of ourselves as an individual nation intent on manufacturing production. That is not the reality of the situation as we move towards the end of the 1990s and the turn of the century. We must follow Adam Smith's adage about the division of labour in manufacturing.
The Opposition naturally picked on some of the more inconvenient parts of the Government's economic record. such as the balance of payments deficit and inflation. Inflation is the single most important issue confronting the Government, whose policy has always been very clear—that it should be tackled by monetary means, which I think is right. However, the figures have not been entirely convenient, and the measure of monetary aggregates has seemed to vary from one year to the next. I do not know the latest fashion, but I notice that little MO still occupies quite an important place—as does M4, which is the broader measure.
I assumed that after 18 months or two years of expansion and of whatever monetary aggregate was in favour at the time, inflation would follow. Happily, during 1985, when there was a rapid expansion of M4 of about 15 per cent., inflation mercifully fell to little more than 4 per cent. at the time of the 1987 general election. However, I do not so disregard the increase in monetary aggregate as to think that it has no effect. The increase recently in both M0 and M4 is a cause for considerable concern. We cannot continue that way, and if it was not for the fact that bank lending for the latest quarter shows signs of slowing by comparison with the previous quarter—and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, retail expenditure is decreasing—there would be cause for more alarm than there is.
However, I do not believe that monetary policy in the sense of measurement of monetary aggregates is enough. Interest rates must remain the main weapon, but even they are not sufficient to deal with the situation, for we also need to ensure that the exchange rate does not go down too far against other currencies. That is presenting difficulties because in the past year the deutschmark has appreciated by some 16 per cent. against sterling.
Much of our manufacturing industry is devoted to components, and it takes place in different countries in Europe. For example, the other day, I was talking to someone who works for the Ford Motor Company, and he told me that they manufacture the engines for all the Ford 2 litre cars in West Germany. The price of those engines is some 16 per cent. cheaper than it was a year ago. Ford has

777
no incentive to keep down wage increases. It knows that it can well afford to pay at least 10 per cent. more because the cost of producing the engines has gone down.
More and more companies which trade within the European Community—as most of them now do—will find that a declining exchange rate makes it more difficult to restrain wage claims than it would be if the exchange rate were kept constant.
Trade with western Europe and the European Community accounts for 51 per cent. of British imports. Therefore, we cannot be oblivious to what the exchange rate should be, nor can we say that we should leave it to the market. We cannot pursue that option.
The 16 per cent. movement in the deutschmark against sterling has meant that Ford can afford to pay more and so can other companies which manufacture and export to the European Community. The public sector regards the private sector as a benchmark for its own wage claims but whereas Ford may be able to pay 10 per cent. more in wages, the public sector certainly cannot. Therefore, I impress upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the absolute importance of making it clear to everybody that—
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament working in the public sector, is getting a rise of more than 10 per cent.
Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If we are to be judged by other parts of the public sector in relation to the reports of the Review Body on Top Salaries, we would be regarded as the worst negotiators in the public sector, and I say that without fear of contradiction.
I do not wish to be sidetracked, and I shall return to the question of where the market leads. Some people have the idea that one cannot buck the market but, as I said a moment ago, because Britain has investments of £90,000 million abroad, a finance director of a major company has to study his firm's assets every day, and it is his duty to protect them. Trade and business today consist of finance directors protecting their firms' overseas assets. If sterling were pegged to the deutschmark—as I think it should be—that work would not exist for finance managers.
The market does not force us to have a flexible exchange rate policy. If we had a firm exchange rate policy, aligning sterling with the deutschmark, and took the necessary measures, there would be no need for all the business in the foreign exchange markets that is taking place now. If we are to overcome inflation and to improve the markets, an exchange rate policy is very important.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was talking about the Labour Government's bad luck when the oil price quintupled. It must be hard for the Opposition to accept this, but the oil reserves in the North sea have been helpful, because they enabled Britain to invest £90,000 million abroad, which gives us a considerable cushion. We can urge people who work in the United States and elsewhere to work harder on our behalf. I see nothing wrong with that.
The prospects for economic advance as a result of the recent events in eastern Europe will inconvenience the Opposition even more. The events in eastern Europe are momentous. In 1989 750,000 people moved from the East
778
to West Germany—they were ethnic Germans. West Germany was faced with the consequences of an acute shortage of skilled labour, but it is probable that there will now be a considerable increase in production and economic growth in West Germany this year. West Germany's economy grew by 4 per cent. last year. At a press conference on 11 January, Herr Kohl said that it was in the interests of Europe as a whole that the European Community continued to develop as a model of an association of free nations. I think that that commends itself to all hon. Members.
An association of free nations would mean that there would be free movement of people, capital, goods and services within Europe. The European Community plans to make considerable investment by means of loans and grants to the countries of eastern Europe, but if the European Community got rid of the common agricultural policy it would do much more good for the people of eastern Europe. Eastern Europe is primarily an agricultural community, and that would encourage it to increase its production of agricultural produce. It would be able to get higher prices for the goods and increase productivity, and that would do more good than all the money the Community could give. I believe that that should and will happen.
Eastern Europe will resemble America at the beginning of the American industrial revolution, in the 1830s, when there was a similar vast movement of population, because people moved across the Atlantic to the United States. Western Europe will experience a similar increase in economic growth as the United States did at that time.
The future of the British economy is bright because its manufacturing and service industries are enmeshed with the economies of the other countries in the European Community.
I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for all that he is doing. If he keeps a tight control of public expenditure and keeps interest rates high for as long as necessary, which I understand to be his policy, he will have my wholehearted support.
5.57 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: If I could have brought some of my constituents, or some of the people who are now packed like sardines on the Underground, into the Chamber to listen to the Chancellor's opening remarks describing the Government's success, they might have asked sharper questions than many hon. Members tend to ask. They would want to know why, if the economy is such a success, we have such squalid and declining public services. If it is such a success, why are the lowest-paid workers being told that it is irresponsible of them to seek a small share of the success that the country is supposed to be enjoying? If this is success, why have home owners, who have struggled to get on the ladder of home ownership, been so heavily penalised for so long by high interest rates? If this is success, what is failure like? I think that those people would have critical words to say about the measurement of success implicit in the Chancellor's earlier remarks.
The Chancellor could direct our attention to some successes, but in key respects, which affect the lives of ordinary people in Britain, that success is not a reality—the down side is the reality.

779
The Autumn Statement refers to the Government's commitment to reduce public expenditure year by year as a proportion of what the nation produces. That policy has not been achieved this year, but it continues to be the Government's policy. When I challenged the Chancellor earlier today, he said that that policy was sustainable because we will have so much growth that the amount of money realised by the declining proportion of national production would be sufficient to maintain and perhaps improve public services. If we do achieve that continual growth, we should expect some improvement in our public services rather than a standstill or even a decline.
The doctrine of a perpetual reduction in the proportion of public expenditure is one that various members of the Government clearly find difficult. Whenever an Autumn Statement is presented and the Government issue their various comments and press releases, the next day's papers are confused about whether the Government have said that they are cutting public expenditure and doing very well, or that they are increasing expenditure on important services and doing very well. That, it seems, is not surprising: it is instructive to examine what some Departments have to say.
The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee examined the pronouncements of the Department of Employment, whose expenditure is being reduced because the Government believe that if fewer people are employed less training will be needed. Nothing could be further from the truth: skill training is desperately needed in the present circumstances. The Department, far from saying in its press statements how successful it has been in cutting public expenditure, tries to pretend that it is increasing that expenditure. Its argument is, "If we compare the figures with those of 1979, it is clear that we are doing very well." The Government's objectives seem to be somewhat confused; we had better clear that up so that we can get down to establishing what Departments such as the Department of Employment should actually be spending.
Analysis of the figures of other Departments is also instructive. The Department of Transport waxed lyrical about its increased spending on London's public transport, but that has amounted merely to permission for the extension of the Jubilee line: no expenditure has been allowed for the two lines across London which everyone who studies London's transport problem knows to be essential. The Department of Trade and Industry, I note, has cut export promotion and regional expenditure.
Examination of the relative price effect is even more instructive: although the relatively lower inflation rate in the cost of defence materials has meant a gain for the Ministry of Defence, there has been no renegotiation and no clawing back of that money. Conversely, no allowance has been made for the high rate of inflation affecting the commodities that the Department of Health has to buy, and that has had a significant effect on the NHS spending figures.
The Government claim to be increasing NHS resources by 5·5 per cent. Let us consider that figure in detail. First, it falls to 4·9 per cent. if cost improvements—the money resulting from savings and income generation within the NHS, about which there is considerable doubt—are excluded. There should be an incentive for those who make such savings to do better than the Government's published overall figures, but that incentive will not be
780
there if the cost improvements—some of which seem to have been counted more than once—can only comply directly with those figures.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): Why exclude them?
Mr. Beith: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is intervening from a sedentary position. I am trying to deal with the arguments as I go along, but if he wishes to speak I will give way.
If the cost of the NHS review and the policies arising from it is excluded—as seems perfectly sensible in the measurement of overall Health Service expenditure—the real increase is brought down to 3·7 per cent., a figure calculated through the use of the GDP deflator, which is widely considered to be lower than the inflation rate within the NHS. The Department's own figures suggest that the inflation rate in the hospital services is 10·5 per cent., and the rate in the family practitioner services 10·3 per cent. The actual real-terms increase in NHS expenditure may be as low as 1·5 or 2 per cent., a figure that may not be sufficient to account for demographic changes which, as everyone recognises, place additional demands on the service. I am not saying that the Government have not made an extra effort this year to find more funds for the NHS. Nevertheless, they must not claim that the NHS is suddenly in a position greatly to improve the quality of its service by means of the Government's funding, given the background against which the figures are set.
As well as the impact of the Autumn Statement on the public services, we must look at what the statement says and at what has happened to the general conduct of the economy since it was issued. The position has certainly not improved overall: we still have high inflation, high interest rates and a large trade deficit. Exports are growing more quickly—which is a welcome sign—and they will benefit from the depreciation of the pound over the past year but, as the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) pointed out, there is a reverse side to that.
The progress made so far has still not removed the basic danger posed by our large trade deficit. Even one bad set of trade figures can put pressure on sterling, and thus either increase the inflationary pressures in the economy or trigger a further base rate rise. Every time a bad set of trade figures emerges, a waiting game ensues to see whether the Chancellor will have to increase the base rate again to stem a flow from sterling. This week's trade figures, for which we are now waiting, have already prompted nervousness.
According to this week's figures, manufacturing output appears to be declining to an alarming and unexpected degree, while the figures for bankruptcies and liquidations again show a high rate of increase. The inflation rate is the worst since 1982. If I wished to hire an exorcist, I would not hire members of the present Government, for the job of an exorcist is to get rid of something once and for all. Year after year, the Government have promised the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that in three years' time inflation will be down to 3 per cent., but they have never achieved that objective, which has seemed to recede further as each three-year period has gone by.
There can be no reason to expect the realisation even of the Autumn Statement forecast of a 5·75 per cent. inflation rate, especially in view of the alarming money supply and bank lending figures and the depreciation in sterling. The

781
Treasury model predicts that a 5 per cent. fall in sterling will add 4 per cent. to the retail prices index over a four-year period. Sterling has risen slightly since the beginning of the year, but that will not make much difference to a depreciation as large as that of the past 12 months.
The Government are clearly worried about the impact of wage inflation. Inflation in average earnings is now running at over 9·25 per cent. and the prospect of double-figure wage inflation is in sight. The pressure on wages is increased by rising mortgage interest rates. It is no use for the Government to say continually that those rates have nothing to do with inflation and should not be included in the retail prices index; the fact remains that high mortgage rates and heavy expenditure on buying a home are factors that fuel wage demands, and it is hardly surprising that people ask for larger pay increases to cope with those effects. The Government must recognise the reverse side of their interest rate policy.
There is also the effect of the own-goal inflation referred to by the CBI. Privatisation price increases for water and electricity have been very high: in my constituency, the price of water has increased by more than 18 per cent. this year. Furthermore, waiting to hit the people who are seeking reasonable wage increases to meet those costs is the threat of the poll tax.
When the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales meets in the spring, it will have to face the fact that most farm workers will expect to have to pay about £600 a year out of their taxed income that they have never had to pay before. Hitherto they have lived in rent and rate-free accommodation, but now they will have to pay poll tax for themselves and their wives. Will the board ensure that they receive an increase of £600 a year to meet that cost, or will the Government say that it is irresponsible for these workers to be allowed to retain even the low living standards that they have enjoyed for the past year? The Government face a dilemma of their own making because of the impact of the poll tax on that section of the community, but the effect on many other sections will also be powerful.
No one still believes what the Government say about inflation. They say that they want a high pound to prevent import prices from rising, and to force employers to be tough in wage negotiations, but then they let the pound fall and plead with the employers to be tough. As other hon. Members have pointed out, those employers can obtain the benefit of the depreciation in sterling through the prices that they obtain for their goods overseas.
As part of their medium-term financial strategy, the Government say that they intend to bring MO under control, but when MO rises to well above its target range after a year of high interest rates they do not push up interest rates further. Of course, we should all be alarmed if they did, but where does that leave the strategy and the policies that were based on it?
What has happened to the Government's incomes policy? The two aspects of the Government's incomes policy were a high pound and high unemployment. Thankfully, unemployment has fallen, although it may now start to rise again. Those were the two elements by which the Government sought to contain inflation, but
782
neither will do so any longer. The Government will have to look elsewhere for a credible framework for an anti-inflation policy.
We have argued, as have other hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in the debate, that a better framework for an anti-inflation strategy would be found if Britain joined the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. But we know who we are up against. We are not up against the Chancellor, who has said that he has been in favour of it for a long time. We are up against the Prime Minister's prejudices. The Prime Minister hates the idea of the Government who she heads being inhibited in any way. She adopts exactly the same attitude in her opposition to the previous Chancellor's proposal that there should be a more independent central bank. It was instructive to hear what the Prime Minister said about that. She was opposed to it because she believed that the bank must be under the control of Parliament.
Who here believes that the day-to-day operations of the Bank of England are under the control of Parliament? The Bank of England is under the influence of the Government of the day in a way that cannot be held accountable to Parliament. We do not know what conversations the Chancellor has with the governor, or what was said or to what extent the governor's actions follow from the Chancellor's advice. That is one of the most closely guarded secrets of Government. What is really at stake is the Prime Minister's desire not to be inhibited even from doing things which officially she opposes, such as debauching the currency. She hangs on to the freedom to do things which she says Governments should not do. The Prime Minister's prejudices stand in the way of providing a firm anchor for the anti-inflation policy.
Mr. James Hill: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. Have not the Government made it clear that we will not join until two major EEC countries have the same rules for exchange controls or the lack of exchange controls that are proposed? Would that not be the right time to join? If the economy is as bad as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, it would be quite wrong to join the European monetary system with some countries obeying some rules and some countries obeying others.
Mr. Beith: The condition that the hon. Gentleman has advanced is well on the way to being satisfied and would be satisfied pretty quickly if Britain announced that it would join on that condition only. The hon. Gentleman has overlooked another condition, which is that our inflation rate must be close to that of our competitors. On present figures I see no prospect of that. It is the Prime Minister's way of buying as much time as she wants. She will be able to say for a long time that that condition is not satisfied because she knows that she will not meet even her Government's targets for dealing with inflation.
The Government should be seeking that anti-inflationary framework and taking the opportunity that it provides to invest in the long-term health of the economy—in training, education and transport—and to make other structural changes in the British economy that are necessary to drive inflation out of our system. The Government should be looking more closely at opportunities to extend profit-related pay if they want to ensure that the wage bargaining process is informed by

783
companies' productivity and profitability. There is a case for a national mechanism so that we can discuss and agree on what would be a reasonable increase for the economy, and a mechanism to ensure that firms which achieve high productivity can pass on that benefit to their employees and their employees can reasonably negotiate for it.
There can be no prospect of a giveway Budget this year. The Government must take the opportunity to deal with some of the anomalies such as high-rate mortgage tax relief and the payment of tax relief at the top rate to those least in need of subsidy. The Government should tackle some of the remaining anomalies in the national insurance system and take steps to encourage savings. Those factors must be part of the Chancellor's Budget considerations in the next couple of months.
The Chancellor is the ultimate pragmatist. He is not a monetarist. His evidence to the Select Committee made it clear that he is in no way attached to monetarist theories. Monetarism is out; the medium-term financial strategy is out; and the idea of an independent central bank even in Britain, let alone as part of the new European model, is excluded—if not by the Chancellor, very firmly by the Prime Minister. The EMS is still a long way off. It is surfboarding, but this surfboard has a back-seat driver—the Prime Minister. The Chancellor's pragmatism may be attractive to those who are unhappy with some of the dogma that has dominated recent economic policy, but in the absence of any other anchor for an anti-inflation policy, it gives no prospect that some of the fundamental weaknesses of the British economy will be corrected under the present Government.
6.15 pm
Sir William Clark: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spent some time trying to disprove the Government's increase in expenditure on the National Health Service. Suffice it to say that since 1979 expenditure on the National Health Service has increased by about 45 per cent. in real terms and the number of people whom it employs has increased by 77,000. The hon. Gentleman cannot make such accusations when the facts belie what he says.
The hon. Gentleman said that his party's answer was to join the EMS—as though that were the panacea for all our ills. I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman or the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) would pay for the policies that they put forward were they ever to form a Government.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East spent much time discussing our manufacturing industry. Not once did he say that during the 1960s many trade unions were responsible for pricing their members out of jobs. Shipbuilding and steel became uncompetitive. Of course, the manufacturing base will shrink if we do not remain competitive. That is one of the main reasons why we start from a low manufacturing base.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) that, having listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, one would think that selective employment tax was coming back, possibly in company with the national insurance surcharge.
I am sure that more than 9 million shareholders will take no comfort from the fact that if the party represented by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr.
784
Sheldon) were ever to form a Government, the investment surcharge would be reimposed. He spoke about capital allowances, but they were traded off by reducing corporation tax. We have one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the Common Market.
Mr. Sheldon: Surely the hon. Gentleman recalls that there was a minimum level before investment surcharge was levied on a person's income tax. It did not start from the first £1 of income tax. The hon. Gentleman must realise that nothing like 9 million people would be affected.
Sir William Clark: I am sure that that will be a comfort to some shareholders. However, I do not think that it will encourage savings.
We could use a straight line 25 per cent. reduction for capital allowances, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that inflation is enemy number one. Last week there was a flurry in the City, the media and the press because of fears that the inflation rate was going up. It is affecting our economy and it is certainly affecting the value of the pound. We take our economic pulse too often and we say what it will be before we have taken it. That is why we get all the flurry. Hon. Members will recall that last week people forecast that inflation would go up to 7·9 per cent. but, in fact, it remained at 7·7 per cent. Indeed, if one discounts the mortgage interest element, it was 6·1 per cent. and there was no change at all.
Opposition Members should pay tribute to the fact that the economy has underlying strength. Over the last 10 years the average family's standard of living, in real terms, has gone up by nearly one third, and the income of the pensioner has gone up by nearly one quarter. That is not a bad record. Of course, it could be better, but the position is much better than it was before 1979. Unemployment is down, the number of jobs is up, growth is up, investment is up, and manufacturing output is 12 per cent. higher than it was in 1979. Consequently, it is wrong to write off our manufacturing base. In fact, the manufacturing base is building up. Take, for example, foreign investment. There has been massive Japanese investment in the motor car industry. Opposition Members should realise that a time element is involved. From the initial stages of setting up a factory it may take two or three years—possibly less—for cars to come off the production line. The fact that we attracted investment last year does not mean that cars wi11 come off the production line in the immediate future, but they will be produced in due course.
I am delighted with the remark of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that public expenditure is under very strict control. When the present Government came to power public expenditure represented 44·5 per cent. of gross domestic product; this year it will be 39 per cent. Despite the fact that the proportion has gone down, more and more money is being spent on the Health Service, transport and education. The simple reason is that the economy is growing. Opposition Members may shake their heads, but they should look at the facts and the statistics. They will see that, in real terms, more and more money is being spent on those services. Anybody who does not believe that will not believe anything.
Of course, we have a balance of payments problem, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor admitted it only this afternoon. With hindsight, one sees that it was a mistake to relax interest rates at the beginning of 1988. But if I had known yesterday what I know today I would be a

785
millionaire many times over. There is strength in the economy, and our surplus this year will be £12 billion or thereabouts.
The statistics show that imports have flattened out and that in the past three months exports have increased by 7 per cent. Of course, we must do better, but there has been an increase in exports. As a result of the budget surplus the Government have been able, over the past three years, to repay some £30,000 million of the national debt. In interest charges alone that has resulted in a saving of about £3 billion to £5 billion per year, which is the equivalent of 2p or 3p in the pound on the standard rate of income tax. That is not just for one year, but for year after year. Such is the achievement of this Government.
Obviously the national debt is a burden, but the burden is being reduced, and I hope that the Treasury team is taking into account the fact that, as the national debt is reduced, problems arise, particularly in relation to the national savings movement. If the national debt were paid off, there would be no national savings and no gilts market. This is something that needs a lot of forward thought. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned savings. I agree with him—this is something that I hope my right hon. Friend will take on board—that, as a result of the Chancellor's policy, those without money who want to spend have to borrow. But the Chancellor has made it far too expensive to borrow and, as a result, consumer demand has come down. Retail spending in December was up slightly, although not as much as in previous years, but I do not think that one can use that for purposes of comparison. One must wait for the January figures because high street sales, which are normally held in January, were brought forward to December. By making borrowing too expensive my right hon. Friend has prevented people from spending.
But an awful lot of people in this country have money and do not need to borrow. Those people are spending. I am thinking in particular of people earnings between £20,000 and £35,000 a year—probably middle-aged people whose children are off their hands and whose mortgages are manageable. Such people have quite a lot of money to spend. My right hon. Friend has introduced personal equity plans, which are an extremely good idea, but to the average person PEPs are not enough of an incentive. Suppose that an average person puts £1,000 into PEPs. He or she is exempt from income tax on dividend. On £1,000 the dividend would be about £60 a year—about 6 per cent. Thus, the tax saving would be £15. What about capital gains tax? In that case, because of the £5,000 exemption limit, no capital gains tax has to be paid anyway.
I am not decrying PEPs altogether, but my right hon. Friend should adopt a more radical approach. He should introduce a system whereby a person could enter into a contractual saving arrangement and have the amount of money involved taken off the amount of his taxable income. That should not be beyond the wit of the Inland Revenue. A person saving, say, £1,000 a year would pay £250 less in tax, but £750 would come out of the consumer spending market. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have said that interest rates are high. The base rate is 15 per cent., and one would be lucky to be able to borrow at 17 or 18 per
786
cent. Interest rates are high enough, and I urge my right hon. Friend not to increase them further. The market in the deutschmark and the dollar is fairly stable at the moment, and we all know what a burden interest rates are for industry.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine capital gains tax. I realise that since 5 April 1982 we have had indexation and that it has been a great help. But a capital gains tax rate of 40 per cent. is locking up the market. Many people do not and will not change their stocks, and they are locked in. Capital gains tax should at least be reduced to the standard rate, if not abolished.
There is a great move to entice married women back to work, and one pressure that will build up as a consequence is to provide créches in the workplace. If one enjoys that perk it has to be entered on a form P11D and the employee is surcharged according to what the perk is worth. That applies to everybody earning more than £8,500 a year and it places a tremendous burden on industry. The figure of £8,500 per annum was fixed in April 1979, but it is time that we allowed employers to provide a créche without the employee having to pay tax.
At this time of the year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor receives advice from all quarters. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that there must be a reduction in taxation, but I remind hon. Members that the separate treatment of husband and wife for tax purposes will cost the Exchequer about £1·25 billion. If there are to be any tax cuts, I would plead, as I have in the past, that we should concentrate on thresholds. A single man can earn only £53 a week before he starts paying 25p in the pound to the Exchequer and a married man can earn only £84 a week.
This will be my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's first Budget. His forecast was accurate when he said in the last quarter of 1989 that inflation would be about 7·5 per cent. If I were my right hon. Friend, I would ignore some of the siren voices that we have heard from the Opposition Benches suggesting an increase in expenditure here and an increase there. He should keep a tight control on public expenditure and ignore requests for an increase. All my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish my right hon. Friend well in his first Budget.
6.32 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on his skilful work in getting all the members of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, with their broad range of views, to agree on a single report. That is a great achievement and it is one which he repeats, with customary skill, at least twice a year. He is not present at the moment, but I am sure that he will be back.
Our report, which is being debated with the motion today, is of considerable value to the House. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said, its importance lies not so much in its conclusions—conclusions go to the heart of the debate about economic policy on which one is unlikely to achieve a consensus—as in the wide range and depth of our investigative hearings and the accuracy and quality of our economic analysis. I want to look at both those points.
The Select Committee procedure allows Members to put questions at length and in depth to the Chancellor and his advisers in a way that is often not possible on the Floor

787
of the House, and that gives us a great advantage. For example, at our hearing on 4 December, the Chancellor had to admit that the balance of payments did matter. He also accepted that the deficit was caused not merely by an increase in investment goods but by a surge of consumer goods. That was something that he had not previously admitted on the Floor of the House, but he did so in answer to a series of questions from a number of Members.
The Chancellor revealed as much by his evasions as by his direct replies. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about his neglect of monetarism, but there is also the shift in exchange rate policy. In autumn 1988, the previous Chancellor lectured us about the need for a stronger exchange rate as a counter-inflationary discipline. This December, the present Chancellor was a good deal less emphatic when he said:
"It is worthwhile to have a firm exchange rate to bear down on inflation with all the other elements of monetary and fiscal policy as well."
He went on:
"As to the judgment as to what is or is not a firm exchange rate, that is a matter which one has to consider as and when necessary".
Now we all know what the Government exchange rate policy is.
It is not only the hearings that are valuable; it is the analysis underlying our report. Thanks mainly to our advisers, the Select Committee's track record has been a good deal better than that of the Treasury. In the spring of 1988, when the then Chancellor was boasting all over the world about the British economic miracle, we warned about the excessive growth in consumer credit, the impact of tax cuts in the Budget and the dangers of overheating. So we have not just spoken with hindsight; we said it then.
In our April 1988 report, we expressed disappointment about the failure to bring down inflation. We were concerned about the balance of payments. Presciently we said:
"we consider that uncertainties over domestic demand growth and the continuing capacity of the United Kingdom economy to respond, and over the likely growth of the international economy suggest that careful monitoring of the state of the current account will be needed."
We can say that again. We went on:
"Clearly there would be risks if the balance of payments deficit continues to rise."
But the Chancellor said that all was under control.
In view of the Select Committee's relatively good track record, it is well worth considering what we have to say this year about the British economy's prospects. We remain sceptical about the Government's ability to bring down the inflation rate. Commenting on the Treasury's forecast of 3 per cent. inflation by 1992—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that the Treasury always forecasts 3 per cent. three years ahead—we note that
"Repetition in the face of failure has not added credibility to this forecast."
We underline the significance of the huge current account deficit. As we point out, it has already been responsible for a substantial 10·5 per cent. depreciation, a rise in base rates—the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) has already pointed out the impact of that—and a loss of official reserves. It also puts the exchange rate very much at the mercy of market sentiment, as the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) pointed out.
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East, in his excellent speech, the Committee is
788
rightly worried about the supply side. In our report, we note with concern the £17 million deficit in manufacturing and we wonder whether British industry is any longer capable of supplying the range of goods that people want to buy in domestic markets and abroad. Sadly, we have not yet replaced the 20 per cent. of manufacturing capacity that we lost in the deep recession of 1979–82.
We also remain extremely sceptical about the theory put forward by the Government's chief economic adviser that our balance of payments deficit is, in some way, self-correcting. We explicitly warn that the process of adjustment will not be painless. As we say, it could even lead to a recession—a recession induced by high interest rates.
The new element in the Select Committee's analysis is our warning about the danger of recession, with all that that could mean for output, investment and employment. To sum up our message in simple terms, we warn about the risk of stagflation—that is, the danger of a relatively high rate of inflation combined with a stagnant economy. That is how the position looks at present.
Mr. Hanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to explain his party's policy to counter inflation, something which all of his hon. Friends have refused to do.
Mr. Radice: I was coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman listens patiently, he will hear.
The real question that faces the House—although it faces both the Opposition and the Government, it is more urgent that the Government face it—is how to bring an unbalanced economy back into equilibrium without endangering our long-term economic prospects. We have the difficult task of slowing down the economy, reducing inflation and shifting resources from imports to exports without clobbering output and investment, undermining productive potential and increasing unemployment.
It is already clear that the Government's over-reliance on high interest rates has damaging side effects. As we can see only too clearly in our constituencies, high interest rates are influencing the current wage round. That is not a theoretical concept or a matter of how the retail prices index is calculated, as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), used to say. It is a simple matter of bread and butter. If the Government increase interest rates, the cost of mortgages inevitably rises. Given the almost universal use of mortgages in Britain to finance house purchase, that inevitably feeds into the cost of living and so into pay bargaining. That is one of the unpleasant side effects. The other is the impact on investment.
Already there are signs that the welcome investment boom of the past two years is dying away. Faced by contracting domestic demand and the high cost of borrowing, about which we have heard from people who should know, investors—particularly small businesses—put off investment decisions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of that. If we are to reduce inflationary expectations and improve the prospects for investment, it is essential to bring down interest rates as soon as possible. That is why we need a new policy initiative.
Many of us accept that we should join the exchange rate mechanism. No one argues that membership is a panacea. However, at this stage of the economic cycle, it would give

789
us several crucial advantages. That brings me to the question that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) asked. The experience of several other countries which are members of the ERM, particularly France, shows that membership provides a useful counter-inflationary discipline. If business men and trades union negotiators are assured that there will be currency stability, there is less incentive for inflationary pay increases. To that extent, membership is counter-inflationary.
At the same time, membership of the ERM would allow Britain to bring down its interest rates. There is little doubt that one of the prices that we have paid for an independent monetary policy has been higher interest rates than those of our European competitors.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East said, if we joined the ERM at a competitive rate it would also help on the balance of payments side. As several hon. Members have said, the Prime Minister has imposed conditions on our entry into the ERM. It is clear that she is unwilling to join. She has even persuaded Treasury Ministers who ought to know better that we cannot join the ERM until our inflation rate improves. The trouble with that is that it is a chicken-and-egg argument. The Prime Minister says that we cannot join the ERM until our inflation rate comes down, but until we join it our inflationary prospects are unlikely to improve. We are in a cleft stick.
I fear that under present policies we shall continue to stagger along with inflation which is higher than that of our competitors, a record balance of payments deficit and higher interest rates than most of our competitors. We shall be very much the sick man of Europe, as was said earlier, and I believe that we need a change of policy.
Mr. Hanley: As we were at the end of the 1970s.
Mr. Radice: I am afraid that the same is true at the end of the 1980s. That is why we need a change of policy. If we are to square our present inflationary circle, keep investment up and bring the economy back into balance without harming our productive potential—as we are doing now—our early entry into the ERM is entirely necessary.
6.45 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I enjoyed the analysis of the economy which the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has just given, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not respond to his remarks. Instead, I should like to refer to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). The right hon. and learned Gentleman enjoys a well-deserved reputation as a formidable debater, and his performance this afternoon was characteristically entertaining. However, it suffered from the same omissions as were apparent from his speeches in the four or five debates on the economy that we have had since the summer recess.
We all understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to refer to the record of the Government of which he was a member. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will not accept any strictures on inflation from a member of a
790
Government who even in their best year could not reduce inflation to the present rate, which we regard as unacceptably high.
What I found more significant in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was his reluctance to say anything about his party's policy. He may be reticent because he does not believe that he will ever have the chance to put those policies into practice. Whatever the reason, it may be instructive to the House to explore Labour policy more deeply.
During the debates on the economy before Christmas the right hon. and learned Gentleman made great play of his enthusiasm for entering the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. Try as we would, my hon. Friends and I could not tease out of him any clue about the right level of sterling for entry into the ERM. I now understand why he was so reluctant to or could not answer that straightforward question—it was his adherence to what I might call a traditional Labour party source of advice. In October the right hon. and learned Gentleman told my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson):
"He should listen, … to the advice that he received from…the annual conference of the Trades Union Congress."
That remark was a timely reminder of who would run the British economy if the Labour party ever returned to power. The right hon. and learned Gentleman deserves the gratitude of the House and the country for giving with such candour and courage an early and open warning of his dependence on his party's paymasters.
Unfortunately, the annual conference of the Trades Union Congress did not appear to have a clear view about the ERM. At TUC conferences motions and debates about crucial matters such as lesbian rights and reform of the blasphemy laws are perfectly routine, and I am sure that the House will be relieved to know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has such a valuable source of advice on those topics. However, the TUC conference does not appear to have a clear view on our entry into the ERM.
In 1988 the annual conference of the TUC staged a debate on Europe which was opened by no less a personage than the President of the European Commission. Thereafter, the comrades did not make a single reference to the exchange rate mechanism in the entire debate, nor did the motion that they were debating refer to the exchange rate mechanism. I am sorry to say that the verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the 1989 TUC annual conference has not yet reached the Library, but I dare say that that is a source of some relief to the Labour Front Bench. However, I have scrutinised the daily reports in the Financial Times, a newspaper that can be relied upon to cover any reference to the exchange rate mechanism given that in September of last year it was such a topic of controversy—
Mr. Terry Fields: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not often that I get to my feet on a point of order, but I have scoured the pages of the Order Paper and have read the Orders of the Day and the notices of motions. Although the topic before us is fairly wide-ranging, covering the Government's economic policy and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in the past five minutes, since the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) has been on

791
his feet, all that I have heard has been an exposure of Labour policy—as he sees it—and of the TUC policy, but no reference to what is on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) is in order. He has not been on his feet for more than five minutes and no doubt he is deploying his case.
Mr. Yeo: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, because that is exactly what I am trying to do. The majority of hon. Members who have spoken have referred to the exchange rate mechanism. I am merely trying to tease out of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East a little more about his attitude to this important and highly relevant subject.
Once again, it seems that in 1989 the delegates at the TUC's annual conference did not have the exchange rate mechanism at the top of the agenda—
Mr. John Smith: That is not true.
Mr. Yeo: I am prepared to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is clearly in need of some education. I do not know what he reads or how he gets his information, but I advise him that I was at that TUC conference as an observer of an interesting debate on the exchange rate mechanism. The conference passed a resolution that Britain should join the ERM. That is a fact. Will the hon. Gentleman now proceed on the basis of facts rather than on these ridiculous surmises, all of which are wrong?
Mr. Yeo: On the contrary, the surmises were based on the assumptions that I have set out clearly. In 1988 I studied the verbatim transcript of the TUC proceedings. In 1989 I was forced to rely on newspaper accounts, which I have scrutinized—
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Yeo: I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that unfortunately the Financial Times did not carry any reference to the debate to which he refers during the whole week of the TUC conference—
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. What about other newspapers?
Mr. Yeo: All right, I am happy to acknowledge that there was a debate and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for pointing it out. I am glad for his sake that he has a source of instruction on which he can act on this crucial subject because, under pressure from my hon. Friends, the best that he could come up with on the exchange rate mechanism in our debate last October was that entry to the ERM will be effected
"at the right and appropriate rate for the success for British industry."—[Official Report, 24 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 684–85.]
That piece of waffle could easily have come straight from the lips from the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Smith: It is not waffle.
Mr. Yeo: Another aspect of Labour party policy is its enthusiasm for an industrial strategy for manufacturing industry, which is another subject on which we have heard a great deal this afternoon. If that phrase means anything, it presumably means that the Labour party favours increased investment. The question that we must ask is,
792
where will that investment come from? Not from the poor old private investor, I fear, whose plight under a future Labour Government would be even worse than under previous Labour Governments. Under Labour, individual investors would find their capital gains taxed at income tax rates of up to 59 per cent.
Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman has been referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East and to what he said about the exchange rate. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Chancellor appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he said, on exchange rates:
"As to the judgment as to what is or is not a firm exchange rate, that is a matter which one has to consider as and when necessary".
I repeat that that was what the Chancellor said. It is clear, is it not?
Mr. Yeo: The Chancellor has made his support for entry into the exchange rate mechanism under the proper conditions perfectly clear to hon. Members and to the public at large. I fully support his views. I hope that with the skilfully managed depreciation of the pound over the past three months, we have now arrived at a level for sterling that is appropriate for British entry into the exchange rate mechanism. That is my view.
The Labour party proposes that the individual investor should also lose his current modest annual exemption for capital gains, or that at the very least it would be substantially reduced. The income that individuals receive from their investments in manufacturing industry would in future be subject to an extra deduction, which would be equivalent to the deduction of national insurance contributions on earnings. Launching a double-barrelled attack on investors' income and capital gains is hardly the best way to promote investment in manufacturing industry. Indeed, there are only two possible explanations for this attack. The first is that it was launched on the advice of the TUC. The second is that the Labour party is looking forward to a return to the bad old days when men in Whitehall found how difficult it was to pick industrial winners, at great cost to the taxpayer and the country.
The final aspect of the Opposition's policy that is relevant to the debate—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been listening carefully. I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman's case would have been admirable last Friday, but he must now relate his remarks to the Autumn Statement and to the Opposition's amendment.
Mr. Yeo: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that guidance. Obviously, I am concerned to relate my remarks closely to the subject under debate, but since the Autumn Statement is the document that shows the balance between revenue and expenditure, any proposals to alter the revenue-raising taxation of this country are relevant to a discussion of the Autumn Statement.
It is clear that the Labour party is desperate to raise the rate of personal income tax. We understand that the top rate would be increased to 59 per cent. and that between that and the existing basic rate of 25 per cent. would be other rates, higher than 25 per cent. Many taxpayers who are currently paying a rate of 25 per cent. would pay substantially more in taxation.
Equally damaging is Labour's pledge to abolish the upper earnings limit on employees' national insurance

793
contributions. That would hit hard and indiscriminately at everyone earning £325 per week or more—a figure that is not much above the rate of average male industrial earnings, if overtime is taken into account.
Let me turn—no doubt to your relief, Mr. Speaker,—to the Autumn Statement, three features of which, unfortunately, have not received the attention that they deserve. The first and most important feature of this year's Autumn Statement is that public spending is rising in real terms. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said at the start of the debate, substantial extra sums of taxpayers' money are being allocated to health, transport and higher education, to name but three of the areas that are receiving additional resources. That increase in spending is wholly welcome. I am sure that there is overwhelming public support for applying a share of the nation's growing wealth to improving the quality of vital public services.
However, there is nothing new about that trend. Since the Government came to power, public spending has risen by 16 per cent. in real terms—a fact which, like so many others, contradicts the beloved Left-wing myth of Government cuts. Furthermore, while there is plenty of room for debate about how far Government decisions can affect the rate of inflation, economic growth or productivity, there can be no doubt that one aspect of the economy that is exclusively under the Government's control is the amount of public expenditure.
This year's Autumn Statement is a further confirmation of the Government's clear and deliberate intention to improve and expand public services. The second feature of the Autumn Statement is that that increase in spending is soundly financed. From time to time in the past, this country has suffered from Governments who have embarked on spending sprees paid for by borrowing. It is only a few years since the nation's debts were spiralling upwards at such a dizzy rate that the British Chancellor had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund as though Britain was some third-rate, debt-ridden banana republic.
Today there is a different and happier story to tell as the whole of this year's public expenditure will be covered by revenues received from taxation. Indeed, those revenues will be sufficient to repay a substantial amount of the very debt that this Government and this generation of taxpayers inherited from their irresponsible and profligate predecessors. Repayment of debt lightens the burden on future generations so that resources that might have had to be used to pay interest become available to train more teachers, to pay more doctors and so on. That sound basis for the expansion of public services and expenditure also deserves a warm welcome.
The third, equally welcome, feature of the Autumn Statement is that it shows that the proportion of the nation's wealth being consumed by Government spending is now down to under 39 per cent.—the lowest level for more than two decades. That is one measure of the admittedly gradual progress that the Government are making to get off people's backs.
Those three central features of the Autumn Statement—more spending, soundly financed spending, and a smaller state grab of the country's production—are worth spelling out because in recent economic debates, and even today, they have tended to be overlooked. The fact that
794
that treble has been secured at a time of steady falling personal and corporate tax rates makes the achievement all the more remarkable.
In the 1970s, the economic decision-making process was one of agonising between whether we should cut spending or raise taxes. In the early 1980s, that changed to a choice between whether to increase spending or to cut taxes. Even if 1990 has to be a year without any cuts in taxation, I am confident that later in the decade we can look forward to higher spending and lower taxes. For that reason, I commend the Autumn Statement to the House.
7.3 pm
Mr. John Garrett: I wish briefly to talk about the Autumn Statement. Therefore, I shall not be following the remarks of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) as for much of the time I could not understand the points that he was making. It was as though he was rehearsing an address to the Primrose League in some village hall this weekend, and trying to frighten the good ladies with tales of Socialism—red in tooth and claw—that is about to come over the horizon in his part of Suffolk.
The main point of interest in the Autumn Statement was the Government's forecast for 1990. Although every year is one of transition, clearly the Chancellor forecast a change in our economic performance for next year. Therefore, it is right that we should examine the credibility of some of those forecasts. All Chancellors are haunted by their forecasts within a few years, but I expect this Chancellor to have a nasty turn this mid-summer.
What struck me most about the public expenditure part of the Autumn Statement was the inadequate allowance for the relative price effect in the National Health Service—the tendency for Health Service costs, as a result of the high level of staff in total costs, new medical equipment, and the rising costs of drugs, to rise faster than the retail prices index. In the Select Committee on the Treasury and the Civil Service report it was pointed out that in 1988–89 cost inflation in the National Health Service was well above the RPI, at about 10 per cent. When the Chief Secretary gave evidence on that question to the Committee, he said:
"When you take account of income generation and cost improvements in the National Health Service, we will see an increase in patient care and quality of service".
That does not seem to be much of an offer. He therefore assumed that unquantified revenues—because they cannot be quantified yet—and cost cutting, also unquantified, would come to the rescue of underfunding. I thought that to be a dubious assumption, and so did the Committee, which concluded:
"Because of the high inflation of Health Service costs the increases may not allow the improvement of services that the published figures imply."
In the public expenditure White Paper, which will be published in the near future, we should look for real evidence of increased output from the NHS as a result of the so-called increased inputs, which are clearly exaggerated as a result of the relative price effect. The Chief Secretary and I have been interested in improving the output figures from public expenditure programmes for a long time. They have improved, but the crucial point when this year's National Health Service programmes are presented is to show the extent to which revenues and cost cutting have made a contribution to the improvement to service. At the end of the day, we must show what the

795
outputs were, what happened to the waiting lists, the number of operations carried out and the relative costs. We want more sophisticated output indicators to test the validity of what the Chief Secretary alleges will be the increase in Health Service performance.
As I tried to point out to the Chancellor during his speech, that is not the only area where there is a differential cost. The Low Pay Unit points out that when the retail prices index rises by 7 per cent., the cost of living for pensioners, those on benefits and those earning low pay is about 10 per cent. because they have a different pattern of expenditure. Therefore, benefits that relate only to the retail prices index and not earnings—as they were under a Labour Government—continually chip away at their standard of living. The basic things that those people buy, such as housing, food and clothing, rise in price relatively quickly compared with the pattern of expenditure of the middle class.
In his economic forecast, the Chancellor modestly said that 1990 would be a less easy year. However, table 2·12 in the summary of economic prospects shows zero growth for 1990. In anywhere else in the world that would be a recession. The United States Treasury description of a recession is nil growth in two consecutive quarters. We have a forecast of virtually nil growth in four consecutive quarters.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) pointed out that we have the phenomenon of a dramatic fall in inflation in three years' time. That is like pursuing the Holy Grail or the Hound of the Baskervilles across the Grimpen Mire—it is always slightly out of reach. For the past six years the Government's medium-term forecasts have each forecast inflation at 3 per cent. in three years' time. The outturn has usually been 7 per cent. or more. As those forecasts have never been achieved, I am not sure why the Government bother to make them. In 1985, the forecast for 1988 was 3 per cent., but the result was 7 per cent. In 1986, the forecast for 1989 was 3 per cent., but it was 7 per cent. This year's Autumn Statement leads us to believe that inflation will fall from 7·7 per cent. in 1989 to 5·5 per cent. in 1990 and to the magic figure of 3 per cent. in 1991.
In December 1989, inflation was 7·7 per cent.—the highest figure since 1982. That was characterised by what the CBI called a series of inflationary own goals. The CBI quoted as inflationary "own goals" the poll tax, the business rate, the level of income tax and the continuing forcing up of utility prices—above all, gas, electricity and telecommunication prices, in order to stuff those companies for privatisation and enable them to make a return to their shareholders.
As the Treasury and Civil Service Committee said,
"repetition in the face of failure has not added credibility to this forecast."
That, I think, is a very modest all-party way of putting total disbelief in this chimera of the 3 per cent. inflation rate which is continually vanishing over the horizon.
We also have a forecast of a dramatic improvement in the balance of payments deficit from over £20 billion—I think the outturn was getting on for £22 billion in 1989—to £15 billion in 1990. Presumably this is a result of nil growth. If there is nil growth in the economy, imports are that much less and therefore the balance of payments deficit improves, but it is a tough way of improving the balance of payments deficit for those on low pay. Even at
796
this level, it is still 2·75 per cent. of GDP, which will be the largest relative balance of payments deficit in the Western world.
We have had a running dispute during these years of mounting trade deficits as to whether it matters. It used to matter a great deal. Then, when balance of payments deficits began to get into double figures in billions every year, Government spokespersons said that it did not matter anyway as it was funded by capital inflows, and it would be all right on the night.
I liked some of the remarks of the chief economic adviser to the Treasury on this matter. He said—modestly, I thought—that no one is ever comfortable with a deficit this size. He said that under pressure, I am told. He also said that, given a choice between this deficit and a smaller one, he would choose a smaller one. I found that very reassuring from somebody paid to advise the Chancellor on economic policy. He then said that he expected the deficit to be self-correcting. He is no doubt right, in that deficits of this order are unsustainable in the long term, but the question is with what kind of cataclysm it will correct itself. We have dropped the term "soft landing" nowadays, I understand. We simply hope that—
Mr. Radice: That we will land at all.
Mr. Garrett: As my hon. Friend says, we simply hope that we shall make land.
One of the advisers to the Treasury Committee has said that if it proves self-correcting
"it may only be because the private sector eventually reacts very abruptly—leading to a recession as companies slash investment, employment and stocks."
The truth of the matter is that investment is falling and certainly industry is rapidly destocking at the moment. So some would say that the recession is well under way already. There was an increase in business failures of 10 per cent. in 1989, and the regional figures are quite interesting: an increase of 17 per cent. in the south-east, 18 per cent. in the DTI's east region and 22 per cent. in the east midlands. What this tells me is that all those new and under-capitalised companies that have sprung up in the enterprise society in the relatively prosperous regions have been hit by interest rates and have gone out of business; and, of course, shortly they will be hit by the unified business rate. In those regions, the increase in that rate will be exceptionally high, as we know.
In Norwich, a 160-year-old clothing company, the last remnant of our clothing industry in the city of Norwich, has recently gone out of business, making 450 people redundant—people whose skills are not easy to utilise nowadays in that city. The owners actually quoted high interest rates as the reason for their going out of business.
Mr. Roger King: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that businesses have failed and he has laid the blame on high interest rates. Clearly he has never run a small business, because a business can fail for a vatiety of reasons—the wrong product, the wrong quality, the wrong many things. So he cannot say specifically that interest rates have caused the problem. He also commented on the situation in Norwich, where, as I understand it, there is almost full employment and companies such as Norwich Union are taking people from the schools into their business because they are so short of staff. While it is a tragedy for any business to close, manufacturing and the commercial sector constantly regenerate themselves.
Mr. Garrett: I have run several small businesses, and quite successfully. I was saying that the reason for the collapse of that particular business was given by its owners as high interest rates. I did not pick that out of the air; it was what the employees were told, and those employees are now redundant. Of course, small companies go out of business for a variety of reasons. I suppose that bad management is the usual one. But what we are discussing now is the high level of interest rates in relatively small under-capitalised companies which have embarked on business with a relatively high level of debt, as many such businesses do, as the hon. Gentleman should know.
Since I first represented it the city of Norwich has been transformed from a manufacturing city to one which is largely based on financial services and retailing. I am not saying that there is anything specifically wrong with that, but it gives a very unbalanced local labour market if people with manufacturing skills cannot find jobs, as in the case of the machinists from the clothing company I cited. We want a balanced economy in the city I represent, just as we want it in this country. The loss of our footwear industry and of much of our electrical, manufacturing and engineering industry has been disastrous. It is true that Norwich Union is offering school leavers jobs, and that is all to the good, but it leads to an unbalanced local labour market and economy.
In the area I represent we see failures and redundancies spreading, as they usually do at the beginning of a recession, throughout the building and double-glazing industries and, lately, in retailing, as interest rates bite harder and the property market dries up. So we are getting into, first, low growth, then no growth and then recession.
I do not see any vision in this Autumn Statement, any looking ahead of the kind referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). We do not see any long-term strategy, and it seems to me to be the duty of a Government to produce a long-term strategy for those things that only the Government can deal with—research and development, education and training, communications infrastructure and transport. For example, the share investment in GDP in Britain is below the EEC average, at 18 per cent. compared with 20 per cent., and it is falling further. The share of manufacturing investment in GDP has fallen by a quarter in the past decade. Our expenditure on research and development per employed person is well below EEC levels, and Government expenditure on civil research and development is also lower. We have seen the closure of a number of very important sources of civil research and development in this country—in the food industry, for example—in recent months.
In the last decade expenditure on education and science as a percentage of GDP has fallen and we are a poorly educated and trained nation compared with our competitors. We have half the number of 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education and training—35 per cent.—that there are in France and Japan. We have half the number of school leavers reaching university entrance level that are doing so in France and Germany. There is a whole series of studies by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which shows the damage done to our industry by the lack of training of shop floor workers and supervisors; and of course the Government have announced further cuts in education and training for 1991–92. It always surprises me that the Conservative
798
party seems to think of education and training as some kind of burden on the economy rather than as an investment which provides the wealth of the future.
When I went to school we had textbooks. At the schools my children have gone to they have work sheets, which are substitutes for textbooks, simply run off by the teacher and handed round the class. They do not have books. That is the result of progressive cuts in education. About 29 per cent.of our schools need major refurbishment because they are not up to the physical standards required.
The Autumn Statement is really a statement of hope that we are not yet tipping over into recession, whereas the Government's figures show that we are well into one. They admit their mistakes of last year when tax cuts fuelled an import boom, but simply hope that interest rates will choke off demand when it looks as if the adjustment is already leading to rising numbers of bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures. The Government are not laying the foundation in investment, research and development, education, training, transport and communications that we need if we are to be competitive in 1992 and the following years.
7.20 pm
Mr. John Townend: Listening to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) makes me believe that the Government are achieving a better balance in the economy. East Anglia has been a prosperous part of the country and has boomed. I come from the north, where we have suffered restructuring and many problems, yet there are no signs of recession there.
The city of Hull, which borders my constituency—some of the eastern suburbs are in my area—is booming in a way that it has not boomed for 25 years. Enormous development is taking place there, not only in retail and leisure but in manufacturing, and since the ending of the national dock labour scheme the port is beginning to take off. The container terminal that was left idle is once more working and an extra 1 million tonnes of goods will be going through the port next year.
I always listen with interest and respect to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) when he addresses the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. He speaks with the erudition and moderation that one would expect of a Wykehamist, so when my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) asked him to say what changes in economic policy the Labour party would make, I waited for the answer with bated breath. It appeared that his only change of policy would be to join the ERM now. I found that intriguing because his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor, has always been careful not to say that. He will join it only when the time is right.
Mr. John Smith: I would not wish to claim credit for having a policy which said I would join when the time was right. The hon. Gentleman has it wrong because that is the Government line. I have explained that we would join on the basis of the four conditions that I set out fully in our debate on the subject. I am concerned for the hon. Gentleman's political good health. He should sort out the difference between the Government and the Opposition because that is basic to our debates.
Mr. Townend: I am past the time when I need bother about my political good health, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman may appreciate as my speech proceeds.
This year's Autumn Statement shows how successful the Government have been in controlling public expenditure since 1985–86. Table 1·1 shows that expenditure in 1985–86, at 1988–89 prices, was £188·7 billion and that in the current year, at constant prices, it is below that. In the same period, the percentage of GDP going on public expenditure fell from 45·3 to 38·3 per cent.
That has been a remarkable achievement. It is the lowest level of Government spending since Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was in office in 1967. The Government are to be congratulated on that magnificent achievement, and particularly the Chancellor for his work when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I detect, if not a change in policy, a slight easing of Treasury control. That worries me, for the Government are proposing a real increase in spending next year in general Government expenditure of £4·3 billion, and £3·8 billion in the following year. The GDP percentage is set to rise for the first time since 1984–85 by 0·25 per cent., and in the following year it is projected to fall by only 0·25 per cent.
Those figures disguise the true increase in departmental spending. As table 1.12 shows, the real increase next year is £8·7 billion, excluding privatisation, and the figure is that high because of the reduction in debt interest. That is worrying because there is always pressure on the Treasury from the spending Departments and I get the feeling that that pressure is beginning to have some success. That is dangerous for the Government because for every extra £1 billion expenditure, there is less opportunity for a £1 billion reduction in the tax burden on industry and business or the individual.
Expenditure in the current year on the EEC has doubled, from £1 billion to £2 billion. However, many people in this country would take the view that the benefit to the United Kingdom from the Common Market has doubled in the last year.
Overseas aid has increased to £1·7 billion. That expenditure contributes directly to our balance of payments deficit. Without doubt, whatever one's feelings—one has a feeling of compassion for many of the countries involved—much of that aid is wasted by incompetent, Left-wing Governments who are inefficient and are causing much of their nation's poverty. In many cases, they have been trying in vain to implement Socialist-Marxist policies, copying eastern Europe, when such policies are now clearly seen to have failed and are being rejected.
Expenditure on the arts has gone up to almost £0·5 billion. I am not opposed to expenditure on the arts, but I am worried by the fact that a high percentage of it is spent in the south-east of England and benefits upper-middle class yuppies. Little of it is spent in the north of England to benefit my constituents. We need a change of emphasis in that expenditure.
Opposition Members will welcome the fact that spending on social security is going up by £2 billion, over 10 per cent. I am surprised that the increase is so high because, with the consistent reduction in unemployment month on month, one would have thought that there would have been some saving.
The cost to the nation of broken marriages and one-parent families is increasing annually, so I welcome
800
the Government statement that greater efforts will be made to make fathers accept their responsibility for children in families whom they have deserted. I hope that they will be pursued relentlessly. That should result in future savings to the Treasury.
Expenditure in Scotland, Ireland and Wales is raised automatically in line with the so-called Barnett formula. Whereas other spending Ministers must justify their budgets to the Treasury, the Secretaries of State for those three countries get their cash automatically. That does not seem fair on the other Secretaries of State or on the English.
The Barnett formula was fixed in 1978 and was based principally on population. Since 1978, the population of Scotland has fallen whereas the population of England has risen. The last year for which I have been able to obtain figures is 1987–88, but for identifiable expenditure per head of the population the figure in that year was £2,676 for Scotland and only £2,063 for England, a difference of more than 25 per cent. That is unfair on the English and especially unfair on the northern English, who have all the problems of Scotland and are, in many ways, less affluent and so need more public expenditure.
I have heard it said that we spend more per head on health in Scotland because the Scots suffer from poorer health. It is right and proper to ask why that should be so. If it is because they spend a lower proportion of their income on housing and a higher proportion on alcohol and tobacco than the English do, we have a right to ask why the English should have to finance the excesses of the Scots. Similarly, is it right that expenditure per pupil should be higher in secondary schools in Scotland than in England? Without doubt, people in England are beginning to feel increasingly dissatisfied with the Barnett formula. They think that it should be scrapped and that there should be equity between the three kingdoms of the Union.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that any increase in public expenditure should go principally to improving services, such as health and education, and not to excessive wage claims. One problem in our economy is that we still have a tendency to increase pay faster than do our competitors. The latest figures show that, despite increases in productivity, our unit labour costs are now rising faster than those of our European competitors. If that continues, it will undermine our competitive position and it will take us longer to reduce our balance of payments deficit to an acceptable level.
It is no good the Government exhorting the private sector to keep settlements down. Exhortation never works. When I hear the Goverment making such exhortations, I believe that it is the first step to an incomes policy, and we all know that that never works. The Government should refrain from interfering in private sector wage negotiations, but should make it clear that they will not let the pound fall to accommodate excessive wage increases. There is no doubt that the fall in the value of the pound before Christmas enabled many of our manufacturers to accommodate higher wage increases than would otherwise have been the case.
The Government should also make it clear that the higher the wage increases, the longer it will be necessary to keep interest rates high. They can set an example in the public sector, where they are the employer—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The House is an institution which should show great tolerance. I will not allow running commentaries from sedentary positions when an hon. Member is trying to express himself.
Mr. Townend: Regrettably, after 10 years in government, pay bargaining in the public sector is still in a bit of a shambles. There has been little reform and the Government have failed to play their part in bringing about a more flexible labour market, which is necessary if our economy is to compete on equal terms with our major competitors, who have market economies. Much of our public sector is still highly unionised, restrictive practices are still rife and pay bargaining is carried out nationally. Local productivity deals are virtually impossible in many areas. National settlements do not take account of the great regional differences in the labour markets. In the past, only a small proportion of public sector wage increases have been paid for by increases in productivity, unlike the position in the private sector.
We made a serious mistake last summer when we encouraged British Rail to go for regional pay bargaining and then, when the workers went on strike and the commuters were caught in traffic jams, gave the nod for British Rail to give an 8·5 per cent. inflationary settlement. I am convinced that that settlement played a significant part in the ambulance workers' dispute. In addition, had the Government scrapped central pay bargaining, we should not have an ambulance workers' dispute because pay and productivity would be negotiated piecemeal by local managers.
The balance of payments deficit is another problem that the Government face. We should examine the problem in a little more detail than the Opposition do. The biggest element is the deficit of about £6 billion in motor vehicles. Our motor industry was devastated, not by high interest rates or Government policy, but by the activities of militant trade unions, which were out of control. Restrictive practices, over-manning, and a refusal to accept new technology meant that the British public and our friends abroad stopped buying British cars. We did not produce cars of the right quality, at the right price and when they were wanted. There were cases in which, as a result of union pressure, there was no proper quality checking and quality controllers were told that they should reject only so many cars per shift. Cars went out although they had not been checked properly, so the public found that they were not reliable and bought foreign cars. There were also inter-union disputes in which the unions destroyed themselves.
Today, the British motor car industry is rising like a phoenix from the ashes although, regrettably, that is not because of Ford or British Leyland, but because of the Japanese investment which has been encouraged by the atmosphere that has been brought about by the Government. Nissan will increase production to 400,000 units a year, Toyota will produce 200,000 cars a year and Honda will produce 200,000 a year. With Datsun, the Japanese will reconquer our home market and use this country as a launch pad for Europe—and we all know that the EC is petrified of Japanese industry in Europe. All this will take time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) said. I am convinced that over the next four or five years it will have an important impact in reducing the deficit.
802
I support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his main aim of bringing down inflation. I have every confidence in him. When inflation is brought down to 3 per cent. and when we are able to use the surplus that we have built up by our own good housekeeping by giving it back to the British people, to whom it belongs, that will be the launch pad for another election victory.
7.37 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place at the moment and I am also sorry for the Chancellor. He seems to be having an unfortunate baptism, in view of the way he entered the job and the state of the shop left for him by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The Chancellor told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that running the economy was rather like being on a surfboard in high seas. Once again, one must feel sorry for a person who has crashed on to the rocks in consecutive economic indicators and who lies gasping on the beach only to find that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) comes along, he kicks sand in his face. That is heaping indignity upon indignity and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend should be a little more sympathetic in future when dealing with the Chancellor. He needs all the assistance that he can get, having been left by the previous Chancellor, as is now evident, with the debris to clear up.
There were many rumours and explanations about why the former Chancellor left as he did, but it is clear that he, unlike anybody else, had access to all the background documents and papers for the forecasts for this coming year and the year after. He decided to get out while he could still get the directorships that are being bandied about in the Sunday papers, and a decent contract for his memoirs; and he left his former deputy to clear up the mess. One cannot but feel sympathy for a man who, after all, is very reasonable and nice—prone to certain lapses in judgment, such as supporting Chelsea football club, but by and large quite an honourable person. He has been given a task that he will find very difficult to perform.
One of the harder aspects of the job is that the Chancellor will not be allowed to get on with it, to formulate his own ideas and use his own initiative to carve a way forward. Just when he thinks that it is safe to go back into the water on his surfboard, the phone will ring, and it will be No. 10. Every time he moves vaguely forward on something like the exchange rate mechanism there will be someone on the Front Bench coughing gently at his side.
When the Chancellor looks at the implications of higher wage settlements for inflation, he cannot buck the market. We need to ensure that people are paid at the rate necessary to make enterprises work. When he moves away, as he has, from out-and-out monetarism he finds that there is a gentle reminder—perhaps not Sir Alan Walters but certainly a gentle reminder—that monetary indicators continue to exercise a profound influence.
Some of the ancient pharisees of the Conservative party—the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—have contributed to the debate. Rather like guarding the gospels, they referred to those ancient times of M4 and, when that did not work or was inappropriate, M3. Now we are on MO—that is apparently the fashionable one. if

803
in doubt, get the "M" correct and that will justify one's monetary stance. The Chancellor does not believe that, and his beachboys on the Front Bench do not believe that. Unfortunately, soon he will be told that, whether he believes it or not, that is the way things must go.
The same argument could apply to public investment. There was a lot of rhetoric about the importance of public investment in the interview that the Chancellor gave to the Financial Times. The reality is slightly different: No. 10 believes that, wherever possible, private investment should take the place of public. In my area that dogma is highly destructive. The east midlands as a whole and Nottingham in particular will suffer because we are not in British Rail's plan for a link through London to the Channel tunnel.
Perhaps under a Labour Government such investment will be forthcoming. Everyone in my region realises that it is essential. It will not come through the private sector but only through the public, and it is folly to imagine that we should have only private investment when all our major continental and G7 competitors are pouring money into the infrastructure and the railway network. In France, for example, every last chicken shack appears to be on an electrified line; in Germany two brand-new north-south routes are being built; in Spain they are ripping up the gauge completely and replacing it. Yet we say in this cheese-paring manner that we are not prepared to invest £95 million to electrify the line to connect our region with the Channel tunnel. That is madness when the CBI, the TUC, chambers of commerce and members of all political parties in my region are united in believing that, for such a small sum, there could be a tremendous economic pay-off in the long run.
Mr. Hanley: Does not the hon. Gentleman welcome the relocation of the Civil Service? Up to 4,000 civil servants will move to Nottingham in the near future. Is that not a large public investment?
Mr. Allen: I thank the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for his intervention. I welcome those jobs coming to Nottingham and I hope that they will be encouraged. I hope, too, that public sector bodies will co-operate and that the Government and the Minister for the Civil Service will make sure that there is no long and protracted struggle, but that British Rail, the land-owners and the unit concerned, the Inland Revenue, will talk together so that members of all parties are not forced to exert pressure to achieve that welcome move.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when the present Government came to office in 1979 one of the first things they did was to scrap Government dispersal from London? Eight years later, they did a massive U-turn and decided, in view of labour market pressures in the south-east, that it would be a good idea to disperse Civil Service jobs to the regions, and they decided to resuscitate the programme undertaken by the previous Labour Government under which various jobs were sent to the regions.
Mr. Allen: I accept my hon. Friend's point. His work on relocation and in trying to get a proper distribution of jobs is well known. I am a little more magnanimous than he; if the Government are beginning to realise the efficacy of relocation, they may start to drop some of the rhetoric in other areas and operate a more realistic economic industrial and relocation policy.
804
We must support the Chancellor in his undoubted battles with No. 10 as he begins to creep back towards what is almost a neo-Keynesian position, if we read between the lines. On the public investment side, such moves are to be welcomed for their beneficial effects for all our constituents. Relocation is one of the things mentioned in a budget that I had the privilege of putting together for Nottingham; we are making a budget submission, and relocation is one of the things that we emphasise strongly. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will make sure that their alternative Budget strikes a chord with the public and is not formulated purely on an arid fiscal basis. There are areas where we can seize the initiative, and even if the Government choose to accept those initiatives they are things that we would commend.
I think particularly of the reference by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), although expressed in grudging terms, to child care and workplace nurseries. Demographic, if not moral and social, reasons for getting women back to work underline the need for the Chancellor to make considerable progress in encouraging child care and workplace nurseries that are beneficial to employers, to the parents concerned and to the children. That is one area where the Government can win some political kudos as well as doing the right thing, and I hope that we would welcome it.
Progress could also be made in giving a green tinge to the Budget. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) did on lead-free petrol, and I hope that the success of that experiment will lead to other ventures, notably tax incentives on energy conservation, and additional incentives to ensure, for example, that coal-fired power stations are brought into a comprehensive scheme to reduce acid rain. One area that might be somewhat controversial would be to reconsider the abolition of the road fund licence and the collecting of revenue through the duty on fuel. This and other matters would benefit from further consideration and they might attract greater cross-party support than some of the more strident views that Opposition Members need to put forward and win on industrial policy.
The more I visit people and places in my constituency, the more I share the view of many hon. Members that there is a developing consensus—what I call a "manufacturing alliance". Very recently in the east midlands the CBI published a document containing five or six major areas of economic and industrial thought on education, training, land availability, infrastructure, transport and encouraging manufacturing investment, any of which could have been written by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in an alternative Budget. That consensus extends across almost all Opposition parties. It certainly extends through the CBI, the TUC, chambers of commerce and other bodies. There is room for measures acceptable to a large percentage of the electorate. I hope that the Chancellor will accept that there would be great support for him in the no doubt private but none the less serious battles that he will have in asserting his independence from No. 10 Downing street.
The main starting point of the budget produced for Nottingham is education and training. It is a cliché worth repeating that our future is invested in young people. Unless they have adequate training and education, all our future economic and industrial strategies are worthless. A number of initiatives could be taken, but above all we need

805
the political will to invest money in education and training. If the will is there, ways will be found to ensure that all 16 to 18-year-olds who want to stay at school or take further training can do so, so that we may have the same standards of training as our major competitors. That is not an over-ambitious aspiration. All that we ask is that we are as capable of delivering economically as our key competitors.
Another point that should be mentioned is the incentives that are necessary for manufacturing industry. Recently all hon. Members received a briefing from the CBI which sets out three key proposals. We may disagree with the percentages of capital allowances or whether there should be a return to the indexation of allowances, but there is room for progress in building an engine of investment for the economic revival that we need.
Not only do we conduct less research and development than our main competitors, but the emphasis is on defence rather than civilian activities. Without making the macro-political point about the future of the nation and its defences, may I point out that no other nation twists its research and development expenditure as we do. Sir Trevor Holdsworth, in his address to the CBI annual conference, said that some of that expenditure should be redirected. It is recognised nationally that current policy perverts the effort that we are trying to put into longer term investment. Once again, the Chancellor might address that matter in his Budget statement.
One item that the Chancellor will not address and with which we shall have to deal when we come to power is the flow of capital and money across the computer screens of the world. We will address it as a nation state. The United States, Japan and countries in the rest of Europe are also prey to major fluctuations of capital in the world. Whatever economic strategies may be agreed in the European Community, globally or nationally, they can be washed away by major capital flows. It is not an easy question and I do not pretend that there are easy answers. Perhaps one way to provide the answers is to co-operate with other nation states and discuss how we can affect the speed of the flows and their volume. Whether that means building on the institutional arrangements that we already have or whether we need to start looking at other transglobal institutions is a matter that needs more thought than I can give it here.
Mr. Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the truly appalling measure of the country's current economic uncompetitiveness is the figure produced by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in the past few weeks in its study of the size of our current account deficit, plus the non-bank capital inflows required to finance that debt, plus the net capital outflows for long-term investment abroad, which now amount to 9·8 per cent. of our gross national product?
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I join him in pressing Labour Front Bench spokesmen to use some of their valuable time to put the message over clearly and simply, although not on a partisan or party political basis because it affects all parties and all national economies. There is room for international co-operation.
There is more to be said, particularly on whether we should return to a non-allowance personal tax structure, where income tax could be reduced dramatically and
806
certain benefits increased dramatically, so eliminating the poverty trap. My right hon. and hon. Friends need to put together a comprehensive package which the electorate will understand. In the meantime, there will be another year or two years of this Government. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do everything possible to ensure that the battle, assuming that the Chancellor is the person we think he is, is fought hard. I hope that he, rather than the occupant of No. 10, will be victorious.
7.56 pm
Mr. John Watts: A considerable part of the debate has been concerned with inflation. That is not surprising as it is our principal economic problem. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor placed considerable emphasis on the need to continue to bear down on inflation. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) told us that inflation had not been vanquished, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) went on to enlighten him that inflation could not be defeated once and for all but required continuing and constant vigilance.
Several Opposition Members have referred to that part of the Committee's report in which we draw attention to the way in which, in succeeding Autumn Statements from 1984, the target for inflation has always been 3 per cent. in the third year. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) was a little ungenerous in suggesting that the target had never been met. It was met in 1986, but only in that year. If the 3 per cent. target three years out in this year's Autumn Statement is to have any chance of achievement and, if having been achieved, that control of inflation is to be sustained for longer than in the past, we must seek to identify the causes of current inflation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing recommended that we should adopt a pragmatic approach rather than seeking to be purists of either the monetarist or the Keynesian school. I agree with him. I do not believe that the economy behaves precisely in the same way as any economic theory suggests it should, or that the real economy responds in the way of an economic model. I think that our current problems are primarily monetary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in giving evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee about the Autumn Statement of 1989, acknowledged that monetary policy had been too lax during the summer of 1988. In paragraph 54 we report that the then Chancellor said:
"we relaxed monetary policy…at precisely the moment that we should have made it a little more severe".
I make no criticism of the relaxation of monetary policy which took place in the aftermath of the stock exchange crash of 1987. That policy was pursued by monetary authorities around the world. It is possible to say with hindsight that perhaps that injection of liquidity was unnecessary because we now know that no disaster occurred. However, had the authorities not made it clear that they were prepared to make liquidity available to prevent the collapse of any of the great financial houses, we might have had more trouble in the economy than actually occurred.
Therefore, I make no criticism of that policy decision which was pursued in this country, as in all the other major financial centres. The error was to continue the lax monetary policy after the 1988 Budget, by which time it

807
was becoming perfectly clear that no damage had been sustained in the economy as a consequence of the stock exchange collapse in October 1987.
The Treasury Committee's report contains a paragraph which could have explained this event most eloquently, but alas it was one of the paragraphs which did not gain support of a majority of the Committee members. However, its message is important. In that missing link to the argument we said that:
"in early 1988, the previous Chancellor forced interest rates down to curb the upward pressures on sterling. Interest rates were thus falling when they should have gone up. In our view, a great deal of the policy error over this two-year period can be attributed to the excessive weight placed on tacit exchange rate targeting. The result was that too little attention was paid to the inflation warning signalled by the extent of domestic credit and growth of the broader monetary aggregates. This error has clear implications for the future conduct of policy."
The major error in policy which exacerbated the inflationary pressures already there as a result of lax monetary policy was the decision that we should behave as though we were members of the exchange rate mechanism even though we were not. It seems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby had in mind a parity of three deutschmarks to the pound. Through the summer of 1988 he strove to prevent sterling from rising above that parity. In that attempt, interest rates went down to a low point of 7·5 per cent.
The attempt failed because the reaction of the market is often perverse and the sight of the Chancellor confident in his ability to refuse interest rates produced greater confidence in the value of sterling. While policy was trying to reduce parity with the deutschmark, sentiment was driving it up. That period of continuing reductions in interest rates stimulated an extra £40 billion worth of borrowing. That £40 billion borrowed in the credit expansion makes the £4 billion of tax remissions in the 1988 Budget pale into insignificance.
We have heard reiterated today the argument that the tax reductions in the Budget fuelled a great consumer spending spree which led to our inflationary and balance of payments problems. Not a bit of it. The £4 billion worth of injected demand did not have those undesirable effects, but the 7·5 per cent. interest rate and the extra £40 billion worth of credit did. The experience of those inglorious summer months of 1988 should serve as a warning to all those who are enthusiastic for our early membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
The claimed benefits of full membership that have been reiterated today are stable exchange rates and lower inflation, coupled with lower interest rates. I am sure that when the Confederation of British Industry and other business representatives urge upon us membership of the ERM, and when the TUC urges that policy—as one of my hon. Friends said earlier—they are looking for stability in exchange rates. They are certainly hoping for lower inflation and interest rates, but early membership does not act as a panacea. It is not an instant solution to current inflation problems, as the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) suggested earlier.
There is a failure to recognise that the exchange rate mechanism with sterling in it would be a different animal from the exchange rate mechanism as it is at present. As it exists today, ERM is basically a deutschmark area. The deutschmark is the only heavy currency in the system and
808
the only one traded internationally to any significant extent. All the other member currencies are pegged to the value of the deutschmark and, therefore, the system can confer some stability in parities. The outcome would be very different if there were, within the system, two currencies, both of which were traded internationally to a significant extent, as are the deutschmark and the pound sterling today.
Therefore, there would not be the same stability in parities between the European currencies and externally if sterling were in the system, as exists now while sterling remains out of it. Whatever we within the European Community might decide should be the parity between the pound and the deutschmark, if it appeared to be out of line with underlying realities as perceived by the market and because people trade dollars and yen for deutschmark and pound, the pressures would build up from that international trading and we would be unable to hold a parity which had been agreed in the European Council of Finance Ministers.
Let us suppose that we had joined the exchange rate mechanism during 1988, perhaps during the summer when the former Chancellor was trying to hold down sterling. There would still be the same inflationary pressures within the British economy because we would already have had that period of fairly lax control of money supply. As market sentiment sought to push up the value of the pound, we would have had to make the same policy response as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby did when he shadowed the deutschmark—reduce interest rates in an attempt to cap the rise in the value of the pound sterling.
There is no reason to suppose that if we had been in the system the effect on the British economy of reducing interest rates to a low point of 7·5 per cent. would have been any different from the effects that we can assess now, looking back with the benefit of hindsight. At other times, the pound would come under downward pressure, as it has during recent months. With a commitment to a fixed parity we would have no option but to raise interest rates to try to maintain that parity.
Since he took office, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has successfully steered us through some fairly rough seas, as he described his attempt to manage the economy. He guided us through periods when the pound was under pressure but without increasing interest rates above 15 per cent. Had Britain been firmly committed to a fixed parity, my right hon. Friend would have been unable to steer us through those rough seas. In recent weeks, the pound has recovered and is now up to 88·1 or 88·2 on the trade weighted index. That has been achieved without interest rates being increased to 15 or 16 per cent., or even to 17 per cent.
Maintaining a fixed parity would take precedence over every other aspect of monetary policy, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would not have the flexibility that he has now. He was right to resist a further increase in interest rates, because they are high enough to curb the growth of money supply and to exert the downward pressure on inflation. Any further tightening could lead to an over-tight policy, which would enhance the fears of recession that have been voiced today, mostly by Opposition Members. We have a tight monetary policy that is set by reference to monetary conditions in the British economy and not by reference so much to the pound's external parity, which is how it should be.

809
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor put his finger on the problem of managing the economy with low interest rates when he referred to the psychology of inflation. I understand him to mean that too many people will still have vivid memories of inflation running at 20 per cent. or higher. I believe that inflation of 26·9 per cent. was the pinnacle achieved by the last Labour Government.
Dr. John Marek: Although I do not agree with every point that the hon. Gentleman makes, he has presented a number of sensible arguments—but his speech is now becoming very partisan. Perhaps he will remind the House of the highest rate of inflation reached under the present Administration.
Mr. Watts: The figure quoted earlier, if it was correct, suggested that the highest inflation seen under the present Government was 21 per cent. That was the consequence of the inflationary pressures that built up in 1978–79, during the death throes of the last Labour Government. In the same way, we are now experiencing the effects of the inflationary pressures that built up in late 1987 and 1988.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): It may be helpful to my hon. Friend to be reminded that the average inflation under the last Labour Government was 15½ per cent., compared with 7½ per cent. today. What was good enough for Labour—inflation of 15½ per cent.—is not good enough for us.
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend reinforces my point about the national psychology of inflation. Because inflation of 15, 20 or 25 per cent. might at one time have seemed normal for our economy, when it falls to 4 or 5 per cent., most people stop worrying about it.
The same is true of the price of money. Because we have long been accustomed to high interest rates as a consequence of high inflation—over the past decade, interest rates have on average been on the wrong side of 11 per cent.—we are not yet attuned to running our economy at an interest rate of 7½ per cent., as we did in June 1988. Until business men and the man or woman in the street are worried about inflation of only 4 per cent. or even 3 per cent., the Government will not be able to conduct the economy on an even keel when interest rates are much below 10 per cent. That psychology must change before there can be low interest rates consistent with lower inflation.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right to set interest rates that meet the requirements of domestic monetary policy. If that policy is set tightly enough to bear down on inflation, there will be no need to worry about the parity of sterling. If holders of sterling are confident that it provides a stable store of value, there will be less speculative pressure on the pound. Of course there will be short-term pressures, but not long-term pressures of the kind seen when inflationary expectations are high.
If a choice must be made between using interest rates to control money supply or using them to fix the exchange rate, I have no doubt that they should be set by reference to the needs of money supply. If economic policy moves in the right direction, there will be no conflict between tight control of money supply and maintaining a firm exchange rate.
810
If I have any advice for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, it is to progress slowly towards full membership of the European monetary system. The exchange rate mechanism is not the anti-inflationary panacea that its enthusiasts choose to believe it is, and we should not contemplate the major step in economic policy that adoption of the ERM represents merely to establish our European credentials, whether for the benefit of Members of the European Parliament or for our partners in the Community. In the months ahead, and in preparing his first Budget, the most important task for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to control money supply so that inflation is not accommodated.
8.16 pm
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: A measure of hypocrisy has been evident in tonight's debate, especially in the speeches of Conservative Members. Many of them argued that the public sector wages bill should be kept down, whereas their own wage increases will be reflected in their bank balances next week. Government Members also work in the public sector and are enjoying wage increases of 10 per cent. or more. Others are entitled to ask for the same 10 per cent. that we are receiving.
Now that the Government have made a right mess of the economy, all of a sudden they want to blame the workers—miners, dockers, car workers and ambulance staff. They are the people who are, according to Conservative Members, to blame for all the mess by asking for big pay rises. There should be less hypocrisy and more honesty on the Tory Benches.
Some of the richest people in the country were awarded overnight tax cuts of as much as £5,000 per year under the former Chancellor's penultimate Budget. Those tax cuts were totally imposed. Right hon. and hon. Members may recall Budget day in 1988, when the sitting was suspended for 15 minutes because of the response to the news that the Chancellor had spent that much money on the rich. No fewer than 780,000 of the richest members of the population received that money, not the workers. I remind the House that the rich received £20 billion of taxpayers' money, not the workers. Tory Members should refrain from attacking the workers and from blaming them for the mess that the former Chancellor created.
At the same time, the poor were subjected to benefit cuts. That is what you gave the working people and the unemployed in the north-east, Scotland and Wales. Since the Government came to power in 1979 there have been 60,000 bankruptcies, and 170,000 firms have gone to the wall. Since 1979, 100,000 families have had to sell their homes because they could not afford the mortgage. That is your economic miracle.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I dislike stopping the hon. Member, but he is taking my name in vain. I know that he has a lot of good material that he wants to use, so would he refer to the House through the Chair?
Mr. Campbell: I shall try to refrain from using the word "you". I have a habit of doing that. I think that I am back on the pedestal at the miners' meeting. Those home owners were not to blame, it was you—[Laughter.] I am sorry, I am only joking Madam Deputy Speaker—it was the Conservative Government.
Since the Government came to power poverty has increased—9 million people in Britain, including some 2

811
million children, are living below the poverty line and that has happened since 1979. That is 17 per cent. of the population and it represents an increase of 55 per cent. since 1979. Do not blame the Opposition for Britain's ills, because the Conservative record is there and it is atrocious. The Conservatives must study the problem and put it right.
What have the pensioners got from the Government and their so-called miracle? In the early days of the Tory Government, the link between pensions and earnings was scrapped. Had it not been scrapped, a single person would have had £11 a week more in his pension today, and a married couple would have had £18 a week more. They have been done by the Tory Government, just as the unemployed and those who have suffered from cuts in social security have been done.
As I said before, it is no good blaming the workers. That is what the Chancellor has tried to do, and I shall not let him forget it. That is what the Government are trying to do with the ambulance men. They are picking on the union, trying to take it out and to blame it for all the ills that the Government have caused.
Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the link between pensions and earnings. I wonder whether his memory stretches back far enough to recall that the link was first established by a Labour Government because inflation was running at 26 per cent. and earnings at only 15 per cent. It was a way of abating the costs of increasing pensions which would otherwise have fallen upon that Government. They did it to cut spending on pensions.
Mr. Campbell: I do not care what the last Labour Government did. It is what we do in the future that counts. There will be a pledge in our manifesto to restore the link between pensions and earnings, and I shall be here to support it. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman will be.
Dr. Marek: The House should remember that in 1979 the old age pension for a married couple, as a percentage of average earnings, was about 44 per cent. and it is now about 32 or 33 per cent. My figures may be slightly out, but it is clear that pensioners have become considerably poorer in the past 10 years under this Government.
Mr. Campbell: I agree. That is the point that I am trying to make. Pensioners are worse off under this Government. One can tell that by meeting them and speaking to them. An old lady whom I know likes to smoke, but when I went to see her on a Tuesday she did not have a pack of tabs in the house. That was unusual for her. Some hon. Members may say that she should not smoke at her age, but she cannot afford to do so until she receives her pension. When pensioners are in that state—when they cannot afford to buy a packet of cigarettes until they get their pension—it is a disgrace. The Government should consider pensioners' needs more often.
The wages council is another scapegoat for the Tories. It will be scrapped because the Tories want a low wage economy. That is already happening. Low wages are being paid throughout the north-east, and that is why one or two firms are moving there from the south. One business man told me a few months ago that he was coming north because of the low wages. The minimum wage is non-existent. We are the only European country that does not have a minimum wage, and we should consider that. If there is a minimum wage, firms can plan a long way
812
ahead, and perhaps we would not get the liquidations that I have mentioned on other occasions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about redundancies?"] I have been made redundant and I know all about that.
Let us have a decent minimum wage in Britain, as they have in Europe and America. Child benefit has not been touched on in this great Autumn Statement. Let us restore the cuts of £1·70 to every child under the age of 16, and give child benefit back to the women of Britain. Let us stop these means-tested benefits—the so-called social funds. Every good constituency Member of Parliament must have dealt with means testing and know of cases where people have been turned down for loans and grants although their plight is desperate poverty.
Let us have a major reform of the tax system. Every time the Budget is mentioned, the Government lob millions to the rich and nothing to the poor. Let us have a proper reform of the tax system. If you will not look at it, I am sure that Opposition Members will. We will reform it in our best traditions of making things fair and equal for everyone. We want a fair and just approach to the economy. That is what working people are asking for and what we have not had from the Government. It is your fault—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hate to remind the hon. Member again, but he must not burden me with those responsibilities.
Mr. Campbell: I will not, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you are fighting on our side.
The north-east has not seen any great strides during the so-called economic miracle. Some building is going on in my part of the world, but unfortunately it consists of three large supermarkets, and not factories. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nissan."] Nissan came a long time ago. I am talking about what has happened since the so-called economic miracle, which was the last Budget but one.
The north is in the throes of increasing unemployment, and that is well documented. When the south gets a cold, the north gets pneumonia. I ask the Government to take account of the north-east when they consider the regions. I doubt that they will do so, but I take this opportunity to make the request.
8.29 pm
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Until the contribution of the hon. Member for Notttingham, North (Mr. Allen) I thought that I had only one thing in common with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—both our fathers had worked in the circus—but I now discover that there is a great sympathy between us, as we both support Chelsea football club.
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I should like to summarise some of the good news that we have heard—for not everything is as miserable as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) tends to suggest. The hon. Gentleman must remember one important fact: hon. Members can promise all the money in the world to all the people whom they think will get them elected, but they must be able to run the economy in a way that will sustain those increases in public expenditure.
When the Labour party was in government, the economy collapsed completely. Conservative Members can trot out the cuts that they made time after time: hospitals suffered cuts of 30 per cent.; the railways were

813
cut; pensions were cut; everything was cut. Those cuts were the result of a Labour economy. The first necessity is a sustainable economy: the party in power must be able to create the wealth which, according to the hon. Gentleman, should be spread so much more widely.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: That is a fair point, but should not the £2 billion provided in the last Budget but one have been spread out more equally and fairly, rather than going to the rich? Should not more have been spent on social security benefits such as pensions?
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is typical of the many—I do not disparage them—who do not understand exactly why tax cuts occur. When they visit the supermarket to which the hon. Gentleman referred, they see that the manager reduces the price of goods that he wants to sell. Just as a sale in a store attracts purchasers, a reduction in the amount of tax that is taken out of the economy will generate money in that economy, and will increase the number of jobs.
What the hon. Gentleman is really saying is that there should be redundancies, because that is exactly what would follow the policy that he advocates. Instead of viewing tax cuts as a percentage—as numbers—he should look at the results of those cuts, which will show him an entirely different picture. He will see that taxation revenues have increased because tax cuts have led to a new enterprise culture. He will also see a reduction in unemployment, and a dramatic increase in the total revenues into the Exchequer.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should say that the rich have received the tax cuts. That is not true. Ordinary men and women—teachers married to nurses, for instance—benefited from those cuts, because the previous rates were so obscenely high. Let us concentrate, however, on the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers. Under the Labour Government, they paid 24 per cent. of the total income tax revenues; under the present Government they contribute 29 per cent. In volume terms, we are collecting more money than ever before.
Mr. John P. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman looked more closely at the effect of the tax cuts that the Government have made over the past 10 years, he would discover that the top 10 per cent. of owners of private wealth currently own 52 per cent. of that wealth. The bottom 50 per cent. own less than 8 per cent. That is the largest inequality in wealth ownership since before the second world war.
Mr. Hanley: I was not going to mention housing until later, but following the hon. Gentleman's intervention I feel that I should point out that 68 per cent. of householders are now owner-occupiers. Thousands, indeed millions, of ordinary men and women who were never able to own a house, get a foot on the capital ladder, protect their families or give to their children can now do so, thanks to the Government. Since 1979, there have been 1·4 million sales of public sector houses: 1·4 million people can now say, "This is my house."
Mr. Roger King: May I apply a balance to the earlier statement about the ownership of wealth? Let us look at what is happening in eastern Europe. How much wealth is
814
owned by those living in the ideal social democracies that Opposition Members have championed since the last war, and have they accepted any of it?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May we leave eastern Europe for the time being and return to the Autumn Statement?
Mr. Hanley: How kind you are, Madam Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, it is relevant to point out that in eastern Europe we have seen the death of Communism and the rise of the enterprise culture mirroring our own experience. We have emerged from our own mini-revolution, that of 1979. We had our problems during the winter of discontent. Ours was a bloodless revolution, but its effects will be felt as deeply as those of the revolutions in eastern Europe.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hanley: I will, but this is the last time that I will accept an intervention from across the Floor.
Mr. Rogers: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to dwell a litte more on the figures relating to owner-occupancy, of which he seems to be making a good deal? My constituency has the highest rate of owner-occupancy in Great Britain, but it is also the poorest, by any economic indicator. Owning a home does not mean sharing in the current great revolution in the acquisition of wealth; indeed, many of those who own their homes will become extremely poor as a result of the Government's recent policy of raising interest rates.
Mr. Hanley: I will not speak about the hon. Gentleman's constituency, nor would the House like me to do so. Other hon. Members will be speaking. What I will say is that anyone who has decided to buy his own home, and is struggling to cope with interest rates that are higher than any sane person could possibly enjoy, is making a worthwhile effort. Although some will find the struggle impossible, many more will find that, in the long run, it is worth the effort for their family's sake.
Although millions of people have mortgages, everyone in the country is affected by inflation—people who own their homes and people who do not; people living in council houses, and pensioners living in council flats. The battle against inflation must take precedence.
Dr. Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hanley: No, I will not give way any more. Other hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman is a charming fellow and I would love to give way to him, but we can chat later.
Let me summarise some of the more important points that have been made. First, our gross domestic product is at its highest-ever level: it rose by 4½ per cent. in 1987 and 1988, and a further 2 per cent. increase is forecast for 1989. We have experienced eight successive years of sustained growth averaging 3 per cent. and we need that growth if we are to increase expenditure on essential services. Moreover, the United Kingdom has grown far faster than any other major European country during the 1980s—well ahead of Germany and France—and that growth was vital. Manufacturing output is also at its highest-ever level.
We were talking about investment earlier. The Autumn Statement forecasts a 9¼ per cent. increase in 1989, and

815
business investment will have increased by 40 per cent. in the three years to that date. That shows the extent of confidence in the present Government and their economy. Under the Labour Government, investment averaged between a quarter of 1 per cent. and 1 per cent. annum. That was the measure of confidence in them. There was no confidence, especially when the IMF had to bail them out.
Total investment growth in the 1980s was higher in Britain than in any other European country, although we were near the bottom of the league in the 1960s and 1970s. That is reflected in real take-home pay. Between 1978–79 and 1989–90 the real take-home pay of the average married man with two children went up by one third. I admit that that is part of our problem as we are creating an economy in which people get more money.
The problems were exaggerated when the Government tried to repair the potential damage of the October 1987 slump. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that, understandably, they were fooled by the depths of that recession. Anybody could have made that mistake in the interests of the nation, and newspapers have been trying to talk every mini-slump into a major slump ever since. It is now a sport to say in newspapers and on television that the stock market will crash on Monday. On that occasion, which really was a black Monday, the Government tried to inject money into the economy to save misery and prevent a slump from occurring. But the slump was not as big as we thought and the recession that we expected afterwards did not happen. However, I am prepared to forgive the Government for that because we learnt our lesson and it will not happen again.
Real wealth and prosperity have increased under this Government. Real personal disposable income is now at a record level and is 5·5 per cent. higher than it was a year ago. I mentioned that the extra yield for the wealthy has produced more taxes to pay for essential services.
One person who has not received the plaudits that he deserves today is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We have talked about the Chancellor, who is doing an excellent job, but the Chief Secretary created the Autumn Statement and calculated the levels of expenditure in many difficult areas, trying to balance the demands of one Government Department with those of another.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) picked out three figures from the list in the Autumn Statement and said that the Government had cut here, here and here. He did not mention any more for the simple reason that there are no more. The Government have increased expenditure in 23 out of 25 headings in the Autumn Statement. In only two headings—the Department of Energy because of electricity privatisation, and the EEC—will there be any reductions in 1990–91. It should be clear to anyone that the successful running of the economy has meant that we have been able to increase expenditure in many important sectors. I have a list of all the extra services that are being provided because the economy is being run well enough to provide them.
In 1990–91 an extra £2.5 billion will be available for the National Health Service, representing an increase of 5·5 per cent. in real terms. Opposition Members will carp about the fact that wages in the National Health Service are going up faster than elsewhere, that there are more people to care for, and there is more this and more that. There is more this and more that, but the Government have come up with more money. Spending on the National Health Service has increased by 40 per cent. since the
816
Government took office. There are now 10 per cent. more outpatients, 20 per cent. more inpatients and 60 per cent. more day cases treated in hospital than there were in 1979. The staff has increased from 440,000 to 520,000 and that does not come cheap. Those people deserve to be paid well and they are being paid the money that they did not get under Labour. The Labour Government had to reduce expenditure because they could not run the economy. Gross capital spending in the National Health Service is 55 per cent. higher than it was in 1978–79. That means that the Health Service is half again as big as it was, while under Labour expenditure fell by 30 per cent.
Opposition Members talk about spending on the poorest. This year social security expenditure is running at £1 billion a week, which is an increase of 36 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Rogers: That is the Government's fault. They created the unemployment.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman says that it is our fault because we created the unemployment, but we have reduced unemployment by 3 million people. A Labour Government could not have achieved that as they would seek minimum wages and minimum hours. We have an enterprise culture.
The list of expenditure shows increases in services that really matter. Expenditure on British Rail and London Regional Transport, which affects all Members of Parliament, is going up by £2·2 billion in the coming year. Expenditure on Network SouthEast has increased by £1·2 billion. The British Rail spending programme is now £3·5 billion. Expenditure is higher than ever on housing and on the environment, but spending on defence has increased by only 1 per cent. I remind the warmongers on the Opposition Benches that defence comes fourth behind the National Health Service. That was not the case under Labour. For the first year ever National Health Service expenditure outstrips defence expenditure, and not before time.
We have been able to maintain the economy to pay for essential services. I was saddened by the response to my intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who is an intelligent and reasonable man. I asked him exactly what would be his party's plan if he thought that ours was so inadequate. He said that we should join the exchange rate mechanism as soon as possible. But that was all he said. He said that he would explain, but he did not say how Labour would pay for its spending plans. He did not say how Labour would tackle inflation; he did not say how Labour would pay for the confiscation of the industries that have been privatised; he did not say how Labour would pay for any of the massive expenditure that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley was talking about; he did not explain how Labour would pay for giving child benefit even to the wealthy and pay back the backlog.
The hon. Gentleman did not say what the standard rate of income tax would be or what company tax rates would be under Labour. He did not say how many new national taxes a Labour Government would have to create. He certainly did not say what Labour would introduce in place of the community charge or how people would be hit by Labour's plans to alter mortgage tax relief and what that would do to the cost of living. He certainly did not explain how Labour would reintroduce price controls,

817
import controls, mortgage controls and controls on house buying or car ownership. He did not say what limits he would set for Government spending or Government borrowing. He did not say how much the proposals would cost. The simple reason is that the hon. Member for Durham, North is an intellectual who will remain a political academic because he will be serving only in theory and will never have to put his policies into practice.
The Government have achieved what people said they could not. They have increased Government expenditure in almost every single Government Department—23 out of 25 this year—and have reduced income tax at the same time by generating a healthy economy. That is the most responsible course of action that any Government could take.
8.47 pm
Mr. Terry Fields: If I asked any worker in Liverpool how he knew when the Tories were telling lies, I would get the answer, "As soon as they open their mouths". Tonight we have been listening to distortions, lies and misrepresentation. Not one Tory Member has spoken without injecting into his speech what Labour was doing in government over a decade ago, when our debate tonight is on the Chancellor's Autumn Statement and Labour's amendment about what we plan for the future.
I accept that we need to look to the past, but there are none so blind as those who will not see. The proposals put forward by the Chancellor and the Government are totally irrelevant to the needs of the majority of people in Britain today. We are looking over a precipice. We are looking over the edge of a major financial crisis in Britain and internationally. We are contemplating an international crisis of finance and business confidence in the United States. The problems there are well documented. Such is the interrelationship between international capitalism around the world that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) said, if America sneezes we catch pneumonia and we will follow America as sure as night follows day. The boom in the States, which has relevance and is mirrored here, has been fuelled by credit. Today, money is being given away to enable people to buy cars so that the system can be kept going. [Interruption.] No, I do not want to go to America.
The euphoria that greets the statements by some Tory Members bears no relation to the absolute crisis in the advanced industrial countries, which are facing rises in inflation even as we speak.
What of the British economy? The Government's friends in the Financial Times and in The Sunday Times are saying, quite rightly, that we are going back to the good old days of the stop-go cycle in Government policy. We keep having the Thatcher miracle thrust down our throats. What is the Thatcher miracle? What does it mean to millions of workers in this country, to unemployed people, to people like my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley, who is waiting for treatment for his gallbladder but cannot have it? To those people the Thatcher miracle is absolutely meaningless.
After 10 years in office the Government talk about wage restraint and blame working people for the crisis in the capital system, as Conservative Governments have done
818
historically and as, unfortunately, has been done by some Labour Governments also. It is the same old blackmail: "You are pricing yourselves out of jobs. One man's pay rise is another man's job loss"—all the usual nonsense. At the same time, we read in the pages of the Financial Times and the other more serious newspapers of this country about the state of the economy and about the vast number of millions of pounds being made on the stock market where many a person has no work to do and sheds not a drop of sweat. It is referred to as the casino economy—and quite rightly so. That is what it is all about. People spin the wheel and take their chances. They gamble on the markets in the hope of taking the loot. That has no relevance to the economic and industrial situation in this country, yet it is the game that they are playing. As usual, of course, according to the Government, it is the workers who are responsible.
We have problems about investment. It is not just the loony Left that is talking about this. I would remind the House of a House of Lords inquiry of 1984, which this Government have disregarded totally. The report of that inquiry referred to the manufacturing base and to the service economy and all that it means for the future prosperity of this country and those who live and work in it. Of course, that continues to be disregarded by this Government. The squeals and screams that are being heard now are coming from the bosses and are echoed by Tory Members because profits are starting to fall. During the boom period they could afford to give working people a few crumbs in the shape of decent wage rises. But now the reality of what the economic future of this country holds for them is hitting them in the face, and they are looking for scapegoats.
Look at the economy and then look at the stock market. A report in The Independent on 4 January appeared under the headline
"Shares Hit Record amid Hope of Loan Rate Cut."
The article says that the previous record for sales of shares was set on 16 July 1987. What it does not say is that that record of July 1987 preceded the stock market crash by 15 months. Of course, the record set on 4 January this year must be seen in the context of the fact that only yesterday £8,000 million—70 points—were knocked off shares in this country. That, of course, is reflected in America, where the Dow Jones index fell by 77 points. But these statistics are meaningless when one gets down to the reality of how ordinary working people in this country are affected. Nevertheless, we have to explain what is taking place.
Daily we hear Tory Members say that Socialism is dead. I am not straying into eastern Europe; I am talking about the economy of this country and thinking of the Socialist measures that will resolve the problems of the mass of people here. Even in the United States—the arch exponent of capitalism—pressure is now being put on George Bush for state intervention in the infrastructure because big business and those people who should be paying due regard to the infrastructure are doing nothing about it. In America there is now talk of pump-priming by the state. That is something that the Government here refuse to do.
The Autumn Statement will do absolutely nothing for millions of people in this country. It will do nothing for old-age pensioners, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley has referred. It will do nothing for the disabled, or the sick and infirm, or the single parents, or the unemployed, or the low paid, or young people, who,

819
under this Government, have no future because all that they are given is phoney schemes and exploitation. Wages councils have been done away with, and people are put at risk of death and disfigurement on schemes where there are no health and safety provisions. Students have also been attacked in the form of cutbacks in loans. There have also been cutbacks in education provision. We have heard during this debate how home owners have been attacked with mortgage rate increases. Doctors have been abused, as have ambulance drivers, nurses, lawyers and, in particular, working-class families.
We are talking about inflation. Consider a place like Liverpool, whose city treasurer has estimated that the poll tax, at minimum, will be £476 for every person over 18. The authorities there will be told to cut back on staff. But sacking people will only increase unemployment, poverty and deprivation. Water rates are going up, as are transport and travel costs and gas prices—a whole catalogue of further burdens on working-class people.
Tory Members know nothing about how to resolve this problem. They are making a fast buck on their own behalf. No wonder they put up a smokescreen by referring to Labour's record. Just consider the consultancy positions and directorships that they hold. They are doing very well. It is only the working-class people of this country—the masses who create the wealth that Tory Members and the people that they represent can spend—who are doing anything about the situation.
There has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the infrastructure in this country in the past decade. That has meant decay in our hospitals. Hospitals in Liverpool are being closed down. At Question Time today, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I asked about the Park hospital. Geriatrics and people who are psychologically unfit are being thrown on to the streets to live in cardboard boxes, wander around and get themselves into trouble. Instead, they should have the benefit of proper care.
Today I was told about a man working for the local authority in Liverpool. He has been told that he will have to wait four years for a heart operation. To have it done privately he would have to pay £2,500. He is a cleaner, and the workers in his yard are talking about collecting money to pay for the operation so that he will not die during the waiting period. Yet the Government tell us that the Health Service is doing well and that they are investing in it. Half of them do not even use the service, so they do not know about its inadequacies, but we and our constituents use it, and we know at first hand that there is no proper health service as we knew it in the past.
During this Government's period of office more and more people have become alienated. With hindsight, we have to say that we in this country once had a far-sighted ruling class. In its place we now have the most economically ignorant, crude and short-sighted Government ever to look after the interests of big business. I am not being disparaging about other countries when I say that there is more manufacturing industry in India than there is in Britain, and I am not being chauvinistic when I say that Britain, once the workshop of the world, is now the warehouse of the world, full of foreign imports. That is the reality of the British economy.
Following the stock market crash we have been left far behind our major competitors such as France and
820
Germany. The Government's policies, as set out in the Autumn Statement, will mean more poverty and debt for the ordinary working people of Britain.
The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) talked about Britain's home-owning culture, but he did not give the true facts. In 1987, 23,000 homes were repossessed by the building societies compared with only 2,000 in 1979. The Prime Minister tells people to go out and buy their council houses, but if they get into debt or become unemployed as a result of the Government's policies they are punished by being made homeless. When they want a council house there is none. That is the home-owning culture that the Government have created. Building society loans are crippling as a result of the Government's policies.
As some of my comrades want to say a few words, I shall cut my remarks short. We are being kidded by the Government, but more and more people are seeing through their policies. They can see through the lies and distortions that we get daily from the Dispatch Box and from Conservative Members. The working people, the wealth creators in Britain, know the reality of what is going on. They know that there are no long-term prospects for them under the Tory Government.
People ask about the Labour party's policies, but my outlook is different from some of my good colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. We should not be going down the road of the Wilson or the Callaghan years, trying to manage a mixed economy. I am in the Labour party because I am a Socialist. I believe in the Socialist transformation of society. We cannot control what we do not own and we will take the money off Conservative Members' friends in the City. We will take over their banks and their insurance companies. We will take over the commanding heights of the economy. When they want compensation we shall treat them as they treat the poor and the unemployed—we will means test it.
Capitalism has failed not only here but internationally. Increasingly, workers will come to the only conclusion, that they must take their destiny in their own hands, just as the workers in eastern Europe are doing. They are not saying that they do not want Socialism or Communism; they have never seen either. They have thrown off Stalinism because they want to run their own lives. The British workers applaud what they are doing and will be going on to the streets themselves because the Government's policies will bring about social convulsions.
9.1 pm
Mr. James Hill: We have heard an almost classic speech from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). It was almost 15 to 20 years old; an example of class warfare at its worst. Once again, he was trying to arouse the emotions of his constituents, making them more radical and militant.
But to Conservative Members the hon. Gentleman's ideas were almost laughable simply because they are part of history. Events in central Europe should convince even the last of Militant Tendency supporters that this is a changing world and that politics have moved on. The Opposition Front Bench have accepted that.
It is unfortunate that we in this Chamber always talk in jargon. Today I heard several references to fiscal and monetary policies and the supply side. To people outside, that does not mean a thing. As the Treasury Front Bench

821
spokesmen will know, people are interested in their expectations. They are already convinced that their circumstances are much better than they were 10 years ago, but they are still looking for more.
We have heard that there is 68 per cent. home ownership in the United Kingdom, the highest in Europe, but nobody ever mentions that. Those people do not rely on local government for housing; they do their own maintenance and take pride in their property. At the same time they are anxious to leave their property to their children when they have paid the mortgage.
Not one Opposition Member made any conclusive statement on the Labour party's future policies. The majority of speeches from Opposition Members were confidence destroying and, as anyone in business knows, confidence is essential in business. If people do not have confidence they do not invest or they invest outside the country. People realise that the market place now is not just the United Kingdom or, indeed Glasgow or anywhere else; it is world-wide.
The strength of our economy was shown by our recovery from the major stock market depression. The stock market is probably healthier for being culled then. The lesson which every member of the Opposition Front Bench should note is that the market place cannot be worked in isolation. We cannot attract investment in isolation. We must rely on the large companies in the world to invest in Britain, and they will invest in Britain only if they have confidence. No amount of talking down the economy will create that confidence. If there is a lack of confidence now, it is because the Opposition have no policies to put forward. They have nothing to say about how they would run the economy. That is why the market place is extremely sensitive.
I give the House a horrifying scenario to consider. What will happen if that crowd on the Opposition Benches comes to power? The market place will go bananas. That is no slur on anyone. I am sorry to say that confidence will be exactly the same as in 1974 and 1964.
I did not agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He suggested that if we joined the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system we should begin to do as well as Germany overnight, and that our interest rates and inflation would tumble. The German Bundestag would dominate the scene through the Bundesbank. That is not what we want. We did not join the Community to have our full range of fiscal policies controlled. The problem is that if we joined the ERM when our inflation and interest rates were high and the playing field was not level, we should be hostage to fortune and to all those on the continent who would welcome us but take advantage of our weaknesses. That is the problem. I am as much in favour of joining the ERM as anyone. However, it must be done at the right time, and now is not the right time.
I should like to make a few comments on how industry could be helped. The investment in plant and machinery that companies can write off against taxation each year should be increased from 25 to 40 per cent. I do not know whether hon. Members remember the halcyon days when it was 100 per cent. That was a tremendous incentive to do what the Opposition recommend on the supply side.
Sir William Clark: Corporation tax of 45 per cent.
Mr. Hill: Exactly. A reduction in employers' national insurance contributions would be another worthwhile move which would not create inflation and would help industry to invest more in plant.
We could also increase investments in transport infrastructure. We are already doing that in no small way. However, in my constituency of Southampton we have had to wait years for the necessary motorways. I know that hon. Members are fed up and sick and tired of me saying this, but we still do not have the M3, although Southampton is a major port.
We must watch local authority rates carefully. The uniform business rate will cause much heartburn, perhaps not to the bigger companies that are spread throughout the United Kingdom, but certainly for the smaller companies that are situated in highly-rated areas.
Therefore, the problem is not quite as simple as Opposition Members would have us believe. The careful juggling—because that is what it is—of the uniform business rate and of the investment world, and the creation of an area of confidence so that people will want to invest in the United Kingdom, must be the best possible way forward.
I hesitate to say this, but I do not think that the banks—certainly not the big five—are as co-operative or as compassionate as they should be with some of our smaller business men. If we are to have a great deal more trouble because smaller business men cannot meet their uniform business rate and are unable to keep going, the banks should take a more lenient view.
I realise that my time is nearly up. Indeed, I am waiting for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to nod at me. In conclusion, the Government are doing an excellent job. The Treasury team is excellent. I believe that they are what is known as a "vintage year." I hope that the Opposition will eventually begin to make speeches boosting the economy and boosting confidence and that they will not always be such a dog in the manger.
9.11 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: I shall speak only briefly because the debate needs to be wound up and the weaknesses and shortsightedness of the Government's forecasts have been more than adequately highlighted by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I was impressed by the Chancellor's speech. I thought that he had worked hard at it. Obviously, the Tory drama school told him to gee-up and do a lot better. It was definitely a brighter shade of grey. However, I was sorry that he did not give way to me on one point. I wanted to question him when he made a remark about the quality of investment and said something like, "Never mind the quality, see the width." The Chancellor talked about the quality of investment. It was extremely interesting to discover that by "quality of investment" he meant the amount of money that could be made on an investment in the shortest time.
There we have the substantial difference between the Government and the Opposition—I am not sure why the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) is grinning. If the tablets are not working, I can recommend Ex-lax. The big difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we believe that money should be used to create jobs and wealth for the country, whereas the Government and the Chancellor believe that money exists

823
to create money. The investment made in this country now might be bigger and may have greater returns, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) so eloquently showed when he responded to the Chancellor's speech, that investment is in car parks, supermarkets and the service sector. It is a vital part of our economy, but is not at all helpful to our balance of payments problems. All that we are building are warehouses and supermarkets in which we can store and sell the goods that we are importing.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Chancellor's comment that caused me most despair today was his evaluation of public expenditure versus private expenditure. The Chancellor almost dismissed public expenditure as being a dirty word and a dirty habit. Does my hon. Friend agree that education, health and social services, and all the things that make good provision for our quality of life, are dismissed by the Tory party as the work of the devil?
Mr. Rogers: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I should now like to speak briefly on one aspect of the Autumn Statement, if only to highlight some of the rubbish in it. I refer to the defence expenditure plans in paragraphs 122 to 124, and specifically to the allusion in paragraph 124 to
"measures taken to increase value for money from the equipment programme."
The Government's record in defence procurement and in the defence economy is appalling. The fact that they claim some credit for it in the Autumn Statement is a cheek. It is a phrase trapped in the Ministry of Defence word processor. It comes out every year to order, usually to cover some incompetence, and generally accompanied by equally predictable rhetoric fom the rally-round-the-flag brigade. They are swarthed in references to national security and say, "You cannot have this or that information". If anyone ever criticises the Ministry of Defence or a Minister, he is accused of criticising Britannia.
Britain has fundamental defence problems, and nowhere in the Autumn Statement is there anything likely to do something about them. We are talking about an industry that sustains more than 500,000 jobs. The measures taken by the Government have resulted in a gross mismanagement of Britain's defence economy and taxpayers' money. I hope that in future months we will have the opportunity to take the matter further.
9.16 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: On 22 November last year, Sir Terence Burns, the Government's chief economic adviser, told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that
"there is a great deal of uncertainty"
in the economy. That should probably be the motto for this Autumn Statement. As for the Government, whose policy stance it is supposed to outline, the more one attempts to scrutinise the Autumn Statement, the more it becomes apparent that it represents not so much a stance as an uncomfortable shuffle on to one foot and then on to the other. From the admitted uncertainty about the economy to the—apparently—greatest certainty of the economic forecasts is one of those steps. I will be fair to the Chancellor, as he insisted that those forecasts are prone to
824
error. However, he also insisted that they represent the best estimate that the Treasury can make—falling interest rates, but not yet; falling trade deficit, but not yet; falling inflation rates, but not yet; and 3 per cent. inflation in three years' time. As a number of hon. Members have said, the Government said that they would achieve that figure last year, the year before, and the year before that. I do not want to be unfair to the Government, but somewhere along that trail they were predicting zero inflation, although I am not sure in which year that was. A number of hon. Members have said that repetition in the face of failure has not added to the credibility of that forecast.
Uncertainty returns in a flood on examination of the reality of our underlying economic strength. The Opposition, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and others in industry and finance have highlighted fears about our levels of investment, especially in manufacturing, the wealth-creating sector, and about our world performance in that most vital of areas, only to be constantly told by Government apologists about great increases in output and investment in recent years. I want to put it firmly on record that the Opposition are pleased to see any hopeful signs that manufacturing is recovering from the near-fatal blows that that sector took under this Government in the early 1980s. When the Government imply that there is little further cause for concern—even before we had the most recent output figures—they are being more than a little misleading.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) quoted a figure that he has quoted before—the percentage change in manufacturing output between 1979 and 1988. The hon. Gentleman did not point out that on those figures the United Kingdom came 18th out of 20 OECD countries. Moreover, although our share of world exports this year is estimated to rise against the growth in world trade, after a poor year in 1988, and the long-term picture shows a rise in the volume of exports since 1979—this is a figure which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry quoted with some glee the other day—that is far exceeded by the rise in imports, which the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention, at well over twice the level of exports. This position is not likely to be remedied without substantial investment.
Between 1980 and 1983 manufacturing investment in this country fell back to levels not seen since the mid to late-1950s. Mercifully, since then we have had the recovery about which the Chancellor took the trouble to intervene to remind us. That recovery returned investment to 1·7 per cent. above the level that it reached in 1979—before the miracle-workers took over.
It is suggested that next year world trade in manufactures will grow by 6·5 per cent. and that United Kingdom manufactured exports will also grow by 6·5 per cent., which at first sight might imply that we shall hold our share of world trade. But the forecast for total United Kingdom growth in manufacturing output is only 1·5 per cent. What kind of economic miracle is it where we can deliver a growth in manufacturing output of only 1·5 per cent. when world trade is growing by 6·5 per cent.?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Lady understand that many of us are very concerned with industry and its profitability and that I have also suggested to my hon. Friends changes that I would like to see? I ask yet again in this long debate, a great deal of which I have heard, about

825
the Labour party's backing for the EEC social charter and its added cost to industry. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is an honourable man, as I am sure everyone agrees, said that if we had a minimum wage and backed the social charter it would cost 400,000 jobs and add 4·4 per cent. to the costs of industry. Does the hon. Lady agree with that or not?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is, as the hon. Gentleman said, a very honourable and a very nice man in many ways, but his figures are sometimes wrong, and this is one of those cases. Forecasts for investment in manufacturing are also far from rosy—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question and he got a straight answer. What is the matter with him?
The Central Statistical Office forecasts an increase in manufacturing investment in the coming year of no more than 1 per cent. in real terms—a prospect which worries the CBI, the TUC and many commentators far more than it apparently worries the Government. But then the Government's attitude to investing in our future is as far from clear as it is implicitly unhealthy. The point of the Autumn Statement is that it is supposed to tell us something about the overall size of the Government's public expenditure plans, with all that they may or may not mean for investment in our future. To quote one of the Select Committee's advisers, Mr. Brian Reading,
"Is the planning total"
for public expenditure,
"the right size? Is its allocation 'appropriate'?"
Mr. Reading then goes on to say:
"Neither of these questions can be answered on the basis of the information provided in the Autumn Statement."
Although we all recognise that the changed definitions and classifications used in the presentation this year create difficulties, I am bound to say that I agree not only with Mr. Reading but with the Select Committee when it observes that parts of the Autumn Statement can probably be fully understood only by those who compiled it. I thought that the Committee was very restrained in its remarks in this respect and others, no doubt following the lead of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who is always a model of courtesy. I was especially impressed by its restraint when I read the exchange between the Committee and officials, particularly the ones when the Committee sought to get straight answers about data on local capital investment only to be told that they could not interpret the figures because they had not been given all of them.
Not having been present, I cannot judge whether that observation was made gleefully, remorsefully or simply in a "Good God, what did you expect" sort of tone. If I had been a member of the Committee—which, I understand, asked for all the relevant figures and until that moment was under the impression that it had received them—I should have been extremely cheesed off.
But we should all have known better. The Select Committee wanted all the figures so that it could draw its own conclusions about what is really happening in the economy—about whether and to what extent we are really investing in our infrastructure—and that, of course, is the last thing the Government want.
We can deduce from the Autumn Statement that in the coming year the Government plan to spend less than they
826
had originally intended to spend but more than they spent last year. We can also see that most of the increase will be swallowed up either by inflation throughout the economy or by even higher specific inflation in areas such as health care, despite the Government's claims to have acknowledged and met the demand for proper provision in those services.
But the question of real importance, not just for the House but for the country, remains an open question: whether and when the Government will recognise and accept their responsibility to play their proper role in investing in our future—the reponsibility accepted and the role played by the Governments of all our major competitors. On one score there is little doubt. The Government want the public to think that they have accepted that role. Their press releases and public relations address the real concern that they know the public feel at the way in which we are falling further behind our partners and competitors. The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) mentioned those matters and told us how much more the Government were spending.
But the Select Committee pointed out, as did the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that although one of the few things that the Autumn Statement makes clear is that expenditure on training is being cut again in real terms, as it was last year—which is extraordinary in view of the damaging effects of skill shortages on inflation, if on nothing else—the Department of Employment was issuing press releases claiming credit for a cash increase.
Whatever the statements made for public consumption about spending increases funded by the Government's economic miracle, in the comparative privacy of the Select Committee deliberations, faced with the stern countenances of the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), the Chief Secretary cracked and gave the game away—[Interruption.] In the years from roughly 1984 to 1985, said the Chief Secretary,
"planned increases in real terms did not actually materialise … I do not think the sort of step change we have now would be very different."
Nor do I. He continued:
"The additions to last year's plans are rather less than the rise in inflation."
The hon. Member for Bridlington drew attention to the fact that this is the lowest level of Government spending since 1967. That is not quite what it says in all those ministerial letters to our constituents, or in those brave speeches boasting of the Government's wonderful spending record. In terms of accuracy, the Chief Secretary's version of events is more to be commended.
In 1987, taking investment as a percentage of GDP—broadly, as a percentage of our national income—we were 23rd out of 25 OECD countries. In 1988, the peak year of the investment cycle—the so-called investment boom that we enjoyed recently under the Conservatives—we were 18th out of 23 OECD countries. That lack of investment can be shown by the most simple and incontrovertible evidence—the daily experience of British people.
The Government claim to have put an extra £2·6 billion into the National Health Service, and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), who appears to be getting somewhat agitated at this point, quoted some even more dubious statistics about the Government having, between 1979 and 1988, increased spending on the NHS by 45 per

827
cent. in real terms. I know that the hon. Gentleman got that figure from the Prime Minister. He should seek a more reliable source for his statistics.
On the basis of the old planning total, at the best, using the GDP deflator, which is the average measure of inflation in the economy, one might come up with a figure in real terms as high as 31·6 per cent., which is rather different from 45 per cent. Using the NHS deflator, the one that matters for available spending in the NHS, one comes up with a figure on the old planning total basis of 13·9 per cent.—1·3 per cent. a year while this Government have been in office—which is substantially below the spending needed to meet the increasing demographic and technological demands.
That ties in with the experience of our constituents. If the hon. Member for Croydon, South would prefer a measure of NHS expenditure that includes patient charges and asset sales, on the GDP deflator, one might reach a figure of 36·7 per cent. Again, using the figures for inflation in the NHS, the figure comes out nearer to 17 per cent., which is 1·6 per cent. a year—still well below what is required to meet increasing needs in the NHS.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady referred to the National Health Service deflator. Does that mean that when the Government give a generous pay settlement to the nurses the deflator increases and, therefore, the settlement might as well not have been given, according to the hon. Lady's figures?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's remarks with the contempt that they deserve.
The Government claim in this Autumn Statement that they have put an extra £2·6 billion into the NHS. Although we have not, as far as I am aware, had a reply, we query whether more than a small part of that—perhaps £500 million—is available to improve services, especially when one takes account of increased prices, of the Government's creative accounting and of the accountancy procedures themselves, to which much of the money will go on a scale that is not only wholly impracticable, but which seems far in excess of what would he needed for prudent management and more like what would be needed to introduce full-scale charging into the NHS.
The Government claim to be increasing investment in housing, hut housing starts have fallen by almost half in the past year, while bankruptcies in the construction industry have soared. Once again, we are running to stand still. The Government are increasing investment in transport, but the subsidy to Network SouthEast is being removed. If there is one area in the country where people do not need a financial inducement to travel by car, it is the south-east.
Some may find these statistical niceties, technicalities and different specifications bewildering. They should not, thereby, conclude that they are not able to judge who is and who is not basically right. Just walk into a local hospital; just get on a Network SouthEast train or a Tube—a traumatic experience if ever there was one; just read the notes from the head of the local school, begging for funds to give our children even the most basic education; just ask charities such as the Salvation Army about the young homeless, or the Family Welfare Association about families without cookers or beds, or the citizens advice bureaux, about the growing queue of people with debts they cannot handle because they believed that there was an
828
economic miracle and we were all part of it. Judge from the daily experience of growing public squalor and growing private distress and—from that—can judge this Government and their "miracle" decade aright.
9.32 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The debate has covered not only the Autumn Statement, but the report by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service to which, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, the Government will in time reply.
I am sure that every hon. Member who has been present today will agree with the generous and well-deserved tribute of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for his chairmanship of the Committee. My right hon. Friend made a notable speech today in which he touched on various aspects of funding policy and monetary policy, and those points will, of course, be covered in the Government's reply to the Select Committee's report. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand why I cannot go further than that today.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made much in his speech of the slower rate of growth of the economy which is outlined in the Autumn Statement and he thought that there was an extremely gloomy outlook. The reasons why it is necessary to have a period of slower growth have been spelt out before and I do not intend to go over them again, but it is worth remembering that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was Chancellor. in his Mansion house speech of 1988—as long ago as that—he said that he expected that the economy would face a year or two of slower growth before resuming its upward t rend. The Government, as one hon. Member seems to have thought they should, cannot be said to have abolished the trade cycle even though they may have transformed the economy; and just as Britain led the way into the upswing, so Germany is growing faster now, just as it was growing more slowly at the point when the British economy was booming. There is nothing very surprising about that.
Looking at the decade as a whole from 1979 or 1980, whichever base the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East wants to take, and even taking into account the lower level of growth expected this year, Britain will still over that decade have grown faster than the EC average and faster than either France or Germany.
Mr. Morgan: In spite of his boasting about this wonderful consumption fiesta that we have had, a repeat of the Barber boom of 1973–74, in competitive terms with France and Germany, will the Chief Secretary not agree that the Government's stewardship of the British economy is very much like the Lawn Tennis Association running the Wimbledon championships: it is a wonderful fortnight of tennis but all the British players get knocked out in the first round?
Mr. Lamont: That stewardship has resulted in an unprecedented increase in living standards, a vastly greater increase than when the Labour party was in power. We have seen a strong growth throughout most of the 1980s, and that contrasts with our dismal performance for most of the 1970s. It also represents not just an absolute increase but an improvement in our performance relative to other

829
countries. In the United Kingdom, growth since 1980 has averaged a percentage point higher than in the 10 years 1970–80. Most other major countries in the 1980s experienced lower growth than in the 1970s. That demonstrates how this country has improved its performance relative to others.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East made much of the comparison with the German economy. He said that the German economy had performed so much better than ours, and I asked him whether it was true that our growth rate in the 1980s had been higher than that of the German economy. Of course, it is true, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have acknowledged it because it is a significant change and a significant improvement in this country's relative position. I share with the right hon. and learned Gentleman an admiration for the German economy, but if he were being realistic and fair and looking at what has happened in the past decade he would acknowledge that there are areas where the British economy has performed better than the German economy, and growth is one of them.
In manufacturing output, in 1980–88, the UK annual average growth rate was 2·1 per cent. and in Germany 1·2 per cent.; in total investment growth, 1980–88, the UK average was 4·5 per cent. per annum and in Germany it was 0·5 per cent. In productivity of the whole economy, the UK figure was 2·7 per cent. per annum and the German 1·2 per cent.; in productivity in manufacturing, the UK figure was 5·3 per cent. per annum and the German figure 2·2 per cent. The facts speak for themselves: this country's position vis-à-vis the very strong and much to be envied German economy has got better. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been fair and impartial, which I am sure he really is, he would have admitted it.
Mr. John Smith: I was fair enough to take the Tory claims as they put them themselves, namely, that there was a British economic miracle which had eclipsed the Germans. I simply asked, if that was the case, why the Germans had a £50 billion trade surplus and we had a £20 billion trade deficit. All the weasel statistics in the world will not get away from that. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary admit that it was a ridiculous exaggeration which has been blown apart by economic experience?
Mr. Lamont: The only claim that was made by my right hon. Friend and the only claim that I make is that our economy has improved its relative position very much compared with the German economy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may call it a miracle; it would be a miracle if it ever happened under the Labour party in government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also went on at some length, as he always does, about the current account deficit. We know that he is an old-fashioned mercantilist. He believes that trade is a continuation of war by other means. I noticed that in his Daily Telegraph interview at the beginning of the year he did not talk about getting the current account back into surplus; he just talked about possibly getting it into reasonable equilibrium.
Mr. John Smith: That is more than the Government have done.
Mr. Lamont: He says that that is more than we have done. Basically only two major countries have been consistently in surplus in the last few years. Every other country has been consistently in deficit or in and out of deficit. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not argue that the United States, France and Canada are unsuccessful countries or countries that have not achieved a high growth rate and standards of living that we would seek to emulate.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that we regard it as prudent that the current account deficit should be reduced. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, there are positive signs that the measures we have taken are already moving the current account deficit in that direction.
Mr. John Garrett rose—
Mr. Lamont: I want to make more progress.
There are two reasons why the current account deficit has appeared. It is not because of a lack of competitiveness but rather because of excess demand and an investment boom that has exceeded domestic savings. I am sure Opposition Members know that by definition the current account is the difference between domestic savings and investment. If a nation invests more than it saves, the current account will be in deficit; if it saves more than it invests, the current account will be in surplus.
There has been a fall in personal savings to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) referred, although that so-called fall in personal savings has to some extent just been the product of mortgage borrowing; the rise in home ownership has increased personal borrowing and reduced the net figure of personal savings. Although there has been some fall in personal savings, it has been offset by company saving and by the large surplus that the Government have run in their finances. The point is that by far the larger part of the current account deficit has come not from the fall in savings, which has been relatively small, but from higher investment. That is what the current account deficit reflects—an investment boom, not a savings slump.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) pointed out that we are extremely fortunate in the overseas investment that we have built up over the years. Of course, we did not have and could not create such overseas investment when the Labour party was in power. That is the real strength of the balance sheet of Britain plc. It shows that Britain is in a very strong position because we have overseas assets that are the third largest in the world after Japan and Germany, and, as a proportion of GDP, the biggest in the world. Even in 1988, when we had a large current account deficit, those overseas assets increased in value, which is evidence that the oil surpluses about which Opposition Members are so concerned were wisely invested and are bringing benefit to the people over the years.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East castigated the Government over their inflation record when he claimed to be reviewing the economic progress of the decade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) pointed out, if he wanted to compare inflation in the 1980s with inflation in the 1970s, he might at least have admitted that inflation under this Government has never exceeded the heights that it reached

831
under Labour. He cited the underlying rate of inflation. Our 6·1 per cent. highest rate of underlying inflation since 1983 is lower than it ever was under the Labour Government. That is the reality of the difference between our inflation record and Labour's.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has an excuse for this difference. He always said that inflation under the Labour Government was due to oil. He says that everything that went wrong under the Labour Government was because of an oil crisis, while everything good that has happened under this Government has also been due to oil, never to anything that the Government have done.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the economy is going so well, why did the spokesman for the Building Societies Association say on the 9 o'clock news that, as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in the House of Commons today—in which he said that interest rates would have to stay high for much longer—there could well be an increase in mortgage interest rates? If the economy is strong, why are the news media running stories like that? The truth is that we have never had interest rates so high for so long even in the seventies, on which the right hon. Gentleman keeps harping.
Mr. Lamont: I have not heard the news, but I understand that the chairman of the Building Societies Association did not say precisely what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that if interest rates were to remain at their present level right up to the summer, it might be necessary to have a 0·5 per cent. increase in mortgage rates. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot speculate about what will happen, but interest rates at a proper level are necessary to bear down on inflation. The cure of inflation matters more for everyone in this country, whether wage earner or home owner.
The Labour party has criticised the Government's spending record because it thinks that we have not spent sufficient amounts on priority services. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to demonstrate that we have spent considerable extra sums on health and transport while—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said—maintaining tight control over total spending. We have done that by making the nationalised industries more efficient, cutting debt interest payments and using the advantages of falling unemployment.
It is because our finances are in order that we have been able to do three things simultaneously: control spending, reduce taxes, and give much-needed funds to priority sectors. That was rightly praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).
The real question in this debate is whether there has been an underlying improvement in the performance of the British economy—whether the problems of the current account and inflation are temporary or whether there is a permanent improvement in our competitiveness. The facts speak for themselves. There is the profitability of British industry. There has been a reallocation of a decent proportion of GDP to profits after decades of decline.
We know that Opposition Members are not interested. They think it is a crime to make profits. We think it is a crime to make losses. Productivity in this country has risen faster than in any other country, including even Japan. There has been a revolution in industrial relations. The
832
other day the Confederation of British Industry said that the number of working days lost is about 12 times lower than it was in 1979 when the Labour party was in power. It said that industrial action occurs today in only 1 per cent. of pay negotiations and the threat of action in only 2 per cent. of pay negotiations. So much for the argument that nothing has changed and we are getting back to the industrial relations of the sixties and seventies.
If there had not been a real change in the competitiveness of the British economy, we would not have the considerable and remarkable rise in British exports that we have had in the past year since economic growth began to slow down. In the three months to November 1989, export volumes were up 13 per cent. by comparison with the same period in the previous year. Within that total, car exports were up 29 per cent. and those of intermediate manufactures were up 17 per cent. In the same period, imports increased by only 61½ per cent. Opposition Members who asked about imports may be interested to know that, in the three months to November 1989, imports fell.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South arid others of my hon. Friends mentioned the remarkable transformation in the British motor industry and the substantial foreign investment that has been made in it, which will add to British capacity by about half a million cars. That will be in place for the next decade. What a contrast with the motor industry when Labour was in power, when production fell by about one third and imports increased threefold. Today imports have stabilised and the industry is strongly placed to recover and expand its market.
When the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East presented his case, he said that the 1980s were a wasted decade. He claimed to speak for the whole nation, saying that his view was widely shared. He thought that the beginning of the 1990s would be the time to make a reappraisal. I agree that there could not be a better time to look back on what people thought about the 1980s. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman noticed that on 2 January a number of newspapers published surveys of the views of British business men in which they reviewed the progress that Britain made in the 1980s. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised that matter, and as he has been around a long time and has a good memory, he may recall that similar articles published at the beginning of the 1980s were full of real gloom, real hesitation and real doubt.
By comparison, in an article that was published on 2 January this year, the chairmen of leading British companies gave their view of the 1980s. The chairman of ICI spoke of a decade of unparalleled growth and of increased sales and profits. I dare say that the Opposition would not like me to cite the chairman of British Airways, but his phrase deserves to be remembered. Lord King of Wartnaby said:
"We should be grateful to the 1980s for helping us to forget the 1960s and 1970s."
What do the Opposition make of the comments of Sir Ernest Harrison, chairman of Racal Electronics? He said :
"The 1980s were a period of strong economic growth because we enjoyed a decade of stable government."
What do the Opposition make of the remarks of Sir Trevor Holdsworth, former chairman of GKN and president of the Confederation of British Industry? He said:
"The 1980s have been the best decade I have known—after 40 years in industry—for managing business."
Mr. John Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lamont: I will, in a minute. Those are the views of practical business men who are responsible for the performance of our economy. I am sure that the British people prefer their views, as I do, to the distorted views of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, in his speech on behalf of the Opposition.
Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously expect us to take as unbiased commentators on the British economy top British industrialists who have given themselves huge salary increases over the last 12 months? Was it a sense of discretion that stopped the right hon. Gentleman from quoting Lord King? Does the Chief Secretary think that Lord King's huge salary increase, which he awarded to himself, is a good example to set the working people of this country?
Mr. Lamont: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention is ludicrous and irrelevant. He claimed in his speech to speak for manufacturing industry and to represent its views and prospects, but his remarks are totally contradicted by the views of British business men themselves.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a point when he says that not everything is perfect, and I admit that some of his criticisms were very telling. I know that we have not lived up to the high standards that we set ourselves. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister once said that our ambition was to make the British economy so strong that not even the Labour party could wreck it. Manifestly, we have failed because we have not educated or converted the Opposition and, although the economy is strong, it is not strong enough to withstand their onslaught.
Conveniently, that brings me to the subject of the Opposition. Old-fashioned interventionism of the type proposed in Labour's policy review will undermine the health of British industry. We are told that the Department of Trade and Industry under Labour will
"make strategic interventions into key sectors".
What are they? What are the key technologies that the Labour party says that it will encourage? How do we know that it will be different from the conspicous failures of their last period in office?
The Labour party's document gives one example to help us make up our minds. That example is not encouraging. It says that it will bring about the installation of a national broadband fibre optic network from John o'Groats to Land's End. What is that network? The policy document paints a terrifying picture, and if it gets out the Labour party will have lost all its chances in the next election—although it did not have much chance anyway.
It is suggesting a state-sponsored communication network which
"will bring great rivers of information, sight and sound in and out of every living room, classroom and work place."
The mind boggles. What else will it bring—martial music, computer dating or speeches by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) telling us that the situation on the streets is normal? What is even more alarming, I am told that the cost is estimated at a modest £20 billion. That is a precise example of what the Government ought not to do—try to spot winners in an extremely complex industry. There is nothing more disastrous than a crash programme
834
of Government investment in a high-risk industry that will almost certainly be overtaken by technological change. It is better to have the evolutionary, market-led development of a communications network, as we have at present.
I can think of nothing more likely to lead to a gigantic misallocation of resources. One must be grateful to the authors of the document for giving us such a vivid example of the Opposition's industrial policy.
We were pleased when the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was appointed to her post, and we congratulate her again, because we thought that when she was shadow Chief Secretary we might get answers to questions about Labour policy. We did not get any answers from her predecessor. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster put some 52 questions to the Leader of the Opposition and received no replies. I am more modest, and I shall ask only two questions: what are the costs of Labour's programme, and by how much will taxes go up as a result? I am not optimistic that we shall get an answer.
The Sunday Times on 17 September last year disclosed:
"Labour leaders have decided not to work out the costs of implementing the policy review in case the figures leak out."
So that is the real position of the Opposition. Is that how they regard their trust with the British electorate and the accountability that they think they should have to the British people? They want the City and the Government to give more information and to be more accountable, but they apply other standards to themselves.
If that is their prospectus, it is the most fraudulent that has been put to the British people since 1710—the time of the South Sea Bubble—when a prospectus was issued to investors which invited them to
"subscribe for an undertaking, the nature of which shall in due time be revealed to them."
It was disastrous in 1710, and it would be disastrous now.
It is no use for the Labour party to say that what is in the policy review will not be in the manifesto, and that what is in the manifesto will not happen in a single Parliament. That is dishonest politics, and the British people know it. My right hon. Friend has presented the House with an honest appraisal of the British economy, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to back it in the Lobby tonight.
Mr. Allen rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 282.

Division No. 42]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bermingham, Gerald

Allen, Graham

Bidwell, Sydney

Alton, David

Blair, Tony

Anderson, Donald

Blunkett, David

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Boateng, Paul

Armstrong, Hilary

Boyes, Roland

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bradley, Keith

Ashton, Joe

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Battle, John

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Beckett, Margaret

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Beith, A. J.

Buchan, Norman

Bell, Stuart

Buckley, George J.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Caborn, Richard

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

Callaghan, Jim

835

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Illsley, Eric

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Ingram, Adam

Cartwright, John

Janner, Greville

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Clay, Bob

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Clelland, David

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kennedy, Charles

Cohen, Harry

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Coleman, Donald

Kirkwood, Archy

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Lambie, David

Corbett, Robin

Leadbitter, Ted

Corbyn, Jeremy

Leighton, Ron

Cousins, Jim

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cox, Tom

Litherland, Robert

Crowther, Stan

Livsey, Richard

Cryer, Bob

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cummings, John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Loyden, Eddie

Cunningham, Dr John

McAllion, John

Dalyell, Tam

McAvoy, Thomas

Darling, Alistair

McCartney, Ian

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Macdonald, Calum A.

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

McFall, John

Dewar, Donald

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Dixon, Don

McKelvey, William

Dobson, Frank

McLeish, Henry

Doran, Frank

McNamara, Kevin

Douglas, Dick

McWilliam, John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Madden, Max

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Eadie, Alexander

Marek, Dr John

Eastham, Ken

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Martlew, Eric

Fatchett, Derek

Maxton, John

Faulds, Andrew

Meacher, Michael

Fearn, Ronald

Meale, Alan

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Michael, Alun

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

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fisher, Mark

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Flannery, Martin

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Flynn, Paul

Morgan, Rhodri

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morley, Elliot

Foster, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Fraser, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Fyfe, Maria

Mowlam, Marjorie

Galloway, George

Mullin, Chris

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Murphy, Paul

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

O'Brien, William

Godman, Dr Norman A.

O'Neill, Martin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Gordon, Mildred

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Gould, Bryan

Parry, Robert

Graham, Thomas

Pendry, Tom

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Pike, Peter L.

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Primarolo, Dawn

Grocott, Bruce

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hardy, Peter

Radice, Giles

Harman, Ms Harriet

Randall, Stuart

Haynes, Frank

Redmond, Martin

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hefter, Eric S.

Reid, Dr John

Henderson, Doug

Richardson, Jo

Hinchliffe, David

Robertson, George

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Rogers, Allan

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rooker, Jeff

Home Robertson, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hood, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Sheerman, Barry

Howells, Geraint

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Short, Clare

Hoyle, Doug

Sillars, Jim

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

836

Snape, Peter

Wareing, Robert N.

Soley, Clive

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Spearing, Nigel

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Steinberg, Gerry

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Strang, Gavin

Wilson, Brian

Straw, Jack

Winnick, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Worthington, Tony

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Wray, Jimmy

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Turner, Dennis

Vaz, Keith

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wallace, James

Mr. Martyn Jones and

Walley, Joan

Mr. Frank Cook.

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Critchley, Julian

Aitken, Jonathan

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amess, David

Day, Stephen

Amos, Alan

Devlin, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Dicks, Terry

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Dorrell, Stephen

Ashby, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Aspinwall, Jack

Dover, Den

Atkinson, David

Dunn, Bob

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Durant, Tony

Baldry, Tony

Dykes, Hugh

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Emery, Sir Peter

Batiste, Spencer

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Evennett, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Benyon, W.

Fallon, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Favell, Tony

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Body, Sir Richard

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fookes, Dame Janet

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Forman, Nigel

Boswell, Tim

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Forth, Eric

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bowis, John

Franks, Cecil

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Freeman, Roger

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

French, Douglas

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fry, Peter

Brazier, Julian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bright, Graham

Gill, Christopher

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

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Browne, John (Winchester)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Goodlad, Alastair

Buck, Sir Antony

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Burns, Simon

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Burt, Alistair

Gorst, John

Butcher, John

Gow, Ian

Butler, Chris

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Butterfill, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gregory, Conal

Carrington, Matthew

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Carttiss, Michael

Grist, Ian

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Ground, Patrick

Chapman, Sydney

Grylls, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Hague, William

Churchill, Mr

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hanley, Jeremy

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Harris, David

Colvin, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Conway, Derek

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hill, James

Cormack, Patrick

Holt, Richard

Couchman, James

Hordern, Sir Peter

Cran, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

837

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Price, Sir David

Hunter, Andrew

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Irvine, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Jack, Michael

Redwood, John

Janman, Tim

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Kilfedder, James

Rhodes James, Robert

Kirkhope, Timothy

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knapman, Roger

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knowles, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Knox, David

Rost, Peter

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rowe, Andrew

Lang, Ian

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Latham, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Lee, John (Pendle)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lightbown, David

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lilley, Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lord, Michael

Shelton, Sir William

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Maclean, David

Shersby, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sims, Roger

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Madel, David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Major, Rt Hon John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Malins, Humfrey

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mans, Keith

Speller, Tony

Maples, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Marlow, Tony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Squire, Robin

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mates, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Maude, Hon Francis

Stern, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stevens, Lewis

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Miller, Sir Hal

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mills, Iain

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Miscampbell, Norman

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Summerson, Hugo

Mitchell, Sir David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Moate, Roger

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Monro, Sir Hector

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Thornton, Malcolm

Morrison, Sir Charles

Thurnham, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mudd, David

Tracey, Richard

Neale, Gerrard

Tredinnick, David

Needham, Richard

Trippier, David

Nelson, Anthony

Trotter, Neville

Neubert, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Viggers, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Walden, George

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Norris, Steve

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Ward, John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Page, Richard

Watts, John

Paice, James

Wheeler, Sir John

Patnick, Irvine

Whitney, Ray

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Widdecombe, Ann

Patten, Rt Hon John

Wilkinson, John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wilshire, David

Pawsey, James

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Winterton, Nicholas

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wolfson, Mark

Portillo, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Powell, William (Corby)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

838

Yeo, Tim

Tellers for the Noes:

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Amendment accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Autumn Statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15th November 1989; welcomes the continuing reduction in the share of national income taken by public expenditure, and the provision of substantial extra resources for priority areas; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policies of sound financial discipline and supply side improvement which have been the foundation of record growth of employment, investment, and business formation; and commends the Government's determination to maintain downward pressure on inflation and to bring further improvements in economic performance.
10.14 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, have Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry asked permission to make a statement to the House on the complete and forecast collapse of its largest ever insider dealing case at Southwark Crown court today? More than £500,000 of public money has been wasted as a result of slipshod legislation which has allowed a coach and four to be driven through an important case. It is important that we should have a statement before we proceed on further trade union legislation.
Secondly, can we have a statement from the Attorney-General on the position in which the Crown Prosecution Service has been placed as a result of that case? It was passed the case by the Department of Trade and Industry, a case which the Department knew could never be won because the legislation that it forced through the House required total disclosure in such cases and the Department today refused the judge's order to make such total disclosure.
That own goal requires you, Mr. Speaker, to rule tonight on whether it is right that we should proceed without a statement from the Government when the conduct of public administration has fallen to rock bottom in the Department of Trade and Industry, giving a green light to City slickers to make a fortune at the expense of ordinary investors.
It cannot be right to have no statement from the Dispatch Box when such a major case has been withdrawn after half a day in court and two years' preparation, and when almost £1 million of public money has gone down the drain.
Mr. Speaker: I know nothing about the case. I understand from the news that a case has been dropped. I have had no representations from the Government that they wish to make a statement on this tonight.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon at 4.15 pm the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the Code of Practice for Trade Union Ballots for Industrial Action, which we are about to debate. We had a memorandum from the Department of Employment and we concluded our consideration but, because of the pressure of time, it has not been possible to include a notification on today's Order Paper that there is a report from the Joint

839
Committee on Statutory Instruments which includes a memorandum on a relatively minor point which the Committee wishes to draw to the attention of the House.
As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that is unsatisfactory, but we have made every endeavour to fulfil the Standing Order and copies of the report can be obtained from the Vote Office.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the Chairman of the Committee for that helpful advice to the House.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has given us a helpful explanation, but it does not help those Back Bench Members trying to represent their constituents in the matter. Not for the first time, the Government have brought before the House a statutory instrument which has not gone through its formal proceedings before the Committee. Only now have hon. Members been advised that the Committee has dealt with the matter. It is important for the integrity of the House that the Government should not continue to ride roughshod over the interests of hon. Members. The Government should be asked to bring the matter back on another day together with the Select Committee's opinion so that hon. Members can give it proper consideration.
Mr. Speaker: The motion has been on the Order Paper for some time. The Chairman of the Select Committee has already said that the comments on it are of a reasonably minor nature. We should get on with the debate.

Trade Union Ballots
10.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
That the draft Code of Practice for Trade Union Ballots for Industrial Action, which was laid before this House on 17th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
No trade union should call on its members to take industrial action without first getting their approval to do so from a proper secret ballot. Yet until the Trade Union Act 1984 the law gave unions freedom to call members out on strike without any such democratic process. It is true that some had rules requiring ballots in one form or another, but union members could not rely on those rules, as was vividly demonstrated by the National Union of Mineworkers in 1984–85. The Government's step-by-step reform of industrial relations and trade union law has helped to correct the imbalances of power between unions and employers, and between unions and their members, which were among the fundamental causes of the industrial problems of the 1970s.
Requiring trade unions to ballot their members a s a condition for retaining the protection which the law gives to what would otherwise be civil wrongs has been one of the major steps in the process of reform. It has been popular among the public and union members alike.
Perhaps one of the greatest tributes has been the dawning of awareness in the Labour party that even it must at least give the impression of going along with the principle of strike ballots. True, it does not tell us exactly how it will ensure that union members have an effective means of making sure that they are not called to take industrial action without a ballot; that can be applied swiftly, where necessary, and will carry a sanction which will ensure that the union does not ride roughshod over their rights. Nor, for that matter, does it tell us what sort of ballot will be required, or when and how it must be held. However, instructive though it may be to debate Labour party policy, that is not the purpose of the motion.
Section 3 of the Employment Act 1980, as amended by the Employment Act 1988, gives the Secretary of State power to
"issue Codes of Practice containing such practical guidance … for the purpose of … promoting … desirable practices in relation to the conduct by trade unions of ballots and elections".
Ballots by unions of their own members asking whether those members are willing to take part in, or continue with, industrial action which their union may authorise or endorse are the subject of this draft code. Its essential purpose is to promote good practice in the conduct of such ballots.
The Government believe that union members should have sufficient opportunity to indicate whether they are prepared to take part in industrial action before their union proceeds to go out and organise it. We also believe—and this is an equally important principle—that proper standards of democratic conduct should be applied to that balloting process.
Section 3(8) sets out the legal status of a code once it has been approved by Parliament and has been brought into operation. It provides that the code will be admissible in evidence, which means that it can be used in evidence by a party to any proceedings and that it can be taken into account by courts where they think that it is relevant in any

841
proceedings. It is, of course, entirely up to the courts to decide whether a code is relevant and the weight to be attached to any of its recommendations. No one will be able to bring legal proceedings against a union—or anyone else for that matter—solely on the basis that it has failed to observe any provision in such a code. The House should be quite clear about that. A code such as this would not—and indeed could not—add a single ground for legal action to what the law already contains. As with the highway code, it merely explains the law and gives guidance on what is good practice. I emphasise this point to make clear the distinction between this sort of statutory code, which describes and recommends good practice, and the relevant primary legislation which imposes what can properly be called requirements. The code does not—and could not—change primary legislation.
My Department first published a draft code for consultation in November 1988. In the light of representations made during the consultation period, the Secretary of State decided that it should be modified and presented for approval in its present form. The modified draft is now considerably shorter—only 56 paragraphs, plus one annex, as opposed to 103 paragraphs, plus four annexes—despite the fact that it contains some new material.
Four principles have been followed in deciding on the content of the draft code. First, the code would be of most value if it contained within the same set of covers information about both the relevant law and good practice. The passages on blue background are re-statements of the relevant provisions of primary legislation.
Secondly, the detailed recommendations on good practice should take account of existing non-statutory guidance. Hence, for example, account has been taken of the Industrial Society's publication "Conducting Ballots".
Thirdly, we drew on particular ideas put to us once the proposal to take power to issue such a code became known. The Engineering Employers' Federation booklet, "Proposal for a Code on Industrial Action Balloting", was therefore taken into account.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Minister mentioned good practice in relation to ballots for trade unions, can he speculate about the kind of good practice or bad practice that was operated by the Tory party when it had its recent ballot in the leadership contest between the Prime Minister and the challenger, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer)? Is he aware that the conduct of that ballot would not have met the terms of any code because when I went into the Committee Room, although Tory Members were taking part in the ballot, there was not a single polling booth and they were filling in their voting papers on the window ledges? We do not need any lessons from the Government on ballots.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I call Mr. Nicholls.
Mr. Nicholls: The only thing that is more boring than an old record is a boring old cracked record. We have heard those comments so many times before from the hon. Gentleman that we do not need to give them any more credence this evening.
842
Finally, we also had regard to what is known about how unions actually conduct industrial action ballots. A good many of the recommendations in the draft code do little more than illustrate, in the form of principles and procedures, aspects of what some unions have done and continue to do.
We hope that the code can help raise the standards of all to achieve those of the best.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Can an employer cite the code when seeking an ex parte injunction if he has a complaint about the way in which a ballot was conducted?
Mr. Nicholls: If the employer in the hon. Gentleman's example is alleging a breach of primary legislation and substantive law, it would obviously be open to him to produce the code. It would then be up to the court to attach such weight to its recommendations as the court saw fit. The employer will not be able to go to the court to complain that the code itself has been breached per se. We hope that the code can help raise the standards of all to achieve the standards of the best.
Section A explains the scope and legal status of the code, its intended purpose and the assistance that it can provide to unions, their members and others.
Section B makes recommendations about observing procedure agreements, and other considerations, which should be taken into account before a ballot is held.
Section C restates the law on establishment of entitlement to vote and on reviewing of the "balloting constituency" if the union proposes to aggregate votes across different places of work. Recommendations are made about responsibility for determining such matters within the union and the process of review; the choice between balloting methods; the use and format of voting papers; independent scrutiny; and provision of information to voters.
Section D restates the relevant law on the method of voting; entitlement to vote without interference or constraint; and entitlement to vote in secrecy and without direct cost. It makes recommendations about arrangements to enable those entitled to vote to do so; minimum periods for postal or semi-postal balloting; procedures for checking voting papers for return by post; and arrangements for workplace balloting. Recommendations are then made about arrangements to ensure secrecy of voting.
Finally, section E restates the law on ensuring that votes are accurately and fairly counted and on the notification of details of the ballot result. Recommendations are made about procedures to ensure accurate and fair counting of votes; systems to help ensure that statutory requirements about notification of the result are fully satisfied; notifying details of ballot results; and matters which a union should take into account before deciding to organise industrial action.
The draft code, if approved, will be a valuable source of reference for unions, union members and others. Taking account of its recommendations can only help improve the conduct of ballots, and that can only help continue the improvement to this country's industrial relations that has been such a feature of this decade.
Dr. Kim Howells: I congratulate the Minister on an admirably set out document. However, one thing seems to be missing from the draft document and

843
from the clear way in Which he has introduced it. What happens when all the procedures have been followed to the letter but the trade union and the body of trade unionists involved—who have properly carried out all the draft agreements—find that the employer has decided, unilaterally, that the procedures are worth nothing and completely rejects any decisions that the men have made and informs them that it is null and void? What will happen to the employer? Why is there no section in the draft to deal with precisely that question?
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman must understand what the draft is all about—which is the proper conduct of industrial action ballots. Many of the recommendations are based on what a great many trade unions already do. If those who wish to strike do so—and that is their decision—equally the employer can decide whether to accept that decision. That has been a feature of employment legislation under both Labour and Conservative Administrations.
Mr. Frank Haynes: What happens if the trade union carries out all that is suggested in the code? I attended a meeting last weekend where a decision was taken to hold a ballot. The rules were followed. However, the employer has said that, even if the ballot is unanimously in favour of a 24-hour strike, the workers will all be looking for new jobs. What sort of protection will the Minister give those workers?
Mr. Nicholls: In launching an attack on the Government's legislation, it appears that the hon. Gentleman is, uncharacteristically, launching an attack also on the previous Labour Government's legislation. Under both Labour and Conservative employment legislation, the employer has had the ability to dismiss strikers. It would be a high watermark, even for the Labour party, if it said that an employer faced with a withdrawal of labour should not be entitled to consider the dismissal of those on strike.
When considering any particular recommendations in the draft code, there are three principal questions to ask. First, would following the recommendation be likely to help ensure that union members have a proper democratic voice in the decision whether their union should call on them to take industrial action? Secondly, would following or taking account of the recommendation be likely to avoid industrial relations problems and, in particular, the breakdown in such relations that a strike or other industrial action undoubtedly represents? Thirdly, is the guidance in the code helpful in explaining the requirements of the relevant law and thereby playing its part in ensuring that the law is observed?
By those tests—and they are relevant tests—the draft code deserves the approval of the House. However, we all keenly await the reaction of the Labour Front Bench spokesman. Sweet words and elegant phrases come ten-a-penny to Members such as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). What everyone really wants to know is whether the Labour party is prepared to do the deeds that would make a reality of its new-found rhetoric. Even more to the point, can it persuade its union paymasters to co-operate with real industrial democracy, to which the continued existence of, for example, the pre-entry closed shop is such a standing and visible reproach?
844
I am pleased to say that the Labour party has that opportunity tonight. By its frank and unequivocal support of the code, it could show—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the debate will be confined to the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Nicholls: By the Labour party's frank and unequivocal support tonight, it would have an opportunity to show that it supports the principle of industrial democracy and that it is not a new-found conversion. Obviously, the hon. Member for Sedgefield has the support of Conservative Members in his struggle to carry forward that principle, but we shall be interested to discover whether the same can be said of other Labour Members. The code can only assist the practice of good industrial relations conduct, and for that reason it demands the support of both sides of the House.
10.33 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the Minister on reading his brief well, even if not with much conviction or sincerity. He was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who rightly said that the code was of no value if the employer, having watched every word of it being put into practice, simply said, "I care not at all for that and I shall sack you all."
I challenge the Minister to say whether he accepts the situation of the Tilbury dockers, for example, who were sacked by the Port of London Authority recently after having followed the balloting procedure to the letter and having had a secret ballot that was above any kind of reproach or condemnation, even in terms of this code of practice. The Port of London Authority nevertheless sacked people such as two British Empire Medallists, Tommy Lane and Georgie Lake, both of whom had many years of service. Georgie Lake in particular was even nominated for the British Empire Medal by the Port of London Authority, which eventually sacked him.
Can the Minister tell us—I will give way to him on this point if he wants—whether he will condemn the actions of the Port of London Authority in failing to abide by this code of practice?
Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman would like me to intervene, I am happy to oblige. I will not pass judgment on the actions of any employer in a particular situation. The hon. Gentleman should read the policy documents of his own party and some of the legislation of the Labour Government all those years ago. The hon. Gentleman is apparently saying that once a ballot has been properly conducted according to the law and the code the employer should have no alternative but to agree to all the demands made, and that should be an end of it. That is an extreme position. I have always thought that the Labour party adopted extreme positions, but I would have thought that that was too extreme even for Labour Members. However, I am more than happy to be proved wrong.
Mr. Lloyd: That was very helpful. We now have the rationale behind the Government's argument. The Minister is not prepared to comment on an employer, but he is prepared to comment on every single trade union involved in any industrial dispute. He is prepared to comment adversely on every trade union whether it takes

845
the code of practice in hand or whether it finds that it is, as I will put to the House tonight, so onerous as to make industrial relations a matter of great difficulty.
The problem is that, as with most of the Government's legislation on industrial relations over the years, their motivation has been to arm one side at the expense of the other. There is no notion of conciliation in the Government's approach or in this code of practice—except ironically, of course, where the Government suggest to the trade unions that they should go to ACAS and seek some kind of ordered settlement. There is no conciliation at all when it comes to advice to the employers. No advice whatsoever in this document applies to employers.
Is that any surprise when, in the present dispute with the ambulance workers, with the ambulance workers wanting to go down the recommended road of arbitration by ACAS, the Government have said, "No; we believe in the code of practice for the trade unions but we do not believe in a code of practice or arbitration for employers, particularly when the employer is central Government." That shows the partiality of this Government.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely the hon. Gentleman has not even read the title of this document, which states clearly "Trade union ballots on industrial action". Employers do not have any role in trade union ballots. This code of practice, which the Opposition have just condemned, is designated to support the rights and privileges of the membership of the unions and every individual member of a union. That is what it is about.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman may say that I have not read the title, but I have certainly read the entire document and I refer him to the footnote on page 9 where it refers to the role of the employer in terms of the balloting procedure. The Government suggest that it might be helpful if the employer would make premises available, but there is no suggestion of anything else. It says:
"It does not require the employer to do anything more than permit premises to be used; there is no obligation, for example, to allow employers time off work to vote in a workplace (or any other) ballot."
That is how much interest employers really have. Of course, they have an interest in the ballot. But the Government do not propose any course of action for employers, just for trade unions. Did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) wish to intervene on that point?
Mr. Mike Watson: My hon. Friend has covered precisely the point that I wanted to make.
Mr. Lloyd: The secret ballot is now the norm in industrial relations. ACAS, not the trade union movement, reported not long ago that about 90 per cent. of ballots went in favour of trade union recommendations, and that sticks in the Government's throat. That has made the Government take action, because faced with the fact that their electoral system was not working, they decided, Ceausescu-like, to change the rules. Like outmoded east European dictatorships, they decided to change the electoral system so that eventually they would get the answer right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) questioned the Minister about democracy in the Conservative party. Does the Minister believe that the type
846
of democracy necessary under this code of practice would have applied in recent elections in, say, Clwyd, North-West or Meirionnydd Nant Conwy? I will gladly give way to enable the Minister to answer because his answer is central to the type of democratic processes that we have in society. Does any other institution, private or public, have a code of practice as difficult to operate as that which we are debating?
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman obviously needs help with his speech and I make my next observation in a helpful way. I would not have thought these provisions would have had any effect in Clwyd, North-West, but from my understanding of the Labour party's position, they might have been of considerable use in Birkenhead.
Mr. Lloyd: It is interesting that the Minister does not seem to feel that there is any value in codes of practice for secret ballots in the Conservative party. But that will not surprise my hon. Friends. It will surprise Conservative Members even less, for they know what the Government are doing in terms of extracting vengeance, and in industrial relations their vengeance is even more vicious.
Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
Mr. Lloyd: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I must make progress with my remarks.
We are entitled to ask why we even have this code of practice. The Minister claims that it will not change primary legislation, and he is right; it cannot make such a change. But he admitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) that this code, as with other codes of practice, could become the rule through the process of case law. That is why it is of the utmost importance.
This code of practice carries with it a big stick. If the trade union movement says that it is unworkable, further legislation will be introduced. The previous Secretary of State said that the Government would consider carefully any evidence to show that trade unions were failing to take proper account of the code's recommendations and that the Government did not rule out further legislation should that prove necessary. In other words, the Government threat is that further legislation will be on the way if the trade unions do not accept this effectively as the law of the land.
Further, the code seeks to extend the law, just as the code of practice on picket numbers extended the law so that, through case law, it is now common for courts to rule that six is an acceptable number of pickets on a picket line. That is what case law, through that code of practice, has come to mean.
In the same way, this code of practice will extend the law in terms of postal voting and independent scrutiny. After all, the Minister could not say where mandatory postal voting or independent scrutiny exists in the primary legislation. Paragraph 20 of the code says:
"'Fully postal' balloting should be the preferred choice wherever the ballot is about the authorisation of industrial action by a union".
The Government are clear that that is the preferred choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East asked about the possibility of injunctions and touched on the Government's raw nerve. Judges in the middle of the night—the Minister knows more about judges in the middle of the night than I do—would be taken in not only

847
by the seductive words of the Government's lawyers, but by the code of practice and would accept that postal voting was mandatory, de facto, under the law.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I shall not.
The Confederation of British Industry, when commenting on the original draft, made the point on postal voting that a code should
"allow a greater element of discretion to trade union officials about how the principles of law should be applied."
The CBI seems to have been mollified, as the Minister put some colour coding in the draft, and seems to believe that its recommendations had been fully taken on board. The CBI now seems not to be critical, although its substantive point still remains as a difficulty of the code of practice.
The code of practice is a long way from the reality of industrial relations in Britain in 1990. It may exist somewhere in the fantasy world of Ministers and their even more fantastic Back-Bench Members, but it bears no relation to what takes place on the shop floor or in other places where trade unionists organise. A postal vote is not always the most appropriate means of balloting. Not only the labour movement, but the British Institute of Management, which made the point forcefully in its submission on the present code of practice, believes that. It said that workplace balloting was as valid as postal balloting under the law and had its own advantages. The Minister chooses to ignore what a responsible body of management believes on the issue.
Even the Government's own primary legislation accepts that semi-postal voting methods are allowable for refunded moneys. I hope that the Minister will explain later why that is the case, although the Government insist that postal voting is the only legitimate way forward under the code of practice.
The danger of all this is that we have a recipe for unofficial action. The Government have so hemmed in the trade union movement that trade unionists will have no choice but to look not to official but to unofficial action as the quickest and easiest way to solve their problems. Next week, we shall discuss the Employment Bill under which the Government will again seek to plug the loophole that they have created and to act against unofficial action. This charter for unofficial action will mean that the Government will render employers unable even to enter serious negotiations with the trade unions, although the trade unions would be able to get their own members back to work in the interests of the members and of the employers.
The code of practice is riddled with impracticalities. Paragraph 11, for example, insists that the trade unions should "inform every employer" about the balloting process. In the present dispute in the engineering industry over the 35-hour week, does the Minister seriously intend that every engineering employer should be informed of the proposals to ballot?
The Government also insist that every employee should be informed well in advance of where, when and how balloting will take place. Will the Minister tell us exactly
848
what that means? How long is "well in advance"? What would constitute not being sufficiently "well in advance"? Why, when it is in everyone's interests for industrial disputes to be resolved as quickly as possible, does the Minister want to institute further delays in industrial relations procedures? Within the four-week period in which a successful ballot would be effective—these are perhaps the most worrying parts of the code of practice—the union would have to notify its own members of the result of the ballot, it would have to consider a wide range of factors about whether it should proceed with industrial action, it would have to examine all the options and then, if it decided to take action, it would have to inform its members why that action was appropriate, inform any employer, on request, about the result of the ballot and give time for the employer to take the necessary health and safety steps.
The Minister must understand that it is in nobody's interest to build in this kind of delay. This is a charter for frustration and ultimately a charter for unofficial action. If that is what the Minister wants, he should understand that that is precisely what will happen under this code of practice.
I have already said that it is very difficult for Opposition Members to understand why this code of practice is so one-sided. Conservative Members have said that this is nothing to do with the employer, but paragraph 2 of the code says:
"The code should assist unions and their members who are directly involved in such ballots, and employers, and their customers and suppliers who may be affected by industrial action organised by a union."
Of course, employers have an interest in industrial action. If Conservative Members seriously believe that employers are somehow immune to such action, they live in a very different world from the real industrial relations world in Britain. The employer has a direct interest, and that is where the Government should have been even-handed in their approach.
It is not just we in the Opposition who demand that evenness of approach; the British Institute of Management made the powerful point that to leave the employers the power of recourse only through the courts was very one-sided. The BIM stressed that it was not comfortable with recourse to the law as the means of resolving industrial disputes. It said:
"Any code of practice concerned with industrial disputes should seek to avoid conflict, not generate it."
In reality, the Government are not concerned with the process of conciliation. They are not concerned, as we know from the ambulance dispute, with getting all sides round the table. They are concerned with conflict, with making sure that one side can win at the expense of another and that in all circumstances the odds are so loaded against the trade union movement that the unions are put on the defensive from beginning to end. That is why I say to the Minister that, for all his fine words, the code of practice is destructive to industrial relations. The most sensible advice that the Minister can take is to accept the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and take this code of practice away, because it is unfitted to the reality of industrial relations in this country
10.51 pm
Mr. Tim Janman: I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this code of practice and thus to debate the whole topic of democracy on the shop floor and within industrial relations. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has mentioned, we have a reasonably satisfactory position in primary legislation. The spirit of that primary legislation is also satisfactory. We must ask, however, if the spirit of the law is being implemented on the shop floor. Although in many instances I suspect that it is being implemented in that way, and that what now appears in the draft code of practice is already best practice on the shop floor, there will also be many instances where this is not the case. I hope that the publication of this code of practice will ensure that things are done more often in accordance with the recommendations of the code.
My concern about this first arose when I received a letter from the chief executive of the port of Tilbury during the dispute on the dock labour scheme. My hon. Friend will remember that at the time I sent him a copy of the letter. The chief executive expressed concern about local voting procedures and about the problems experienced with workplace ballots. I would like briefly to quote a couple of paragraphs from the letter that he sent to me. He said that "a very significant point" was that the voting procedures of the Transport and General Workers' Union were to be questioned, and he added:
"At national level the counting of votes was probably correctly carried out and reflected the information from local level. However, the two ballots at Tilbury were anything but satisfactory. Voting forms were supplied in very large quantities, and the procedure was, over the days of the voting period, for each man to be given a voting slip which he marked in a private booth. This seemed to be fine but we now understand that the completed slips were then placed in a cardboard box, kept in the custody of a shop steward, which had a hole in the top large enough to put a hand through."
He went on to say, in the concluding paragraph:
"I have no doubt that if the ballot had been conducted by an independent organisation by post then the outcome would have been totally different. The present system of workplace ballots cannot give the quality of balloting that should be insisted upon by law."
Therefore, I am particularly pleased with paragraph 20 in section C of the code of practice which says:
"'fully-postal' balloting should be the preferred choice wherever the ballot is about the authorisation of industrial action by a union or wherever the 'balloting constituency'…covers all the members of the union, unless this is impracticable in the time available (for example because it is necessary to obtain members' views sooner than its use would allow)".
Mr. Skinner: I have looked at the Register of Members' Interests and I see that the hon. Gentleman is a consultant to Pinpoint International. Can he tell me whether there was a ballot under this code of practice, a previous code of practice or any code of practice before the company appointed him to that job?
Mr. Janman: I do not think that is a serious question. That question and the question that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put to my hon. Friend the Minister reduce the standing of the House in the eyes of the public. We are trying to have a serious debate about an important
850
issue. All the hon. Member for Bolsover can do is try to trivialise the issue by the sort of silly remark that he has just made. It is not worth considering further.
The position of the Conservative party on industrial relations is clear—to encourage responsible trade unions, working within the current legal framework, to ballot their members properly within a balanced industrial relations setting, unlike Labour, who, if ever in power, will stop employers obtaining injunctions against illegal strikes, and will scrap pre-strike ballots. We have heard a lot of nonsense about democracy in the Conservative party. We all know that, in the unlikely event of the Opposition winning the next election, they will end the opportunity for people in trade unions to have pre-strike ballots.
The reason Labour Members get so upset in these debates is that they know that it has taken a Conservative Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), to bring genuine democracy into the trade union movement. They know that the vast majority of trade union members support that democracy and wish it to continue. They know that their continued threats to undermine it are a serious threat to them losing support at the next election. It is also the Labour party which welcomes secondary industrial action, and whose leader said that secondary picketing is a right that should be enjoyed. It is the Labour party which will prevent the courts from taking effective action against unions via sequestration when those unions break the law.
This code of practice is consistent with the philosophy behind the approach that we have been enacting on a step-by-step basis over the past 10 years to make trade unions more accountable to their members. That approach has been consistently successful and successfully consistent. The proposed code of practice will not alter that position.
10.58 pm
Mr. James Wallace: Hon. Members will be aware, certainly those who were in the House during the last Parliament, that my right hon. Friends have long supported the idea of proper ballots for trade unions. During the proceedings on the Trade Union Act 1984 we tabled amendments to secure a preference for postal ballots, while recognising that there should be flexibility and that they should be mandatory in all cases. For example, the National Union of Seamen, for obvious reasons relating to its work, needs some flexibility so that other means of communication can be used.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said that, with the code of practice, the Government were trying to make law. However, during the passage of the 1984 Act, much against the wishes of my right hon. and hon. Friends who proposed a preference for postal ballots and their independent scrutiny, the Government failed to include such measures. The provisions have been given a place in the code of practice, although that is second best to being included in primary legislation. Therefore, we will support the code of practice in the Division Lobby this evening. However, it is important to sound some caveats about its provisions and the general approach adopted by the Government.
It is well established, and has already emerged during the debate, that in this country—unlike many others—there is no right to strike. I often feel that the Government

851
would like to move towards a position in which striking would be so frowned upon and deplored that, if they wanted to use stronger measures against anyone who dared to strike, they could attempt to get away with using them.
The code of practice lacks any sense of proper proportion and balance. Paragraph 34 states that
"A union should take steps to ensure that any information it supplies to members in connection with the ballot is accurate and does not mislead voters in the process of forming their opinions"
It goes on to specify matters which the union should consider. By itself, I would not find that objectionable. However, if a strike takes place and employers wish to communicate with union members, there is no obligation on employers in the code of practice to ensure the accuracy of the information that they give to union members. Therefore, the provision is unbalanced.
It may well be argued that the employers would not dream of providing inaccurate information, but the document is meant to ensure good practice which should oblige employers to provide their employees with accurate information. There should be proper provision to ensure that accurate information is supplied by employers to their employees in those circumstances.
There is a whiff of hypocrisy in some of the Government's proposals. In paragraph 8 they say that
"An industrial action ballot should not take place until"
certain procedures have been completed, and that
"where no such procedures are available, or have been exhausted, consideration has been given to resolving the dispute by other means, including where practicable seeking advice from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS)."
It takes two to tango and come together.
In the ambulance dispute, the unions are perfectly prepared to proceed and take the advice given in the code of practice, but the National Health Service, speaking through the Government, is not prepared to meet in that forum and follow the very recipe for proper industrial relations that the Government prescribe.
Another point which should be made perfectly clear is that if unions pursue a proper course through the law and the code of practice with regard to ballots, it can strengthen their hand in negotiations—if there is a successful outcome to the ballot.
Many of us can remember in the summer, at the height of the railwaymen's dispute, listening to commuters who had obviously been grossly inconvenienced and had to bring their cars and park them in Hyde park. Those commuters said that because the Government had put all the barriers in the way of unions taking strike action, the fact that the unions had got so far and crossed all the hurdles meant that they probably had a good case. In that instance they had, and their position strengthened their hand in negotiations.
If, having followed all those procedures, and having obeyed the law and the code's specific provisions, the union proceeds to ballot in favour of industrial action, that will be indicative of the strength of the membership's views on a particular set of negotiations and should strengthen the union's hand.
The code also encourages unofficial action, and we shall debate that aspect when the House considers the Employment Bill. At this stage I only remind the House of
852
the speech made by my late friend David Penhaligon on Second Reading of the Trade Union Bill in 1983, when he said:
"The second part of the Bill worries me most…However, the Government's basic point sounds reasonable. To say that there should be no immunity for official strikes without a ballot sounds so reasonable that any platform speaker in Britain could carry his audience with him. However, will it work out as well as Conservative Members think on the shop floor, inside the factory gate? It will make wildcat strikes more likely. The Minister said that it would make them less likely, but I would be interested to hear his evidence. At best, the position will be much as it is now."—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 187.]
My late friend, with his customary foresight, put his finger on a flaw in the previous proposals that the Government are taking steps to remedy, but that are not in the best interests of industrial relations.
However much we support the concept of properly balloting trade union members when industrial action is in the offing, the law and codes of practice are no substitute for proper and constructive industrial relations. The more that the Government embark on the road to further legal quagmires, as they are in the Employment Bill, the more likely it is that some smart lawyer will find a way around their legislation. There is no substitute for proper industrial democracy and partnership in industry—which the Government have ignored for the whole of their 10 years in office by relying not so much on the law but on high unemployment in restraining strike action and enforcing an apparent degree of good industrial relations.
That approach has failed, as is evidenced by the new phase of ever-increasing wage demands, skills shortages and a fall in unemployment that is not nearly as big as it should be. It is clear that the Government's whole industrial relations strategy is coming unstuck. The law is not a substitute for a proper industrial partnership.
11.7 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: If all that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said about the Government's industrial relations record was true, they would already have been confronted by massive strikes—and wildcat strikes at that. However, the statistics clearly show that the opposite is true. Even in difficult times, when there has been a greater threat of industrial action and people have wanted to improve their rates of pay, there has been little in the way of industrial action.
Mr. Wallace: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there has been little in the way of official and unofficial industrial action, why are the Government taking up the time of the House next week to consider legislation for dealing with such strikes?
Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that Opposition Members, desperate for Britain to adopt the European social charter, need the Government to get rid of the pre-entry closed shop that the charter outlaws. However, I do not want to stray into aspects of the Employment Bill in a debate on a code of practice.
I sat through the previous Employment Bill, in 1988, when many of the Opposition speeches in Committee took the approach, "You are introducing legislation that will ensure different rights for trade union members and ballots for this and that. But what will happen in this event, or that event?" The Government are reacting correctly in saying "Here is a code of practice that all sides of industry

853
agree is sensible. If the trade unions keep to this document, it will protect the rights of individuals in the unions, and that is what our industrial legislation has often been about."
The document will help people to know the right way to go about things so that they do not fall foul of the law. I find it incredible that the Government have been criticised for producing such a helpful document, as that is precisely what many hon. Members were demanding during the debates on the previous Employment Bill.
I was a work study engineer, and I advised management when they were faced with the possibility of industrial action in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time we did not have this type of secret ballot. Often, the employer listened to the militant voice of trade union officials and shop stewards, but did not believe that the union members would back up the militants. The advantage of the present full procedure and the secret ballot is that many employers now understand the strength of feeling behind what they see as unreasonable or militant action. Therefore, the employers have settled many disputes at the 11th hour becaue they realise that the union members have expressed their sentiments clearly and fairly.
The number of trade disputes has been reduced because the procedure takes time. How many Labour Ministers at the Department of Employment came to the Dispatch Box when they were in government and talked about cooling-off periods and trying to stop people going on wildcat strikes? I am sure that Barbara Castle, if she were in this place today, would admit that it is a great thing that we have cooling-off periods and a reduction in the speed with which people go out on strike, because it has been extremely good.
The Opposition's claim that all our legislation would cause more strikes has been disproved. During the previous Labour Government, when there were so many strikes, the real rise in wages and employment was very low. We lost jobs and prosperity, and the lowest-paid and unskilled workers were affected most. That trend has been reversed by the Government.
Some hon. Members have spoken about democracy, and compared democracy within political parties with that in trade unions. I do not believe that any hon. Member would vote for a document if every shop steward, because of his position within a trade union, had 100 votes in a strike ballot, but the ordinary member had only one vote.
There has been a comparison of what happened in Clwyd, North-West, Birkenhead and St. Helens, South. There is clearly a big difference between them. In each case there was a rule book, under which the ballots were carried out. There was a secret ballot in Clwyd, North-West and the hon. Gentleman who came through the ballot, having seen that the rule book was adhered to, knowing that there was one man, one vote, agreed that it was a fair ballot and accepted the result.
We all know what happened in Birkenhead and in St. Helens, South—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have gone far enough along that line; let us get back to industrial ballots.
Mr. Bruce: I know that I was straying from the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply trying to illustrate my
854
point that industrial ballots are seen to be fair if the rules behind them are seen to be fair. Clearly the Labour party has not convinced its own Members of Parliament of that.
Mr. Leighton: Was not the chairman of the Conservative party elected by a block vote of one?
Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The chairman of the Conservative and Unionist party is voted for by the membership, and constitutes the liaison between the parliamentary party and the grass roots.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the motion.
Mr. Bruce: In answering the intervention by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), I have clearly strayed from the point. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is a sensible document, designed to protect the interests of individual union members, and I cannot understand why any Opposition Member should want to vote down such an excellent measure.
11.15 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It amazes me that any work study engineer—I met such people in my days in the trade union movement—can come here and talk about the freedom of the trade unions and trade union ballots. All that those people ever did was to tell us that we should work harder, with less pay, at the expense of the working class. I remember them very well, and I never took kindly to them.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heffer: No. Sit down.
How hypocritical Conservative Members are. They are saying now that there should be union ballots on industrial action, but I have heard the Prime Minister and others speak in the House about how they have supported the Solidarity members in Poland over the years. I supported them, too, but they never had a ballot; they went on strike because they felt that they had to. Workers in Czechoslovakia also went on strike recently, because they wanted democracy and freedom, and the same has happened in East Germany and elsewhere. They did not have ballots; they took that action because they did not want to live in industrial slavery. Conservative Members are suggesting that we should get rid of our democratic practices and replace them with just that—industrial slavery. That is what it comes down to.
I have studied the document carefully. One section refers to "statutory requirements", and states that
"for example a 'show of hands" is not sufficient even if it appears to show overwhelming support for taking industrial action".
I have been a member of my union for 51 years. That is a long time. I remember many occasions when mass meetings of the workers reached decisions through a show of hands. That was not undemocratic. I do not need any lessons from Conservative Members about democratic practices in the trade union movement. We know about democratic practices: we were the ones who fought for them. Conservative Members are learning about democracy only now. They are in favour of democracy only when it suits them. When it does not suit them—in Chile,

855
Spain and Germany, for instance—their people go against it. I want to put that on the record, because it is what has happened over the years.
I am not ashamed of the trade union movement's record on democratic practices. We have always employed such practices: we have fought for them against Conservative Governments and Conservative class politics in the past. We have always fought for democracy and we shall continue to do so.
The Employment Act and the code of practice based on it represent class legislation against our people in the working-class movement in Britain. The Government do not believe in trade unions. They want to tie us up so that we can never take industrial action when it is necessary. What will happen if a trade union shop steward is elected by the workers in his or her factory and the employer uses the legislation to sack that shop steward? What will the workers do? Will they simply let it happen or will they take action in support of their fellow worker? I know what they will do; they will take action. Never mind the industrial ballot—the Government are proposing legislation to deal with any worker who takes such action. That is industrial slavery. The Government believe in the power of employers against the working class. That is what it is all about. The hon. Member for Dorset, South may laugh, but I spent years fighting people like the hon. Gentleman and I shall continue to fight people like you for as long as I live—[Interruption.] I did not mean Mr. Deputy Speaker, as he is part of my movement. We have fought on the same barricades against such legislation.
Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heffer: No.
I have read the legislation very closely. It adds up to the fact that Conservative Members are underlining their class legislation with further restrictions against ordinary working people in Britain. I am glad that my party will vote against it tonight and I hope that next week we shall go further and vote against legislation that would further restrict workers in Britain.
11.21 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: I rise to support my hon. Friends. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) typifies a lifetime of struggle in the labour movement—a daily struggle against the iniquitous activities and industrial power of unscrupulous employers. If Conservative Members have ever fought for anything in their lives it is usually for a couple of seats at Ascot. They have no understanding of the daily activities of working people in the trade union movement fighting for their rights in the workplace.
Throughout the 1980s the Government tried to create the myth and the lie that trade unions did not belong to their membership but to some trade union barons. First, they introduced the principle of ballots to decide political activities. Unfortunately for them, the Government were proved wrong. The unions belonged to the members who voted in massive numbers to continue the political activities of the trade unions. Then the Government argued that trade unionists were being led by the nose in industrial activities. Throughout the 1980s 90 per cent. of trade union members who were balloted on industrial action supported the views of the union as expressed by their shop stewards or full-time officials.
856
Having preached a lie and been found to be dishonest, the Government now want to introduce a code of practice not to improve industrial relations or to facilitate better activities in the workplace to prevent industrial action, but to cripple the ability of trade unions to take industrial action. During industrial action unscrupulous employers will exploit the code to take trade unions and individual trade unionists to court.
This code of practice attempts to impose on trade unions additional obligations in respect of the Employment Act 1988 and the Trade Union Act 1984. It tries to create the longest possible delays in the implementation of decisions by the work force. It facilitates that process by providing as many grounds as possible for injunctions by unscrupulous employers. It attempts to induce ballot votes against industrial action, and when that cannot be done it attempts to discourage official action by trade unionists. That is the reality of this piece of legislation.
If the Government were really honest about parliamentary scrutiny and about the need for a code of practice, they should have been prepared to include such provision in clause 5 of the Employment Bill which the House will be discussing on Monday. In that way there could have been proper parliamentary scrutiny of their activities, instead of an hour-and-a-half's debate to rubber-stamp an instrument that will be used by unscrupulous employers and by the courts to hamstring trade unions involved in legitimate activities.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. McCartney: No. The hon. Member will have an opportunity to make his speech as he wants to make it. Other hon. Members on this side want to contribute. On various occasions the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has refused to give way to me, so he has given up the right to debate with me on matters such as this.
The reality is that it is not just trade unionists or employers who are saying that the Government's code of practice is unjust and will promote confrontation instead of good industrial relations. Of this proposal, the International Labour Organisation, which is probably less popular in Britain than even General Noriega, had this to say:
"The effect of piecemeal reforms, often introduced in order to achieve quite narrow objectives, has been to generate uncertainty in some areas of the law. This in turn may lead to unintentional breaches of Convention 87 and may inhibit lawful industrial action".
That is the International Labour Organisation's view of the Government's attempt to impose this type of industrial law on trade unionists.
Throughout this instrument there are paragraphs whose wording shows that the Government are attempting, formally and informally, to undermine the ability of workers to take action. For example, paragraph 8(a) places on unions an obligation to complete
"any agreed procedure, whether formal or informal, which might lead to the resolution of a dispute"
before a ballot is held. That is absurdly wide. What is meant by an "agreed procedure, either formal or informal"? Does it mean all procedures or only those agreed for the avoidance of disputes? What if an employer breaches the agreed procedures? There is nothing here to protect trade unionists in that situation. Unscrupulous employers will use paragraph 8(a) to obstruct and

857
undermine, and to prevent trade unionists from taking specific action that is allowed under current legislation. Those people will be able to go to the courts and obtain support in their attempts to neuter trade unionists.
This code is not about improving industrial relations or the right of workers to take legitimate industrial action. As my hon. Friends have said, it is the latest item in a long catalogue over a decade during which trade unionists have been undermined in their attempts to improve conditions in the workplace.
But the Government have not crushed working people. They have not crushed industrial trade unions, and they will never crush them. While there are Conservatives and unscrupulous employers, working people in the East and in the West will never bend to any kind of legislation that would undermine them. That has been proved by the history of the working-class struggle. In a decade's time this shoddy piece of legislation will be in the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, in the meantime many of the positive things that need to be done to improve industrial relations in this country are being neglected by the Government.
With the return of a Labour Government, it will be up to people who are now on this side of the House and to trade unionists to restore the rights of trade unionists, and to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the right of people in the workplace to go about their lawful business without having their position undermined by unscrupulous employers and an unscrupulous Government.
11.29pm
Mr. Alexander Eadie: In a debate such as this the only contribution that can be made is to give one's opinion and experience. The main criticism and the main thrust of opposition to the code of practice on industrial ballots is that it is defective, because it does not consider what, after all, is the hallmark of solving industrial disputes—conciliation. I make no apologies for saying that throughout my industrial life I have believed in conciliation rather than confrontation. I shall explain later why the legislation is defective.
It is an abuse of this mother of Parliaments to present the code to us in a debate of one and half hours. It cannot be debated adequately in that time. I paid particular attention to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Some of the criticisms that he invoked are the same as mine. The only difference is that he will vote with the Government whereas I shall oppose them.
The code is defective and will not provide for any measure of conciliation. It will not solve the problem of industrial relations and industrial action. Certainly it will not solve the problem of what is generally described as rag-outs, or unofficial action. The more that one examines it in detail, the more it seems that it will be a prescription for unofficial industrial action and rag-outs.
The Minister made extravagant claims about what the code will achieve. It will not solve our industrial problems. We could ballot until the kings come home and at the end of the day the employer can still say, "Yes, you have a ballot, but you will get nothing." There is no provision in the legislation to compel the employer to seek conciliation rather than confrontation. I was thinking during the
858
debate about an experience that I had. One can have all the ballots under the sun, but if the men decide to take action they will take action to resolve the problem.
I have belonged to a trade union since 1934. My union is the National Union of Mineworkers, about which the Minister made some snide comments. Before I came to the House, my trade union had not had a national official industrial strike for more than 40 years. That is as good a record as that of any trade union in Britain. I know what I am talking about when I say that we should seek conciliation rather than confrontation.
We had a particular problem in the mines—rats. They are rather filthy things to have in the mines. As a boy of 14, I remember being terrified. I was with my father and the roof was coming in. A flitting of rats came rushing out of the road. Despite the fact that I was only 14, I shall never forget that experience for as long as I live. The miners knew that if there was a flitting of rats in the pit, the place was unsafe and they should not go into it. I remember my father saying to me, "We'll sit here. I know what's going to happen. The roof is going to collapse", and an hour or two later the whole place collapsed and the roof came in.
Over the years we put up with the inconveniences of being down the pit and with the rats. A miner might be sitting having his piece when a rat would crawl across his leg. If a miner went out for his piece, he might discover that a rat had been in his jacket and stolen his piece. We could see them in the waste, looking at us as we were eating our piece. It was unpleasant and, of course, rats in pits cause both industrial and health problems. Rats are infectious animals. If a miner who was working in a low seam which was wet should happen to cut his finger, he ran the risk of getting what is called Weil's disease, which we knew as "rat jaundice".
We had meeting after meeting with the management for years and years, saying, "It is absolutely intolerable that we should work trying to wrest the treasures of nature from the earth, and have to do so alongside these diseased creatures." But then a crisis erupted when a couple of miners in my pit, who had been working in a low seam and had cut their fingers, developed Weil's disease, or rat jaundice, which is caused by the urine of rats. I advise those who have not seen anybody who has developed Weil's disease that it is a pretty horrible sight because the victims slowly get blacker and blacker and then they die.
We said that we were absolutely fed up with it in our area. We had tried to negotiate and conciliate. The whole coalfield was alive with unofficial industrial action. We said to the board, "Look, we've lost a couple of lives. We're no longer going to work down the pit if there are rats in it. You must do something about it." It was strange that after 40 or 50 years we had to sacrifice four or five days' wages and then, like magic, the employers came up with an answer. They said that they would clear the pit of rats. They developed something that many people with heart disease know about nowadays, Warfarin, and within a week there was not a rat in the place—
Mr. Skinner: They are all on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. Eadie: Indeed.
The Minister is saying that, if an industrial work force is thinking about industrial ballots, it will stand still once it has tried to negotiate and conciliate, but I must tell him

859
that if he is developing these provisions as a panacea to prevent industrial action, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Mr. Skinner: He is a lawyer.
Mr. Mike Watson rose—
Mr. Eadie: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me carry on.
The Minister is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. If he is concerned, as I and my hon. Friends are concerned, about having orderly industrial relations that have been thought out and developed, he will take back his proposition, re-examine it, rectify its imbalances and force the employers to indulge in consultation and conciliation following the result of an industrial ballot.
11.38 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to speak only briefly. The whole House has listened with attention to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) talking about Weil's disease and rats in mines, but tonight we are debating the danger of us once again having the "English disease" and becoming the sick man of Europe. That is why I am so disappointed that the Opposition intend to divide the House and to vote against this code of practice which can only help to improve industrial relations.
It is important that the country should have good industrial relations. The Labour party should remember its record when it was in power, when every year millions of days were lost through strikes. Between 1974 and 1978 in the private sector, some 390 working days were lost per 1,000 employees. Since then, the figure has dropped to 236 per 1,000. That shows that the legislation is working and that we should encourage its use.
I have today received a report from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce about a survey of the north-west chambers of commerce. It shows that there is confidence in future profitability. How on earth could exporters continue to have confidence in their profitability were it not for employment legislation that enabled them to run their businesses properly? The report states:
"One heartening result is an increase in orders for local exporters. Nearly half of those involved in foreign trade reported an increase in both deliveries and orders overseas."
That shows that the north-west is performing well. I do not want it to return to the days when there was a Labour Government, when industries were riddled with strikes and there was no hope of manufacturers and exporters looking forward with confidence.
I hope that Labour Members will stop and think before they divide the House tonight. I want to hear from them exactly what policy the Labour party has on such legislation. What position, in law, do they expect the unions to have? Do they expect real sanctions? Does the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has spoken about sanctions for the courts? Where does the Labour party stand on sequestration?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should stick to the motion before the House.
Mr. Thurnham: The Labour party's policy on points of the law is relevant to this motion, and I should be pleased to hear more about that policy.
11.42 pm
Mr. Mike Watson: I speak in this debate with some experience of the issue as I was a trade union official for 12 years and during recent years have been involved in industrial ballots. I am not opposed in principle to ballots, but I am opposed to the one-sided nature of codes of practice such as the one before us tonight. It has nothing to do with democracy or with improving industrial practices. The section headings in the code include:
"Whether an industrial action ballot would be appropriate.
Preparing for an industrial action ballot.
Holding an industrial action ballot.
Following an industrial action ballot."
Assuming a vote is in favour of industrial action, that then takes place. Where is the code for when a dispute is resolved? Where is the democracy and the good industrial practice when it is possible to end an industrial dispute with only a show of hands? I accuse the Minister of sheer hypocrisy in peddling this shoddy little document as an act of democracy. It is as undemocratic to return to work on a show of hands as it is to strike on a show of hands.
The code has nothing to do with democracy. It is a further step down the road of anti-trade union action. It makes it as difficult as possible to strike and as easy as possible to return to work. It should be rejected for those reasons, if for no other.
11.43 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that, in such a short debate, it is not possible to do justice to all the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall try to extract the common themes in what has been said.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) opened the debate for the Opposition on the basis that the code could be criticised for what it was not, not what it was. He said that it had nothing to say about employers' roles in these matters. The important point to remember is that this is not a code about employers calling strikes. It is not a code about what employers might be doing. It is a code about strikes and about the trade unions that call them. It is surely right in a situation such as this that there should be a ballot. The argument that the code can be criticised simply because it does not address the role of employers in the situation seems to me not to be tenable.
The hon. Member for Stretford also seemed to be criticising the code for the fact that it would not automatically solve the problem of strikes. Quite obviously no code will do that. It is impossible to outlaw strikes and it would not be right to attempt to do so. At the end of the day there will always be situations in which working people will feel that they have to withdraw their labour. So criticism of the code on the basis that it will not stop strikes does not seem to me to have any validity whatsoever.
The code addresses a very important principle. Withdrawal of its labour by a work force is obviously a serious step that should not be taken lightly. All the working people involved ought to be able to ensure that they are given a vote and that it is conducted in a proper way. That is the purpose behind this document.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I thank the Minister for giving way when time is so short. Does all this mean that the Government are to put forward a code for employers in industrial disputes?
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady misses the point. We are not dealing today with a code about employers; we are dealing with a code about the conduct of strikes. The hon. Lady will have to make a decision in due course—very soon, indeed—about this code, not some code that her party would introduce in the somewhat unlikely event that it was ever called to govern.
The curious thing about what the hon. Lady has said—and it has been echoed in a number of Opposition speeches—is that it is based on the really ridiculous proposition that if a ballot is conducted lawfully and in accordance with the code that should be an end of the matter. At that stage the employer should be expected to say that the workers have broken their contract of employment but it does not matter; they all agreed on what they would do, therefore he will not take any further action. That is a bizarre proposition—so bizarre that it was not adopted even by the last Labour Government; and if it was so bizarre as not to be adopted by them, one would not expect it to be advanced by the Labour party now. But that is the line that is being taken today.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the code being one-sided and laying great stress on using only postal ballots. I really wonder at times what it is that so upsets the hon. Gentleman when he considers this code. Surely he will be the first to admit that there are circumstances in which ballots can be conducted in a way of which he would thoroughly disapprove. That has happened before, and it may happen again. It is surely right that there should be some arrangement to ensure that it does not happen.
When the hon. Gentleman says that this is effectively a code which is to be used against working people and not against employers, he simply could not be more wrong. He was supported in that view by a number of other hon. Members. When the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) talks about the Alliance having had a good, consistent and clear record on matters of this sort he takes a highly selective view of history. But I suppose that if one cannot decide what one's own party is called, one cannot decide what its policies are either.
What we have to face is this. In a few moments' time Labour Members will go into the Lobbies and apparently vote against this proposition, against the idea that there should be postal ballots. There are no "Hear, hears" for that, and I am surprised. They will say that they disagree with independent scrutiny, with the idea that a ballot should be conducted secretly. For all their yuppie convictions as espoused by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), they will say at the end of the day that it is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who still represents the real soul of the Labour party—time warped, locked into the language of the class war and knowing nothing about the world in which we live. We have moved beyond the ragged-trousered philanthropist, but the Labour party does not know it.
Question put:—
The House divide:— Ayes 204, Noes 142.

Division No. 43]

[11.49 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Gorst, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Gow, Ian

Alton, David

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Amess, David

Gregory, Conal

Amos, Alan

Grist, Ian

Arbuthnot, James

Hague, William

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Ashby, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Atkinson, David

Hanley, Jeremy

Baldry, Tony

Harris, David

Batiste, Spencer

Hayes, Jerry

Beith, A. J.

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Howells, Geraint

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Irvine, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Janman, Tim

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Kennedy, Charles

Boswell, Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Kirkwood, Archy

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Knapman, Roger

Bowis, John

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Brazier, Julian

Knowles, Michael

Bright, Graham

Knox, David

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

Lang, Ian

Browne, John (Winchester)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Lightbown, David

Buck, Sir Antony

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Burns, Simon

Lord, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Butcher, John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Butterfill, John

Maclean, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Carrington, Matthew

Malins, Humfrey

Carttiss, Michael

Mans, Keith

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Maples, John

Chope, Christopher

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Maude, Hon Francis

Colvin, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Miller, Sir Hal

Couchman, James

Mills, Iain

Cran, James

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Mitchell, Sir David

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

Monro, Sir Hector

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Day, Stephen

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Devlin, Tim

Morrison, Sir Charles

Dicks, Terry

Moss, Malcolm

Dorrell, Stephen

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Neale, Gerrard

Dover, Den

Nelson, Anthony

Dunn, Bob

Neubert, Michael

Durant, Tony

Nicholls, Patrick

Dykes, Hugh

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Evennett, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Norris, Steve

Fallon, Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Favell, Tony

Oppenheim, Phillip

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Page, Richard

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Paice, James

Fishburn, John Dudley

Patnick, Irvine

Fookes, Dame Janet

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Forman, Nigel

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Forth, Eric

Portillo, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Price, Sir David

Franks, Cecil

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Freeman, Roger

Redwood, John

French, Douglas

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Rhodes James, Robert

Gill, Christopher

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Roe, Mrs Marion

Goodlad, Alastair

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Rowe, Andrew

863

Ryder, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Trippier, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Trotter, Neville

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Walden, George

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Sims, Roger

Wallace, James

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Waller, Gary

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Ward, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Watts, John

Speller, Tony

Wheeler, Sir John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Whitney, Ray

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Widdecombe, Ann

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Wilkinson, John

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stern, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Stevens, Lewis

Wolfson, Mark

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wood, Timothy

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Summerson, Hugo

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thurnham, Peter

Mr.Sydney Chapman and

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mr. Nicholas Baker.

NOES

Allen, Graham

Corbyn, Jeremy

Anderson, Donald

Cousins, Jim

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cox, Tom

Armstrong, Hilary

Crowther, Stan

Ashton, Joe

Cryer, Bob

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cummings, John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Battle, John

Dalyell, Tam

Blair, Tony

Darling, Alistair

Blunkett, David

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Boyes, Roland

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

Bradley, Keith

Dixon, Don

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Doran, Frank

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Eadie, Alexander

Buckley, George J.

Eastham, Ken

Caborn, Richard

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Callaghan, Jim

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Fatchett, Derek

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

Clay, Bob

Fisher, Mark

Clelland, David

Flynn, Paul

Cohen, Harry

Foster, Derek

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Fyfe, Maria

864

Galloway, George

Morgan, Rhodri

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Mowlam, Marjorie

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mullin, Chris

Gordon, Mildred

Murphy, Paul

Graham, Thomas

Nellist, Dave

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

O'Brien, William

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Neill, Martin

Hardy, Peter

Parry, Robert

Harman, Ms Harriet

Pike, Peter L.

Heffer, Eric S.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Henderson, Doug

Primarolo, Dawn

Hinchliffe, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Home Robertson, John

Redmond, Martin

Hood, Jimmy

Reid, Dr John

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Robertson, George

Hoyle, Doug

Rogers, Allan

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Rooker, Jeff

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Illsley, Eric

Ruddock, Joan

Ingram, Adam

Sheerman, Barry

Jones, leuan (Ynys MÔn)

Short, Clare

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Sillars, Jim

Lambie, David

Skinner, Dennis

Leadbitter, Ted

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Leighton, Ron

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

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Loyden, Eddie

Steinberg, Gerry

McAllion, John

Strang, Gavin

McAvoy, Thomas

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

McCartney, Ian

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Turner, Dennis

McFall, John

Vaz, Keith

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Walley, Joan

McLeish, Henry

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McNamara, Kevin

Wareing, Robert N.

McWilliam, John

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Madden, Max

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Marek, Dr John

Wilson, Brian

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Winnick, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wray, Jimmy

Martlew, Eric

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Maxton, John

Meale, Alan

Tellers for the Noes:

Michael, Alun

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Code of Practice for Trade Union Ballots for Industrial Action, which was laid before this House on 17th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

European Fighter (Nose Radar Contract)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
12 midnight
Mr. Gavin Strang: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue in the House tonight. It is certainly most convenient for the House that we should debate this subject now. First, it follows the important meeting that took place yesterday between the Secretary of State for Defence and his West German counterpart, and I hope that in due course we shall have some indication that the optimistic press reports are likely to be confirmed. I also welcome the fact that we have the chance to refer to the future of the Ferranti operations and, in particular, the announcement this evening that there is an agreement in principle for GEC to acquire Ferranti Defence Systems Limited and some Italian businesses of the Ferranti Defence Systems group for cash.
The House will be aware of my interest in this issue, primarily as an hon. Member from Edinburgh who is concerned about the future of the Ferranti business, about jobs and about the long-term future of the technology possessed by these companies.
A tremendous campaign has been mounted in support of Ferranti; the way things are unfolding is a culmination of that campaign. I pay tribute to all those who have taken part, to the work force, the trade unions, the management, Members of Parliament, the Minister of State, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who have all played an important part in the progress that has been made on this issue.
I refer in the first instance to the argument that has gone on for two years about the nose radar contract for the European fighter aircraft. The Minister of State will probably be inhibited from saying anything beyond the official announcement made yesterday by the two Secretaries of State; but I will assume that the reports are broadly accurate, that there are strong grounds for optimism that they will be endorsed in due course and that within a few weeks we shall have the announcement of formal agreement among the four countries—Britain, West Germany, Italy and Spain—that the ECR90, the Euro-collaborative radar system, will be chosen for the European fighter aircraft.
The system is being chosen for powerful reasons. It is technically superior. There is no doubt that in detection performance for approaching or receding targets the ECR90 system will be a lot better than the MSD-2000 could ever be. There is no doubt about the electronic counter-counter-measures within the proposed ECR90 system to resist jamming. Nor is there any doubt about the importance of this new technology; it is a new generation of radar, and the spare computer power will be useful in the future. It is certainly a user-friendly system.
I believe that we have won the contract because the Government have stood firm, because the system is technically superior and because we owe it to the Royal Air Force and to the forces in West Germany, Spain and Italy to ensure that they have the best when they fly the European fighter aircraft. Taking into acount the major issues, it is also cheaper. Notwithstanding all the argument and the various bids, the total acquisition cost of the ECR90 will be cheaper than the rival MSD-2000.
866
I believe that the Minister will not contradict the statement that the studies show that there is no greater risk with the ECR90 than with the West German system, which is basically a modification of the APG65. For those reasons, it is crucial on military grounds that the radar system that has been developed by the consortium, including Ferranti, goes into the European fighter aircraft.
There are other important reasons why this is in the British interest. We should support British and European technology. It cannot be in the long-term interest of Europe or Britain to abdicate all major technological developments to big multinational companies based in the United States or Japan. There is no question of the enormous importance of that in relation to the radar system and the aeroplane itself. No doubt these are some of the reasons why the Spanish and Italian Governments have been firm on the issue throughout.
There are also trade benefits. Let us be clear about the position. If the ECR90 system is chosen, the four Governments will be in control of sales to third countries. It will not be a question of the attitude of the United States Government or of any other Government on the matter. It will be a decision for the four participating Governments. Whatever view one takes about the sale of aircraft to whatever powers—of course, there is scope for discussion and argument about that—I submit that in principle it is better on balance that the decision should be within the orbit of the countries involved in the manufacture of the plane and not any other country.
The jobs argument is crucial. We are talking about thousands and thousands of jobs. They will be good jobs in Ferranti, which has been a successful company, and also in GEC, which we trust will maintain conditions such as have existed in Ferranti and build on them.
Moving to the European fighter aircraft itself, it will not be a great victory if we win the radar contract and find eventually that the whole EFA project runs into the ground. I welcome the affirmation by the West German and British Governments that they recognise the need for EFA to go ahead. It will be a tremendously important conventional weapon to defend our people, although I hope that we will never use it.
That view has been put consistently over the years by the Ministry of Defence and accepted by the Select Committee on Defence. The Select Committee could have been more explicit, but it stated in a report on the major procurement programme:
"It is the Ministry's view that the role of EFA could not be performed adequately by additional Tornado F3s and Harrier GR5s, neither of which possesses the performance, mission capability and agility of EFA."
Its role and importance cannot be disputed. I know that the Minister will not want to be drawn on this issue, but we can argue whether it might even replace some Tornado F3 fighters.
I do not expect the Minister to develop those issues at great length this evening. However, we need the aircraft because it is in the long-term interests of Britain's defence. Notwithstanding the developments of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and the progress that we hope will be made in the talks in Vienna on conventional forces in Europe, I do not see how it could be in the interests of our country or of NATO for the EFA programme to be recued or cancelled to meet some agreement.
I support agreement between NATO and the Warsaw pact and want a reduction in conventional forces and, even

867
more, in nuclear forces. When we consider that this is an aeroplane for the 21st century, and recognise its scope in relation to the aging and replacement of existing systems and the importance of this radar, I do not see how it will make sense for Britain, Spain, Italy or West Germany to want to back off from their commitment to the European fighter aircraft.
The issue is inseparable from Ferranti. We are grateful for the meetings that we have had with Ministers—two with the Minister of State, one with the Secretary of State for Defence and one with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The argument, dialogue and discussion in the media have naturally revolved around Ferranti. I do not doubt that the West German Government were seeking to exploit that. I say that because the Ferranti problem—the loss of the £280 million, or whatever, through alleged fraud in the United States—did not reflect on the British technical capability. It could not reasonably be advanced as an argument that the work should not be done by Ferranti Defence Systems Limited in Scotland. But perhaps that argument was being advanced fairly strongly by the West German Government and, therefore, it is important to consider the position of Ferranti in the context of this debate.
Since the announcement of the fraud there have been, and may be more, sales of assets by the company. I hope that there will not be many more such sales. The standby rights issue may not now go ahead. We shall see whether it does by the beginning of next month. Most importantly, we have had the announcement of an agreement in principle between the GEC board and the Ferranti board that GEC will acquire, for £310 million, the Ferranti Defence Systems group—Ferranti Defence Systems Limited in Edinburgh and some smaller Italian businesses owned by Ferranti.
We should support that sale in principle. I believe that that will be the view of the Ferranti management, the workforce and Scotland and Britain generally. I am referring not just to Ferranti Defence Systems, which will probably become part of GEC, but to the other parts of Ferranti. There will still be thousands of jobs in Ferranti in Scotland, including some in Dalkeith, some in Livingston and some in the Edinburgh area. This is not a Scottish versus English issue. Under the agreement, if it takes place, Ferranti will continue in Scotland and England and FDSL will be acquired by GEC.
What conditions need to be met if we are to support the agreement which, I emphasise, is in principle only—nothing has been signed? First, we must be sure that the ECR90 system will be chosen. We must recognise that GEC had an involvement in the rival bid led by Telefunken in West Germany. We must assume, and might guess, that that factor was discussed in yesterday's talks and there may be a link between the two. That is speculation on which the Minister may or may not wish to be drawn.
We assume that GEC will not pay £310 million for FDSL if it does not obtain the radar contract for all the EFA planes. That is why it is essential that the radar contract goes ahead.
The management structure must be right, which means that GEC's other air radar interests must become part of FDSL. After all, its turnover is about twice that of the GEC interests in question. A merger of GEC interests with FDSL interests in Edinburgh could take place, with the
868
management of that combined operation based in Edinburgh but answerable ultimately to GEC's main board.
There must be some commitment by the GEC board to invest heavily in what can reasonably be described as a technological jewel in British industry's crown. I hope that the contract will go to a British firm because of the tremendous technical expertise and capability of Ferranti's Edinburgh work force and management, which was built up over not just a few years but a long period. FDSL has worked on the design of nose radar for two years, its development will take four years, and the contract could provide jobs and other benefits for the next 20 years. GEC must therefore undertake to invest heavily in the company that it may be taking over in the not-too-distant future.
We also need to ensure that the merger has the Government's approval. I shall not speculate on whether the proposed merger will be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am not sure whether the market share situation is such that it will automatically trigger such a reference. I trust that the Government are clear about the interests of British industry and of Britain's defence.
It is true that if the merger goes ahead, GEC will dominate to some extent aspects of the defence industry, but it does so already in relation to some military contracts, as the Government prefer to award them to a British company. However, the defence market is not British but European, and that will be even more true in 1992. In fact, it is a world market—certainly in respect of a nose radar, which will confirm our world lead. It will allow us to sell not only planes using the radar to other countries, but the radar itself for use in planes produced in the future. It is a development of enormous importance, and it cannot be viewed simply as a matter of competition within the British economy. It would be wrong to suggest that it is in the interests either of British defence or of Britain's military forces for the project to be halted by MMC considerations alone.
Right hon. and hon. Members representing Ferranti workers and their families, trade unions, management and everyone else concerned are motivated by the need to maintain Ferranti's British jobs. Some 16,000 to 18,000 jobs exist in the United Kingdom, of which about 8,000 are in Scotland. Good employment will be created, giving areas of the country a real future. We hope that the radar contract will be confirmed and that the West German Government's undertakings probably sought yesterday were met by the British Government. Those thousands of jobs will be more secure, as will the thousands of jobs with subcontractors in Scotland and elsewhere in Britain.
Ferranti is Scotland's most important manufacturing employer. Assuming that Ferranti Defence Systems is sold to GEC, it will still be important. GEC will be even more important to the future of the Scottish economy. That is why I make no apology for asserting that there is an important Scottish interest here. I welcome the fact that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies are present, and that there is a Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench, because this is crucial to the Scottish economy.
I believe that we are getting it right, assuming that the radar contract is confirmed. If we get the ECR90 system and the arrangement that I have suggested in relation to GEC, we can go forward and invest in those enterprises, and our considerations will no longer be dominated by the

869
unfortunate fraud. I shall not comment on that. We tend to assume that we can rely on audited accounts. There is no question but that the accounts were phoney. However, we shall hear more about that in future.
I hope that the Minister will confirm the good news that has appeared on the media today, and will give some sign that the Government and everyone else concerned are making progress on the issue.
12.21 am
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): It is fortunate and timely that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) should be focusing the attention of the House on the question of the airborne radar to be selected for the air superiority fighter for the 2000s—the European fighter aircraft. The hon. Member has been most assiduous in pressing the case for ECR90. I have met him and a number of his colleagues on several occasions. I have listened to the points that he made in his speech this evening, and I am broadly in agreement with everything that he has said.
Ferranti Defence Systems Limited of Edinburgh has a distinguished record as a contractor for the Ministry of Defence in the field of high technology, and I recognise the hon. Member's concern to ensure that the company's proposal in the radar competition is fully recognised. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) have been similarly active, and by their endeavours in support of ECR90 they will have earned the respect of their constituents.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to this evening's announcement of the proposed acquisition by GEC of Ferranti Defence Systems Limited. My Department welcomes a solution which will maintain the future of Ferranti Defence Systems as an important and competent supplier. The companies informed the MOD that discussions were taking place, and of the benefits that they believed should accrue from the bid.
As far as the specific issue of EFA radar is concerned, although no decision has yet been reached, it is the case that the Federal German Ministry of Defence had previously expressed misgivings about placing such a substantial programme with Ferranti, given its then financial difficulties. I believe that today's announcement will provide reassurance to those concerns.
The proposed arrangement is a commercial judgment for the two companies concerned. The Director General of Fair Trading will, of course, consider the implications of the merger and advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will do so against a background of consultations in which the Department will be closely involved.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: The EFA programme—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
Mr. Clark: It is very unusual, but of course I will give way.
Mr. O'Neill: This is a very unusual debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We must congratulate the workers in Edinburgh on their efforts to keep faith with the programme when it seemed that all was against them. Can the Minister confirm that all the work in the ECR90 programme that was to go to Edinburgh will go there, and that none will be diverted to GEC-Marconi's subsidiary at Donnybristle, which was part of the Telefunken competition against Ferranti for the programme?
Mr. Clark: Employment and the allocation of work schedules are matters for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned, but I believe that those developments are necessarily beneficial and should be welcomed. I have been very pleased hitherto by the welcome that the House has extended to them.
Mr. O'Neill: In other words, the Minister does not know the answer to my question.
Mr. Clark: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should breach the conventions of the House on an occasion such as this, and particularly surprised that he should greet with such ill grace a development that has been widely welcomed. I admit that I do not know where the work will be placed; I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that, if the matter proceeds to the satisfactory conclusion that we all expect and for which we all hope, the jobs will be in Britain and not in Germany.
Much attention has rightly been focused on the radar issue, and it is best considered in the context of the overall EFA programme. It was only just over a year ago—in November 1988—that the memorandum of understanding on the development of EFA came into operation. Since then, the main development contracts for the aircraft and engine have been concluded with the four-nation Eurofighter and Eurojet consortia. Work on the prototype aircraft is proceeding well, as is the development of the engine and the selection of equipment.
The United Kingdom share of one third of the development of the aircraft represents a significant programme of work, and will provide major opportunities for British industry. It guarantees our continuing stake in key areas of advanced technology, as well as providing long-term employment prospects for many companies and their work forces.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East characteristically made a number of cogent points, and I am reassured to note that there is much common ground between us. Most important, we both want an early resolution of this long-running problem, and we both want EFA to be an effective aircraft for the defence of the United Kingdom in the 1990s and beyond. We also recognise that the radar is an essential element of the aircraft's weapon system.
The radar is the key to EFA's ability to detect, identify and attack hostile aircraft. Much of any air defence battle would be fought in a hostile electronic environment, with the opposing forces beyond each other's visual range. It would be fought at very high speed, and success would be largely dependent on the ability to hit the attacker first time with air-to-air missiles controlled by the radar. The ability to track multiple targets will be essential. Those considerations demonstrate both the complexity of any future air battle and the immense technical challenge faced by industry when developing the next generation of airborne radar.

871
As hon. Members will see, along with agility in combat and the preformance of its weapons, the radar will be the crucial element in determining EFA's superiority over a modern adversary. The radar chosen must therefore meet demanding specifications that follow from the operational needs of the four collaborating partners. It will come as no surprise, therefore, that competing bids for the contract have been subjected to very rigorous scrutiny. It has taken longer than we would have liked, but that is a measure of the importance that the EFA nations attach to this equipment.
During one of his meetings with me, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked me when I hoped that a decision would be made about the choice of radar for EFA. I seem to remember that I replied that I hoped that it would be made soon, and he reminded me that he had received just such a reply from my predecessor a year earlier.
872
If I could be more precise, I certainly would. I assure the House that it gives me no pleasure to be in the position of having to report at regrettably regular intervals that no decision has yet been made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met his German counterpart on five occasions for discussions on EFA since coming into office barely five months ago. The last was only yesterday.
I recognise and, to a certain extent, share the frustration of hon. Members over the time that it is taking to decide on the future of the radar for EFA. Collaborative programmes are undoubtedly beneficial in terms of commonality of equipment, spares and support, and produce financial savings from longer production runs. We must also recognise, however, that there is sometimes a price to be paid in terms of the time taken to make decisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that a decision is very close.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at hall-past Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Accidents
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what accidents with nuclear weapons involving United States military forces, aircraft or ships and submarines afforded operational rights on United Kingdom territory have taken place on United Kingdom territory or in United Kingdom territorial waters since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There has never been an accident in United Kingdom territory involving damage to a United States nuclear weapon.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many low-flying sorties by military jet aircraft of the NATO air forces, were carried out for the last year for which he has figures; and what were the figures for(a) five years and (b) 10 years ago;

  (2) how many low-flying sorties by military jet aircraft of the Royal Air Force were carried out for the last year for which he has figures; and what was the figure (a) five years and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Neubert
  Central records are not held in a form which would allow the information requested to be readily provided. Of the total number of low-flying sorties carried out in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1988, 84 per cent. were carried out by British military aircraft, 15 per cent. by United States aircraft based in the United Kingdom and under 2 per cent. by other NATO aircraft and others by special agreement.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are(a) the minimum and (b) the maximum heights authorised by his Department for low-flying sorties by military jet aircraft over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  Low-flying training by military jet aircraft in the United Kingdom low flying system normally take place between the heights of 2,000 ft and 250 ft. A limited amount of training by military jet aircraft is also authorised down to 100 ft in three specially designated areas in northern Scotland, central Wales and the Borders.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the criteria laid down by his Department for low-flying sorties by military jet aircraft over the United Kingdom, carried out by(a) the Royal Air Force and (b) other NATO air forces.

  Mr. Neubert
  The United Kingdom low flying system is primarily reserved for low-flying training by British military and United Kingdom-based United States air force aircraft. Other NATO air forces carry out some limited low-flying training in the United Kingdom,586
  normally associated with exercises or on an exchange basis, but this element accounts for under 2 per cent. of the total low-flying activity in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any increase in the amount of low-flying activity over the Hexham constituency during the past year and during the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Central records are not held in a form which would allow the information requested to be provided. The overall amount of low-flying activity in the United Kingdom did, however, increase in the years up to 1986, largely as a result of the introduction into service of the Tornado GR1 aircraft, but has been reasonably constant since then. I have no reason to believe that this position was not reflected in the Hexham constituency.

  Ethnic Minority Recruitment
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is able to make a statement on the outcome of the study into ethnic minority recruitment into the armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A copy of the report by independent consultants has today been placed in the Library of the House.

  The report was commissioned by the MOD after a survey had revealed that only 1·1 per cent. of recruits to the armed forces during 1987–88 came from the ethnic minorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) made clear at the time his wish to see more members of the ethnic minorities joining the services and asked the consultants to advise on why comparatively few applied to the services, why their applications were less likely to succeed and how the situation could be improved.

  The report falls into three parts. The first deals with the results of research designed to establish attitudes towards employment generally and towards employment in the armed forces in particular. The results suggest that in most respects the attitudes of young people from the ethnic minorites are not markedly different from those of their white counterparts. However, they are less likely to consider a career in the armed forces for a number of reasons, including in many cases the fear that they will encounter racial discrimination.

  The second part of the report reviews the services' existing recruitment criteria and practices as they affect the ethnic minorities. It concludes that the selection process is thorough and objective, conforming generally to the Commission for Racial Equality's code of practice and the Institute of Personnel Management's equal opportunities code. However, the report identifies scope for building upon existing good management practice and also some possible areas where indirect discrimination could arise, though there was no evidence that this was happening.

  The third part of the report suggests ways in which the situation might be improved. It proposes a long-term marketing strategy to encourage a more positive attitude towards the services by young people from the ethnic minorities; a short-term marketing strategy to target recruiting efforts more effectively towards members of the ethnic minorities who are interested in a career in the services; an internal strategy for improving selection procedures; and some organisational changes intended to

  587
  achieve a more co-ordinated and effective implementation of these strategies. In all the report contains 23 separate recomendations.

  We welcome the report and have accepted all but two of the recommendations. We intend to adopt a policy of giving positive encouragement to applications from members of the ethnic minorities. This will involve, among other things, projecting a more positive message in our advertising, making recruiting offices more welcoming, special training for recruiting staff, greater use of recruiters from the ethnic minorities in selected areas and the building up of more contact between the services and young people from the ethnic minorities. In addition, we will be introducing a more detailed form of ethnic monitoring of applicants to help us identify where special difficulties are being encountered during the selection process and we shall be looking critically at a number of the selection tests employed to ensure that any possibility of indirect discrimination is eliminated.

  We are concerned at the finding that fear of racial discrimination deters members of the ethnic minorities from applying to join the services. The services are equal opportunity employers, under the terms of the Race Relations Act, and we will continue to make it clear that no form of racial discrimination will be tolerated and that all complaints will be properly investigated. Many service men and service women from the ethnic minorities are already pursuing successful careers in all three services: we intend to give greater publicity to their achievements as an encouragement to others.

  Implementation of the report will be closely monitored by Ministers, who attach great importance to increasing the number of recruits from the ethnic minorities, while recognising, as does the report, that a sustained effort will be required if attitudes are to be changed and that dramatic increases in the number of ethnic minority recruits are unlikely in the short term.

  This last point is confirmed by the provisional results of the 1988–89 survey of applicants by ethnic origins, which show very little change from the 1987–88 results: 1·6 per cent. of applicants and 1·1 per cent. of successful recruits identified themselves as belonging to the ethnic minorities.

  Copies of the final results of the 1987–88 survey and the provisional results of the 1988–89 survey have been placed in the Library of the House. As last year, the provisional 1988–89 results will be published in the Statement on the Defence Estimates.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Kevin Taylor
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department is he will order an immediate inquiry into the handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr.

  Acceptances for settlement in total, and for spouses and dependants of certain nationalities

  Numbers of acceptances

  Total acceptances (all nationalities)

  Acceptances of spouses and dependants

  New Commonwealth1

  Pakistan

  Hong Kong BDTCs2

  Spouses and children

  Elderly and other dependants

  Spouses and children

  Elderly and other dependants

  Spouses and children

  Elderly and other dependants

  1974

  68,880

  14,690

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  1,140

  3—

  1975

  82,410

  24,940

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  1,610

  3—

  1976

  80,740

  25,940

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  1,500

  3—

  588
  Kevin Taylor, formerly of Wood Road lane, Summerseat, Bury, by Greater Manchester police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) on 22 January 1990 at column 514.

  Immigration
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by nationality the numbers of people who have immigrated to the United Kingdom during the last 12 months for which he has figures.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of people accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in 1988, analysed by individual nationality, is published in table 2 of the Home Office volume, "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1988" (Cmd 726). An analysis by geographical and nationality group of those accepted in the 12 months ending 30 September 1989 is published in table 1 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Issue 45/89, "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Third Quarter 1989". A copy of both these publications is in the Library.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, in the Official Report, the total number of immigrants accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom for each year since 1974 inclusive, specifying how many in each were dependants of immigrants already settled in the United Kingdom from (a) the new Commonwealth, (b) Pakistan and (c) United Kingdom colonies.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information for the groups requested is shown in the following table. The figures of acceptances of spouses and dependants relate to the nationality of the spouse or dependant, not of the sponsor. They include spouses and dependants of sponsors born in the United Kingdom as well as of those who were themselves accepted for settlement, either at an earlier stage, or at the same time as the spouse or dependants. Information on spouses and children from Pakistan, along with those from India and Bangladesh, distinguishing those where the sponsor was born in the United Kingdom and those where he or she has earlier been accepted for settlement, is published in tables 3, 7 and 10 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Issue 44/89, "Immigration from the Indian Sub-Continent 1988", a copy of which is in the Library. However, corresponding information is not available for the other nationality groups requested.
  589

  Total acceptances (all nationalities)

  Acceptances of spouses and dependants

  New Commonwealth1

  Pakistan

  Hong Kong BDTCs2

  Spouses and children

  Elderly and other dependants

  Spouses and children

  Elderly and other dependants

  Spouses and children

  Elderly and other dependants

  1977

  69,310

  16,760

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  1,090

  3—

  1978

  72,330

  18,870

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  880

  3—

  1979

  69,670

  17,210

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  1,040

  3—

  1980

  69,750

  16,490

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  1,160

  3—

  1981

  59,060

  14,440

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  980

  3—

  1982

  53,870

  14,260

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  680

  3—

  1983

  53,460

  13,430

  3—

  5,830

  3—

  680

  3—

  1984

  50,950

  13,050

  3—

  4,910

  3—

  790

  3—

  1985

  55,360

  14,160

  3—

  5,970

  3—

  700

  3—

  1986

  47,820

  11,460

  3—

  4,800

  3—

  520

  3—

  1987

  45,980

  11,220

  3—

  3,330

  3—

  550

  3—

  1988

  49,280

  11,900

  1,750

  3,610

  450

  660

  120

  1 excluding Hong Kong.

  2 British Dependent Territory Citizens.

  3 Figures for elderly and other dependents are shown for 1988, but for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  n/a = not available.

  Litter
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were for dropping litter in the last 12 months.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 1,760 prosecutions for litter offences in England and Wales. Information on prosecutions in 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has reached a decision on an inquiry into racing finances; how the review of betting shop hours of opening, announced by the Department of Trade and Industry on 21 December 1989, fits into the general inquiry; and what is the likely timetable of this review;

  (2) whether he is still considering the Lloyds bank report on the privatisation of the horserace totalisator board; and when he proposes to start an inquiry into opening hours of betting shops; and whether he will mount a wide-ranging inquiry into every aspect of racing finances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As to an inquiry into the financing of horse racing and greyhound racing, and the deregulation review of the opening hours of licensed betting offices, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 17 January to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). Advice from Lloyds merchant bank on the feasibility of privatising the horserace totalisator board remains under consideration.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what definition his Department uses of a replica firearm.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Controls on imitation firearms are contained in the Firearms Act 1982. The 1982 Act provides that any imitation firearm which has the appearance of being a firearm to which section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 applies and is so constructed as to be readily convertible to
  590
  fire live ammunition, is subject to the same controls as those imposed on actual firearms by the Firearms Act 1968.

  Under the 1982 Act, the test of whether an imitation firearm is readily convertible to fire live ammunition is whether it can be so converted without special skill on the part of the person converting it and the work involved does not require tools or equipment other than such as are in common use by persons carrying out construction and maintenance works in their homes.

  Gun Clubs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps are proposed to impose tighter controls on gun clubs.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 14 November at column 208, which set out proposals to amend the criteria applied to gun clubs approved by the Secretary of State under section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I said that before reaching a final decision on the proposed new controls I would ask the firearms consultative committee for its views. I have now received and carefully considered the advice of the committee.

  As I originally proposed, I have decided on the grounds of public safety that any club which operates a scheme of uncontrolled day or temporary membership shall no longer be approved by me. However, in response to representations which have been made to me, by the committee and by many members of the shooting community, I accept that some provision should be made to ensure that the continued recruitment of new members to gun clubs is adequately safeguarded. I shall therefore permit novice members to receive instruction in an approved club in the safe handling of firearms, but without access to ammunition, on no more than four occasions a year. Such arrangements for a novice must be made by the club secretary at least 48 hours in advance. Approved clubs will also be allowed to hold guest days, on no more than four occasions per year, when limited numbers of people known to the club may be invited to visit the club by its secretary. On these limited occasions guest members would, under constant personal supervision, be allowed to

  591
  handle firearms and ammunition. Clubs will be required to give reasonable prior notice to the local police of when they intend to hold such guest days. The police have statutory powers of inspection of approved clubs under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

  I have also decided to implement my proposals, which the committee fully endorsed, that probationary members of approved clubs, when in possession of firearms or ammunition, must be under constant personal supervision by a range master or by a full member of the club who holds a firearm certificate, and that they should undergo a probationary period of not less than six months, during which they should receive a course of instruction on the safe handling and use of firearms. The committee will be providing further advice to me on the nature and standards of such instruction. I have also decided to implement my proposal that the number of probationary members of a club should not exceed the number of full members. Full members of approved gun clubs will continue to be allowed to become members of other approved clubs.

  I have also decided that probationary members should be sponsored by one current full member of the club and one person who knows the applicant personally.

  In considering individual applications by clubs for my approval, variations from these criteria may be permitted in exceptional circumstances, but considerations of public safety will always remain paramount.

  I am satisfied that these new criteria for club approvals are justified in the interests of public safety.

  The new criteria will be implemented with immediate effect in respect of any new applications for approval. Clubs currently approved will be advised of the changes and permitted a reasonable time in which to comply with the revised criteria.

  I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will adopt the same policy for his approval of clubs.

  National Joint Unit Records
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many searches of the national joint unit records were undertaken following a request by police officers at ports of entry in each year from 1980 to 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 17 January 1990]The information requested is not recorded separately. The number of searches of national joint unit records following requests from police officers either at ports of entry or elsewhere was as follows:

  Number

  1980

  48,090

  1981

  50,687

  1982

  44,696

  1983

  44,906

  1984

  47,779

  1985

  55,328

  1986

  59,481

  1987

  81,060

  1988

  77,472

  1989

  101,766

  It is thought that the majority of these searches were carried out in response to requests by police officers at ports.

PRIME MINISTER

  Romania
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received on recent political and economic developments in Romania.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations, all of which have welcomed the end of Ceausescu's tyranny and the prospect of democracy in Romania. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, recently visited that country. The Government have donated 1·8 tonnes of medical supplies and have so far contributed £1·42 million towards food and medium-term economic aid to Romania through the European Community.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Romania.

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

  Czechoslovakia
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Czechoslovakia.

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

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make an official visit to Czechoslovakia.

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

  Bournemouth
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Bournemouth during 1990.

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

  Engagements
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 January.

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

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Drugs
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what allocations he has made to local education authorities for initiatives aimed at combating
  593
  the misuse of drugs in the latest available year in terms of (a) education support grant and (b) in-service training programmes.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Allocations to local education authorities under the new education support grant for preventive health education, and the associated LEA training grants scheme national priority area, both of which give priority to education about drugs, are as follows:

  Allocations to Local Education Authorities for Preventive Health Education in 1990–91

  Education Support Grant

  LEA Training Grant Scheme

  London Boroughs

  £'000

  £'000

  Barking and Dagenham

  16·8

  10·0

  Barnet

  25·0

  17·0

  Bexley

  25·0

  14·0

  Brent

  25·0

  14·0

  Bromley

  25·0

  15·0

  Camden

  25·0

  8·0

  Croydon

  25·0

  18·0

  Ealing

  26·2

  15·0

  Enfield

  28·5

  16·0

  Greenwich

  23·0

  14·0

  Hackney

  25·0

  10·0

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  23·0

  7·0

  Haringey

  25·0

  11·0

  Harrow

  25·0

  13·0

  Havering

  20·0

  15·0

  Hillingdon

  25·0

  13·0

  Hounslow

  32·7

  13·0

  Islington

  25·0

  9·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  25·0

  5·0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  30·8

  8·0

  Lambeth

  26·6

  11·0

  Lewisham

  25·0

  13·0

  Merton

  25·0

  9·0

  Newham

  53·1

  15·0

  Redbridge

  25·0

  13·0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  25·0

  7·0

  Southwark

  38·0

  12·0

  Sutton

  18·9

  10·0

  Tower Hamlets

  25·0

  10·0

  Waltham Forest

  25·0

  13·0

  Wandsworth

  25·0

  11·0

  Westminster

  25·0

  7·0

  Metropolitan Districts

  Barnsley

  25·0

  14·0

  Birmingham

  140·9

  72·0

  Bolton

  25·0

  19·0

  Bradford

  45·9

  35·0

  Bury

  24·2

  11·0

  Calderdale

  25·0

  14·0

  Coventry

  27·0

  21·0

  Doncaster

  27·2

  21·0

  Dudley

  25·0

  20·0

  Gateshead

  25·0

  12·0

  Kirklees

  32·0

  26·0

  Knowsley

  72·0

  11·0

  Leeds

  59·7

  44·0

  Liverpool

  44·0

  33·0

  Manchester

  38·8

  31·0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  29·8

  17·0

  North Tyneside

  25·0

  13·0

  Oldham

  26·2

  16·0

  Rochdale

  25·0

  15·0

  Rotherham

  25·0

  18·0

  St· Helens

  25·0

  14·0

  Salford

  25·0

  15·0

  Sandwell

  25·0

  21·0

  Sefton

  32·7

  19·0

  Sheffield

  44·2

  31·0

  Solihull

  23·6

  14·0

  594

  Education Support Grant

  LEA Training Grant Scheme

  South Tyneside

  25·0

  11·0

  Stockport

  25·6

  19·0

  Sunderland

  23·0

  21·0

  Tameside

  25·0

  15·0

  Trafford

  25·0

  13·0

  Wakefield

  27·4

  20·0

  Walsall

  25·0

  19·0

  Wigan

  29·4

  23·0

  Wirral

  51·0

  22·0

  Wolverhampton

  —

  17·0

  Shire Counties

  Isles of Scilly

  0·5

  —

  Avon

  80·0

  57·0

  Bedfordshire

  42·7

  36·0

  Berkshire

  54·3

  47·0

  Buckinghamshire

  52·5

  39·0

  Cambridgeshire

  54·6

  41·0

  Cheshire

  51·0

  66·0

  Cleveland

  32·5

  41·0

  Cornwall

  33·8

  29·0

  Cumbria

  42·0

  32·0

  Derbyshire

  48·4

  59·0

  Devon

  75·0

  58·0

  Dorset

  46·3

  35·0

  Durham

  42·0

  40·0

  East Sussex

  40·0

  35·0

  Essex

  61·5

  97·0

  Gloucestershire

  42·9

  34·0

  Hampshire

  90·7

  94·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  54·9

  43·0

  Hertfordshire

  58·0

  65·0

  Humberside

  62·6

  58·0

  Isle of Wight

  25·0

  8·0

  Kent

  74·5

  95·0

  Lancashire

  100·0

  94·0

  Leicestershire

  43·4

  59·0

  Lincolnshire

  40·0

  36·0

  Norfolk

  58·6

  45·0

  North Yorkshire

  35·9

  43·0

  Northamptonshire

  42·6

  40·0

  Northumberland

  18·4

  20·0

  Nottinghamshire

  48·5

  64·0

  Oxfordshire

  41·5

  32·0

  Shropshire

  33·5

  27·0

  Somerset

  36·1

  29·0

  Staffordshire

  66·5

  69·0

  Suffolk

  51·4

  39·0

  Surrey

  44·1

  53·0

  Warwickshire

  40·0

  32·0

  West Sussex

  51·8

  39·0

  Wiltshire

  44·9

  36·0

  Total

  4,000

  3,000

  Access Funds
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's estimate of(a) the average and (b) the maximum amount payable from the access funds; and whether any such estimates were taken into account when calculating the amount of money allocated to the funds.

  Mr. Jackson
  The amount payable to individual students will be at the discretion of the higher and further education institutions which will be administering the access funds from this autumn. It is not therefore possible to make estimates of the sort requested. The overall provision for the funds reflects the Government's judgment of what is affordable and appropriate to meet the funds' objectives.

  Disabled Students Allowance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the disabled students listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Exeter of 16 November,Official Report, columns 382–83, received no disabled students' allowance because they were in receipt of minimum grant.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information about the amount of grant actually received by students who qualify for the disabled students allowance is not collected centrally.

  In 1987–88, the latest year for which figures are available, 25 per cent. of all mandatory award holders received no maintenance payments from their local education authorities because their parents', their spouses' or their own assessed contribution was sufficient to cover the entire grant entitlement. It is not known whether the same proportion applies to students qualifying for the disabled students allowance.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total expenditure in each of the last three years by his Department on the disabled students allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  In the academic years 1985–86 to 1987–88, the latest year for which figures are available, amounts assessed in respect of the disabled students allowance were as follows (cash prices):

  £

  1985–86

  106,036

  1986–87

  192,123

  1987–88

  157,586

  The sums actually paid by LEAs will be less than this because parental, spouses' and students' own contribution to the grant will in some cases be sufficient to cover a proportion of the assessed disabled students allowance.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much of the access funds associated with individuals' difficulties caused by student loans will be allocated to Scotland.

  Mr. Jackson
  The access funds are intended to help students who are in financial difficulties in spite of the availability of top-up loans, not because of them. A total of £1·4 million has been allocated to the Scottish Education Department for distribution to students at non-university higher and further education institutions in Scotland. Universities in Scotland will receive an allocation for their students from the Universities Funding Council. The council's total allocation is £5·6 million and it is for it to decide how much to allocate to individual universities.

  Polytechnic Colleges
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has yet reached a decision on the creation of a new category of polytechnic colleges; and if he will make a statement.
  596
  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is close to completing his consideration of this question and expects to write to the PCFC with his conclusions very shortly.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to abolish local education authorities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to set up the national curriculum working parties in(a) music, (b) art and (c) physical education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I hope that an announcement will be made soon.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration has been given to the introduction of road safety into the national curriculum.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Aspects of road safety are or will be covered within national curriculum foundation subjects. It is for schools to decide how best to provide road safety education.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the sufficiency and adequacy of supply of books and equipment appropriate to deliver the national curriculum.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Since the national curriculum builds on current best practice, large-scale replacement of books and equipment should be unnecessary. The adequacy of current stocks for the national curriculum will vary between LEAs and schools. The Government are using the education support grant mechanism to support expenditure on books and equipment for this purpose. Otherwise, it is for each local education authority to determine how to deploy the total resources available to it in order to meet the requirements of the national curriculum, including for books.

  Haberdashers' Aske's Schools
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on the payment of capital costs in respect of the establishment of a Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college in Deptford while it remains open to the governors of the present Haberdashers' Aske's schools to withdraw the notices to discontinue these schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No capital grant payments have yet been made by my right hon. Friend for the establishment of a Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college. The timing of payments, and what capital costs they meet, will depend on a number of factors including the power of the governing body of the schools to withdraw notice to discontinue the schools.

  School Funding
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has made of the amount of money raised by parents to fund basic school costs.
  597
  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government are aware that many parents are willing to contribute additional financial support to schools, and welcome that. But my Department does not collect data on the scale of such contributions, or the uses to which they are put. Her Majesty's inspectorate collects some information as part of its routine inspection of schools, but not on a systematic basis. Its most recent assessment is set out in paragraph 56 of the senior chief inspector's first annual report, "Standards in Education 1987–88". A copy is available in the Library.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of surplus school places available for removal represented by decisions made by him or pending in respect of proposals for the closure or reorganisation of schools for each year from 1986–87 to the latest available year.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information in respect of proposals on which my or my predecessors' decision to approve has been made, or which local education authorities have, in the absence of local objections, determined to implement themselves, is given in the following table; figures in respect of proposals on which a decision is still pending are not available. The figures are in respect of the calendar years in which the decisions were made.

  Calendar year

  Number of places

  1986

  62,828

  1987

  45,326

  1988

  27,170

  1989

  41,831

  Eastern European Studies
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received the report on eastern European studies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have received a copy of the report that was made to the Universities Funding Council, the successor body to the University Grants Committee that commissioned it. I shall respond to the report when I have completed my consultations with other Government Departments and organisations to which some of its recommendations relate.

  Computers
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received from parents objecting to their children using computers as part of their school lessons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations from parents who are members of the Brethren. They object to their children using some applications of information technology such as computers, and are seeking the right to withdraw their children from the IT aspects of the national curriculum. The Government's view is that IT education is a vital part of preparing pupils for adult life and employment, and should therefore be a requirement rather than an option under the national curriculum in maintained schools. It 598
  remains open to parents with objections to aspects of the national curriculum to make alternative educational arrangements.

  Pupils' Dress
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what advice he has issued to local education authorities concerning the admission to schools of pupils wearing dress reflecting religious belief; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has on the policy of city technology colleges concerning the admission of children wearing dress reflecting religious belief; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Uniform and dress rules are matters for determination by individual local education authorities and schools, including city technology colleges. We look to LEAs and governing bodies, in devising these rules, to take account of the cultural and religious backgrounds of pupils. The Commission for Racial Equality has recently issued a code of practice for the elimination of racial discrimination in education, which my right hon. Friend has commended to school and college governing bodies. It includes guidance on dress and uniform.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many complaints he has received in each of the years 1985 to 1989 that a local education authority was in breach of its duty to identify and assess a child with special educational needs, as laid down in sections 4 and 5 of the Education Act 1981; on how many of these occasions he has used his default powers under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Higher Education (Fees)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the outcome of his consultations on the introduction of differential fees in higher education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Department's consultation paper, "Shifting the Balance of Public Funding of Higher Education to Fees", issued on 25 April last year, proposed a two-stage plan for increasing the responsiveness of higher education institutions to student demand.

  In the light of responses, we confirmed last July the first stage increase in the maximum fee for full-time undergraduate students met through the award arrangements from £607 to £1,675 for the academic year 1990–91.

  The consultation paper set a later deadline for responses to the second stage proposal for differential fees. Such fees would apply the market force of student demand more evenly across courses of different costs. Again, the overwhelming majority of the responses supported this proposal. A significant number of those consulted stressed the advantages of setting three fee levels, broadly on the same basis as those set for fees for overseas students, rather than the four proposed.

  The Government have accordingly decided to introduce differential full-time undergraduate maximum

  599
  tuition fees to be met through mandatory student awards for most first degree and designated comparable courses in publicly funded institutions from the academic year 1991–92 onwards. At 1990–91 prices, these fees will be set for three band levels as follows:

  Band

  £

  1

  Classroom-based courses

  1,675

  2

  Laboratory/Workshiop-based courses

  2,500

  3

  Clinical courses

  4,500

  We shall now consult the funding bodies and representatives of universities, polytechnics and colleges about the detailed arrangements for allocating courses to bands and the consequent adjustment between institutional grant and fees provision within the agreed expenditure plans in respect of the student numbers to which they relate.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the special programme of aid for ex-Communist countries in eastern Europe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We already have a know-how fund for Poland of £50 million, and a similar fund for Hungary of £25 million will come into operation from April. We have announced that we shall extend these funds to cover other east European countries once they are fully committed to reform.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parking
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to ensure the strict enforcement of the parking restrictions in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I understand that, following two recent incidents, security staff have been instructed to ensure that the roadways through the inner courtyards are not blocked by vehicles making deliveries and that no unauthorised parking takes place.

  Manchester Evening News
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will make inquiries as to why copies of the Manchester Evening News are no longer regularly available in the Tea Room and Smoking Room.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Until recently six copies of the Manchester Evening News were suplied free of charge and delivered by hand to the House by the publisher. Under new arrangements introduced by the publisher, three copies are now posted to the House.

  The authorities of the House have discussed these new arrangements with the publisher, who has agreed to re-provide six copies and to see what can be done about speeding up delivery arrangements. Meanwhile, copies of the Manchester Evening News will be placed in the Tea and Smoking Rooms as soon as they are received.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes any investigation into the role of Spicer and Pegler, now Spicer and Oppenheim, in the Barlow Clowes affair.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The terms of reference of the Companies Act 1985 inspectors investigating the affairs of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited and the affairs of James Ferguson Holdings plc enable them to inquire into the role of Spicer and Oppenheim if they consider it necessary for the purpose of their investigations.

  GATT
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Her Majesty's Government support the view of the EEC Commission, in the current General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, that there can be no negotiations on the United States proposal for ending agricultural dumping within five years; what assessment he has made of the impact of this view on the prospects for a successful outcome of the negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The proposals tabled by the United States on agriculture in the current Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, including that to eliminate export subsidies within five years, would cause a number of difficulties for the European Community. However, these proposals, like the others which have been tabled, including those by the Community, will be the subject of further negotiation. The Government are urging the Community to respond positively to proposals for more open trade in all areas and are keen to see a good liberal settlement for the Uruguay round as a whole. I am hopeful that a settlement can be reached in the agriculture negotiations which satisfies all parties, as this is likely to be an important element for the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round, and one to which the United Kingdom attaches great importance.

  Public Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce legislation to provide exemption from penalty under the Official Secrets Act for any scientist who speaks openly on matters affecting public safety.

  Mr. Douglas Hoggo
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no plans to introduce such legislation.

  Methanol
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the end uses of methanol for the most recent year for which figures are available and the number of United Kingdom manufacturers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  ICI is the only company which manufactures methanol in the United Kingdom.

  The main use for methanol is as a feedstock for the production of a wide range of other chemicals.

  The majority of methanol consumed in the United Kingdom is used in the production of formaldehyde (a

  601
  component of melamine resin), methyl tert butyl ether (an octane enhancer for unleaded fuel), acetic acid, chloromethanes, methyl methacrylate (a resin), and methylamines (solvents and photographic developers).

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list what current inquiries his Department are carrying out into suspected insider dealing rings in the City of London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]Investigations into possible insider dealing offences are not normally announced. However, an announcement may be made in a particular case if it is considered to be in the public interest to do so. There are at present 18 cases where inspectors have been appointed by my Department to investigate possible insider dealing offences. In only one of those cases was the appointment announced. That investigation concerns possible offences with respect to the securities of Consolidated Gold Fields plc in the period from 3 August 1988 to 20 September 1988.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people used the legal advice and assistance green form scheme analysed by numbers of bills paid to the Legal Aid Board during the years commencing 1 April 1987 and 1 April 1988; and whether legal aid is reaching more people than ever before.

  The Attorney-General
  The Legal Aid Board did not take over the administration of the legal aid schemes until 1 April 1989. The figures requested for 1987–88 are available in appendix 1A of the Law Society's legal aid annual report for 1987–88. In 1987–88, 1,077,454 bills were paid and the figure for 1988–89 was 994,606.

  The number of full civil legal aid certificates issued compared with figures for five and 10 years ago indicates that more people than ever before are taking up legal aid. The figures are as follows:

  Number

  1979–80

  190,677

  1984–85

  221,209

  1989–90

  1259,000

  1 Estimated.

  Over the same period, expenditure on legal aid as a whole increased some fivefold.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been refused social fund loan applications by social fund offices in each of the ILOs of Redcar, Eston, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool, on the grounds that the applicants could not afford to repay such loans.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]The precise information requested is not available. Social fund 602
  officers may refuse an application for one or more reasons and each reason given is recorded. The information in the table gives the number of occasions between 1 April 1989 and 1 December 1989 when "inability to repay" was recorded as a (but not necessarily the only) reason for refusal:

  Social Security local office

  Number of refusals

  Redcar

  61

  Eston

  8

  Middlesbrough

  131

  Stockton

  108

  Hartlepool

  74

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Namibia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations were taken into account by the international contact group of nations on the question of the exclusion of Walvis bay from incorporation into the independent state of Namibia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In view of the apparently irreconcilable views of the parties concerned on the status of Walvis bay, the five Governments in the contact group decided not to include any provision on this question in their proposal for achieving Namibian independence.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Bulgaria.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are pleased with recent moves towards democracy in Bulgaria, including the decision to restore their rights to the minorities in that country. We hope to have closer and more fruitful relations in future.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received concerning Government plans to allow Hong Kong's ivory stockpiles to be exempted from the agreed worldwide ban on ivory trading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have received a number of representations, both in favour of and against the entering of a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong. We took all these into consideration. We received no formal representations from other countries.

  Whaling
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the Japanese Government concerning its research whaling agreements; what representations he has made to them about a total ban on whaling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the
  603
  Japanese scientific research whaling programme with Foreign Minister Nakayama on 12 January, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with Prime Minister Kaifu. The Japanese Government are well aware of our views on whaling.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the chemical industry regarding the implementation of a chemical weapon convention.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Officials of this Department and other Government Departments concerned meet regularly with representatives of the United Kingdom chemical industry to discuss issues involved in the chemical weapons convention under negotiation in Geneva.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any groups or individuals that are independent of the chemical industry will be invited to assist with the work of the national authority, established under the chemical weapon convention.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The structure and procedures of any national authority which might be established under a chemical weapons convention have yet to be decided.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the oversight of the implementation of the verification procedures under the terms of a chemical weapon convention will involve any personnel or organisations that are independent of the chemical industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is currently envisaged in the negotiations in Geneva for a chemical weapons convention that the implementation of verification procedures will be carried out by an international technical secretariat established by the convention.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on the renunciation of the present reservation to retaliate in kind if subjected to chemical weapon attack, under the terms of the Geneva protocol 1925(a) before a chemical weapon convention is signed, (b) upon the signing of a chemical weapon convention and (c)at some stage during the implementation of a chemical weapon convention.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom, in common with a number of other states parties to the 1925 Geneva protocol, entered a reservation in the interests of national security, permitting retaliation in kind if subjected to attack with chemical weapons. This remains the United Kingdom's position.

  On the second and third parts of this question, I refer the hon. Member for Western Isles to the answer given to his earlier question on 11 December last year.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when Mr. Muhammad Jamshed, who has re-applied to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to join his wife in the United Kingdom (Ref:604
  IMM/80967), is to be interviewed; and why Mr. Jamshed, at the interview relating to his first application, was interviewed in Pahari;

  (2) when Ruksana Riaz (serial number: 66429), who applied to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to join her family in the United Kingdom on 5 July 1989, is going to be interviewed.

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

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information the Department has concerning the policy of(a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Israel, (d) Argentina, (e) Brazil and (f) Libya towards (i) the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and (ii) the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Of the countries listed in the hon. Member's question, Libya is a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), and its nuclear facilities are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The other countries are not parties to the treaty. All of them have nuclear installations, some of which are under IAEA safeguards while others are not.

  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has concerning the policy of(a) France and (b) the People's Republic of China towards the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Both France and the Republic of China remain non-parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

  School Fees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of allowances and the total amount paid by the Government for boarding school fees in both the United Kingdom and overseas for the education of the children of(a) members of his Department, (b) members of the Diplomatic Services communication division and (c) the Overseas Development Administration including children of technical co-operation officers for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]An allowance towards the cost of their children's day school education at boarding schools in the United Kingdom is paid to very few members of the diplomatic services during home postings. Details of the amounts paid are subsumed in the overall figures for boarding school allowances. Separate statistics are not kept.

  Only limited information is kept by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on schools used overseas. Each mission maintains its own list of authorised schools.

  A total of £1,784,000 was paid in overseas education allowances for children of diplomatic services officers

  605
  (including £79,000 for the communications division) and £286,000 to employees of the Overseas Development Agency (including technical co-operation officers) in the financial year 1988–89. Details of the total number of children for whom such allowances were paid are not available.

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representations have been received on behalf of Sibusiso Senele Masuku and Oupa Josias Mbonane currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken about these cases.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 January 1990, c. 165–67]: We have in fact received a number of representations about Mr. Sibusiso Senele Masuku and Oupa Josias Mbonane. We consider intervening, exceptionally, in such cases only when all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Our criteria are that the case must be clearly political and there must be strong extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. We are not prepared to make appeals in cases involving indiscriminate terrorism. With legal avenues yet to be exhausted, we have not intervened with the South African Government in these cases.

WALES

  NHS (Wales)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of the National Health Service in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Government's proposals for the further improvement of the National Health Service in Wales are set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" (Cm. 555) and in my right hon. Friend's published letter of 1 August 1989 to health authority and family practitioner committee chairmen. Insofar as the proposals require legislation, provision is included in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which is presently before the House.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prescriptions were issued in each of the years from 1980 for(a) psychotropic drugs and (b) hypnotic drugs.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on number of prescriptions by type of drug is readily available only by therapeutic class. Hypnotic drugs are a class on their own, but psychotropic drugs are included in classes comprising sedatives, tranquillisers and anti-depressants.

  Number of prescriptions (Thousands)

  Hypnotics

  Sedatives/tranquillisers/anti-depressants

  1980

  1,149

  1,925

  1981

  1,138

  1,931

  1982

  1,129

  1,885

  606

  Hypnotics

  Sedatives/tranquillisers/anti-depressants

  1983

  1,103

  1,692

  1984

  1,137

  1,598

  1985

  1,104

  1,514

  1986

  1,216

  1,493

  1987

  1,211

  1,513

  1988

  1,139

  1,383

  Welsh Language Studies
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how he intends to implement those recommendations in the Welsh Language Board's strategy document, "The Welsh Language.—A Strategy for the Future," directly relating to the responsibilities of his Department;

  (2) what formal response he has made to the strategy document prepared by the Welsh Language Board and entitled "The Welsh Language—A Strategy for the Future" and its proposals for recommendations.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The proposals in the Welsh Language Board's strategy document are being considered together with other related proposals made by the board.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how his Department proposes to implement the recommendations and policy contained in the Welsh Language Board's document, "A Bilingual Policy—Guidelines for the Public Sector:"

  (2)if he will arrange to review the Welsh language policy of each body of which the Welsh Office is the sponsor Department;

  (3)if he will issue guidance to local authorities in Wales based on the Welsh Language Board's document entitled, "A Bilingual Policy—Guidelines for the Public Sector."

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Language Board has already invited every public body in Wales to review its Welsh language policy having regard to the board's voluntary guidelines. The Welsh Office is among those currently considering its response. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider whether there is need for further guidelines in the light of the overall response.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he will use in considering applications from schools to be excluded from the Welsh language teaching requirements of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Secretary of State has been considering this issue in the light of the responses to his consultation on proposals for Welsh in the national curriculum. As a result of that consultation the Secretary of State is publishing today a draft order in accordance with section 21(3) of the Education Reform Act, prescribing attainment targets and programmes of study for Welsh, together with an explanatory statement and an account of the consultation. Copies have been placed in the Library. Consultation on the draft order ends on 28 February and the Secretary of State intends to make a final order in April.

  The draft order and its associated document set out attainment targets and programmes of study which are designed to be achievable in schools of different kinds throughout Wales. Nevertheless there may be circumstances where a school may need to be exempted at least

  607
  temporarily. The Secretary of State has powers to make regulations under section 17 of the Act to prescribe exceptions from the national curriculum. He will be consulting soon on proposals for such regulations.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all suggestions he has received from the Welsh Language Board regarding statutory and administrative changes designed to enhance the use and status of the Welsh language, together with his response.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Language Board's main proposals are those contained in its strategy document, its voluntary guidelines for the public and private sectors, and its draft Welsh Language Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the practical implications of the board's proposals before he responds. In addition, there has been considerable progress on a range of other matters concerning legislation and administrative practice which have been raised by the board.

  Circulars
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many circulars and circular letters have been issued by his Department's education division since 1 January 1989; and how many were(a) in Welsh and (b) bilingual.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Forty-seven circulars and circular letters have been issued, of which 13 were bilingual. None was issued in Welsh only.

  Language Studies
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has invited the national language unit to undertake any specific tasks with regard to the teaching of Welsh and French in the national curriculum in Wales;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the role of the national language unit in the implementation of the national curriculum in Wales;

  when the national language unit was last subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The national language unit is one of the agencies involved in preparing Welsh language materials for the national curriculum. Grants have been given to enable the unit to employ development officers for Welsh and modern foreign languages including French. The language unit has not been the subject of a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Simultaneous Translations
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all meetings between his Department and outside bodies at which simultaneous translation has been used, indicating the language used, since January 1989.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  There are numerous such meetings, but the Department holds no central record of such meetings.

  Appointments
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the organisations to which he has the right to make appointments and (b) the appointments to public bodies and other organisations made by him and his predecessor since 1979.
  608
  Mr. Peter Walker
  (a) The organisations to which I have the sole responsibility for making one or a majority of ministerial appointments are listed in the table:

  Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee Panel of Chairmen—Wales

  Agricultural Valuation Committee (Wales)

  Agricultural Wages Committee

  All Wales Advisory Panel on the Development of Services for People with Mental Handicaps

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Committee on Opportunities for Volunteering

  Committee for the Welsh Scheme for the Development of Health and Social Research

  Community Health Councils

  Court and Council of the National Library of Wales

  Court and Council of the National Museum of Wales

  Curriculum Council for Wales

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  District Health Authorities

  Family Practitioner Committees

  Forestry Commission Reference Committee Panel—Wales

  Health Policy Board

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales

  Housing for Wales

  Land Authority for Wales

  Library and Information Services Council (Wales)

  Local Government Boundary Commission

  National Parks Committees

  Place Names Advisory Committee

  Rent Assessment Panel

  Saundersfoot Harbour Commission

  South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  Sports Council for Wales

  Standing Working Group of the Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education

  Teamcare Valleys Steering Group

  Training Enterprise and Education Advisory Group

  Urban Investment Appraisal Panel

  Wales Tourist Board

  Welsh Committee for Post Graduate Pharmaceutical Education

  Welsh Committee on Drugs Misuse

  Welsh Development Agency

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Welsh Language Board

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  The following organisations are those for which I have sole responsibility for a minority of ministerial appointments:

  Council of University Colleges, Lampeter

  Court and Council of University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

  Court and Council of the University of Wales, Bangor

  Court of the University College, Swansea

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission

  (b) This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Welsh Language
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the representations he has received against the Welsh Language Board's practical options for the use of Welsh in business;

  (2) if he will take steps to encourage businesses located and operating in Wales to implement the Welsh Language Board's practical options for the use of Welsh in business.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Businesses in Wales will wish to consider their own response to the board's guidelines for the private sector. No formal representations have been received following their publication.
  609
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total direct expenditure by his Department in support of the Welsh language in each financial year between 1980–81 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Direct Government support for the Welsh language is provided through grants for developments in bilingual education and for assistance to the Welsh language. The figures are shown in the following table:

  Year

  £

  1980–81

  893,000

  1981–82

  1,611,630

  1982–83

  1,755,726

  1983–84

  2,002,136

  1984–85

  1,986,825

  1985–86

  2,421,507

  1986–87

  2,527,755

  1987–88

  2,823,188

  1988–89

  3,345,987

  11989–90

  4,431,000

  1 Provision (outturn figures for other years).

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on his approach to the principle of equal validity in respect of the Welsh language;

  (2) what consultations he is undertaking with interested people and organisations on the Welsh Language Board's recommendations for legislation for the care of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Language Board has presented my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with proposals for legislation based on the principles of equal validity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering with the board the practical implications of these proposals.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that Welsh-speakers should have the right to require all public bodies to deal with them, in writing and verbally, in Welsh whenever practicable.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This is one of the features of the Welsh Language Board's legislative proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the supplement to attract students to Welsh medium initial teacher training courses has been effective; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The incentive supplement was introduced in 1988 as a two-year pilot project aimed at increasing the supply of Welsh medium teachers in the secondary sector. The supplement was available only to those students who it is thought needed extra tuition in Welsh so that they have the confidence to pursue their studies and classroom training through the medium of Welsh.

  In 1988, 30 students received a supplement and 26 of these subsequently obtained teaching posts in Wales. Forty-three students received supplements in 1989.

  I have concluded that the supplement appears to have been successful in encouraging Welsh-speaking graduates to pursue Welsh medium initial teacher training courses. However, in order that a more detailed evaluation of the scheme can be undertaken, I have decided that the pilot should be extended for a further two years.
  610
  The demand for Welsh medium teaching in Wales continues to increase in both primary and secondary phases. To ensure that this demand is met, I have asked my officials to discuss with the relevant initial teacher training institutions ways in which a supplement might be provided to increase the number of students attending Welsh medium initial teacher training primary courses.

  Welsh Language Board
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of all correspondence between his Department and the Welsh Language Board.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) on how many occasions he has met the chairman of the Welsh Language Board to discuss the affairs of the board;

  (2) when he last held discussions with the chairman of the Welsh Language Board; what was discussed; on how many occasions he has met the Welsh Language Board; and when his officials will next meet representatives of the Welsh Language Board to discuss the board's suggested legislation.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have had one formal meeting with the chairman of the Welsh Language Board and his board. We have discussed issues relating to the board with the chairman on numerous occasions. Welsh Office officials meet representatives of the board as and when the need arises.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make further appointments to the Welsh Language Board to restore the board to its original size.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to make further appointments.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to expand the definition of pharmaceutical services in order to use the expertise of pharmacists in matters like health education, supervision of dispensing in residential homes, preventive work, and services to people in sheltered accommodation in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Government's policy on developing the role of the community pharmacist was set out in chapter 6 of "Promoting Better Health" (Cm 249).

  The majority of the measures proposed in the White Paper have now been implemented. For example, new allowances have been introduced for pharmacists who participate in schemes to provide advice to residential homes, and also for those who maintain records of medicines supplied to certain patients on long-term medication. Funds have also been made available to support the enhancement of the health educational role of the community pharmacist.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he intends to make in Wales to cover the responsibilities currently undertaken by the rural dispensing committee.

  Mr. Grist
  In line with the new management arrangements for family practitioner services, it is
  611
  proposed that family practitioner committees will take all decisions of first instance in relation to dispensing. We shall be consulting the professions about the detailed arrangements for dealing with appeals as soon as possible.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the income of pharmacies(a) in Wales generally and (b) in rural areas of Wales comes from dispensing.

  Mr. Grist
  Pharmacies' income can be derived from a variety of sources in addition to the dispensing of NHS prescriptions. The only information held centrally refers to NHS payments. In 1988–89 pharmacies in Wales received £143 million for providing pharmaceutical services.

  No separate statistics are collected centrally in respect of rural pharmacies.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice has been given to employers in Wales about their responsibility for collecting cash from poll tax defaulters.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Attachment of earnings is one of the remedies which is available to a charging authority that has obtained a liability order from a magistrates court in respect of a individual who has failed to pay the community charge. The attachment order served on employers will contain all the information necessary for the correct deduction to be made.

  Community charge practice note No. 15, "Enforcement of the Community Charge", sets out a model form and explanatory notes which a local authority may use in correspondence with individual employers. Employers will be entitled to deduct £1 towards their administrative expenses each time an attachment is made.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has commissioned research concerning new policies to lessen the incidence of low pay in(a) Clwyd, (b) Gwynedd, (c) Powys, (d) Mid Glamorgan, (e) South Glamorgan, (f) West Glamorgan, (g) Dyfed and (h) Gwent.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. Economic expansion and new investment are increasing earnings in Wales. Between 1988 and 1989 the average weekly earnings for full-time adults in Wales increased by 9·9 per cent., which was a higher increase than in six of the other nine regions of Great Britain.

  Welsh College of Agriculture
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of students attending full-time courses at the Welsh college of agriculture, Aberystwyth, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The total number of full-time students attending courses at the Welsh college of agriculture, Aberystwyth for each year since 1979–80 is shown in the following table:612

  Academic year

  Number of students

  1979–80

  229

  1980–81

  262

  1981–82

  288

  1982–83

  281

  1983–84

  282

  1984–85

  272

  1985–86

  276

  1986–87

  271

  1987–88

  225

  1988–89

  181

  West Wales General Hospital
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beds there were available for use by patients at West Wales general hospital, Glangwili, Carmarthen, at the end of each calendar month from 31 March 1989 to 31 December 1989; and what are the projected figures for 31 January, 28 February and 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on bed availability is collected on a quarterly basis and the information for the first three quarters of 1989 is shown in the following table. No projections of available bed numbers are made centrally.

  West Wales General hospital Average daily available beds1

  Quarter ending

  Number

  31 March 1989

  509·4

  30 June 1989

  510·8

  30 September 1989

  500·4

  1 Includes mental illness and mental handicap beds.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications he has received for the creation of fund-holding general practitioner practices.

  Mr. Grist
  A booklet explaining the fund-holding initiative was issued to all Welsh GPs on 5 January. Included with the booklet was a form enabling practices to express interest in becoming fundholders. It is far too early to put a realistic figure on the level of potential interest from the inquiries that have come in since 5 January.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the recruitment to teacher training courses in 1988 and 1989 in the public sector and the University of Wales colleges.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Details of teacher training students recruited in 1988 and 1989 are as follows:

  1988

  1989

  Public sector

  BEd Primary

  580

  709

  BEd Secondary

  69

  66

  PGCE Primary

  167

  161

  PGCE Secondary

  97

  89

  Total

  913

  1,025

  University sector

  PGCE Primary

  136

  206

  613

  1988

  1989

  PGCE Secondary

  425

  447

  Total

  561

  653

  Recruitment to courses in the public sector increased by 12 per cent. and to courses in the University of Wales by 16 per cent.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many self-employed persons have been taken into account in recalculating the unemployment percentages for each of the employment offices in Wales; and what was the source of these figures of self-employment and the date to which they refer.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply as the methodology used to calculate unemployment rates in the United Kingdom is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

  The smallest areas for which unemployment rates are calculated are travel-to-work areas. Local rates calculated as a percentage of the total work force were introduced for these areas and for counties in October 1989. These calculations incorporate local allowances for the self-employed based upon census of population and labour force survey results. The latest estimates relate to June 1988 and will be updated in the light of forthcoming information. These local self-employment estimates are sufficiently reliable to be used only as a small component of the work force denominator. Estimates of the total work force for these areas are available in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  A1 (Accidents)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of accidents, serious injuries and deaths, involving heavy lorries on the sections of the(a) A1(M) and (b) A1 that runs through South, West and North Yorkshire during the last five years, giving the location of such accidents; and if he will show in his answer (i) the approximate time of the accident and (ii) what type of cargo the vehicle was carrying or equipped for.

  Mr. Atkins
  Not all the requested information is available. Details of cargo are not held on the road accident report form. The table below gives the number of accidents by time of day, and the number of casualties by severity:

  Accidents involving heavy goods vehicles in south, west, and north Yorkshire A1 and A1(M) By hour of day, 1984–1988

  Hour

  A1

  A1(M)

  Beginning:

  00:00

  5

  0

  01:00

  7

  0

  02:00

  6

  0

  03:00

  1

  1

  04:00

  7

  0

  05:00

  11

  1

  06:00

  14

  4

  614

  Hour

  A1

  A1(M)

  07:00

  26

  3

  08:00

  27

  4

  09:00

  23

  3

  10:00

  32

  2

  11:00

  23

  5

  12:00

  34

  1

  13:00

  29

  6

  14:00

  22

  2

  15:00

  21

  1

  16:00

  19

  3

  17:00

  17

  4

  18:00

  11

  1

  19:00

  9

  1

  20:00

  5

  0

  21:00

  2

  1

  22:00

  1

  2

  23:00

  6

  0

  Total

  358

  45

  Casualties in these accidents

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  A1

  44

  186

  355

  585

  A1(M)

  1

  12

  53

  66

  Total

  45

  198

  408

  651

  As over 400 accidents are involved, I shall write to the hon. Member, giving details of the time of accident, the Ordnance Survey grid reference of the accident locations, and in the case of accidents near junctions, the number of the intersecting road.

  London Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to identify all the alternative sites for LATCC-2.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority has identified a number of possible sites for its new en route air traffic control centre, including one near Fareham in Hampshire, but that no decision has yet been taken.

  Road Humps
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the new regulations controlling road humps will be brought into force; and how soon the local authorities will be allowed to make road humps legally enforceable as a consequence of the new regulations.

  Mr. Atkins
  These representations are in the final stages of preparation and will be laid before the House very shortly. We have now incorporated the additional relaxations designed to allow road humps in a wider range of circumstances and at lower cost, that were canvassed in our consultation exercise and widely supported.

  Electronic Road Pricing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his study into electronic road pricing will consider the privacy implications of the ability to monitor the movement of vehicles; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he sees major practical difficulties with the implementation
  615
  of road pricing. The maintenance of individuals' rights of privacy would be an important consideration. There are no plans to introduce road pricing at the present time.

  London Road Assessment Studies
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the consultation period on the London road assessment studies until 31 March.

  Mr. Atkins
  No.

  Oil Tankers, Fawley
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to make public the findings and recommendations of the inquiries into the three incidents at Fawley involving the bulk carriers MV Worthy, SS Mobil Petrel and SS British Resolution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As the incident concerning the Mobil Petrel resulted in damage to the ship, it is being investigated by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch as a marine accident. A report of the findings will be published in due course. The MAIB is not involved in the incidents concerning the Worthy or British Resolution as they were not classified as marine accidents.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of the incidents involving bulk carriers at Fawley in the last four months, he has any proposals to change the way in which the port state control regulations are working; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The way in which port state control is effected and inspections are carried out is subject to continual review. Account will be taken of any lessons to be learnt from the incidents at Fawley, when investigations have been completed.

  A66
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to start work on improvements to the A66 between Scotch Corner and Penrith.

  Mr. Atkins
  Work on improvements to the A66 between Bowes and the Durham county boundary is planned to start later this year. A scheme to improve the section from Stainmore to Banksgate in Cumbria is planned to start in April 1992.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has by which to meet his target of reducing road accidents by one third by the year 2000.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply of 9 January to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) Col.584–85.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made available the inspector's report of the public inquiry for the Birmingham northern 616
  relief road to serious prospective tenderers; and whether the report will be made available to the eventual concessionaire.

  Mr. Portillo
  This report has not been made available to prospective tenderers, nor will it be made available to the concessionaire. It is not relevant to the private sector proposals.

  A2
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it the policy of his Department to provide lighting on all sections of the A2 which are of dual carriageway standard in Kent.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Provision of lighting on sections of trunk road is considered on the merits of the cases, and reflects safety, economic and environmental factors. We have plans to light the following lengths of the A2:

  London boundary to M2

  Brenley to Harbledown

  Shepherdswell

  Lorries
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has given any general guidance to the local highway authorities and others concerned in dealing with the environmental problems caused by lorry traffic in residential areas and town centres.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I am pleased to be able to announce today the publication of two documents that address the problems that lorries can cause to local communities. "Lorries in the Community" and the "Lorries and Traffic Management" manual have been produced following a lorry management study co-sponsored by my Department, the Civil Trust and the County Surveyors Society. Copies of these documents have been placed in the House Libraries.

  "Lorries in the Community" describes problems that can be caused by lorries and possible solutions, in an easily readable form. The traffic management manual gives comprehensive advice to professional practitioners and planners on the types of measures available to deal with such problems.

  Free copies of both publications are being sent to all local highway and planning authorities in England.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing information available to him on the tax allowances and tax reliefs given to single people and one and two-earner married couples in(a) Germany, (b) Italy, (c) France, (d) United States of America and (e) Holland with those in the United Kingdom together with the income band at each income tax rate chargeable.

  Mr. Lilley
  Available information is given in the tables, which are supplemented by notes. All amounts have been converted to sterling using the latest available purchasing power parities.
  617

  Tax allowances

  Year of income

  Single £

  One-earner married couple £

  Two-earner married couple £

  Germany

  1990

  1,421

  2,841

  2,841

  Italy

  1989

  Nil

  1,930

  1,930

  France

  1989

  1,425

  2,850

  2,850

  United States of America

  1989

  3,072

  5,543

  5,543

  Netherlands

  1990

  1,162

  2,324

  2,324

  United Kingdom

  1989–90

  2,785

  4,375

  7,160

  Notes:

  1. In Germany and France there are no personal allowances as such, but the tax tables incorporate a zero rate band. The figures given are the maximum amounts of income subject to tax on which no tax is due.

  2. In Germany there is also an employment deduction of £496.

  3. In Italy there are no personal allowances as such, but a married man may deduct £193 from tax due and therefore is not a net taxpayer unless income exceeds £1,930. In addition, employees receive an earned income credit of £215 on tax due. Thus, married employees are not net taxpayers unless their income exceeds £3,312, and single employees are not net taxpayers unless their income exceeds £2,150.

  4. In France employees may also deduct 20 per cent. of earned income and 10 per cent. for employment-related expenses.

  5. The Netherlands has a 4 per cent. employment income deduction (minimum £52, maximum £258).

  Income band at each income tax rate chargeable

  Year of income

  Taxable income bracket £

  Rate per cent

  Germany 1990

  see Note 1

  Italy 1990

  0– 2,671

  10·0

  2,671– 5,300

  22·0

  5,300– 13,272

  26·0

  13,272– 26,586

  33·0

  26,586– 66,402

  40·0

  66,402– 132,846

  45·0

  over 132,846

  50·0

  France 1989

  0– 2,850

  0·0

  2,850– 2,980

  5·0

  2,980– 3,531

  9·6

  3,531– 5,582

  14·4

  5,582– 7,176

  19·2

  7,176– 9,009

  24·0

  9,009– 10,903

  28·8

  10,903– 12,579

  33·6

  12,579– 20,959

  38·4

  20,959– 28,826

  43·2

  28,826– 34,097

  49·0

  34,097– 38,787

  53·9

  over 38,787

  56·8

  United States of America (single) 1989

  0– 11,175

  15·0

  11,175– 27,048

  28·0

  27,048– 56,084

  33·0

  over 56,084

  28·0

  (married, joint returns) 1989

  0– 18,645

  15·0

  18,645– 45,090

  28·0

  45,090– 93,566

  33·0

  over 93,566

  28·0

  (married, separate returns)

  0– 9,322

  15·0

  9,322– 22,545

  28·0

  22,545– 71,021

  33·0

  over 71,021

  28·0

  Netherlands 1990

  0– 10,718

  35·1

  10,718– 21,436

  50·0

  over 21,436

  60·0

  United Kingdom 1989–90

  0—20,700

  25·0

  over 20,700

  40·0

  Notes:

  1. In Germany tax rates rise gradually from 19 per cent. to a top rate of 53 per cent. The top rate is reached at a taxable income of £29,787 (single) and £59,574 (married couple, joint return).

  2. The income given for France are halved in the case of a single person.

  Taxation
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much income tax receipts would be reduced in a full year, at 1989–90 income levels, with a 5p reduction in the basic rate of tax, assuming the basic rate limit was reduced from £20,700 taxable income to £12,000;

  (2) how much income tax receipts would be reduced in a full year, at 1989–90 income levels, with a 5p reduction in the basic rate of tax, assuming the basic rate limit was reduced from £20,700 taxable income to £15,000.

  Mr. Lilley
  The direct revenue cost in a full year, at 1989–90 income levels, of a 5p reduction in the basic rate of tax and, at the same time, a reduction in the basic rate limit from £20,700 taxable income to £12,000 is estimated to be £3 billion. If the basic rate of tax was reduced by 5p and the basic rate limit reduced to £15,000, the cost is estimated to be £5·5 billion.

  The estimates include the change in receipts of advance corporation tax and on consequent liability to mainstream corporation tax, but exclude the effects on capital gains tax and possible behavioural effects. They are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the auditors to each company in which the Government maintain(a) a golden share and (b) an equity investment.

  Mr. Lilley
  The auditors to each company in which the Government maintain(a) a special share or (b) a residual shareholding following privatisation (where different) are as follows:

  Auditors

  (a)

  Britoil

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Cable and Wireless

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Jaguar

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Sealink

  Touche Ross

  British Telecom

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  British Aerospace

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  VSEL Consortium

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  British Gas

  Price Waterhouse

  Rolls-Royce

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  BAA

  Touche Ross

  619

  Auditors

  British Steel

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Anglian Water

  Price Waterhouse

  Northumbrian Water

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  North West Water

  Price Waterhouse

  Severn Trent

  Price Waterhouse

  Southern Water

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  South West Water

  Price Waterhouse

  Thames Water

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Welsh Water

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Wessex Water

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Yorkshire Water

  Price Waterhouse

  (b)

  BP

  Ernst and Young

  British Airways

  Ernst and Young

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the price of the most widely selling category of cigarettes is accounted for by excise duties, including value added tax; what are the comparable percentages for other dutiable goods, petrol, spirits, beers and wines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The burden of excise duty and value added tax as a percentage of the price for the range of dutiable goods specified in the question is as follows:

  Total tax as percentage of price

  Cigarettes—20 king-size

  72·7

  Petrol—4 star leaded—per litre

  63·4

  Petrol—unleaded—per litre

  59·3

  Spirits—75 cl bottle

  69·9

  Beer—pint

  32·6

  Cider—½ pint bottle

  20·1

  Wine—still table—1 litre bottle

  59·1

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development seeks advice and information from think tanks and academics who support the creation of free market economies.

  Mr. Ryder
  In the current discussions to establish the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Government are encouraging any measures which will assist the bank in promoting the creation of free market economies in central and eastern Europe.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Government of mortgage interest relief in(a) 1987–88, (b) 1988–89 and (c) 1989–90, estimated; and what proportion of this accrues to higher-rate taxpayers.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is given in the table. Estimates are based on projections of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes. The figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are therefore provisional.
  620

  Year

  Cost of mortgage interest relief £ million

  Percentage of relief at excess over basic rate Per cent.

  1987–88

  4,900

  9

  1988–89

  5,400

  6

  1989–90

  7,000

  6

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the income which would accrue to the Government from restricting mortgage interest relief to the basic rate of income tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The additional yield to the Exchequer from restricting mortgage interest relief to the basic rate of income tax is estimated to be £430 million at 1989–90 levels of income.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Government of increasing the maximum limit for mortgage interest relief to(a) £35,000, (b) £40,000 and (c) £45,000.

  Mr. Lilley
  Provisional estimates of the direct revenue costs of increasing the ceiling for mortgage interest relief are(a) £320 million, (b) £580 million and (c) £770 million. These estimates are at 1989–90 levels of income and current interest rate levels and exclude behavioural effects, which would be substantial for the higher ceilings.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total income to the Government from capital gains tax in the years(a) 1987–88, (b) 1988–89 and (c) 1989–90, estimated; and what is his estimate of the income forgone through the existence of rollover relief in each year.

  Mr. Lilley
  Receipts of capital gains tax in financial years since 1987–88 have been as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  1,379

  1988–89

  2,323

  1989–90

  12,000

  1 forecast

  These figures exclude receipts from capital gains of companies taxed within corporation tax. I regret that an estimate of the total cost of rollover relief is not available.

  HMSO
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the expenditure to date on consultants engaged on the grading structure study in Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Mr. Ryder
  A total of £127,000 in 1988, and £95,000 in 1989.

  National Savings
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to develop the role of the Department for National Savings; and if he will make a statement.
  621
  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 19 January to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), Official Report, column 437.

SCOTLAND

  Batteries and Accumulators
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps his Department has taken to promote research aimed at reducing the dangerous substance content and increasing the use of less polluting substitute substances in batteries and accumulators and into methods of recycling;

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to reduce the volume of spent batteries and accumulators in household waste.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs on Friday 19 January, volume 165, column 444.

  Colliery Closures
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make any special provision for the development of rural areas affected by colliery closures.

  Prosecutions for rape 1984–88

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Persons proceeded against

  43

  80

  65

  64

  82

  Persons with charge proved

  20

  39

  29

  34

  47

  Custodial sentence

  19

  39

  26

  33

  45

  Less than three years

  2

  8

  6

  5

  8

  Three years up to five years

  5

  7

  3

  5

  14

  Five years up to 10 years

  8

  19

  12

  19

  19

  10 years and over

  3

  2

  4

  3

  4

  Indeterminate sentence

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  Other sentence

  1

  —

  3

  1

  2

  Gynaecological Facilities
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with Grampian and Highland health boards for the improvement of maternity, obstetric and gynaecological provision in Grampian west unit prior to the development of local facilities; and when he expects a final agreement to be reached.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Grampian health board has improved maternity, obstetric and gynaecology provision in Grampian west unit by increased consultant visits, more clinics and improved emergency arrangements. In addition agreement has been reached on the transfer of obstetric, gynaecology and paediatric services for patients west of the Spey to Highland health board.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to announce a decision on the development of maternity, obstetric and gynaecological facilities in Moray subsequent to the option appraisal exercise carried out by Grampian health board and the recent recommendation made by the board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When I receive Grampian health board's formal submission of its recommended option will give it due consideration.
  622
  Mr. Lang
  Substantial support is made available through the Scottish Development Agency and British Coal Enterprise. This will be continued under the Scottish Enterprise proposals. The Government are pressing for the inclusion of all mining areas in Scotland in the European Commission's RECHAR initiative.

  Offences Against Children
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many men have been prosecuted for(a) rape and (b) sexual offences against children including incest, in each case of the last five years in Scotland; how many have been convicted in each of these years; of these, how many have not been sent to prison; and how many have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of not less than three years, between three and five years, between five and 10 years and over 10 years, respectively.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table. Information which separately identifies sexual offences against children is not held centrally.

  School Governors
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the new system of appointment for governors of further education colleges in Scotland; what scrutiny there is of appointments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Apart from the college principal, who is a member ex officio, members of college councils will be appointed by education authorities by 1 August 1990 after consulting such employer, trade union or other organisations as appear to them to represent interests relevant to the work of the college, and after considering any nominations by individual employers. I am sure the education authorities will scrutinise carefully candidates' suitability for appointment.

  Core Curriculum
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the guidelines issued by the Scottish Education Department about the core curriculum for pupils in S3 and S4 in Scotland from 1992 are mandatory or optional; what choice will be available to pupils outside the core curriculum; whether the proposed core curriculum will apply to private schools in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
  623
  Mr. Lang
  The current guidelines on the secondary curriculum were prepared by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum and recommended to education authorities in Scottish Education Department circular No. 7/89. Schools are expected to adopt the guidelines with such variation of detail as may be appropriate to local circumstances. The core curriculum recommended for S3 and S4 occupies about 70 per cent. of available teaching time, thus leaving some 30 per cent. for optional courses. The guidelines have been made available to the independent schools, but it is for those schools to decide what use, if any, they will make of them.

  Crofters
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will adjust the levels of grant and loans available under the crofters building grants and loan scheme in line with inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The levels of grant and loans are currently being reviewed and revised rates will be introduced in 1990–91.

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure a co-ordinated approach between health boards and social health departments in Scotland on the provision of proper community care for long-term hospital patients who are mentally ill along the lines of that adopted in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lang
  As stated in the White Paper "Caring for People", we intend to secure close co-operation between local authorities and health boards in the provision of appropriate community care services through the development of community care plans based on planning agreements. The National Health Service and Community Care Bill includes a provision placing a duty on local authorities to prepare such plans while the same result will be secured in the case of health boards by administrative means. We intend to monitor carefully the progress made in the implementation of plans through the reports which each local authority and health board will be required to provide.

  Training
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by central Government on(a) the employment training scheme and (b) YTS in Scotland in each year since the scheme's inception at constant 1988–89 prices.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 18 January 1990]The amounts spent by central Government on employment training and YTS in Scotland in each year since the inception of the schemes are set out in the tables at constant 1988–89 prices.

  (a) Employment training Spend (1988–89 prices)

  £ million

  11988–89

  25·9

  1 Half year September to March only.

  624
  Note: This figure does not include training allowances or income support costs as such information is not recorded on a regional basis.

  (b) YTS Spend (1988–89 prices)

  Year

  £ million

  1983–84

  93·5

  1984–85

  95·3

  1985–86

  90·3

  1986–87

  102·2

  1987–88

  102·2

  1988–89

  102·8

  Student Allowances
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether students of 16 years and older at the commencement of the course at a Scottish central institution who qualify for extra allowances under the SED scheme will continue to receive their allowances, following introduction of the student loan scheme; and whether they will continue to be uprated annually.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]Supplementary allowances will continue to be available to all eligible students under the student allowances scheme after the introduction of student loans in session 1990–91.

  The level of supplementary allowances for session 1991–92 and subsequent years will be considered at the appropriate time in the light of all the circumstances, including available resources.

  Health Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the review of health education has been completed; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]Touche Ross management consultants submitted their report on the review of health education in Scotland on 21 December 1989. Their conclusions are currently being considered and I expect to announce the Government's views shortly.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest details from the YTS leavers survey showing(a) the range and average wages earned, (b) the hours worked and (c) the types of jobs done by those leavers for those (i) in full-time work with the same employer, (ii) in full-time work with a different employer and (iii) in part-time work, giving the information separately for male and female and Great Britain totals.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The 100 per cent. follow-up survey of YTS leavers does not gather information about wages earned or specific number of hours worked.

  The tables show the numbers and proportion of leavers who found full-time and part-time work in each occupational group. The information is given separately for all leavers, male and female.
  625

  Type of work found for leavers in a job during the period August 1987 to July 1989

  Full-time job with same employer

  Full-time job with different employer

  Part-time job

  Occupational classification

  Total

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  TOTAL

  A. Administrative and clerical occupations

  65,344

  33,504

  51·27

  31,073

  47·55

  767

  1·17

  B. Creative, educational and recreational service occupations

  4,511

  2,298

  50·94

  1,918

  42·52

  295

  6·54

  C. Health, community and personal services occupations

  11,508

  3,887

  33·78

  5,662

  49·20

  1,959

  17·02

  C40. Hairdressing occupations

  32,253

  12,651

  39·22

  15,035

  46·62

  4,567

  14·16

  D. Selling and storage occupations

  15,975

  6,619

  41·43

  8,345

  52·24

  1,011

  6·33

  E. Scientific occupations

  1,807

  897

  49·64

  886

  49·03

  24

  1·33

  F. Catering, food preparation and processing occupations

  16,329

  4,368

  26·75

  9,247

  56·63

  2,714

  16·62

  G. Agriculture and related occupations

  6,756

  3,377

  49·99

  3,108

  46·00

  271

  4·01

  J. Transport operating occupations

  3,717

  1,718

  46·22

  1,716

  46·17

  283

  7·61

  K. Construction and civil engineering occupations

  21,136

  11,209

  53·03

  9,751

  46·13

  176

  0·83

  M/N. Engineering occupations

  21,470

  11,525

  53·68

  9,861

  45·93

  84

  0·39

  P. Motor vehicle repair and maintenance occupations

  10,304

  7,282

  70·67

  2,966

  28·78

  56

  0·54

  Q. Non-metal processing occupations

  6,581

  2,467

  37·49

  4,033

  61·28

  81

  1·23

  R. Printing occupations

  3,204

  1,574

  49·13

  1,596

  49·81

  34

  1·06

  S. Clothing and textiles manufacturing occupations

  8,821

  3,177

  36·02

  5,566

  63·10

  78

  0·88

  T. Security services occupations

  3,525

  201

  5·70

  3,290

  93·33

  34

  0·96

  Y. Other occupations

  18,071

  5,293

  29·9

  11,371

  62·92

  1,407

  7·79

  Total in a job

  246,043

  112,763

  45·83

  120,188

  48·85

  13,092

  5·32

  MALES

  A. Administrative and clerical occupations

  13,558

  7,475

  55·13

  5,971

  44·04

  112

  0·83

  B. Creative, educational and recreational service occupations

  2,303

  1,240

  53·84

  930

  40·38

  133

  5·78

  C. Health, community and personal services occupations

  1,310

  299

  22·82

  845

  64·50

  166

  12·67

  C40. Hairdressing occupations

  530

  327

  22·82

  197

  37·17

  6

  1·13

  D. Selling and storage occupations

  15,289

  6,311

  41·28

  7,981

  52·20

  997

  6·52

  E. Scientific occupations

  1,121

  589

  52·54

  522

  46·57

  10

  0·89

  F. Catering, food preparation and processing occupations

  6,974

  2,197

  31·50

  4,166

  59·74

  611

  8·76

  G. Agriculture and related occupations

  5,171

  2,683

  51·89

  2,341

  45·27

  147

  2·84

  J. Transport operating occupations

  3,199

  1,518

  47·45

  1,468

  45·89

  213

  6·66

  K. Construction and civil engineering occupations

  20,775

  11,073

  53·30

  9,537

  45·91

  165

  0·79

  M/N. Engineering occupations

  19,976

  11,185

  55·99

  8,727

  43·69

  64

  0·32

  P. Motor vehicle repair and maintenance occupations

  10,157

  7,210

  70·99

  2,897

  28·52

  50

  0·49

  Q. Non-metal processing occupations

  5,575

  2,304

  41·33

  3,233

  57·99

  38

  0·68

  R. Printing occupations

  2,395

  1,221

  50·98

  1,160

  48·43

  14

  0·58

  S. Clothing and textiles manufacturing occupations

  1,671

  535

  32·02

  1,122

  67·15

  14

  0·84

  T. Security services occupations

  3,099

  159

  5·13

  2,913

  94·00

  27

  0·87

  Y. Other occupations

  10,093

  3,429

  33·98

  6,264

  62·06

  400

  3·96

  Total in a job

  123,196

  59,755

  48·50

  60,274

  48·93

  3,167

  2·57

  FEMALES

  A. Administrative and clerical occupations

  51,786

  26,029

  50·26

  25,102

  48·47

  655

  1·26

  B. Creative, educational and recreational service occupations

  2,208

  1,058

  47·92

  988

  44·75

  162

  7·34

  C. Health, community and personal services occupations

  10,198

  3,588

  35·18

  4,817

  47·23

  1,793

  17·58

  C40. Hairdressing occupations

  10,176

  7,008

  68·87

  2,912

  28·62

  256

  2·52

  D. Selling and storage occupations

  16,964

  6,340

  37·37

  7,054

  41·58

  3,570

  21·04

  E. Scientific occupations

  686

  308

  44·90

  364

  53·06

  14

  2·04

  F. Catering, food preparation and processing occupations

  9,355

  2,171

  23·21

  5,081

  54·31

  2,103

  22·48

  G. Agriculture and related occupations

  1,585

  694

  43·79

  767

  48·39

  124

  7·82

  J. Transport operating occupations

  518

  200

  38·61

  248

  47·88

  70

  13·51

  K. Construction and civil engineering occupations

  361

  136

  37·67

  214

  59·28

  11

  3·05

  M/N. Engineering occupations

  1,494

  340

  22·76

  1,134

  75·90

  20

  1·34

  P. Motor vehicle repair and maintenance occupations

  147

  72

  48·98

  69

  46·94

  6

  4·08

  Q. Non-metal processing occupations

  1,006

  163

  16·20

  800

  79·52

  43

  4·27

  R. Printing occupations

  809

  353

  43·63

  436

  53·89

  20

  2·47

  626

  627

  Full-time job with same employer

  Full-time job with different employer

  Part-time job

  Occupational classification

  Total

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  S. Clothing and textiles manufacturing occupations

  7,150

  2,642

  36·95

  4,444

  62·15

  64

  0·90

  T. Security services occupations

  426

  42

  9·86

  377

  88·50

  7

  1·64

  Y. Other occupations

  7,978

  1,864

  23·36

  5,107

  64·01

  1,007

  12·62

  Total in a job

  122,847

  53,008

  43·15

  59,914

  48·77

  9,925

  8·08

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the latest number of(a) referrals to job clubs, (b) the number of starts with job clubs, (c) the number of job club leavers and (d) the number of job club leavers getting jobs or becoming unemployed for Great Britain and each Training Agency region for each month since May 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  From May 1989 to November 1989, 81,725 people started ith a job club. During the same period,

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Total

  Scotland

  Starts

  1,452

  1,841

  1,202

  1,586

  2,017

  1,898

  1,909

  11,905

  Total leavers

  1,810

  1,942

  1,460

  1,661

  1,968

  1,744

  1,708

  12,293

  Job entries

  1,043

  1,116

  777

  923

  1,161

  1,005

  981

  7,006

  Other positive outcomes

  225

  254

  188

  275

  316

  228

  268

  1,754

  Northern

  Starts

  743

  860

  714

  689

  1,075

  1,082

  982

  6,145

  Total leavers

  876

  995

  723

  691

  988

  842

  878

  5,993

  Job entries

  460

  496

  367

  355

  485

  434

  414

  3,011

  Other positive outcomes

  116

  140

  116

  83

  131

  110

  127

  823

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Starts

  919

  1,033

  991

  926

  1,339

  1,317

  1,305

  7,830

  Total leavers

  1,006

  1,240

  877

  915

  1,268

  1,133

  1,081

  7,520

  Job entries

  621

  712

  500

  537

  723

  692

  661

  4,446

  Other positive outcomes

  128

  188

  113

  124

  231

  157

  150

  1,091

  North West

  Starts

  1,731

  2,050

  1,588

  1,689

  2,210

  2,185

  2,400

  13,853

  Total leavers

  1,968

  2,096

  1,722

  1,705

  2,121

  1,910

  1,930

  13,452

  Job entries

  1,080

  1,185

  971

  920

  1,189

  1,049

  1,063

  7,457

  Other positive outcomes

  250

  263

  234

  247

  337

  265

  268

  1,864

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Starts

  798

  1,093

  833

  856

  1,110

  1,064

  1,204

  6,958

  Total leavers

  919

  978

  923

  816

  1,079

  959

  908

  6,582

  Job entries

  568

  610

  537

  476

  679

  590

  545

  4,005

  Other positive outcomes

  108

  160

  150

  161

  194

  161

  156

  1,090

  West Midlands

  Starts

  811

  1,028

  899

  971

  1,234

  1,317

  1,303

  7,563

  Total leavers

  961

  1,037

  862

  912

  1,239

  1,173

  1,171

  7,355

  Job entries

  495

  562

  451

  503

  627

  647

  624

  3,909

  Other positive outcomes

  164

  180

  163

  148

  217

  206

  173

  1,251

  Wales

  Starts

  510

  684

  599

  637

  758

  813

  781

  4,782

  Total leavers

  597

  780

  598

  563

  757

  661

  673

  4,629

  Job entries

  381

  397

  355

  326

  448

  394

  408

  2,709

  Other positive outcomes

  97

  86

  94

  98

  125

  82

  84

  666

  South West

  Starts

  527

  547

  451

  518

  605

  608

  727

  3,983

  Total leavers

  580

  608

  471

  460

  563

  557

  555

  3,794

  Job entries

  323

  354

  254

  266

  326

  345

  298

  2,166

  Other positive outcomes

  66

  95

  78

  70

  100

  84

  79

  572

  London and South East

  Starts

  2,075

  2,544

  2,394

  2,436

  3,062

  3,093

  3,102

  18,706

  Total leavers

  2,276

  2,617

  2,389

  2,277

  2,777

  2,615

  2,670

  17,621

  Job entries

  1,119

  1,133

  926

  1,008

  1,303

  1,277

  1,254

  8,020

  628
  there were 79,239 leavers, of whom 42,729 left to start work, a further 11,954 going on to some other positive outcome such as training, education or self-employment. Regional and monthly breakdowns are given in the table.

  Because of the very large number of potential referrals points, the employment service does not keep statistics of referrals.

  All job club members are unemployed and separate records are not kept of the number remaining out of work on ceasing to attend.
  629

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Total

  Other positive outcomes

  333

  442

  396

  374

  502

  360

  436

  2,843

  National

  Starts

  9,566

  11,680

  9,671

  10,308

  13,410

  13,377

  13,713

  81,725

  Total leavers

  10,993

  12,293

  10,025

  10,000

  12,760

  11,594

  11,574

  79,239

  Job entries

  6,090

  6,565

  5,138

  5,314

  6,941

  6,433

  6,248

  42,729

  Other positive outcomes

  1,487

  1,808

  1,532

  1,580

  2,153

  1,653

  1,741

  11,954

  Unofficial Strikes
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many unofficial strikes took place in the coal industry in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (2)how many unofficial strikes took place in the construction industry in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (3)how many unofficial strikes took place in the docks industry in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (4)how many unofficial strikes took place in the motor manufacturing industry in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (5)how many unofficial strikes took place in the Post Office in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (6)how many unofficial strikes took place in the shipbuilding industry in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (7)how many unofficial strikes took place on the railways in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (8) what was the total number of days lost through unofficial strikes in the construction industry in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (9) what was the total number of days lost through unofficial strikes in the Post Office in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  Stoppages of work and working days lost in unofficial industrial disputes where a categorisation is possible

  1987

  1988

  19891

  Industry SIC 1980 (Class)

  Stoppages in progress

  Working days lost

  Stoppages in progress

  Working days lost

  Stoppages in progress

  Working days lost

  Coal (11)

  291

  198,000

  141

  81,000

  138

  49,000

  Construction (50)

  8

  11,000

  6

  3,000

  17

  61,000

  Motor vehicles (35)

  80

  65,000

  39

  30,000

  42

  86,000

  Railways (71)

  7

  1,000

  2

  less than 500

  —

  —

  Supporting and miscellaneous transport services2 (76, 77)

  5

  5,000

  7

  8,000

  6

  6,000

  Other transport equipment3 (36)

  9

  20,000

  17

  29,000

  8

  17,000

  Other transport and communication4 (75, 79)

  91

  55,000

  61

  1,100,000

  23

  10,000

  1 Data are for the period January to November 1989 and are provisional.

  2 Data for the docks industry are included with the Supporting and miscellaneous transport services.

  3 Data for the shipbuilding industry are included with the Other transport equipment sector.

  4 Data for the Post Office are included with the Other transport and communication sector.

  Restart
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of unemployed claimants called for Restart interviews have(a) stopped claiming benefit and (b) obtained regular full-time work, for the most recent convenient period.

  Mr. Eggar
  The aim of the Restart programme is to make contact with longer-term unemployed people and provide information and advice about opportunities to help them back to work. We do not collect information on how many people stop claiming benefit or obtain regular full-time employment as a result of being called for a Restart interview.
  630
  (10) what was the total number of days lost through unofficial strikes in the coal industry in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (11) what was the total number of days lost through unofficial strikes on the railways in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (12) what was the total number of days lost through unofficial strikes in the motor manufacturing industry in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (13) what was the total number of days lost through unofficial strikes in the docks industry in 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (14) what was the total number of days lost through unofficial strikes in the shipbuilding industry in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Data on stoppages of work and working days lost in unofficial disputes, where it is possible to make this distinction, are given in table 1. The statistics requested for years prior to 1987 are not available. Statistics for the docks and shipbuilding industries are not available except at disproportionate cost. Statistics on disputes solely in the Post Office are confidential. Where data are not available for a specific industry, the statistics for the broad industry classification into which they fall are given.

  Burns Day
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to make Burns day a United Kingdom public holiday annually on 25 January.

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

  Local Offices
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will establish an integrated jobcentre and unemployment benefit office in Thornaby, Cleveland.
  631
  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service is working progressively to bring jobcentres and benefit offices together under one roof. This will provide a new and improved one-stop service.

  I will ensure that the hon. Member is informed as soon as a decision about the future of the office at Thornaby has been taken.

  Private Mines
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many private mines registers are kept of the names and numbers of employees working underground; and if there have been(a) any warnings issued by Her Majesty's inspectors and (b) any prosecutions initiated in respect of the requirement to keep such registers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All coal mines are required to keep registers of the numbers of persons going below ground and these are inspected as a matter of routine by the Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectors.

  There have been no warnings issued or prosecutions initiated in respect of failure to comply with this requirement in the past five years.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department will set up bursaries for young people aged between 16 and 19 years to pursue vocational training with companies located in western Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Opportunities for young people to spend part of their initial vocational training in other European countries already exists within YTS and European Community programmes for young people, including in particular the young workers exchange programme and Petra. I am keeping the need for further initiatives under review.

  Mines Inspectorate
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what records are kept by the mines inspectorate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The mines inspectorate keeps records under the following general subject headings:

  Accidents

  Whether fatal or major, date, time, description of injury and details of dangerous occurences.

  Premise

  Address, premise type, names of officials, reports of inspections at premises.

  Registers

  Complaints received, exemptions issued, equipment approvals issued.

  Prosecutions

  Date case heard, number of charges laid, result, fines imposed.

  Notices

  Number of Improvement and Prohibition notices issued and to whom.

  Circulars

  Internal instructions and information circulars issued; publications circulated.

  Abandoned mine plans

  Number of Ordnance survey sheets, relevant county, renovation status.

  In addition, administrative records are kept as appropriate.

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

  Mr. Eggar
  All the expenditure on Action for Jobs television advertising in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 was spent through the Central Office of Information.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Audiology
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the waiting list in audiology in Northern Ireland for(a) hearing tests and (b) fitting of hearing aids for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  Figures for audiology are not identified separately in waiting list data. In most cases a patient can expect to be assessed and, where appropriate, fitted with a hearing aid within three months of the first contact with his GP.

  Beef
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the profitability of the beef industry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Ulster Farmers Union has made representations to me about profit levels in the beef industry in Northern Ireland and I have had informative and useful discussions with UFU leaders on the matter.

  Flooding
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on measures to reduce flooding.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department of Agriculture (NI) is empowered by the Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 to carry out drainage works on watercourses or works on sea defences where these have been designated by the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland and where, in the Department's opinion, works are expedient for the drainage of land. Decisions are informed by financial appraisal methods in use thoughout the United Kingdom.

  The Department's powers under this order are permissive and are directed towards a better drainage of land. The order protects the Department inter alia from liability for any damage which may happen to other land or property through or by the accidental overflowing of a watercourse.

  A high standard of flood protection is set in scheme proposals for urban areas, but the Department does not claim to prevent flooding in all circumstances.

  Total annual expenditure on drainage works in each of the next three financial years is estimated at £19 million.

  Bank Robbery, Athy
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he will call on the Government of the Irish
  633
  Republic for an immediate report on the circumstances of the killing of a bank robber by armed police at Athy in the Irish Republic on Friday 12 January; if he will seek a judicial inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  This is not a matter which we consider appropriate to raise under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the following employers in Northern Ireland were requested, prior to the nominated date of 15 January, to register with the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland in accordance with the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989:(a) Xtra-vision Ltd, (b) The Bank of Ireland, (c) Irish Lights,
  (d) The Irish League of Credit Unions, (e) Irish National Foresters, (f) The Irish National Teachers Organisation, (g) The Irish Tourist Board, (h) Irish Life Assurance Co. Ltd, (i) Irish Transport and General Workers Union, (j) Irish Bonding Co. Ltd, (k) Bass Ireland Ltd and (l) Aer Lingus.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 January 1990]: Under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989 employers, with the exception of certain specified public sector employers, whose concerns satisfy the conditions for registration are obliged to apply for registration to the Fair Employment Commission within one month from 6 January 1990 or, if subsequently, from the time they first satisfy the condition for registration.

  To assist registration the commission has issued application forms in advance to employers believed to have more than 25 employees, but it is under no obligation to do so and the duty to apply for registration rests firmly with employers.

  The commission will not make public details of individual employers whom it has invited to register. Once initial registrations are made, however, the commission will keep a register, open to public inspection, of trades, businesses and other activities in which people are employed.

  Protected Routes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many protected routes are maintained by the Department of Environment roads service in each district council area in Northern Ireland.

  Brucellosis: reactor animals and herd breakdowns: 1980–89

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Division

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  Armagh

  14

  8

  12

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  2

  Dungannon

  18

  8

  10

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enniskillen

  65

  21

  57

  13

  4

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Newry

  21

  9

  1

  1

  7

  1

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newtownards

  29

  9

  9

  2

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Region

  147

  55

  69

  24

  15

  3

  6

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  5

  Ballymena

  37

  6

  17

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  2

  Coleraine

  5

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  9

  1

  Larne

  38

  11

  10

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Londonderry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Omagh

  56

  20

  23

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1

  North Region

  136

  39

  53

  12

  3

  3

  3

  3

  1

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  3

  16

  5

  634
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]The Department of the Environment roads service maintains a total of 43 protected routes in Northern Ireland. It should be noted that some of these routes are common to more than one district council area.

  District council area

  Number of protected routes1

  1. Antrim

  6

  2. Ards

  6

  3. Armagh

  4

  4. Ballymena

  4

  5. Ballymoney

  3

  6. Banbridge

  3

  7. Belfast

  7

  8. Carrickfergus

  2

  9. Castlereagh

  5

  10. Coleraine

  5

  11. Cookstown

  3

  12. Craigavon

  6

  13. Derry

  4

  14. Down

  5

  15. Dungannon

  3

  16. Fermanagh

  3

  17. Larne

  4

  18. Limavady

  4

  19. Lisburn

  8

  20. Magherafelt

  4

  21. Moyle

  2

  22. Newry and Mourne

  6

  23. Newtownabbey

  5

  24. North Down

  6

  25. Omagh

  3

  26. Strabane

  1

  1 A protected route is one on which the creation of new accesses and the intensification of use of existing accesses is curtailed as far as is practical in order to preserve a high level of service for the main road users and in the interests of road safety.

  Cattle Diseases
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidences of(a) bovine tuberculosis and (b) brucellosis have been recorded in each year since 1980; how many herds were affected; and if he will give details for each Department of Agriculture sub-office.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: Cattle and herd breakdowns for each divisional veterinary office area in respect of tuberculosis and brucellosis from 1980 to 1989 are given in the following tables:
  635

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Division

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  Total

  283

  94

  122

  36

  18

  6

  9

  6

  3

  3

  5

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  3

  35

  18

  Tuberculosis: reactor animals and herd breakdowns: 1980–89

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Division

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  A

  H

  Armagh

  166

  70

  130

  42

  140

  58

  96

  49

  148

  55

  176

  58

  114

  43

  52

  33

  118

  57

  317

  100

  Dungannon

  168

  43

  209

  60

  106

  39

  106

  57

  165

  82

  178

  63

  75

  49

  69

  47

  83

  57

  103

  67

  Enniskillen

  161

  67

  150

  65

  154

  83

  138

  74

  153

  74

  123

  59

  152

  65

  190

  72

  148

  71

  146

  80

  Newry

  127

  48

  151

  68

  79

  42

  108

  60

  114

  65

  165

  74

  125

  72

  266

  80

  622

  183

  1,114

  361

  Newtownards

  222

  77

  185

  72

  248

  89

  288

  113

  322

  121

  257

  120

  197

  100

  171

  77

  261

  98

  210

  108

  South Region

  844

  305

  825

  307

  727

  311

  736

  353

  902

  397

  899

  374

  663

  329

  748

  309

  1,232

  466

  1,890

  716

  Ballymena

  186

  52

  204

  62

  165

  59

  175

  59

  77

  31

  218

  74

  84

  38

  51

  32

  49

  24

  107

  45

  Coleraine

  285

  106

  99

  52

  167

  72

  468

  131

  157

  70

  125

  71

  70

  46

  43

  18

  50

  35

  65

  51

  Larne

  255

  68

  292

  89

  326

  111

  271

  96

  341

  106

  204

  85

  167

  81

  162

  66

  84

  35

  304

  90

  Londonderry

  109

  36

  78

  27

  24

  13

  39

  11

  7

  7

  10

  12

  33

  21

  26

  14

  33

  14

  28

  20

  Omagh

  102

  36

  144

  43

  90

  38

  113

  60

  21

  19

  51

  31

  23

  16

  13

  14

  22

  19

  107

  38

  North Region

  937

  298

  817

  273

  772

  299

  1,066

  357

  603

  233

  608

  273

  377

  202

  295

  144

  238

  127

  611

  244

  Total

  1,781

  603

  1,642

  580

  1,499

  604

  1,802

  710

  1,505

  630

  1,507

  647

  1,040

  531

  1,043

  453

  1,470

  593

  2,501

  960

  Source: Animal health veterinary statistics [Tables T3A and T5]

  A = Animals

  H = Herds

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount of compensation paid by the Department of Agriculture in respect of(a) bovine tuberculosis and (b) brucellosis in each year since 1980; and if he will give details for areas dealt with by each departmental sub-office.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: The available information, giving total expenditure, is shown in the table. This information cannot be broken down by divisional veterinary office area. Net expenditure is given in brackets, that is, compensation paid less moneys released for carcases.

  Tuberculosis £

  Brucellosis £

  1980–81

  718,930

  (389,073)

  974,073

  (491,441)

  1981–82

  614,265

  (311,175)

  498,631

  (225,885)

  1982–83

  750,006

  (382,910)

  10,559

  (8,558)

  1983–84

  766,585

  (398,514)

  8,590

  (8,182)

  1984–85

  784,758

  (465,382)

  6,781

  (6,781)

  1985–86

  740,547

  (455,853)

  8,015

  (7,573)

  1986–87

  522,211

  (319,791)

  7,240

  (7,240)

  1987–88

  717,363

  (447,376)

  8,071

  (7,903)

  1988–89

  1,076,662

  (646,931)

  7,377

  (6,612)

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the qualifications of the two members of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland whom he has appointed; and what criteria he applied for these appointments.

  Mr. Cope
  Both members appointed to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission meet the criteria that they should have relevant intellectual qualities, appropriate experience and/or professional qualifications, a commitment to public service and the ability to make independent and non-partisan judgments. Following 636
  normal practice, the views of the main political parties in Northern Ireland were sought before the appointments were made.

ENERGY

  Energy and Environment Research Unit
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he or any of his Ministers have any present plans to meet the director and staff of the energy and environment research unit at the Open university.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many representations he has received calling for the Sizewell B project to be halted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government attach the highest importance to the completion of Sizewell B by Nuclear Electric. The station will maintain the PWR technology as an option for the future.

  Colliery Sites (Environmental and Safety Work)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much money has been spent by British Coal in each of the last five years on environmental and safety work at former colliery sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Greenhouse Effect (Report)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to obtain the report by Dr. Michael Grubb, published by the Royal Institute for International Affairs on 4 December, entitled "The Greenhouse Effect: Negotiating Targets."

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A copy of this report is already held in the Department of Energy library.

  Private Mines
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number of private mines which had(a) up to nine, (b) 10 to 15, (c) 16 to 20, (d) 21 to 25, (e) 26 to 30 and (f) over 30 persons working underground in 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department does not have this information. The British Coal corporation is the licensing authority and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  CEGB Statistical Yearbook
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report 1988–89 equivalents to tables 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Central Electricity Generating Board statistical yearbook for 1987–88.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department was consulted about the omission from the 1988–89 Central Electricity Generating Board statistical yearbook, annexed to its annual report, of up-to-date information replacing that given in tables 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the 1987–88 yearbook.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department was not asked for its views on the omission.

  Electricity Meters
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy who will pay for the examining and testing of electricity meters under schedule 7 to the Electricity Act 1989.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is intended that the costs of examining, testing and certifying meters under schedule 7, paragraph 5(4)(b) to the Electricity Act 1989 will be paid by the person submitting the meters.

  It is intended that the costs of examining and testing meters under schedule 7, paragraph 7(3) to the Electricity Act 1989, will normally be paid by the electricity supplier concerned. Where persons other than an electricity supplier have required a meter examiner to carry out the duties given under schedule 7, paragraph 7, they may be asked to make a contribution towards these fees.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the basis of his Department's calculations that the cost of energy produced by nuclear power exceeds the cost of that generated by fossil fuels.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department's assessments of likely nuclear and fossil-generating costs are based on information supplied by the CEGB.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Oilseed and Cereal Substitutes
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to resist EEC proposals to levy new taxes on oilseed imports and imports of cereal substitutes.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government continue to press the case against unilateral increased import protection for oilseeds and cereal substitutes.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has concerning the geographical distribution of scrapie in sheep;

  (2) what information he has concerning the susceptibility of different breeds of sheep to scrapie;

  (3) whether he has any evidence to demonstrate any recent increase or decrease in the incidence of scrapie.

  Mr. Maclean
  Scrapie is not a notifiable disease and I therefore have no reliable information about its incidence, distribution or breed susceptibility.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the vertical transmissibility of scrapie in sheep.

  Mr. Maclean
  Detection of the scrapie agent in placenta and epidemiological studies of the natural disease in sheep have demonstrated that scrapie is transmissible from dam to offspring via the placenta.

  Coastal Land Erosion
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many local authorities in England have applied for central Government financial assistance to alleviate the threat of coastal land erosion between 1979 and 1989; and how much money has been granted per annum to such schemes.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since my Department became responsible for the administration of grant under the Coast Protection Act 1949 in 1985, a total of 55 local authorities have submitted proposals for approval and grant aid for schemes to protect against coastal erosion. We have no similar information for earlier years. Grant payments over the period from 1979 to 1989 have been as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  5·7

  1980–81

  7·1

  1981–82

  8·3

  1982–83

  11·5

  1983–84

  11·5

  1984–85

  9·1

  1985–86

  7·8

  1986–87

  14·0

  1987–88

  9·8

  1988–89

  12·8

  Cattle (Import Restrictions)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those countries currently imposing import restrictions on live cattle or
  639
  cattle products originating from the United Kingdom, indicating in respect of each country the nature of the restrictions.

  Mr. Maclean
  It would be impracticable to publish in the Official Report the large number of health conditions imposed by importing countries on live cattle or cattle products originating from the United Kingdom. Import conditions reflect the requirements of Community rules, where they exist and, in other cases, the rules of the countries of destination.

  For live cattle these may include confirmation, as appropriate, of country/area/holding/animal freedom from specific diseases and possibly pre-export isolation and/or testing. In the case of cattle products, import rules may require that the products in question originate from healthy animals and have been produced or processed in a way that safeguards public and/or animal health. Importing countries generally require that live cattle or cattle products be accompanied by an export health certificate signed by an official veterinarian to confirm that the necessary conditions have been met.

  Rabies
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the threat of rabies reaching the United Kingdom through infected bats; and what measures can be taken to prevent it.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no evidence of natural transmission to terrestrial mammals of the rabies-related virus found in some species of insectivorous bat on the continent. Therefore, while it is possible that an infected bat could be blown across the Channel on strong winds, the threat is extremely small. Some 600 bat carcases, submitted by bat groups and other organisations since 1987, have been examined with negative results. Imported bats are subject to six months quarantine or, in the case of vampire bats, life. If necessary powers would be taken to deal with any bat colony which might prove infected.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the future level of hill livestock compensatory allowance;

  (2) if it is his intention to offset the shortfall in the FEOGA contribution towards the hill livestock compensatory allowance in 1991; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received on the future levels of hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) when he expects to make an announcement on the hill livestock compensatory allowances;

  (5) when his Department last reviewed the level of hill livestock compensatory allowance.

  Mr. Curry
  A statement on the outcome of the annual review of the economic conditions in the United Kingdom's hill and upland areas, including details of the arrangements for hill livestock compensatory allowances, will be made as soon as possible.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total expenditure in each year since 1986 on hill livestock compensatory allowances.
  640
  Mr. Curry
  The total payments in the United Kingdom on hill livestock compensatory allowances in each year since 1986 were as follows:

  £ million

  1986

  111

  1987

  113

  1988

  117

  1989

  1118

  1 Provisional.

  Slaughterhouse Regulations
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions initiated by(a) his Department and (b) local authorities resulted in convictions for breaches of the slaughterhouse regulations in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Enforcement of slaughterhouse hygiene legislation is the responsibility of local authorities (district councils). No records of enforcement actions are collected centrally.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce an immediate scheme of slaughterhouse inspections by the state veterinary service without prior notification to the abattoir proprietors.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Local authorities (district councils) are responsible for the enforcement of hygiene and welfare standards in slaughterhouses. Officers of the state veterinary service make periodic visits to all plants to give advice. It is usual, and more effective, for arrangements for these visits to be made with the local authority and the management of the plant concerned. Exceptionally, unannounced visits are made in response to reports of problems at a plant.

  Birds (Importation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he is making in the quarantine regulations and practice in relation to the importation of rain-forest birds and parrots.

  Mr. Maclean
  The examination by my officials of quarantine conditions for captive birds imported into this country, referred to in the reply given to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 20 December 1989,Official Report, column 350, continues and I am therefore not yet able to say what changes may be made.

  Farmers (Borrowing)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the total amount borrowed by farmers in the United Kingdom in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the total amount borrowed by farmers in the United Kingdom is not available. However, figures for the total liabilities of United Kingdom agriculture which include borrowings by agricultural landlords as well as by farmers but exclude borrowing for private purposes are as follows:
  641

  1£ million

  1983

  7,300

  1984

  7,650

  1985

  8,250

  1986

  8,350

  1987

  8,550

  1988

  9,250

  1 At 31 December.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to alleviate the effects of high interest rates on small and medium-sized farms.

  Mr. Maclean
  Policy on interest rates is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has made plain the Government's belief that even those small businesses that are dependent on bank borrowing and are adversely affected in the short term by higher interest rates would be damaged far more by the resurgence of inflation that would otherwise occur.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current level of green pound exchange rates; and what action he intends to take to obtain a devaluation of the green pound.

  Mr. Curry
  The current level of our real monetary gaps, which represent the difference between green and market exchange rates, range from -9·567 per cent. for pigs to -17·990 per cent. for sheep. The Commission has proposed green pound devaluations as part of the 1990 price review, and these are currently under discussion in the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to devalue the green pound.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission has made proposals for green pound devaluations as part of the 1990 price proposals and these are currently under discussion in the Council of Ministers.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the results of appeals submitted to the European Commission for the designation of less-favoured area status for land in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  As soon as we have a decision from the European Commission.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will detail the total assistance given to the United Kingdom fishing industry in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 January]: The information requested is contained in the relevant chapter
  642
  of the Government's expenditure plans for the years in question. Copies are available in the Library of the House. The plans show the direct expenditure on grant aid for the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels, harbour grants, decommissioning of fishing vessels, EC grant aid and expenditure on market support. There has also been substantial expenditure on research and other scientific work and on fishery protection. In 1989–90 the United Kingdom fisheries departments expect to spend £15·1 million on sea fisheries research and scientific investigation and £18·7 million on fisheries protection, including aerial surveillance.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the number of prosecutions in each European Community country in the latest year for which figures are available for(a) fishing with incorrectly sized nets and (b) overfishing.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 January]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, the following tables show infringements of EC fisheries legislation which member states have reported to the Commission under regulation 3561/85 as having been brought before the relevant national courts:

  Fishing with illegal gear

  1988

  Belgium

  6

  Denmark

  11

  West Germany

  4

  France

  174

  Ireland

  4

  Netherlands

  25

  Portugal

  3

  United Kingdom

  38

  Spain

  —

  Illegal catch (resulting from direct fishery or by catch)

  1988

  Belgium

  —

  Denmark

  77

  West Germany

  —

  France

  12

  Ireland

  10

  Netherlands

  121

  Portugal

  —

  United Kingdom

  13

  Spain

  —

  It is not possible to draw conclusions from these figures which relate to information reported to the Commission rather than any comparable basis of actual infringement.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the national fixed percentage share of fish stocks for each European Community country in(a) 1983, (b) 1986, (c) 1989 and (d)

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 January]: Member states' fixed percentage shares of relevant total allowable catches were agreed as part of the common fisheries policy settlement in 1983. These fixed percentages have not changed since then, apart from minor adjustments to accommodate the accession of Spain and Portugal and the

  643
  recognition of Hague preference in 1989 and 1990. The percentage shares are reflected in the quotas allocated to each member state under each of the 102 TACS which the Community sets each year. The quota figures for 1988, Council regulation 3977/87 (Official Journal 31.12.57 No. L 375), reflect the percentage allocations without any adjustment for Hague preference.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of the Tyrell committee's report, he will now introduce random testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy in all cattle slaughtered for human consumption.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The Tyrell committee considered such testing to be of low priority.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any evidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy being caused other than by ingestion of scrapie-infected foodstuff.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no evidence to suggest that BSE infection under field conditions has been caused by any means other than by the ingestion of feedstuffs containing a scrapie-like agent. However, research is in hand on the experimental transmission of BSE by inoculation and orally and to determine whether maternal transmission occurs.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has asked the Tyrell committee to continue its role of review and co-ordination of work into bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement on the future of the committee.

  Mr. Maclean
  The establishment of a small group to provide advice on BSE and the other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies is currently being considered. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has reviewed the regulations governing and procedures involved in the rendering of animal waste since the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and whether he proposes to modify either.

  Departments and agencies occupying accommodation at Brook lands avenue, Cambridge

  Department/Agency

  Staff in post at 1 January 1990

  Space (square feet)

  Accommodation charge2 £

  Property Services Agency1

  365

  80,517

  657,018

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  302

  91,643

  747,803

  Her Majesty's Inland Revenue

  244

  43,397

  354,121

  Ministry of Defence Land Agents

  36

  6,709

  54,747

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  32

  6,735

  54,958

  The Crown Suppliers

  15

  3,139

  25,612

  English Heritage

  13

  1,871

  15,266

  Department of Transport

  4

  922

  7,527

  Department of Employment

  4

  2,489

  20,307

  Department of Energy

  3

  687

  5,604

  Ordnance Survey

  3

  1,061

  8,660

  Soil Science Survey

  3

  790

  6,447

  Department of Health

  2

  1,338

  10,918

  Rural Development Commission

  2

  1,883

  15,362

  Department of Social Security

  1

  3,611

  29,468

  Lord Chancellor's Department (storage only)

  —

  1,076

  8,783

  TOTAL

  1,029

  247,868

  2,022,601

  644
  Mr. Maclean
  Feeding ruminant-derived protein to ruminant animals has been prohibited since 18 July 1988. The time and temperature combinations necessary to inactivate the BSE agent with certainty have not yet been identified. It would therefore be inappropriate at this stage to consider modifying the existing regulations controlling rendering practices.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 29 November 1989,Official Report, column 307, if he will give the number of cases of cows having been certified as contracting bovine spongiform encephalopathy in 1989 up to the end of December.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: In 1989, 6,853 cases of BSE were confirmed in Great Britain.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who receives compensation if a bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected animal is found in(a) a livestock market or (b) a slaughterhouse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 18 January Official Report, column 409.

ENVIRONMENT

  Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the Government Departments and agencies occupying accommodation at the Brooklands avenue site in Cambridge with effect from 1 January, indicating the number of civil servants engaged in each, the area of space occupied by each such Department or agency, the approximate cost per square foot of this accommodation, broken down by Department or agency, and the overheads attributable to each.

  Mr. Chope
  Following is the information requested.
  645
  1 Includes 2,705 square feet vacant accommodation charged to PSA.

  2 Comprises notional rent at £5·46 per square foot, maintenance at £1·60 per square foot and rates (contribution in lieu) at £1·10 per square foot. The annual cost of fuel and utilities for all Departments and Agencies is estimated at £150,000.

  Revaluation
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the total post-revaluation rateable values by standard region and by class of property.

  1990 rateable values by broad property type

  (£ million)

  Factories

  Offices

  Warehouses

  Shops

  Other properties

  Northern

  220·9

  69·5

  59·4

  268·2

  493·8

  North West

  503·6

  259·0

  233·7

  629·2

  839·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  412·3

  158·3

  178·4

  484·0

  714·7

  East Midlands

  390·4

  103·9

  177·2

  377·4

  555·8

  West Midlands

  475·3

  183·6

  223·0

  499·3

  662·7

  East Anglia

  208·8

  108·5

  115·3

  249·4

  296·3

  South West

  355·4

  250·0

  209·1

  612·6

  637·3

  Greater London

  671·8

  4,496·6

  625·3

  2,160·9

  1,986·5

  Rest of South East

  1,090·0

  1,154·2

  758·1

  1,516·7

  1,825·2

  Rates
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) by what percentage the rate imposed by Bassetlaw district council increased in each year from 1980 to date;

  (2) by what percentage the rate imposed by Newark and Sherwood district council increased in each year from 1980 to date;

  (3) by what percentage the rate imposed by Nottinghamshire county council increased in each year from 1980 to date.

  Mr. Chope
  The percentage changes over the previous years are as follows:

  Bassetlaw DC Local Rate

  Newark and Sherwood DC Local Rate

  Nottinghamshire CC Precept

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1980–81

  +88·5

  +46·3

  +12·7

  1981–82

  +176·8

  +67·7

  +29·0

  1982–83

  -25·5

  +16·9

  +27·5

  1983–84

  -0·2

  +0·7

  +9·7

  1984–85

  -0·1

  +25·1

  +12·5

  1985–86

  +23·0

  +17·2

  +8·5

  1986–87

  +12·3

  +6·0

  +17·7

  1987–88

  +9·8

  +0·9

  +7·8

  1988–89

  +9·0

  +22·5

  +7·2

  1989–90

  +7·4

  +7·9

  +3·6

  Local rate is the rate charged by the district council including the average parish rate; precept is the rate levied by the county council.

  Land and Sea Environment
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the reports on land and sea environment commissioned by his Department over the past five years; and whether they were published.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department includes a list of DOE-published pollution papers and reports in the digests of environmental protection and water statistics. This list is complemented by the list of published research reports given in the DOE biennal R and D reports. Both publications include reports on land and marine pollution and copies of both are held in the Library of the House.
  646
  Mr. Chope
  The total non-domestic rateable values shown on the lists deposited with local authorities on 20 December by region and broad property type are shown in the table:

  "Sustaining our Common Future"
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of the document "Sustaining our Common Future", produced by his Department have been printed; and what attempts have been made to give the report a wide circulation.

  Mr. Trippier
  A total of 10,000 copies have been printed of "Sustaining our Common Future", my Department's report on the substantial progress made by the United Kingdom in following up the recommendations of the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. The report has been very well received and copies have been sent to, among others, hon. Members, other Government Departments, non-governmental organisations, local authorities and business organisations, as well as overseas Governments and participants in a number of international conferences.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the rate support grant as a percentage of local authority expenditure in(a) 1979–80 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Chope
  Rate support grant as a percentage of local authority relevant expenditure in England was 49·3 per cent. in 1979–80 and 31·2 per cent. in 1988–89.

  Thames Path
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the establishment of a Thames path; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment approved proposals for the establishment of a Thames path on 29 September 1989 and responsibility for its implementation now rests with the Countryside Commission and the relevant local authorities.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere now; at what rate carbon dioxide becomes absorbed by plants and plankton; at what rate carbon dioxide is being discharged into the atmosphere; what is his estimate of the amount of carbon dioxide permitted in the atmosphere before an increase in global temperature occurs; when the atmosphere will be saturated by carbon dioxide; and what will be the overall effect.

  Mr. Trippier
  The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is currently about 350 parts per million by volume. Land and ocean-based plants are estimated to absorb some 800,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, which is approximately balanced by the natural annual discharges. Man-made emissions to atmosphere are estimated to be between 18,000 and 25,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. Any increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would be expected to lead to some global warming. The scale of the effect is currently under review by the UNEP/WMO intergovernmental panel on climate change. The measured rise of about 0·5 deg. C in average global temperature in the past 130 years is consistent with model predictions of the increase to be expected as concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have risen from pre-industrial values. No projections of future man-made emissions lead to saturation of the atmosphere by carbon dioxide.

  Green Telephone Line
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to establish a green telephone line in Britain.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what gases, other than carbon dioxide, are thought to contribute to the greenhouse effect; what is their percentage currently in the atmosphere; and which sources, man-made and natural, are the main causes for emissions of these gases.

  Mr. Trippier
  Greenhouse gases, excluding carbon dioxide, their current (1988) average atmospheric concentration and the main sources believed to be responsible for their emissions are set out in the booklet "Global Climate Change"; copies of which may be found in the House Library.

  Outdoor Leisure Maps
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Ordnance Survey to publish a revised outdoor leisure map of the Conwy valley based on the second series maps; whether the map will be printed back to back with the Snowdon sheet; and what plans there are for new outdoor leisure maps.

  Mr. Trippier
  Ordnance Survey plans to publish a new edition of the outdoor leisure map of Conwy valley to second series specification during 1992. The map will be printed back to back with the Snowdon outdoor leisure sheet.
  648
  Ordnance Survey is continually reviewing its range of maps and services to ensure that the needs of the market are met within the resources available and that the required return on investment is achieved. The outdoor leisure map series is no exception to this and any change in outdoor leisure map coverage will be dictated by these marketing principles.

  Climate Change
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the membership of the inter-governmental panel on climate change.

  Mr. Trippier
  The IPCC has no formal membership. Its meetings are open to member states of the United Nations, and are also attended by representatives of nongovernmental, national and international environmental and energy organisations.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to increase the sums available for the countryside premium on set-aside land, in terms of(a) the amount available for the scheme as a whole and (b) the premium payable per hectare.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been delighted by the response to the countryside premium in its first year; the Countryside Commission has drawn up agreements with farmers covering over 3,500 hectares of set-aside land, which will be managed to provide benefits for both landscape and wildlife and new areas of countryside for the public to enjoy. We need, however, to gain more experience of the operation of the scheme before taking decisions on any major changes to it.

  Greenhouse Effect (Conference)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what papers were presented by his Department to the Royal National Institute for International Affairs conference on the greenhouse effect at Chatham house on 4 and 5 December.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend gave a paper to the Chatham house conference on 5 December on the subject of energy and the environment.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in tabular form the number of sites of special scientific interest which have been(a) irreversibly damaged and (b) damaged but reversible by (i) agriculture and forestry, (ii) activities for which planning consent was obtained and (iii) other courses, together with their proportion of total designated sites for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  Full information on the numbers of SSSIs damaged since 1 April 1984, and the numbers of SSSIs (re-)notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, is set out in the NCC's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers the Nature Conservancy
  649
  Council has to negotiate financial management agreements with owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest for the carrying out of operations or activities for the purposes of maintaining, enhancing or restoring the nature conservation interest of such sites; and how many such agreements were made in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Trippier
  Full information on the number of management agreements reached by the NCC under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 is set out in the NCC's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Toxic Chemicals
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will institute an immediate inquiry into how three vanloads of toxic chemicals, including cyanide compounds and phosphoric acid, came to be dumped in the Bowesfield lane area of Stockton-on-Tees on 18 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  An inquiry is not required. This is a matter for Cleveland county council as the waste disposal authority for the area. I understand that it has taken prompt and appropriate action to take control of all the material involved and will be considering the need for further action under its powers in the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Ethanol
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for the most recent year for which figures are available the volume of natural gas used in the production of ethanol.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is not centrally collected.

  Transferable Discount Schemes
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local housing authorities which are operating approved transferable discount schemes under section 129 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  The following 43 local authorities are currently operating approved cash incentive schemes:

  London Borough Councils

  Brent

  Haringey

  Bromley

  Harrow

  Croydon

  Havering

  Ealing

  Wandsworth

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Westminster

  District Councils

  Adur

  Rushmoor

  Arun

  Shepway

  Aylesbury Vale

  Slough

  Carrick

  South Bucks

  Colchester

  South Kesteven

  Gillingham

  Spelthorne

  Gravesham

  St. Albans

  Harlow

  Swale

  Hart

  Tandridge

  Kennet

  Taunton Deane

  Luton

  Teignbridge

  Mendip

  Test Valley

  New Forest

  Tunbridge Wells

  North Cornwall

  Watford

  Poole

  Wealden

  Rochester

  Wrekin

  Rochford

  650
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to require all local housing authorities to operate approved schemes under section 129 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  None. Cash incentive schemes, under which existing local authority tenants are assisted to move into homes of their own and so release vacancies for reletting, cam make a valuable contribution to housing the homeless, but it is for each authority to consider whether to seek approval for a scheme for its area.

  Refuse Tips
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned and proposes to commission on the best practice for management and after-use of large controlled household refuse tips.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: Research into landfill practices was initiated in the early 1970s. The first major publication of results of the work was the so-called "Brown Book", the co-operative programme of research into the behaviour of wastes in landfill sites, published in 1978.

  Many of the results of the research are embodied in recent waste management papers, specifically No. 26 on "Landfilling Wastes" (1986), No. 4 on "Licensing of Waste Facilities" (1988) and No. 27 on "The Control of Landfill Gas" (1989). These papers provide technical guidance to the waste management industry.

  Currently my Department is funding a programme of research, costing over £1 million annually, into landfill practices. Topics covered include microbiology of landfill gas and leachate generation; mechanisms of gas and leachate migration and attenuation; leachate management; modelling, risk assessment and landfill monitoring and landfill reinstatement.

  My Department has arranged a conference on 1 March to present recent research results.

  Lancashire County Council
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total revenue expenditure for Lancashire county council in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his Department's estimated population for Lancashire and the amount spent by Lancashire county council per head of population, in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the total rate support grant paid or to be paid, plus any other individual grants, to Lancashire county council in 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 January 1990]: The information is as follows:

  1989–90 £ million

  Rate Support Grant

  321·0

  Specific and Supplementary Grants

  79·3

  Net Revenue Expenditure1

  783·3

  Total population (June 1988)2

  1·382

  Net Revenue Expenditure per head

  567·0

  1 Rate Fund Revenue Account net current spending on services, plus net loan charges, contributions to/from other funds and accounts and

  651
  net non relevant expenditure (such as net spending on Housing Benefits).

  2 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys latest estimate of total population. The aggregate of the estimated relevant populations for the districts of Lancashire used in the exemplifications placed in the Library of the House on 11 January 1990 is 1·048 million.

  Rent Rises (South Hams)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report the basis of his Department's calculation that rent rises in council house property would be 95p per week as far as the housing stock in the South Hams is concerned.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: We have, for guideline purposes, assumed an increase in national rent income of 10 per cent. (£444 million). We intend to attribute this increase to councils in proportion to the value of their housing stocks, subject to adjustments to reflect existing rents and to keep guideline increases within a range from 95p to £4·50 a week. On the basis of past sales, we estimate that the value of South Hams' housing stock accounts for 0·088 per cent. of the total value of the national council housing stock. A guideline rent, calculated as a proportion of the national total without further adjustments, would be £21·37. As this is less than South Hams' current average rent of £25·75, we have assumed a guideline increase of 95p, the national minimum, which is less than would be required to keep pace with inflation. Subsidy will be paid to the authority on the assumption that its actual rent increase follows the guideline, but the council is free to determine its own rents.

  Rate Support Grant (Sunderland)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give, at 1979 prices, the amount of rate support grant given to Sunderland for each year since 1979 inclusive.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Rate Support Grant—Sunderland

  Cash

  Real (1979–80 prices)

  £ million

  £ million

  1979–801

  65·6

  65·6

  1980–81

  77·1

  65·2

  1981–822

  63·8

  49·1

  1982–83

  64·7

  46·5

  1983–84

  65·3

  44·8

  1984–85

  65·6

  42·9

  1985–86

  67·1

  41·6

  1986–873

  71·4

  42·8

  1987–88

  78·1

  44·5

  1988–89

  87·4

  46·4

  1989–90

  86·7

  43·0

  Note:

  The information given is not available on a comparable basis for all years ie.

  1 In 1979–80 and 1980–81 no RSG payments were made to Metropolitan County Councils and Sunderland's RSG was correspondingly higher in those years.

  2 In 1981–82—1985–86 inclusive RSG payments were made to Metropolitan Counties (and other upper tier authorities) and Sunderland's RSG was correspondingly lower.
  652
  3 In April 1986 the Metropolitan County Councils (and the GLC) were abolished and arrangements for paying grant changed accordingly.

  PSA
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many staff of the Property Services Agency are currently working in Hastings; and how many Property Services Agency staff it is anticipated will work in Hastings in each of the next three years;

  (2) what efforts he has made to find alternative Government work for those Property Services Agency staff at Hastings whom the Property Services Agency will no longer require; and what the results of those efforts have been so far;

  (3) whether he will make it his policy that sufficient Government work will be transferred to Hastings for Property Services Agency staff made surplus by the current reorganisation and preparation for privatisation.

  Mr. Christopher Chope
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: At 1 January 1990 PSA services employed 1,265 non-industrial staff at Hastings. It is not possible to forecast future staff numbers since these will depend partly on how much work the agency is able to win in competition after it is untied on 1 April 1990 and partly on decisions about where some of the agency's activities will be located.

  Other Government Departments have been asked whether they have work which could be transferred to Hastings, to provide employment for the staff PSA will be releasing there. One Department has already expressed interest and we are hoping for more.

  Pollution (Irish Sea)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the quantities and types of waste dumped into the Irish sea from sources in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: Licensing the disposal of waste at sea is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland. No licences have been granted for the disposal of liquid and solid industrial waste in the Irish sea and information on the disposal of sewage sludge and dredged spoil is given in the Ministry's, "Report on the disposal of waste at sea—1986 and 1987", a copy of which is in the Library (a similar report giving figures for 1988 is expected to be published shortly). Information on waste inputs generally in the Irish sea is given in the status report prepared by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Eyesight Checks
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has yet received the results of his monitoring of the effects of charging for eyesight checks.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has yet eceived the results of his monitoring of the effects of charging for eyesight checks.
  653
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has yet received the results of his monitoring of the effects of charging for eyesight checks.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has yet received the results of his monitoring of the effects of charging for eyesight checks.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The results of a survey of the number of sight tests in the first quarter of 1990 compared with earlier periods should be available by the early summer. A summary will be placed in the Library.

  Cold-Related Deaths
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about cold-related deaths.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about cold-related deaths.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about cold-related deaths.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about cold-related deaths.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The five-year trends from 1955 to 1985 have seen the excess winter mortality—that is, the number of deaths that occur in the winter quarter in excess of the numbers that occur in the summer—decrease, from about 47 per cent. from 1951 to 1955, to 26 per cent. between 1981 and 1985 in Scotland, and from 68·2 to 29·3 per cent. in England and Wales.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent meetings he has had with the chief executive of the National Health Service to discuss the ambulance dispute.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the ambulance workers' dispute.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the National Union of Public Employees' dispute in the ambulance service.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now meet representatives of ambulance staffs.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about the ambulance men's dispute.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has met representatives of ambulance workers since their current dispute commenced.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the current policy in the ambulance service dispute; and what action he now proposes taking.
  654
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now meet representatives of ambulance staff.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the National Health Service chief executive to discuss the ambulance service dispute.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I meet the chief executive of the National Health Service regularly to discuss the ambulance dispute. I have no intention of meeting representatives of ambulance staffs myself.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure for the number of hospitals, health districts and specialist units which have expressed an interest in becoming a self-governing National Health Service trust.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A total of 190 units have expressed interest in National Health Service trust status, including a number with more than one hospital. Twelve expressions of interest cover all the facilities within the relevant districts, and 19 are single specialty units. Eighty of these units are considering the preparation of applications for the first wave, which we would expect to be established in April 1991. However, applications will not be invited until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision his Department has made for ambulance services within district health authorities to become self-governing trusts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government regard all hospitals and a number of other services, including ambulance services, as potentially eligible to apply for National Health Service trust status when Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. A number of ambulance services currently provided by health authorities have already expressed an interest in becoming National Health Service trusts.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State
  for Health if he will list the core services which self-governing hospitals must provide.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Core or "designated services" are simply those which can be provided only in a particular locality by a particular hospital which has become an NHS trust and to which district health authorities and GPs have no reasonable accessible alternative. This will vary in the light of local circumstances and the services available in each district. There is no basis upon which a national list could be compiled at this stage of all those local situations which will give rise to some services in some places being described as "designated services" when the first NHS trusts are established.

  Health Authorities (Maintenance)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total figure for the estimated maintenance backlog for health authorities.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total figure for the estimated maintenance backlog for health authorities.
  655
  Mr. Freeman
  The first returns of information about the stock of National Health Service property, under the Korner requirements, are now being collected, but complete information will not be available until the figures for 1989–90 are received. Estimates have been received from 133 health authorities in respect of the year 1988–89. This indicates that in those authorities the total cost of bringing the estate to an overall condition which exhibits only minor deterioration amounts to about £1·2 billion.

  Helicopter Ambulance Service
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health regions have now established an emergency helicopter ambulance service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally, but I am aware that dedicated helicopter ambulances are now operating in the London area out to the M25 and also South East Thames and 656
  South Western (Cornwall) RHAs. In addition, there are joint police/ambulance service helicopter projects in operation in Sussex, Wiltshire and the Thames valley.

  Acute Services (Bromley)
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the proposal of Bromley health authority to centralise all the acute services of the district in one purpose-built hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the offer by the London borough of Bromley of a greenfield site in the geographical centre of the district, Bromley health authority is developing plans to centralise most of its acute inpatient services. The authority believes that in this way the best service will be offered to local people and the best use made of staff resources. Because of their scale, these proposals will need to be submitted to the RHA and, in due course, to Ministers for a final decision.

  National Health Service and Community Care Bill
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by his Department, health authorities and family practitioner committees to prepare for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by his Department, health authorities and family practitioner committees to prepare for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by his Department, health authorities and family practitioner committees to prepare for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by his Department, health authorities and family practitioner committees to prepare for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In this financial year we expect to spend a total of £85 million on preparation for implementation of the Government's proposals to improve the National Health Service. This sum includes expenditure on such items as the creation of new consultant posts in expensive specialties and on staff training in better financial management.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the black and Asian community to discuss the National Health Service and Community Care Bill; and which groups he met.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met representatives of the Overseas Doctors Association on 11 July 1989, when we discussed a variety of subjects related to the black and Asian community, including the Government's proposals to improve the Health Service.

  On 31 January I shall be meeting representatives from the King's Fund for Health Services Development to discuss their work with ethnic minority groups. I shall also be visiting the National Community Health Resource on 7 February, again to discuss its activities in this field. I expect that during these meetings our proposals for the NHS and community care will be considered.

  There are also discussions taking place at the moment about the possibility of a conference with the Overseas Doctors Association specifically to consider the effects of the White Paper proposals for ethnic minority groups.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority places will be removed from health authorities in each district in Greater London, after the enactment of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill in its present form.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  District Health Authority

  Local authority members

  Barnet

  4

  Ealing

  4

  Harrow

  4

  658

  District Health Authority

  Local authority members

  Hillingdon

  4

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  5

  Parkside

  5

  Riverside

  5

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  5

  Bloomsbury

  5

  City and Hackney

  5

  Enfield

  4

  Hampstead

  4

  Haringey

  4

  Islington

  4

  Newham

  4

  Redbridge

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  4

  Waltham Forest

  4

  Croydon

  4

  Kingston and Esher

  4

  Merton and Sutton

  4

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  4

  Wandsworth

  4

  Bexley

  4

  Bromley

  4

  Camberwell

  5

  Greenwich

  4

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  5

  West Lambeth

  4

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from professional bodies and trades unions concerning the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have had a large number of representations from a wide variety of sources.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention that health circular 89(5) on the discharge of patients from hospitals will apply when in-patient services are contracted under the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. It is intended that this circular will continue to be implemented by district health authorities and by NHS trusts. In securing good quality services for their residents when placing contracts, district health authorities will need to consider monitoring the performance of those providing the service.

  Infertility Treatments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the range and availability of infertility treatments.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the range and availability of infertility treatments.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the range and availability of infertility treatment.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the range and availability of infertility treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These matters are for individual health authorities to determine in the light of
  659
  local needs and priorities. I understand that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has just put proposals for funding a medical audit unit to the Department and that this will include a programme of work aimed at auditing the delivery of infertility services with a view to encouraging improvements.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to privatise the ambulance service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no plans to privatise this service.

  General Practitioners, Kent
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of support staff employed by general practitioners in Kent at present; and what the number was in 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The total number of staff qualifying for direct reimbursement under the ancillary staff scheme in Kent increased by 78 per cent. from 1,109 (660 whole-time equivalents) in 1979 to 1,975 (1,116 whole-time equivalents) in 1988. A few general practitioners employ support staff outside the scope of the present scheme; information about these staff is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Catering
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance and resources he gives to health authorities for the maintenance of cooking and beverage preparing areas in hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for health authorities to devote appropriate resources to the maintenance of cooking and beverage preparation areas in hospitals from the funds allocated to them. Health authorities have a duty to comply with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and it is Government policy that they should comply with all other relevant statutes and regulations. The Department issues building guidance on the standards that it expects in new and upgraded food preparation areas.

  AIDS
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total level of Government spending on caring for AIDS patients in the years 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Spending on care for AIDS patients is not separately identified. The specific provisions made available to health authorities in England as a contribution towards the costs of work to prevent the spread of HIV infection and the provision of diagnostic, treatment care and support services for people infected with the virus, including those with AIDS, were £58·74 million in 1988–89 and £121·90 million in 1989–90. In addition, an AIDS support grant allocation to local authorities of £7 million was introduced in 1989–90.

  Dental Checks
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the effects of charging for dental checks on dental attendances.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the effects of charging for dental checks on dental attendances.

  Mr. Freeman
  The annual data on dental examinations in England and Wales from 1984–85 to 1988–89 show a gently rising trend and we expect this to continue. As might be expected, however, attendances increased in the months prior to the introduction of the examination charge in January 1989 and fell immediately afterwards. It is too early to form a definitive view about any longer-term effects.

  NHS (Consumer Involvement)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve consumer involvement in the running of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve consumer involvement in the running of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve consumer involvement in the running of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve consumer involvement in the running of the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's proposals to improve the Health Service are based on a full recognition of the importance of the consumer of health care—the patient. Our proposals put patients first and give hospitals and their staff incentives to take account of the individual patient's needs. District health authorities will work closely with local interest groups and consider the views of users of services. Complaint procedures will be made easier. The interests of the local community will continue to be represented by community health councils, which will act as a channel for consumer views to health authorities and the family service authorities. The delegation of decision-making powers to hospital and GP level will ensure that local staff will have responsibility for responding to local needs. At least two non-executive members of each NHS hospital trust will be drawn from the local community. This all adds up to a package of measures designed to ensure that NHS consumers benefit from improved, better directed, more patient-responsive services.

  Social Work Training
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of social work training.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of social work training.
  661
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of social work training.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on 16 January at column 195.

  Community Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the role of voluntary organisations in providing care in the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received regarding the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations concerned with community care he has met since the publication of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from voluntary organisations on the community care proposals set out in the White Paper "Caring for People".

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received regarding the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received regarding the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received regarding the Government's proposals on community care.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations concerned with community care he has met since the publication of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to my replies on 12 December 1989 at columns 845-47. We have received further representations on the Government's proposals for community care. These representations have been from local authority associations, from individual directors of social services, from voluntary organisations, from carers' organisations and from independent providers of services. Most continue to express a general welcome for our proposals; detailed issues are being discussed with these and other organisations as part of our preparations for implementation of the main proposals in the White Paper, "Caring for People" in April 1991.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure the involvement of qualified nurses in the move to care in the community for mental patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As our recent published White Paper on community care, "Caring for People",662
  reaffirms, nurses represent an important skilled resource. It will be essential that health and social services authorities and voluntary bodies make best use of both their time and skills. We propose to build on nurses' existing contributions to the health and social care needs of mentally ill and handicapped patients discharged from hospital and living in the community.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on the role of the private residential nursing home in the field of community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our White Paper "Caring for People" makes it clear that we are firmly committed to a policy of community care which provides dignity and choice to frail and vulnerable people. While for most people this will be achieved by continuing to live in their own home, others would benefit from care in a more supportive environment. We believe that, along with other providers, independent sector nursing homes will continue to play an important part in meeting people's care needs.

  Resource Management
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the implementation of resource management.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further progress will be made with the resource management initiative in the coming financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The resource management initiative was launched in November 1986.

  In March 1989 I announced the names of 50 hospitals starting resource management in 1989–90. I announced in December 1989 that 20 of those hospitals would invest in IT. The remaining 30 will invest substantially in IT in 1990–91. On 18 January I announced the names of 50 more hospitals which will implement the main resource management in 1990–91.

  Computerised training packages on diagnostic related groups (DRGs) and DRG group software have been issued to all acute hospitals and a cost allocation model to the 50 acute hospitals which started resource management this year. This model will be issued to all acute hospitals shortly.

  Breast Screening
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in implementing a national breast screening service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table lists those breast screening centres in England which had become operational by the end of 1989.

  Under the programme, all women aged between 50 and 64 years will be invited to be screened by mammography every three years; older women will be screened on request. The purpose of screening is to detect changes in breast tissue which might be cancerous at an early stage when treatment can be simple and most likely to be effective.

  Plans for extending the breast screening programme to cover all district health authorities in England are well advanced; a full nationwide service comprising about 80 centres (including mobile units) is expected to become operational during 1990.
  663
  The breast screening programmes in the other parts of the United Kingdom are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Screening centres operational as at December 1989

  Region

  Centres

  Northern

  Gateshead

  Newcastle

  Yorkshire

  Huddersfield

  Hull

  York

  Trent

  Nottingham

  Leicester

  Lincoln

  South Yorkshire

  East Anglian

  King's Lynn

  Suffolk

  Peterborough

  Norwich

  North West Thames

  Barnet

  Charing Cross

  North East Thames

  Epping

  Bloomsbury

  East London

  Chelmsford and Colchester

  Whipps Cross

  South East Thames

  Camberwell

  Canterbury

  East Sussex

  South West Thames

  Guildford

  Worthing

  Wessex

  Southampton

  Isle of Wight

  Portsmouth

  Oxford

  Aylesbury

  Northampton

  Wycombe

  Milton Keynes

  Reading

  South Western

  Cornwall

  Avon

  West Devon

  West Midlands

  Stoke on Trent

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Walsall

  Birmingham

  Mersey

  Liverpool

  North Western

  Manchester

  Bolton

  Wigan

  Family Planning
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the family planning service.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the family planning services.
  664
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the family planning services.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the family planning services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government regard family planning as an important preventive service that contributes to maternal and child health and to the stability of family life. The emphasis of family planning services is on enabling people to plan and space their families as they would wish, with the consequent beneficial effects on health and the quality of life.

  The day-to-day management of family planning services is a matter for individual health authorities since they can best judge local circumstances and priorities. Planning guidelines for 1989–91, issued in July 1988, asked authorities to ensure that full use is made of family planning services as a resource in combating AIDS and to strike a balance between services provided by specialist clinics and those provided by GPs.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave the hon. Members for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) earlier today.

  Medical Audit
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the proposals for medical audit.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Encouraging progress is being made. Officials are working with members of the medical profession to develop and implement systems of medical audit. Across the country the Department has contributed £926,000 in direct funding to 43 projects which began in 1989. Regions and districts have also been funding projects of their own. Considerable further expansion is expected soon both in the hospital and community health service and in general practice. To enable this, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced the provision of £31 million in 1990–91.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the recently announced £31 million for medical audit.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of £24 million is being divided among the regional health authorities in their proportion to their consultant numbers, subject to their submitting satisfactory medical audit implementation plans to the NHS management executive. A total of £5 million will be used in general practice. The remaining £2 million will be retained centrally for training and for projects which have national application.

  General Practice (Computers)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are likely to be affected by the recently announced scheme to provide reimbursement for computers in general practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Potentially all medical practitioners could benefit to some extent, depending upon the circumstances of their practices. Details will be published shortly in the statement of fees and allowances.

  Drugs
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposals for the future supply of drugs to National Health Service patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The proposed introduction of indicative prescribing budgets will not affect the supply of necessary drugs to NHS patients. GPs will remain free to prescribe all medicines which are clinically necessary for their patients. Where there is a choice of equally effective drugs, GPs will be expected to take the relative costs into account. Indicative prescribing budgets will encourage more effective and economic prescribing and help to eliminate unnecessary expenditure in drugs, thus releasing money for other aspects of patient care in the NHS.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in the West Midlands regional health authority area in 1988; and what the comparable figure was in 1979.

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

  Patients treated, NHS hospitals, West Midlands Regional Health Authority, 1979 and 1988–89

  1979

  1988–89

  Percentage increase

  In-patient cases treated

  547,773

  689,457

  25·9

  Day cases

  51,769

  99,349

  91·9

  New out-patients

  731,764

  813,067

  11·1

  Total out-patient attendance

  3,315,153

  3,757,255

  13·3

  Source: Returns SH3 (1978 data), SH3a, KP70, KH09 and KH18 (1988–89 data).

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the allocation of funds to the West Midlands regional health authority for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  Regional health authorities' initial cash limits for 1990–91 will be announced shortly. But, as my hon. Friend may be aware, we have already announced that the West Midlands regional health authority will receive a cash increase of 6·76 per cent. on its general revenue allocation for next year.

  NHS Indemnity Scheme
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Health Service indemnity scheme for doctors in National Health Service hospitals is now in place.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. With effect from 1 January 1990, health authorities are taking direct financial 666
  responsibility in claims of negligence against their medical staff. In December the Department of Health issued a circular to health authorities and a leaflet for all doctors and dentists in the hospital and community health services. A copy of the circular, HC(89)34, and of the leaflet, "Medical Negligence" are available in the Library.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tuberculosis were reported in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for the previous five and 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table:

  Notifications of tuberculosis in England and Wales for the years 1988, 1983 and 1978

  Year

  Notifications

  1988

  5,164

  1983

  6,803

  1978

  9,688

  NHS Reforms
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there are any experiments being undertaken to assess how the proposed National Health Service reforms would work.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Health Service is undertaking a wide range of projects designed to inform the implementation of the Government's proposals to improve services.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on plans for the implementation of the proposed reforms of the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are making good progress in putting into action the changes outlined in the White Paper "Working for Patients". We are confident that the NHS will be ready to implement the basic elements of the new and better systems of matching growth and resources with expansion of patient services by April 1991, once Parliament approves the necessary legislation. By 1990—91 the total expenditure on the implementation of the Government's proposals to improve the Health Service will exceed £300 million.

  We have issued detailed guidance on many subjects, including the education and training of non-medical staff. Guidance on the principles of the new contracting system was issued in September, and further guidance on additional aspects of the contracting system will be issued shortly.

  We have recently published a GP fundholder programme, which gives more details about the operation of a GP practice fund.

  A new working paper, the 11th in the series, has been published, called, "Framework for Information Systems: Overview". This working paper covers two documents issued for consultation, looking at the way ahead for information and information technology and concentrating on action in preparation for April 1991.

  We have launched a project to support district health authorities in detailed work in developing the key role

  667
  which DHAs will have under the new system of identifying and obtaining the best pattern of services which will most effectively meet all the health needs of the population they serve.

  We have received over 180 expressions of interest from potential NHS hospital trusts. Seventy-nine of them are proceeding towards being the first wave of applicants for trust status within the NHS in April 1991. Subject to progress in Parliament, we expect many more to be ready for later waves of applicants in future years.

  We have made £2 million available for implementation of medical audit this financial year, and a further £26 million has been allocated to hospital and community health services for the development of medical audit in 1990–91. A £4·5 million scheme has been launched to develop information technology skills. Demonstration projects, aimed at improving the quality of care and services to patients, have been announced for five outpatient departments. The principles of general management are being introduced into the family practitioner committee system.

  Good progress is also being made in relation to medical education and research. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State explained in a speech on 10 July 1989, since sent to all hospital doctors, we intend to take powers to ensure, for instance, the continuation of high standards of undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing education and research in all NHS hospitals.

  We will also ensure that postgraduate training posts are provided in NHS hospital trusts in accordance with the national objectives set out in "Achieving a Balance". Medical education and research will be further enhanced by the proposed increase in the service increment for training (SIFT) to meet 100 per cent. of the median excess costs of teaching hospitals. This will be distributed by regions in consultation with universities.

  The National Health Service and Community Care Bill is now before the House.

  Health Authorities (Maintenance Backlog)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total figure for the estimated maintenance backlog for health authorities.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total figure for the estimated maintenance backlog for health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 10 January at columns 666-69.

  Patient Services
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of contracts for patient services within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 12 December 1989 at columns 843-44.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent initiatives have been taken by his Department to assist with health promotion and disease prevention.

  Mr. Freeman
  We recognise the essential role of health promotion and disease prevention in sustaining and improving people's health. Recent major initiatives include:

  (a) changes to the system of paying family doctors, which will be introduced from 1 April to encourage them to provide a wide range of health promotion and preventive activities. Examples include incentive payments for achieving specified levels of vaccination and immunisation and screening for cancer of the cervix; new payments for approved health promotion clinics; and a requirement on general practitioners to give advice on matters such as diet, exercise, alcohol, smoking and drugs;

  (b) the holding of an expert symposium, jointly organised with the Health Education Authority (HEA), to assess the current and future spread of HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom and to inform future development of the AIDS public education campaign. The proceedings of this symposium will be published shortly;

  (c) the launch in December of the teenage smoking campaign, costing £2 million a year over the next five years and intended to dissuade young people from starting to smoke. National advertising is currently aimed at 11-15-year-olds;

  (d) also in December, the making of a regulation under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 banning the manufacture and supply of oral snuff. The ban takes effect from 13 March 1990;

  (e) further "Look After Your Heart" campaign national television and press advertising as part of LAYH's endeavours to encourage the adoption of healthier lifestyles;

  (f) the preparation, with the HEA, of a further phase of a major information and education campaign on vaccination and immunisation for later this year.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will increase the level of investment in health promotion and health education programmes.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) on 12 December at column 600.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities project a deficit for the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities project a deficit for the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities project a deficit for the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities project a deficit for the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Health authority cash limit spending is monitored by my Department on a regional basis and we do not expect any region to exceed its cash limit for the year. Information about the financial position
  669
  of district health authorities is not collected centrally. The NHS is spending more money this year than last in real terms and is treating more patients.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the number of hours worked by junior hospital doctors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I shall be meeting the profession for talks shortly to discuss what further action might now be appropriate to reduce the number of junior doctors on onerous rota commitments and how best to take this issue forward. Reports have now been received from all regional health authorities on the results of our June 1988 initiative. They show encouraging progress, but more needs to be done to achieve further reductions.

  National Health Service Funding
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on funding for the National Health Service for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1990–91 gross expenditure on the National Health Service in England is planned to increase to over £23·3 billion. In addition, if health authorities do no more than they have achieved in recent years, they will have a further £150 million from their cost improvement programmes. Taken together, this means that the resources available to the NHS next year will increase by the equivalent of nearly 11 per cent. in cash or about 5·5 per cent. in real terms.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) earlier today.

  Eye Hospital (Hampshire)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will give his approval for a new eye hospital for the Southampton and South West Hampshire health district, the details of which have been submitted to his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is responsible for giving approval in principle, within delegated limits, to any scheme which starts a cycle of project development with a670
  total works cost of over £10 million. The total cost of the proposed relocation plan for the Southampton eye hospital is, I understand, around £4 million and therefore not subject to departmental approval.

  Wandsworth Health Authority
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the overspending by the Wandsworth health authority in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Wandsworth district health authority reports an overspend at the end of November of £2·197 million. This is projected to rise by the end of the financial year to a figure between £2·5 and £3·1 million. South West Thames region has been discussing with the district a package of economy measures to reduce the overspend in 1989–90 and to produce a balanced budget for 1990–91. The district is still considering what action to take.

  Inpatients
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figure he has for the average number of inpatients treated each week by the National Health Service: and what was the figure in 1979.

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

  Patients treated, per week, NHS hospitals, England, 1979 and 1988–89

  1979

  1988–89

  Inpatient cases treated

  103,848

  126,654

  Source: Returns SH3 (1978 data), SH3a (1988–89 data).

  Mental Health
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the capital fund for mental health projects.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give further details of the capital loan fund for mental health projects.

  Mr. Freeman
  The intention is that the capital loans fund will operate from 1 April 1990. The total sum committed over the three years from that date will be £50 million. An executive letter is being issued to health authorities, which provides details of the new arrangements and asks for bids by the end of March for the year 1990–91.

  General Practitioners (Earnings)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the average earnings of a general practitioner in the current year and the year 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The intended average gross income for general medical practitioners was £17,327 in 1979–80 and £45,761 in 1989–90, an increase of 31 per cent. in real terms. The average GP also received an income of £5,955 in 1979–80 in direct reimbursement of certain expenses: the 1989–90 figure is estimated to be £21,475, an increase of 79 per cent. in real terms.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision he has made for the health care needs of homeless people in 1990–91 and the subsequent year.

  Mr. Freeman
  It will be for individual health authorities and family practitioner committees to assess and meet the health care needs of all those, including any homeless, within their areas of responsibility. The Department, however, is funding several voluntary organisations helping the homeless and has funded two projects in London designed to promote new models of primary care. Following an encouraging evaluation, it is hoped that similar schemes will be developed elsewhere, In addition, the Department is examining what further measures could be taken to help those homeless who are mentally ill.

  North West RHA
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated by the North West regional health authority in 1978–79 and 1988–89 as inpatients, outpatients and day patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  1979

  1989

  Per cent.

  In-patient cases (including day cases)

  563,787

  809,868

  +43

  Day cases

  70,608

  136,020

  +93

  Out patients (new cases)

  699,717

  779,084

  +11

  Park Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will intervene with Liverpool regional health authority to prevent the closure or rundown of Park hospital in the Broadgreen constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) earlier today.

  Regional Health Authorities (Resources)
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give further details of the new system of distributing resources to regional health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  The new system was set out in paragraphs 4.8 to 4.10 of "Working for Patients" and in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.6 of Working Paper 2: "Funding and Contracts for Hospital Services", copies of which are available in the Library. For further details, I refer my hon. Friend to the replies that I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 10 January at column 663 and today.

  Table 1

  1990–91 shares

  Region

  Crude population

  Weighted1 for age structure

  Weighted for SMRs

  Weighted for costs of providing services

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Northern

  6·40

  6·32

  6·85

  6·63

  Yorkshire

  7·56

  7·54

  7·84

  7·59

  Trent

  9·80

  9·65

  9·82

  9·51

  Social Workers
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any recent representations from the Association of County Councils about a shortage of qualified social workers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no record of recent representations from the Association of County Councils on this issue. We are aware of the problems faced by some local authorities in attracting and retaining suitably qualified staff and of the steps that they, as employers, are taking to improve the position. The response by local authorities to the Department of Health's two training support programmes targeted at staff working with elderly people and those working in the field of child care, indicates that many social services departments will be enabled to increase significantly the number of their staff seconded to social work qualifying courses. The Department will keep under review possible measures to increase intakes to qualifying courses in social work.

  Children Act
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress being made with the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress being made with the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) earlier today.

  Regional Allocations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central on 10 January,Official Report, column 663, he will publish a table showing in the case of each National Health Service region in 1990–91 (a) the basic allocation for population, (b) the effect of adjusting for morbidity, (c) the effect of adjustments for the relative costs of services to seven age bandings and (d) the damping effect of phasing in the new allocation system over three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The information requested is given as follows in the form of allocation shares of the resources available nationally. Table 1 shows how these shares are changed as the various weighting factors within the new allocation formula are applied and table 2 the effect on 1990–91 of phasing the new formula over three years:
  673

  1990–91 shares

  Region

  Crude population

  Weighted1 for age structure

  Weighted for SMRs

  Weighted for costs of providing services

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  East Anglian

  4·30

  4·43

  4·15

  4·02

  North West Thames

  7·39

  7·08

  6·78

  7·41

  North East Thames

  7·93

  7·86

  7·77

  8·61

  South East Thames

  7·69

  8·14

  7·96

  8·36

  South West Thames

  6·28

  6·57

  6·15

  6·49

  Wessex

  6·21

  6·50

  6·10

  5·91

  Oxford

  5·37

  4·92

  4·62

  4·48

  South Western

  6·78

  7·33

  6·98

  6·76

  West Midlands

  10·92

  10·49

  10·80

  10·47

  Mersey

  5·02

  4·92

  5·25

  5·08

  North Western

  8·33

  8·26

  8·93

  8·66

  Total

  100·00

  100·00

  100·00

  100·00

  1 Relative cost of services for different ages

  Table 2

  Region

  Effect on shares of moving direct to new formula in 1990–91

  Effect on1 shares of phasing in new formula

  Difference

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Northern

  6·63

  6·63

  0·00

  Yorkshire

  7·59

  7·53

  -0·06

  Trent

  9·51

  9·45

  -0·06

  East Anglian

  4·02

  3·96

  -0·06

  North West Thames

  7·41

  7·45

  0·03

  North East Thames

  8·61

  8·72

  0·09

  South East Thames

  8·36

  8·23

  -0·13

  South West Thames

  6·49

  6·49

  0·00

  Wessex

  5·91

  5·77

  -0·13

  Oxford

  4·48

  4·56

  0·08

  South Western

  6·76

  6·65

  -0·11

  West Midlands

  10·47

  10·59

  0·11

  Mersey

  5·08

  5·26

  0·16

  North Western

  8·66

  8·72

  0·06

  Total

  100·00

  100·00

  0·00

  1 Over three years.

  Tranx Advice Centre
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has had any further discussions about the means of avoiding the closure of the Tranx tranquilliser advice centre.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  No. Officials wrote to Tranx (UK) Ltd in December explaining that, because the statutory authorities are not prepared to fund local elements of the service that Tranx (UK) Ltd provides and given the constraints on central funds, the Department is unable to offer the organisation any further grant aid.

  Doctors' Pay
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to publish his reaction to the pay review body's recommendation on doctors' pay.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The doctors' and dentists' review body reports directly to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who will announce the Government's decision in due course.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans for improving value for money in the hospital building programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  A number of initiatives aimed at improving the value for money of the hospital building programme are already in hand. These include a review of the procedures leading up to the approval of new building schemes, a review of the Department's procedural framework for processing building schemes in the NHS, and a review of project management. Each of these reviews will be reporting this year. The Department will continue to develop its building guidance, which has led to significant improvement in the value for money of new hospital building schemes.

  The NHS reforms are expected to provide further incentives to improve the performance of the programme, and the future involvement of the Audit Commission in the NHS will bring the management of the estate, including the building programme, into sharper focus.

  Sarum 89 Group
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will consider further representations from the "Sarum 89" group of doctors in Salisbury, following study of their alternative White Paper on National Health Service reform.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have now held several useful meetings with the Sarum 89 group and I am grateful for their time and energy. We are always willing to consider fresh representations from this group on the detailed implementation of the Government's proposals to improve the Health Service.

  Cervical Cancer
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Northern regional health authority with regard to the incidence of cervical cancer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer varies considerably geographically and within various groups within the population. The main strategy for dealing with the disease is through a programme of early detection based on population screening programmes. I understand from the Northern regional health authority that it is well within target in covering its population through a comprehensive screening programme.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the number of deaths from cervical cancer between 1978 and 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table:

  Deaths from cancer of the cervix in England and Wales for the years 1978 to 1988

  Year

  Deaths

  1978

  2,153

  1979

  2,087

  1980

  2,068

  1981

  2,017

  1982

  1,932

  1983

  1,959

  1984

  1,899

  1985

  1,957

  1986

  2,004

  1987

  1,903

  1988

  1,942

  North East Thames RHA
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the hospital capital programme in the North East Thames region for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  The capital programme for North East Thames regional health authority for 1990–91 includes the following major schemes:

  Schemes for which there is a Contractual Commitment

  Whittington—Phase I

  Mile End—Geriatric Unit

  Chase Farm Enabling Works

  Whipps Cross Development

  St. Bartholomews—New Theatres

  Schemes not yet with a Contractual Commitment
  676

  Princess Alexandra Development

  Chase Farm Main Development

  Goodmayes DGH

  Broomfield—Phase VII

  Colchester—Phase IV

  Bloomsbury—Hospital Development

  Broomfield, Colchester and Bloomsbury are subject to the approval of Ministers. Further details of the capital programme can be obtained from North East Thames regional health authority.

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for the years 1979 and 1988 the rate of infant deaths within the first week of birth and the number of stillbirths.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table:

  Early neonatal mortality rate and the number of stillbirths in England and Wales for the years 1979 and 1988

  1979

  1988

  Early neonatal mortality rate per 1000 livebirths

  6·75

  3·89

  Stillbirths

  5,125

  3,382

  Cornwall First Air Ambulance
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a contribution to the cost of the Cornwall First Air Ambulance.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for local health authorities to determine the level of and extent of services that they provide, taking into account the available resources and the competing demands upon them. However, the Department is funding an evaluation of this local initiative.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there are in the National Health Service now; and how many there were in 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 1 October 1988 (the latest year for which figures are available) there were 25,322 unrestricted general medical practitioners in England compared with 21,357 at 1 October 1979—an increase of 18·6 per cent.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how many days general practitioners on duty over a weekend will be expected to work continuously under the new contract for general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no specific requirements in the GPs' new contract for weekend duties or for working continuously. The responsibility placed upon GPs by regulations to provide all necessary and appropriate personal medical services for their patients on a 24 hours a day basis remains unchanged. Existing arrangements for delegating this responsibility also remain unchanged. The new requirement introduced by the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989 is that GPs who are full time will be required to be available for surgery consultation and home visits for a minimum of 26 hours a week over five days at times convenient to their patients.

  Hospital Services (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the provision of hospital services in rural areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  Small hospitals can play a valuable role in providing a range of services if that is what is needed locally. Under the proposals of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, district health authorities will have responsibility for ensuring provision of a comprehensive range of services for their resident population. They will be able to take full account of the services offered by small hospitals in deciding where to place contracts.

  Human Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest evidence as to the efficiency of the heterosexual transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply to him on 11 December 1990 at column 502. A number of scientific journals have contained articles on this topic; these include the British Medical Journal (18 February 1989, pp 401-2, 411-15) and "AIDS 1988 2" (supplement 1) pp S49-56, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Generic Medicines
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any recent representations on the quality control of foreign generic medications, including those from European Community countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received no representations to date.

  National Health Service Trust, Barnsley
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any representations regarding the setting up of a National Health Service trust in Barnsley.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Donor Cards
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were estimated to carry(a) kidney donor cards and (b) other organ donor cards, in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  We now issue a single multi-organ donor card, which makes provision for the donation of individually specified, or all, organs.

  Different sample surveys produce varying estimates of donor card ownership, but it appears likely that between 20 and 30 per cent. of the general public now possess a donor card. Possession of donor cards has risen substantially over the past decade. A survey carried out in November 1978 found that only 10 per cent. of those questioned possessed a signed card.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what communications he has received from his counterpart in the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I was delighted to meet and host a dinner for Academician Chazov, the Minister for Health of the USSR, during his visit to the United Kingdom as a guest of Her Majesty's Government at the end of October last year, and for Mr. Gromyko, Deputy Minister of Health in the USSR, when he was here last week to discuss health trade matters. I have also received correspondence from Academician Chazov.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many black and Asian people are currently serving on regional health authorities; and if he will name them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information that the hon. Member requests is not available centrally. We do not monitor the ethnic composition of regional health authorities.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many posts in the National Health Service are either nominated by him or need his consultation before they are filled.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State does not nominate, nor is he consulted upon, the appointment of staff to posts in the National Health Service. Employment matters are entirely the responsibility of individual health authorities. So far as the appointment of chairmen and members of health authorities are concerned, details of those for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is responsible were given in my reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, East on 12 December 1989 at columns 623-24.

  Sterilisation Treatment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list by district health authority in the Trent regional health authority the waiting times for women patients requesting National Health Service sterilisation treatment;

  (2) if he will list by regional health authority the waiting times from women patients requesting National Health Service sterilisation treatment;

  (3) if he will list by regional health authority, and by district health authority, the waiting times for colposcopy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on waiting time for individual procedures is not collected centrally.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffering from schizophrenia have been released from mental institutions(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the North West region, during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of discharges of patients treated for a main diagnosis of schizophrenia from
  679
  National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units for the last five available years, 1982–86, for England and the North Western regional health authority are shown in the table. The figures relate to discharges and cannot be related to individual patients; a patient may be admitted more than once in a year.

  England

  North Western RHA

  1982

  24,594

  2,348

  1983

  25,336

  2,331

  1984

  25,934

  2,683

  1985

  26,225

  2,875

  1986

  26,077

  2,621

  The figures for Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland respectively. The figures for Scotland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Community Pharmacy Contractors
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why it was decided to retain a cost plus system of remuneration and year-end review for medical practitioners and to terminate arrangements for community pharmacy contractors in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The arrangements for determining the remuneration of the professions providing family practitioner services are designed to reflect the different circumstances of each profession. The "cost plus" system of determining pharmacists' remuneration was brought to an end last year because it provided insufficient incentives to efficiency in the dispensing of medicines. We expect the measures contained in the White Papers "Promoting Better Health" and "Working for Patients" to improve value for money and raise standards of care in general practice.

  Under-fives Provision
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional moneys he has allocated to voluntary organisations for the small grants scheme for under-fives in this financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am pleased to announce that the Department has just increased the amount allocated to voluntary organisations for the small grants scheme for under-fives and their families by £101,000. The additional allocations are as shown in the table:

  Organisation

  Additional allocation

  £

  Pre-School Play Groups Association

  50,000

  National Council for Voluntary Child Care Organisation (Child Care)

  10,000

  National Childminding Association

  10,000

  680

  Organisation

  Additional allocation

  £

  National Toy Libraries Association (Play Matters)

  11,000

  National Playbus Association

  10,000

  Home Start Consultancy

  10,000

  This brings the total allocation to £425,000 in 1989–90.

  Welfare Milk Scheme
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received about the effects of changes to the welfare milk scheme; how many people in Bradford are now receiving weekly milk tokens; what groups of people are entitled to milk tokens; what estimates he has made of the number of people in Bradford who will no longer receive doorstep delivery of welfare milk; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received about the impact upon those engaged in milk distribution from the discounting of welfare milk tokens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  A period of eight months' consultation and discussion with interested parties preceded the announcement of the price to be paid by the Government for liquid welfare milk. There are no changes in the welfare milk scheme as far as recipients are concerned. Since the announcement my noble Friend Baroness Hooper met representatives of the dairy trade on 10 January to discuss implementation. Specific points about the revised pricing structure were further discussed between officials and the trade on 16 January. Early-day motions have been tabled, seeking reconsideration of our decision, and the regulation bringing the change into effect has been prayed against. In addition, a number of hon. Members have written expressing the concerns of their constituents.

  Information about the number of welfare milk beneficiaries by area is not available, but we do not anticipate any changes since the scheme itself remains unchanged. Milk tokens will continue to be issued in respect of pregnant women and children under five in families receiving income support and to handicapped children aged five to 16 who, because of their handicap, are registered at a school. The revised pricing structure does not affect beneficiaries entitlement to welfare milk nor the way in which they choose to obtain it.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many departmental employees who are classified as emergency services receive shift allowances and incremental payments.

  Mr. Freeman
  None, in the Department of Health.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

EC Fishing Quotas: Impact
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What impact they expect the new EC quotas for catches of sea fish will have on the British fishing fleet.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I am very much aware of the serious difficulties which some fishermen could face during this year because of the reductions, particularly of haddock and cod in the North Sea, were essential in order to prevent further reductions particularly of haddock and cod in the North Sea, were essential in order to prevent further deterioration in stocks which are vital to the long-term future of the fishing industry.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. While conservation of threatened fish stocks must be the highest priority, do the Government foresee that the British fishermen affected will have to spend much of 1990 in port as part of the arrangements to keep within the quotas? If so, how are they to earn a living?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, quota management of these stocks is extremely important. Discussions are about to commence with the industry as to how that should take place. Various measures will have to be taken and some of them will be very tough. However, we should not now decide what they should be.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that on certain islands off the coast of Scotland it is impossible to find any employment other than fishing and that the situation there may require special treatment in the near future?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am aware of what the noble Lord has said. I was interested to read in Fishing News, published on 19th January, that last year Shetland attained record landings. I accept the fact that there are great difficulties in the North Sea as regards the fishing of haddock and cod. However, one ought to look most carefully at the value of the fish caught in 1989. The noble Lord will see that it increased, particularly in relation to haddock. This means that the situation was not so desperate as we had feared in 1989.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in the light of the agreed need to keep the quotas within the limits of scientific advice—we all accept
918
that—what is the reaction of the Government to a decision given last Friday in Aberdeen sheriff court by Sheriff Douglas Risk which has been described as appearing to drive a seine-net trawler through the agreement?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for asking that question. The Government are still studying the text most carefully. It may be necessary to make changes to fishing vessel licences. The points made by the sheriff will be borne in mind when deciding the basis on which future prosecutions take place. The Government have not yet decided whether they will appeal against the judgment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, can my noble friend say why his right honourable friend is able to make an annual set-aside payment to farmers of £80 per acre for agricultural non-production when, in a similar capacity as Minister responsible for fisheries, he is unable to provide similar payments for fishermen who are being compelled by EC rules to set aside, no doubt for good purposes?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will be well aware of the difficulties encountered by the de-commissioning scheme which was criticised most strongly by the Public Accounts Committee and the NAO. The Government have looked carefully at the options open to them and must decide what is good value for money. There are major difficulties: not everyone agrees that de-commissioning is an answer to the problem of over-capacity. My noble friend should bear in mind the fact that the value of catches over the past 10 years has increased dramatically. Fishermen know well that they must accept good and bad years.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are talking about the year to come—that is 1990—and not about how well the fishermen did in the past? Does he further agree that in many cases the fishermen's greatest expenditure is paying for boats which they were encouraged to buy, through grants, for large sums of money? If the year is as bad as is feared, is there not a case for the Government assisting by placing a moratorium on repayments for expensive boats?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am well aware of the difficulties which may be encountered in any year as regards cutting the opportunities to fish. However, although there is a difficult situation as regards the quotas of North Sea haddock and cod, the Government obtained the best possible deal at the December meeting of the Council of Ministers. Having obtained that deal we must try to ensure that the industry has a long-term future. I accept that the noble Lord has a point in saying that this year may be difficult. But that was also the case a year ago. I was not happy when the harbingers of doom 12 months ago were saying that the industry was in a state of collapse. It certainly was not.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that only a short time ago Senor Marin, the

919
Spanish Commissioner for fishing, predicted that the British fishing industry would have to cut by 20 per cent? Would that not be a disaster for the British fishing industry and would it not be the result of greed on the part of other European nations? Is it not about time that decisions were made about the repatriation of our fishing assets to this country, this Government and this Parliament?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord would have a point if this country did not fish in international waters, but it does. Also one must realise—and I accept that this is a very difficult area—that one must reach an agreement as to the fishing opportunities of the various nations within EC waters. That is a very difficult subject. I do not believe that it should go unnoticed that four Ministers from this Government attended the Council of Ministers in Brussels in December and the result was very much better than Señor Marin's original plan suggested.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to refer to the Aberdeen court decision last Friday which dismissed the charges against a British skipper for over-fishing. While I recognise that there may be an appeal, if the judgment stands, does that not mean that the Government will have to reconsider the whole licensing system for British boats?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, obviously if there is a problem in relation to the sheriff's judgment, that will have to be taken into account by the Government, and taken into account speedily, because we must move foward to arrangements for the proper management of quotas at a very early date. That is why we hope to start those discussions with the industry very soon. I assure my noble friend that discussions are going on rapidly within government as to the effect of the sheriff's judgment.

Parliament: State Opening Proposal
2.43 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it would be desirable to have a fixed date for the State Opening of Parliament other than for the first after any general election.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the opening of a new parliamentary Session is a matter for the Royal Prerogative. In the Government's view, the length of a Session depends on the business to be conducted, which inevitably varies from Session to Session. A fixed date for the State Opening of Parliament would remove the flexibility of the present arrangements.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. However, does not business currently conducted produce the somewhat unedifying situation whereby government can and do change the proposed date to suit their own
920
purposes? If it could be stated on which date the Session would end, this House and another place could work to that date and stick to it. Furthermore, would not our Gracious Sovereign perhaps find it easier to manipulate her diary if she knew what we were doing?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can see the attraction of a fixed date from the point of view of many of your Lordships. In practice I believe that a fixed date might not suit the needs of Parliament. As my noble friend mentioned Her Majesty, it might possibly not suit the Royal programme.
This matter was looked at in 1914 by the Commons Procedure Committee, and by the Government Chief Whip in another place before a joint committee in 1923. It is interesting that on neither of those occasions was it thought that a fixed date was the answer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that his noble friend made some sensible points in his supplementary question? Does he not further agree that it would be possible to hold the State Opening of Parliament on or near the traditional date—that is, during the first week in November—if the Government planned their legislative programme more efficiently and more thoughtfully in the interests of this House? Does he recall that when we went into Recess last summer only 26 out of 35 Bills had received Royal Assent? Is that not a case of inefficiency and thoughtlessness? Will he look again at the position with his right honourable friends to see whether a programme could be launched which would be less taxing and frustrating for noble Lords on all sides?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I readily acknowledge that the last two Sessions of Parliament began later in November than I would have wished. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is, if I may say so with respect to him, constructive and patient always.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, he is of course a doughty opponent on these matters. I cannot resist adding that late State Openings are not the perogative of any one Administration. Noble Lords opposite hold the record for a late State Opening in recent years; namely, 24th November 1976.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that a highly radical government in 1911 passed 450 pages of public general legislation and that practically no government in recent years, at least in the past 10 years, has passed fewer than 3,000 pages of public general legislation? Is not one possibility that successive governments of different parties might be a little more economical of print and paper?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. It is interesting that if one looks at the number of public Bills passed in recent years, there is not a definite trend. The number

921
simply goes up and down. However, what my noble and learned friend says is true; namely, that the sheer number of pages at which your Lordships are asked to look has increased, and I admit that.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree, as he told us that this matter was last considered in 1923, that quite a lot has happened in 66 years?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, of course we looked at our procedures as a result of a committee set up by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw when he was Leader of the House. Perhaps I may suggest that it is too soon for us to go round that particular course again. However, the Government must look as carefully as possible at what is being brought before your Lordships and particularly at the number of amendments once a Bill has been introduced. I assure the House that that is something which I take very seriously indeed.
Noble Lords: Government amendments.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, yes, I mean government amendments.

Trafford Park Development Corporation
2.49 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what circumstances the present chairman of the Trafford Park Development Corporation will not continue in that post, and what are their future plans for the corporation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the present chairman of the Trafford Park Development Corporation has expressed the wish not to be re-appointed when his contract expires on 9th February. A new chairman will be appointed as soon as possible. The corporation will continue to build on the foundations which have already been laid for the successful regeneration of the area.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was told before we rose for the Christmas Recess that the chairman of the Trafford Development Corporation was to be replaced? Does the Minister also recall that two years ago I challenged the wisdom of the Government appointing the same person to chair two large-scale quangos in the same area? Is it not a fact that too much responsibility has been loaded on to one person? We were led to believe that the plans for that area would generate 20,000 to 30,000 jobs in what was the largest manufacturing area in the United Kingdom. Is that still the Government's objective and when will some action be taken?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is well aware that the Government's commitment is to success. I am also
922
sure that the noble Lord knows that the Government are extremely grateful to Mr. Peter Hadfield for his contribution both to the Trafford Park Development Corporation and to the Greater Manchester Residuary Body. I can only add to that by pointing out to your Lordships' House that some 2 million square feet of commercial and industrial development is either completed or under construction and has already attracted a further £200 million of private sector investment into the area.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister. I refer specifically to jobs in the manufacturing industry, not floor space that may become warehouses. Are the Government committed to the area once again becoming a major area of manufacturing, bearing in mind that last month we lost 45,000 more jobs in the manufacturing sector in Great Britain?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, from the latter part of the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I think it is fair to say that he is drawing an extension to the argument placed in the first Question. The fact is that what we have to provide at Trafford Park are jobs that are required for the successful future of this country within Europe and the world. We cannot define in advance the types of jobs they will be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in view of the fact that this House, like another place, spent many hours considering the economic development powers to be given to local councils in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, will the Government now announce measures to extend the resources available to them? Will the Government now recognise that the role, however valuable it may have been in limited areas of the urban development corporations, might with advantage be taken over by local authorities?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always, I am very excited that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, feels that I am able to make radical changes to government policy on the hoof. However, I can assure him that we believe the UDCs have been a great success and that the recent Bill which has now become an Act will also assist in providing opportunity for local authorities to increase their successful contribution.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the London Development Corporation took over from local authorities and yet, in the 15 years it has had to manipulate the area it controls, it has not even built a toilet?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have to confess to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that I was unaware of that specific point.

Ambulance Workers' Pay
2.52 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the present arrangements for determining the pay of ambulance workers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we are satisfied with the present arrangements as provided by the Whitley Council negotiating machinery.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that, in asking this Question, I am not seeking to intervene in the current unhappy dispute? That would not be helpful. Will she confirm that the chief executive of the National Health Service has proposed that the staff and management sides should undertake a joint review of the ambulance service salary structure in which no preconditions would be set? Does this mean, for example, that if arbitration or a review body is ruled out, at least some flexible system, such as that now being introduced in parts of the Civil Service, may be used in future to determine the pay of ambulance workers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, part of the final offer which was made on 5th December included a complete review of the 1986 arrangements, which aim at maximum flexibility.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the arrangements for pay settlements made in the fire service in the winter of 1977, in which my noble friend Lord Callaghan played an incisive part, have produced more than a decade of excellent industrial relations in that critical service? Does she agree that it would indeed be folly to disrupt those arrangements? Does she also agree that in considering the future of the ambulance service it would be wise to reflect on the benefits which have been received from the fire service and to seek to negotiate something which would be, by agreement with the unions, penned to ambulancemen and women?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my information is that the last review of the salary structure was made in 1986, when ambulancemen and women got an exceptionally good deal at the introduction of the new salary structure. It cost a lot more then than the generality of other pay settlements. Since then, and including the present final offer, the real value of that deal has been more than maintained. In addition, the standard working week has been reduced by one hour.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has my noble friend noted the attempt by the European Parliament to intervene in this matter? Will she indicate that a firm, positive and definite reply will be sent to it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have indeed noted that members of the British Labour Group in the
924
European Parliament have introduced the question of the ambulance service dispute. However, they have not made any direct contact with the Department of Health or the National Health Service management executive, as far as I am aware.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that, if the workers in the highly inefficient ambulance service want more pay, they should propose higher productivity and savings in that service to pay for it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in his basic premise that high settlements anywhere, without compensating productivity gains, undermine competitiveness and cost jobs.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, how can the Minister say the situation is satisfactory when this strike has been going on for weeks and does not appear to be coming to an end? Why do not the Government, instead of making statements every other week—in some cases expressing a different view; and the Minister has today referred us back to the Whitley Council—do what any sensible employer would do and submit the case to arbitration?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe the Whitley Council machinery is the appropriate machinery in this case. I have to say that the main ambulance unions have consistently refused to negotiate on the final offer made on 5th December last year. At the only joint meeting since then it was rejected out of hand without discussion.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, with reference to this dispute some people say that the ambulancemen have been offered 6·5 per cent. and others say that they have been offered 9 per cent. Can my noble friend help me and the House by saying who has been offered what?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we cannot understand why NUPE and its associated unions keep insisting that the final offer is still only 6·5 per cent. when everybody has said as plainly as they can that it is at least 9 per cent., backdated to 1st April. That means that a qualified ambulanceman or woman would get back pay to the end of December of up to £680 and up to £980 in London.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, at the risk of upsetting my noble friend, who feels we should not comment on the present dispute, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether, had her circumstances been different and she herself had become an ambulance worker (I am sure she would have been a very efficient and dedicated one), she herself would have been prepared to accept a pay rise of 6·5 per cent. in the present circumstances.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I believe I just said, it is not 6·5 per cent. The noble Lord must remember that this offer was made almost a year ago; it relates to April last year. It coincides very well with other agreements made within the National Health Service.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that however unsatisfactory the pay settlement system for the ambulance workers may appear this year it would be wrong in principle and in practice to alter that system without looking at the system of pay settlements if not throughout the whole public service at least throughout the health service? It would be most unfair on other sectors of workers in the health service to make one ad hoc change, which seems to be what so many noble Lords are pressing for, in my view quite wrongly.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that most reasonable point. As I said previously, it is a better offer than that accepted by over 200,000 other staff also doing important work in the health service, the offer having been made on the same basis.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, has anyone considered—I am sure that they have not—blowing the dust off the Megaw Committee Report? I declare an interest because I was a member of that committee on the pay of non-industrial civil servants. It recommended that negotiations should take place within the inter-quartile range in comparison with the private sector. That would seem to be particularly appropriate to such people as ambulance workers.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware of that point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when an industrial dispute has to be resolved according to existing arrangements, by and large it is seldom profitable to consider other arrangements, in particular if those other arrangements could well involve serious and complex problems of classification?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that point. In an organisation where pay accounts for over 70 per cent. of costs it is essential that NHS management retains control of the amounts that it pays out for salaries and wages. It has to ensure that pay awards do not divert resources from patient care.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, are the Government giving serious consideration to the possibility of transferring qualified ambulancemen at least to the responsibility of the pay review body for nurses, midwives and professions supplementary to medicine? It seems to me that it might be an easy solution in the future.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in looking to the future we are looking for greater flexibility. We recognise that a modern ambulance service needs to reward the use of additional paramedical skills. That is why the current offer includes an additional £500 per annum for staff with extended training to National Health Service training authority standards.
Perhaps I may make a further point. We have also offered to agree with the unions a national
926
framework for the recognition of staff with intermediate skills with payment backdated to 1st April 1989.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her complacency about the adequacy of the present arrangements will not be shared by millions of people up and down the country? They will certainly not be happy with the replies that she has given to some of the very pertinent points that have been raised. A 9 per cent. increase over 18 months is 6·5 per cent. over 12 months. We continue to say therefore that 6·5 is the rate of annual increase.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hope that I have not given the impression of complacency. I have pointed out that the very great importance we attach to these negotiations is in order to ensure that pay awards do not divert resources from patient care.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may put two questions to the noble Baroness. First, is she aware that on 28th November 15 Peers and Cross-Benchers wrote to the Secretary of State about the ambulance dispute? They were all people who had had great experience with the National Health Service. It took him five weeks to answer. He then said that he would not receive a deputation. Was that not rather discourteous?
Secondly, what is one to make of a Secretary of State who on "Panorama" a week ago called for a two-tier health service and a two-tier ambulance service; and three days later denied that he had said what millions of people heard and saw him say?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of the first part of his question. I have to make the point that the Christmas Recess period intervened. My right honourable friend appreciated the offer of a meeting but, as I understand he made clear in his reply, matters had moved on since the letter was written. Management had by then made the final offer of 5th December which included the 9 per cent. basic increase over the 18-month period, an additional £500 for paramedical staff, and the other factors that I have already touched upon this afternoon. Unfortunately I did not see the "Panorama" programme to which the noble Lord referred. However, with regard to editing arrangements, not all that one reads in the newspapers should be taken at face value.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what is the average pay in the ambulance service? How does it compare with the average industrial wage?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the national rate for a qualified ambulanceman is currently £10,093. In ondon a qualified ambulanceman earns £11,074 per annum. Those are basic rates. Individuals may have take-home pay that varies.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in her reply to my noble friend about the "Panorama" programme, is the noble Baroness aware that she is

927
suggesting that the programme makers had "fixed" that programme? Since we know what we saw and heard, is the noble Baroness suggesting that the programme was edited so that we did not hear what we heard or see what we saw?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear that I did not see the programme. I therefore did not hear or see anything. Nevertheless, as a general premise I am sure that the noble Lord will accept what I said earlier.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred earlier to the Whitley Council. Although management representatives are in theory free to negotiate with the staff side of the Whitley Council, is it not the case that in practice settlements can be reached only with the prior approval of the Secretary of State or even the Treasury? Are there therefore not three sides to these negotiations rather than two?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no negotiators, whether in the public or private sector, can be expected to go into pay negotiations with a blank cheque. The National Health Service management agrees with Ministers the extent of the negotiating limits for various staff groups. How these are used is for the management side to determine.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Co-operative Development Agency (Winding Up and Dissolution) Order 1989, the European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 1989 and the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 1989 will be taken.
Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend or the noble Lord the Leader of the House how many days it is
928
proposed to give for discussion in Committee; and what hours will your Lordships be expected to sit? I ask that question because the original allotment was four days. One day has now been added, though it was put on the Order Paper only yesterday; and, as your Lordships will understand, that is a grossly inadequate time for the discussion of such a Bill.
As for the length of sittings, I was assured that the Committee would sit normal hours. Evidently, that means sitting at the latest until 10.30 p.m. or 10.45 p.m. The noble Lord the Chief Whip, who was kind enough to speak to me about the matter, did however warn that, if we fell badly behind, the Committee might have to sit longer hours. I see that we were at one, even though over the telephone.
We have so far had only one day in Committee and noble Lords were required on that occasion to sit until 10.45 p.m. After only one day in Committee, I saw on the Cross-Benchers' notice, which has the authority of the noble Lord the Chief Whip, a warning that on the third day of Committee— on Thursday—noble Lords may be required to sit late or very late. "Late" clearly means after 10.45 p.m. and "very late" must be considerably worse than that, probably after midnight.
In determining what is a reasonable period for discussion, one can compare this Bill with the Children Bill of the last Session, for which my noble and learned friend was responsible. Six days were given for discussion in Committee. But that Bill was quite uncontroversial. It was based on wide consultation and commanded general agreement. This Bill, on the other hand, stands in important regards in contradiction of the recommendations of a recent Royal Commission. It is of high constitutional importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, an eminent constitutional historian, pointed out at Second Reading.
There is another peculiar aspect of the Bill's discussion in Committee. At Second Reading a great number of noble Lords put their names down to speak. My noble and learned friend, very naturally and properly if I may say so, did not adopt the usual course of explaining each clause in succession in amplification of the explanatory memorandum. As a result we are bound to be a little slower than usual in ascertaining the effect and meaning of each clause.
Moreover, last Tuesday we discussed the very important matter of the resources that would be available to make Part I work at all. It soon became clear that the financial part of the explanatory memorandum bore no relationship to what was actually involved. My noble and learned friend understandably could not give figures in pounds, shillings and pence because Part I of the Bill is not to have effect until 1991–92. He gave a number of starting figures which require considerable working out and probing. In all parts of the Committee it was felt essential to try to clarify what resources should be available.
If ever a Bill required longer time in Committee than the Children Bill, it it this Bill. If ever a Bill of high constitutional importance was unsuitable for hustling through this House hugger-mugger, it is this Bill.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble and learned Lord that this important Bill should be considered properly in Committee. That is our constitutional duty. We are all agreed that it is something which we are determined to see done. I should like to give an assurance that there is no question of the Government trying to hustle the Bill through. However, it is the practice of the House, when we have a substantial Committee stage on our hands, that progress should be reviewed as the Bill goes along. I promise that we shall do that through the usual channels.
The noble and learned Lord was good enough to make the point that an additional day, making five days in Committee, as proposed at the moment, has been allocated on the Order Paper. However, perhaps I may add one point to what I have said. It must surely be for the convenience of every noble Lord to know where we shall reach at the end of the day so that we know what will be the business on the Bill on the next sitting day. If we are obviously falling short of reasonable targets for the different days, we shall have to face the prospect of having to sit rather later on certain days.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has the respect and affection of every Member of the House. I am sure that he will not think me discourteous if I say that one possible reason for the delay in getting through the provisions of the Bill is speeches of the length of the noble and learned Lord's speech on the mere subject of how much time we are taking. I say that with deep respect.
It is vital that this important Bill has the definite consideration of the Committee but that does not mean that one has to make a long speech to make a point on an amendment. It is rather sad that we did not make more progress on the first Committee day. Part II is an important part of the Bill—possibly, many Members of the Committee may think, the most important part. We are dealing today with a part of Part I, having completed a small part of it on the last occasion. I plead with the Committee and with the Leader of the House that we aim at completing Part I today, whatever time we have to sit to, in order that on the next occasion we may with certainty reach Part II and aim to complete the Bill in the five days allocated to it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It was because the House took some time in getting started on the first day—we discussed only Clause 1—that it was agreed through the usual channels that there should be an extra day. I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that we shall keep looking at the matter as we go along. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made my point better than I did. It is essential that noble Lords should know where we shall reach at the end of the day. I join the noble Lord in expressing the hope that we reach the end of Part I today so that we can start Part II on Thursday.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I feel that we should finish Part I today. We should have no difficulty in doing so at a reasonable hour provided that we do not make our speeches too long. When my noble friend says that we shall finish in five days, I assume that he means five days starting from today, which would mean six days altogether.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, no, I did not mean that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Transfer of proceedings between courts]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert ("to the parties").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with leave, also address Members of the Committee on Amendment No. 20, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and three other noble Lords.
Clause 2(1) substitutes Section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984 concerning the transfer of proceedings from the High Court to the county court. When the High Court makes the decision to transfer proceedings from that court to the county court, the authorities must consider to which county court the proceedings should be sent. The test provided under Section 40(4) of the County Courts Act is that the High Court in making its decision on the choice of county court should consider the convenience of the parties. Such matters as where the parties live, the distances to be travelled by witnesses, and so on, need to be considered.
The provision in the new proposed Section 40(4) omits the consideration of the convenience of the parties. Presumably the noble and learned Lord has omitted that provision because he is concerned that there should be efficient use of court resources, of continuous trial centres and perhaps, after computerisation, of a central computer records system which will indicate to those transferring cases from the High Court which county courts can most conveniently and expeditiously take a particular case. No doubt circumstances could arise where certain courts have less business than others and therefore those with less business would be ready and able to take a transferred case more quickly.
While it is important—and I recognise that fact in moving this amendment—for the courts to have freedom to consider the choice of court on the basis just described, in my submission it should not override the interests of the parties. There are two alternative provisions before the Committee designed to tackle the problem. It may well be that my amendment, which sticks entirely to the wording currently contained in the County Courts Act, is, or could be, a little inhibiting on the High Court. It may be that the amendment about to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gives greater flexibility to the court. If Members of the Committee feel that way, I shall be happy to withdraw my

931
amendment and tread—as I have already done and, I imagine, I shall do so again—in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I agree with every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I prefer the wording of my amendment for the very reason which he gives. I shall move Amendment No. 20 when my turn arises.
Lord Renton: I also agree. The method proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for amending this provision seems to me to be preferable to that contained in the amendment to which I have put my name.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support this amendment. However, in considering them both I prefer that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the reasons that have already been given. It is crucial that one or other of these amendments should be introduced to ensure that administrative convenience shall not defeat the convenience of the parties. As some noble Lords will remember, Lord Atkin once had something to say about administrative convenience not being on speaking terms with the due administration of justice. Of course, that is really what this is all about.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is right in saying that the reason we altered the wording is to make it possible for the court to take account of convenience generally. Of course the convenience of the parties is included in that consideration. However, I did not wish to restrict it to the convenience of the parties because, for example, if it was convenient for certain parties to have a long case in a particular court it may be very inconvenient from the point of view of other litigants wishing to litigate in that place. In seeking to dispense justice to all litigants, the High Court would want to take account generally of convenience.
I think therefore that there is very little between the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and what I wish to achieve. If the noble Lord is willing to leave the matter with me I shall see that it is reconsidered. I intended to include the convenience of parties along with the convenience of all others who might have recourse to the court. These are matters for the High Court to consider in making such a transfer.
Lord Mishcon: Having regard to what the noble and learned Lord just said, and in the circumstances, I wonder whether he could simply accept the amendment I propose. I would hope that he do so and thereby the first acceptance by the Government of an amendment could be recorded. It would make the Government appear in a very reasonable light if, having agreed with everything said in regard to this amendment, the noble and learned Lord accepted it.
The Lord Chancellor: I have a moment to consider the amendment before it is formally moved.
Lord Hacking: In view of my preference for the second of these two amendments, the best course for me to take now is to withdraw the amendment. I leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to press the matter if he wishes to do so with Amendment No. 20. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
("having taken into account the convenience of the parties").
The Lord Chancellor: I think that it would be perfectly reasonable for me to accept the amendment. It may be that on consideration parliamentary counsel will wish to finish it in some way because the phraseology is perhaps not the most expedient. However, in order to make progress, I shall accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 20, leave out from ("transfer") to end of line 22.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26. These two amendments make parallel provisions relating to transfers from the High Court to the county courts and to transfers from the county courts to the High Court.
Amendment No. 21 omits that part of the provision which provides that a transfer of a case from the High Court to the county courts does not prevent the enforcement in the High Court of any judgment or order made in that case before the transfer. These words were appropriate in the old Section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984—which is being replaced here in an amended form—because the question of transfer of enforcement proceedings was dealt with in a separate section; namely, Section 106. In this Bill, however, Section 106 is repealed and subsumed within the general transfer arrangements under this clause. Although this is a desirable simplification of the County Courts Act, it has the effect of making these words inappropriate. Clearly, when enforcement proceedings are ordered to be transferred from the High Court the intention is to prevent the judgment from which they arise being enforced in the High Court. That is the point of such a transfer.
Amendment No. 26, as I said, parallels this amendment but relates to transfers of cases from the county courts to the High Court. Exactly similar considerations apply. Noble Lords will remember that I sought to explain last week what I had in mind generally in this connection. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: It seems to me that the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend undoubtedly represents better drafting than that which appears in the Bill. He has explained why there is this difference between the powers of the High Court and those of the county court as a result of this amendment. However, the reason is technical and results from what is contained elsewhere in the

933
Bill. Therefore, I think that we should all support these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 33, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

("(a) the powers of any court to set aside, correct, vary or quash a judgment or order of the High Court, and the enactments relating to appeals from such a judgment or order, shall continue to apply; and

(b) the powers of any court to set aside, correct, vary or quash a judgment or order of a county court, and the enactments relating to appeals from such a judgment or order, shall not apply.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 27. The amendments are essentially drafting amendments. Amendment No. 27 seeks to change the way in which the old Section 106(2) of the County Courts Act 1984 has been incorporated into new Section 42 of that Act. The aim continues to be that when a judgment is transferred for enforcement, the court from which it is transferred remains responsible for it for the purpose of revision and appeal; in other words, if it is a High Court judgment transferred for enforcement, the High Court will be responsible.
The amendment makes it clear, however, that when a county court judgment is transferred to the High Court for those purposes, the High Court as well as the county court will be responsible for revision. That is because the High Court always exercises a supervisory jurisdiction over the county courts.
Amendment No. 22 merely ensures consistency in the drafting of the equivalent provision governing transfers from the High Court to the county courts. I believe that this is a drafting improvement. I beg to move.
Baroness Phillips: I shall not delay the Committee, but I am mystified as to why the noble and learned Lord has to bring forward so many amendments when this is the first time that the Bill has come into either place. We presumably employ skilful, and, I imagine, expensive legal experts to draft Bills. As far as I can count, there are about 20 of these amendments. They are straightforward, and one wonders why we have to change the Bill at this stage. Why was it not correct before it came to us?
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that it is fair to say that it is right to deal with these matters with a fairly open mind. If someone makes a suggestion which would improve what we have, we should try to make use of that suggestion. That is what I have done. Bills are generally drafted within government. When the Bill is open to public scrutiny, many people make suggestions. I have always taken the view that it is my job to do my best to get the Bill right in the light of all the considerations available. The amendments that we are discussing, and later ones, are intended to take account of that process. That is why I always listen carefully to what Members of this place say in
934
the hope that I may be able to improve Bills still further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 9, leave out ("Act or) and insert ("County Courts Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting change to the reference to the County Courts Act 1984 in subsection (2) of the clause to achieve consistency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("by any procedure provision").
The noble Lord said: I shall not move Amendment No. 24, but I see that it is grouped with Amendment No. 25, which it is suggested has already been debated. That is an amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend. I was not aware that it had been debated and therefore it should have been grouped separately on the list.
The Lord Chancellor: My impression is that the amendment was debated with Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. It was debated in connection with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, to delete the court's power to strike out when an action was brought in contravention of a procedure provision. All the amendment does is add a requirement that, if the striking power is to be used, it can be used only in the event described in the amendment. We tended to assume that the court would not use the power except in those circumstances but, having regard to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, it was thought better to incorporate it. It is an example of the procedure that I described to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I am sure that he is right.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 24, after ["(b)") insert ("if the court is satisfied that the person bringing the proceedings knew, or ought to have known, of that requirement,").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("transfer") to end of line 35.
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

("(a) the powers of any court to set aside, correct, vary or quash a judgment or order of a county court, and the

935
enactments relating to appeals from such a judgment or order, shall continue to apply; and

(b) the powers of any court to set aside, correct, vary or quash a judgment or order of the High Court, and the enactments relating to appeals from such a judgment or order, shall not apply.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 5, leave out lines 23 to 26, and insert—
("(b) prescribing the circumstances in which a registrar or clerk may decide to transfer proceedings from one court to another after giving the parties an opportunity to make representations, and the procedure consequent upon any such transfer.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to achieve two things: first, that the decision to transfer proceedings from one court to another is taken by a registrar or clerk. As the clause stands, that important decision can be taken by any "officer of the court". Any "officer of the court" is widely defined in Section 147 of the County Courts Act 1984 to include, along with the registrar and the clerk,
"any bailiff, usher or messenger in the service of the court".
Given the importance of the decision, it is surprising that the Bill does not restrict the decision-making to an officer with the necessary experience, knowledge and wisdom. That would be a registrar or clerk. Secondly, the amendment would ensure that the parties to the proceedings are given an opportunity to make representations.
It is pointed out in the Notes on Clauses that the power of transfer is important if the courts are to ensure that judicial time is to be saved. The Notes on Clauses indicate that it is envisaged that the power will be used to transfer a case from a county court with a long waiting list to a county court with spare capacity. Clearly, we agree with that objective. Court resources are not to be wasted. It is a fair objective. Here again, however, it is important that regard should be had to the views of the parties. The system should be seen to be facilitating co-operation with the parties. It may be said by the noble and learned Lord that the parties are consulted in the vast majority of cases. That may be so, but we believe that that practice should be acknowledged in the Bill and converted into a duty. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: One effect of the amendment would be that the expression "officer of the court" which is in the Bill at line 24 on page 5 would disappear and be replaced by the expression "registrar or clerk". I am trying to find whether the expression "officer of the court" is defined in the Bill. It does not seem to be. If it is not and what is meant is a registrar or clerk, then it would be better to express it so.
Lord Hacking: Perhaps I may help the Committee. The term is defined in the County Courts Act. I shall look up the correct section. The term includes people such as ushers and messengers of the court.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said, the phrase "officer of the court" is defined in the statute into which the provision is being put. In that respect it has an advantage over the word "clerk" because "clerk" has no such definition. I should like to remind the Committee of the context in which the phrase applies. It is a power given to the county court rule committee to make arrangements. The Committee may take it that the county court rule committee would make appropriate arrangements to deal with the matter. As it is a matter of procedure, I suggest that it is right to leave it to the county court rule committee to prescribe the circumstances in which proceedings may be transferred by the decision of any officer of the court, whose identity is for the Committee to specify, from one court to another, and the procedure consequent upon any such transfer.
I have no doubt that the county court rule committee would think it right to enable the matters affecting the parties to be properly taken into account before a decision is made. I venture to suggest to Members of the Committee that these matters are best left to the county court rule committee, the statutory body with responsibility in the area.
Lord Mishcon: I tried to make this point on the first day in Committee and perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I make it again. This part of the Bill has been heralded as a way of making our procedures in court and our trials shorter in duration, quicker to come on and more economical in the course of the trial procedure. The noble and learned Lord deserves the thanks and praise of all of us for attempting to do that.
It has also been heralded therefore as something which exists for the convenience of the parties. Perhaps I may quote the previous amendment which was agreed to. It should be ostensibly and clearly on the face of the Bill, and I think that it would help if we made that intention quite plain. It does not stop the rule committee from borrowing or altering this wording, but the intent ought to be clear on the face of the Bill that the parties will be heard in regard to such matters of transfer. I feel that in the circumstances the noble and learned Lord may, on reconsideration, agree to the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I did not wish to take technical matters, but one of the consequences of the Bill under a later clause is to substitute a new name for the registrar. I shall consider what has been said but I do not wish to go further than that at present. I shall consider whether some alteration to what is in the Bill should be made in the light of what Members of the Committee have said. It is a matter for the rule committees. They are likely to wish to give opportunities to parties on a lot of matters where that is not expressly stated. It is one of their obligations to make sure that the procedure is fair. However, I shall consider what the noble Lord said.
Lord Mishcon: On matters of principle such as this I consider that the Committee should state its view. I say with the deepest respect that where the

937
principle is right, unless there is a good reason to the contrary the Government ought to accept the amendment.
The principle is clear, and therefore if the noble and learned Lord cannot give an undertaking that these words or similar words will be incorporated in the Bill at Report stage he leaves me no alternative but to divide the Committee. I do not wish to do so. If the noble and learned Lord will say that he will favourably consider the amendment, I shall withdraw my proposal.
The Lord Chancellor: I am perfectly prepared to do that. I shall consider with favour any representation that the noble Lord has made, and this one perhaps with more favour than others.
Lord Mishcon: In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This clause and subsequent clauses amend by reference the County Courts Act and in some cases the Supreme Court Act. I think we are bound nowadays to accept legislation by such a reference but we have to consider the matter—as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham will remember—in relation to the Housing Act 1985. What was in question then was consolidation, or, as an alternative, reprinting the amended statute in the statutes in force. My noble and learned friend then managed to achieve both: first, the reprint and subsequently a massive consolidation.
I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can say anything about the prospects of consolidation. Unless that is imminent, what is his view about the reprint of the statutes in force, which are very valuable to practitioners? If there is to be a reprint, there is no reason to wait until the Bill has passed into law. The editor of the statutes in force can perfectly well set machinery in motion at this stage. With that in view, perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will say, if the editor has not already been approached, whether he will immediately be approached.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I consider that the best way to deal with such amendments is by textual amendment of the basic statute—in this case the County Courts Act. For my part, if the Bill becomes law I should wish to pursue the question of consolidation of these statutes. That would be intended as a structure for the High Court and the county courts for some time to come.
On the question of seeking to give instructions before the Bill becomes law, I do not know that that would be wise in this case. Consolidation is certainly a matter which I would very much wish to have in mind.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. I thought I had made it clear that I do not quarrel with textual amendments of this kind. They seem to me to be inevitable. Consolidation takes a long time and my noble and learned friend understandably could not hold out any immediate prospect. What can be done immediately is the reprinting of the statutes in force. I ask my noble and learned friend to be rather more forthcoming about that because it is of urgent importance to practitioners.
Lord Chancellor: I indicated that I would consider that. It will be some time anyway before these matters are brought into force, for the reasons which I explained last time regarding this part of the Bill. I shall consider what my noble and learned friend said.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Remedies available in county courts]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, leave out line 36 and insert ("—

(a) absolute or conditional;

(b) final or interlocutory.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment to subsection (2) of the new Section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984 to make it clear that in line 36 of page 5 there are two pairs of alternatives. As drafted, the provision is open to misunderstanding. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 31 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 inclusive.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, leave out from beginning of line 37 to end of line 18 on page 6 and insert—
("(3) A county court shall not have power to order mandamus, certiorari or prohibition.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 3(1) seeks to substitute Sections 38 and 39 of the County Courts Act 1984 and deals with the remedies that are available to the county courts in the orders which they make.
In the proposed new subsection (3) of the new Section 38 of the County Courts Act there is a prohibition on the county courts exercising certain powers which are used exclusively in the High Court in matters of judicial review. Those are the powers of mandamus, certiorari or prohibition. The Committee may recall that the effect of agreeing that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill—in particular that Clause 1(6) stand part—is that matters of judicial review will therefore remain in the High Court and will not be taken in the county court.
Under subsection (3)(b) of the proposed new Section 38 of the County Courts Act it is specified that county courts shall not have power,
"to make any order of a prescribed kind".

939
Prescribed kinds of orders will therefore be subject to subordinate legislation. There are certain orders that are currently used in the High Court, such as Mareva injunctions which freeze the assets of another party when there are good grounds for believing that those assets may be dissipated and hence the plaintiff be deprived of the use of them. There is another order currently used in the High Court, an Anton Piller order, which gives certain rights of searching and seizing when there are good grounds for believing that documents or assets will be destroyed.
As it is proposed to give county courts extensive further powers and extensive further jurisdiction within the terms of this Bill, two important points arise. First, the orders to which I have referred are of importance to the High Court. They are sparingly used but on the occasions when they are used they are of considerable importance. If the Committee transfers under the terms of the legislation considerable further powers to the county courts, litigants in the county courts will be at a disadvantage on the special occasions when there is a need for such orders. In those circumstances, although the trial judge may be willing to give the parties those orders their lawyers will have to seek a High Court judge, explain the issues afresh to him and by that means obtain the orders they are seeking. That will cause a rise in costs and, I suggest, will diminish the efficiency of the county courts.
Secondly, although there is an express provision under the proposed new Section 38(4)(b) for the transfer to the High Court of proceedings when it is thought by a trial judge in a county court that it may be necessary to use such orders, there are two disadvantages. First, speed is of the essence, particularly when an Anton Piller order is involved, and, secondly, there is the matter of cost. It is for those reasons that I urge this amendment upon the Committee.
As regards the deletion of the whole of subsection (4) of the proposed new Section 38, it concerns the regulations which would follow from giving power under the legislation under the terms of the proposed subsection (3)(b). Therefore, those regulations are no longer needed. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I wish to raise a matter about which there is considerable anxiety and which arises out of the terms of the recent Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Anxiety has been expressed by the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents as regards why it is printed at the bottom of page 115 of the Bill that Section 290 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is to be repealed. Incidentally, I am speaking against the amendment. I may be entirely wrong in raising this matter at this stage, but there is anxiety as regards how far regulations which I believe the noble and learned Lord said would be produced to enforce the wish to have certain patents and intellectual property cases sent to the county courts in order to save time and expense will be affected by this proposed new section, which deals with the remedies available in county courts.
940
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be able to reassure me that there is no intention under the Bill in the clauses relating to amendments to the County Courts Act to take away the rights that were given under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Those rights were accepted with some enthusiasm by the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. Perhaps the regulations which now apply under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 would be covered by subsection (4) of the proposed new Section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984 which is to be amended.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of this part of the clause is to deal with the orders that a county court should have power to make. As there is an express statutory prohibition against a county court having judicial review jurisdiction, paragraph (a) of the proposed subsection (3) is clearly correct. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, does not wish to remove that.
As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, it is not my intention to cut down any existing powers of county courts in relation to patents and other matters covered in the recent legislation. However, under the terms of paragraph (b) of the proposed subsection (3) orders which are of a somewhat delicate kind—some people may call them draconian—will be used only in the High Court. The two types of orders that are principally in question are those that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned—the Mareva injunction and the Anton Piller order. Neither of those is a particularly defined order. Both describe a group of orders.
Perhaps there are some circumstances in which it would be right for county courts to have power to grant some kinds of Mareva injunctions. The purpose of this clause is to enable us to consider these matters and to define the power of county courts by reference to such considerations. Before any power of this kind were exercised, considerable consultation would have to be carried out. However, these orders are quite difficult to define. To attempt to do so in a primary provision would have the effect that if one got the matter wrong one might create difficulties that would last for a considerable time. The present method of tackling the matter seems to me to give an opportunity for a proper definition and for a proper consideration of the circumstances. In these circumstances I believe that it would be right to leave in what this amendment seeks to take out.
I am aware that Mareva injunctions of a certain kind are quite commonly sought in matrimonial proceedings in county courts. One would have to consider whether it was appropriate to accept matrimonial proceedings if one was making a rule that Mareva injunctions generally were not available. I believe this is an appropriate provision to make in the circumstances.
Obviously one could reconsider the matter in the light of experience and of the development in county court procedures which I hope we shall see under the Bill if and when it takes effect. I hope that in the

941
light of those considerations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hacking: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said and the assurances that he has given the Committee, I am content at this stage to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 33 had been replaced by Amendment No. 31.]
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 46, leave out ("relief") and insert ("an order").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 34 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 35. They are purely drafting amendments turning a reference to "relief given" to a reference to "order made". I believe that that is a drafting improvement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5, line 47, leave out ("given") and insert ("made").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 6, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment coincides with one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. It removes the repeal of Sections 50 and 51 of the County Courts Act 1984.
When the Bill was prepared I had intended to repeal those enabling powers in view of the new wide powers given to the county court by subsection (1) of the new Section 38. That subsection allows the county courts to make any orders which the High Court may presently make. On reflection, however, I feel that it would be advantageous to preserve separate rule-making powers for the High Court and the county courts so that if necessary the regimes providing provisional damages and interim damages in each forum can differ so as to match the procedures of each. The amendment therefore removes the repeal.
There will be a consequential amendment to the repeal schedule, Schedule 13, to which I shall speak later. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: I am very happy to join with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in what he has just said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Committee will not wish to depart from the clause without noting once again that it embodies a Henry VIII provision, which
942
appears on page 5, line 4. Moreover, the order making the Henry VIII provision is subject only to negative resolution, as the Committee will see from paragraph 7 on line 13.
From what was said to me after last week's debate I do not believe that those of us who spoke on the Henry VIII clauses made it sufficiently clear what is the constitutional mischief of a Henry VIII clause. That was perhaps because we took as the background the Children Act and the Second Reading of this Bill.
At different times in our history there has been a struggle as to who should have legislative power, the Executive or Parliament. That struggle has surged backwards and forwards at times. Under the Lancastrian kings Parliament made a great advance and was recognised to have the initiative in legislative matters. Then came the high-handed Tudors. Henry VIII took part himself and legislated under the Statute of Proclamations. He could make new laws; he could alter existing law. Therefore it is a matter of very considerable constitutional importance. That power of the Executive was not reasserted for many decades after the Glorious Revolution. With the second surge of bureaucratic advance in the 1920s the Henry VIII provisions, as they were illuminatingly called, came increasingly into our statutes. They were reviewed by the Donoughmore Committee.
I have never taken the categoric view that the Henry VIII provisions should in no circumstances come into our legislation. However, up to and including last Session, I understood that it was accepted that what the Donoughmore Committee said on this matter of great constitutional importance was still recognised. The committee said that Henry VIII clauses should be used only in exceptional circumstances: they should be clearly explained by the Minister in charge of the Bill concerned, who should justify their use to the hilt.
The matter came up again for the first time since Donoughmore in three Bills last Session. Some of us had the opportunity of discussing the matter on what is now the Children Act. Lord Elwyn-Jones took the lead. I understood that my noble and learned friend, who was in charge of the Children Bill, accepted that it could be used only in exceptional circumstances. He hastened to accept an amendment to take out words referring to the repeal of an Act of Parliament on the part of the Executive. He readily accepted what was urged from all parts of your Lordships' Committee and subsequently by the House, that if a Henry VIII provision were included in a statute it should not only be explained but it should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so that at that stage too it should be explained to Parliament what was required.
It was suggested in debate that notwithstanding that the Donoughmore recommendations had stood for so many years—from the early 'thirties to the late 'eighties—they must nevertheless be regarded as out of date because of the press of legislation that this Chamber and the other place now have to undertake. That begs the question that was canvassed at Question Time today, whether we really

943
need so much legislation and whether we are not in fact grossly over-governed.
When the matter came up on Clause 1 my noble and learned friend justified it on two grounds. The first was that the subsection in question, subsection (4), did not give any power to make an order. He said that no fewer than four times. He said it in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, saying that the noble Lord was wrong. He said it twice to me, saying that I was incorrect, and he said it again a fourth time to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I do not believe that anybody was convinced by that. The words of the subsection are absolutely plain. Indeed, an order under that subsection can only be made under that subsection and not, as my noble and learned friend asserted, under subsection (1).
My noble and learned friend had a more valid argument; namely, that the Henry VIII provision was consequential. On that ground I believe that it could be justified once it was explained. The same applies here. The provision is consequential on what goes earlier. I should not venture to take a rigid line on the matter, but merely note that it is quite inappropriate that it should be subject only to negative resolution.
The Committee will certainly not wish to leave the clause without noting that for the second time in the Bill—the second time in three clauses—there is a Henry VIII provision. There is another of a far more mischevious character later. I do not oppose the clause being made part of the Bill, but we should note where we are going constitutionally. I ask my noble and learned friend whether we were correct last Session in drawing the inference that he accepts what was said in the Donoughmore Report and that in future its limitations will be observed.
The Lord Chancellor: The situations in which provisions such as those in new Section 38(4)(d) are drawn up vary a great deal. The power in question in the Children Bill was a wide power to deal with the precise provisions that were then being made. This is a different situation altogether. The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Mishcon, were directly involved as was the late and very respected Lord Elwyn-Jones. He was concerned not so much about the general question as about the possibility that the power in the Children Bill would be used to repeal provisions which he thought of importance.
The situation here is different. We are considering enlargement of the powers of the county court and saying that they should not be allowed to be enlarged completely freely. There should be a possibility of restriction. I sought to explain what that involves. It is perfectly reasonable that in a power of that kind there should be a consequential power to deal with any enactment with which it might be necessary to deal in consequence of the regulations and of the exercise of that power.
I shall not go back over Clause 1(4). As the noble and learned Lord said, I made my position on that clear four times and I remain of the same opinion. This is a very proper clause and I ask noble Lords to pass it.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I do not want to go back over Clause 1, but I understood from the stand-part debate on that clause that my noble and learned friend was willing to look at the way in which subsections (1) and (4) of that clause had been drafted in order to make the position clear, not least in regard to whether affirmative or negative resolutions were required. I hope that he can now repeat that assurance. We might return on Report to the drafting of Clause 1 and perhaps to that of Clause 82 which deals with the making of orders.
I wish to emphasise how much I support the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale on the constitutional importance of the Henry VIII clause. Such clauses vary. We tried to make it clear that there were circumstances in which they might be proper. When we consider Clause 1(4) again on Report, one might say that it was necessary to deal only with the jurisdiction of the courts in primary legislation whereas practice or procedure might well be dealt with in the way suggested by my noble and learned friend. Such clauses vary in the mischief that they cause.
It is important that my noble and learned friend gives an answer to the question of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale: are the Government prepared to accept the primary recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee; namely, that while it did not disapprove of the use of such clauses in all circumstances, it said that they should be severely restricted and should always be explained and justified in the memorandum to the Bill?
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I certainly take the view that the restricted amendment powers which are dealt with here are not in the same category as the open amendment powers which were dealt with and described as a Henry VIII clause in the Children Bill. Many things have happened since Donoughmore reported, including the great development of the powers of the court in judicial review and the right to apply in the exercise of powers the underlying intention of the statute as the court gathers it. I have sought to make it plain in the Bill that that is what we desire to do. The Government certainly take fully into account the Donoughmore Committee's recommendations and I have sought to have regard to them, but, as I said earlier, the circumstances vary according to whether the clauses are in effect Henry VIII clauses.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. The exchanges that we have had are important. My noble and learned friend obviously accepts the generality of the Donoughmore recommendations. He says that judicial review is a supervening circumstance, but he did not explain why that should affect the Henry VIII clause. I cannot see that it does so in any way.
The question is quite simple: who legislates? Is Parliament to be short-circuited and the Executive given the power to legislate? My noble and learned friend is right to differentiate between the two classes of case. One was a clear breach of the spirit of

945
Donoughmore in the Children Act and one is bound to ask how the provision came into the Act. What kind of supervision of legislation is there nowadays if that can occur? My noble and learned friend is right to say that, where a provision is consequential, it may be justified as long as it is shown to be justifiable. I do not quarrel with that. I do not quarrel with consequential provisions of that kind, but we shall shortly find a far more heinous provision of the Henry VIII character in the Bill.
Lord Coleraine: Before we leave Clause 3, perhaps I may raise one small drafting point. I wish to ask my noble and learned friend whether it is appropriate in new Section 38(4) of the County Courts Act to refer to what regulations under subsection (3) may provide when subsection (3) does not appear to be a regulation-making subsection.
The Lord Chancellor: Subsection (3) is a regulation-making subsection because it contains the power to prescribe the order. Subsection (4) is intended to deal with the conditions of the prescription that may be made in relation to the orders.
Lord Coleraine: Is my noble and learned friend saying that, if the county court does not have power to make orders of a prescribed kind—we are talking about orders, not regulations—the regulation gives him the right to prescribe the orders which the county court may not make?
The Lord Chancellor: The aim of the regulation-making power is to enable the nature of the order that the county court should not have power to grant to be prescribed.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 36A:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals
.—(1) An applicant may appeal to the county court against any decision made by a local housing authority which is or should be notified to the applicant under s. 64 of the Housing Act 1985.
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) above shall require leave of the county court, which leave shall be granted only if the county court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the decision appealed against is wrong").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps the Committee will indulge me in making a rather longer speech than I normally do in support of this amendment. It deals with the least privileged of our fellow citizens and urges a reform which was discussed on the first day of Committee when we considered the question of judicial review in this connection. I would remind Members of the Committee that one is dealing with a provision of the Housing Act 1985 which imposes a duty on local housing authorities to provide accommodation for homeless people with a priority need provided that they are not intentionally homeless. The priority category includes families with children and the pregnant, elderly or mentally ill.
In regard to most, indeed all, of the major provisions which deal with the question of welfare,
946
the Committee will find in our legislation that an appeal procedure is provided for. In this connection there is no appeal provision at all. The history is as follows. Until 1983 the people representing the homeless who felt aggrieved by a wrong decision of the local authority could go to the county court and obtain a declaration from it that the determination of the local authority was wrong. That power of the court to make such a declaration was questioned in the case of Cox v. Thanet. It was there held that the only available remedy was a judicial review. On the last occasion when we dealt with this matter the noble and learned Lord said very fairly that the whole question of appeals and judicial review had been noted in the Civil Justice Review. Possibly neither he nor the Committee will mind if I quote exactly what the Civil Justice Review said at page 141, paragraph 750:
"A significant number of respondents pressed for the creation of a cheap, accessible local method for challenging local authority decisions in cases involving homelessness. Preference was expressed for a right of appeal to a County Court in such cases rather than applications to the High Court for judicial review, the latter being seen as a complex, lengthy and expensive method by which to obtain reconsideration of a decision which needed, of its nature, to take place with the utmost urgency.
The Review Body noted the concern expressed by respondents, including the Law Society, the Law Centres Federation, NACAB, the National Consumer Council, Shelter (the London Housing Aid Centre) and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. A formal recommendation to change the system would have involved an investigation of the substantive law of homelessness and the process of judicial review, neither of which was in the scope of the Review".
Perhaps I may say that a nod was as good as a wink. The Civil Justice Review was saying—I hope that the Committee think I am fair in my paraphrase—"One ought to look at this urgent social matter and the right of appeal. Within our terms of reference we cannot make a recommendation but we have thought it important enough to draw the attention of the community to this social need."
When we looked at the question of judicial review on the last occasion that we dealt with this matter it was on the basis of giving the county court jurisdiction to listen to judicial review cases which dealt with homelessness and certain other related social problems. When he dealt with that submission the noble and learned Lord felt that judicial review was not at all the job of the county court. I shall not go into those arguments. They were redoubtable, as are most of the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord. In the end we had to concede that the proper procedure in this case was not a judicial review in the county court but might well be a question of an appeal to the county court.
To use again the expression "a nod is as good as a wink", I thought—and other Members of the Committee might similarly feel—that I was entitled to take the words used by the noble and learned Lord on that occasion as an intimation that at all events the question of giving the county court such a jurisdiction, and indeed giving the homeless people that kind of right, was in his mind and, if I may use an expression that has been used today before, favourably in his mind.
We have now come forward with this amendment. The noble and learned Lord thought that there ought

947
to be some kind of clear indication as to where the right of appeal should be exercised in the county court. I believe that this amendment has succeeded in doing that because, as the Committee will see, subsection (2) of the amendment states:
"An appeal under subsection (1) above shall require leave of the county court,"—
so that there is not the question of a queue of hopeless and ridiculous cases coming to the county court—
"which leave shall be granted only if the county court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the decision appealed against is wrong".
For those Members of the Committee who may not be as familiar with the atmosphere of the county court as possibly I am, let me give a picture of the county court in such a matter, were such a right to be given. In a completely informal way the homeless person would explain himself or through a representative to the judge why the appeal was urgent and why the county court should hear it. I am sure that the learned judge in an equally informal way would ascertain from that person why the decision of the local authority was being challenged. On seeing that there was a strong prima facie case, if I may put it that way, leave would be granted and the matter would be heard. As in so many cases where leave is dealt with, it may very well be that because of the urgency the whole of the matter would be dealt with on the application for leave.
This is something which was supported by all parts of the Chamber on the last occasion. It is a pleasure to find with my name on this amendment the names of the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Meston and Lord Hacking. Members from all sides of the Committee are with me on this amendment. We now have an opportunity to do something for the very least privileged of our citizens. I am sure that my words, however inadequate, will fall upon fertile ground when the noble and learned Lord comes to answer. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I too hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will regard the amendment with great sympathy. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in moving it that he was necessarily going to have to do so pretty fully. Therefore there is no need for me to repeat his arguments, which I entirely support. I would simply add the following.
A clear case is made out in injustice occurring to people who are homeless and for whom Parliament has made other provision in order to overcome their problem; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out, there is a gap in our legislative arrangements because there is no right or opportunity of appeal from the decision of the housing committee, which may have been taken very hurriedly and perhaps at a low level. Surely it is right that when we have the Bill before us we should use the opportunity to fill that gap, more especially as in doing so we shall be increasing the jurisdiction of the county court, which is the broad purpose of the whole of Part I.
948
I think we should be failing were we not to deal with the suffering of the homeless in the ways that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has mentioned.
Lord Morris: One aspect of the amendment concerns me slightly; as the amendment is drafted, if an applicant seeks leave from the county court to appeal against the decision that had been made by the local housing authority by virtue of Section 64 of the Housing Act 1985, the court is required to be—I quote from subsection (2)—
"satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the decision appealed against is wrong".
Surely that asks the county court to consider the facts upon which the original hearing came to the decision that it did. That could create a can of worms whereby the request for leave to appeal would mean consideration of the facts before the court of first instance. I put that in as a consideration.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I should like to support the amendment. When there is consideration of whether somebody should be housed by a local authority a fundamental right is being adjudicated upon. Those against whom the decisions may go are those who are possibly least equipped to employ the machinery—even though in some ways it is a swift machinery—of seeking judicial review in the High Court. As we are increasingly learning, many of them are psychiatrically ill and have been released from psychiatric homes. Therefore, being mentally ill, they come within the category of those who fall for consideration of housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, described. I believe that we should supply that category of our citizens with a cheap and effective access to the courts.
With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Morris, as I understand it the purport of subsection (2) is to ensure the there is, as in some areas of the law, a preliminary filter which will ensure that the court is not clogged up by hopeless or frivolous cases. In my experience in other areas, this can be operated effectively and well. It can lead to speedier justice where it is used with good sense by lawyers, if there are lawyers, or other representatives of the parties concerned, and with the co-operation of the court. Therefore, I do not see subsection (2) as an obstacle to what I would urge upon your Lordships as an important and beneficial addition to the range of remedies in the county court.
Viscount Bledisloe: I should like to inquire of those moving the amendment whether they are perhaps not inadvertently making a change in the substantive rather than the procedural law. As I understand it—and I do not understand it—the procedure at present is that one can challenge such decisions only by judicial review. That means that one cannot challenge the merits of the decision; one can only say that procedurally it has gone wrong or that no reasonable housing committee could have come to the decision in question.
Here it is sought to substitute an appeal to the county court. Normally when one has an appeal to the county court, or to any court, within certain limits that court substitutes its own discretion or its

949
own decision for the decision of the body below. I appreciate that in subsection (2) leave is granted for the appeal to be heard only if the county court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for perceiving that the decision is wrong. That may be nearly a judicial review test, but once that leave is given is it not the case that the county court is then embarking on a perfectly straight appeal and in effect substituting its own decision for that of the housing committee? Therefore, is one not giving a much wider ground of appeal than exists at present rather than merely allowing matters to be dealt with cheaply and conveniently in the county court?
The Lord Chancellor: Although that question is directed against those who moved and supported the amendment, perhaps I may be allowed to have the first shot at answering it. The answer is undoubtedly yes; it is an attempt to change the basis on which the local authorities proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, kindly read out recommendations from the Civil Justice Review. There was no recommendation on this point. One of the reasons for that was that it was considered that any adjudication on the matter would require a consideration of the substantive law.
The Government have recently published the findings of a careful and lengthy review of the homelessness legislation which included consideration of right of appeal. The Government concluded that no changes to the legislation were necessary; that it provided an adequate safety net for those in priority need, homeless through no fault of their own. However, following the review, the Government are anxious that the legislation shall, in future, be administered in a quicker, fairer and more consistent manner. The Government propose to issue a new code of guidance to local authorities in connection with homelessness provisions, and a draft of that new code will shortly be issued for consultation.
Reference was made to the Children Act in earlier exchanges. One of the matters dealt with in the Children Act, with help from your Lordships and particularly from noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, was to develop the procedure in local authorities for review by them of their own decisions in relation to children in care. It appears to me that the best method of dealing with that sort of case is by a review mechanism within the local authority itself.
My noble friend Lord Renton indicated that decisions may be taken hurriedly and at a low level. One of the features that has come out of the review is that in about 30 per cent. of authorities there is an internal appeal system in order that the matter may be reviewed within the authority at an appropriately high level. I believe that the right way forward is to encourage the other 70 per cent. of local authorities which do not have such a mechanism to introduce one. I believe that the proper method of dealing with this question is for it to be in the hands of the locally elected representatives. It is a delicate matter to interfere with a local authority's decision in an area of this kind.
950
In relation to the review of homelessness legislation, the Association of District Councils said that any formal right of appeal to a third party would only hinder the processing of applications and make a call on already limited resources. It thought it important that applicants should feel that procedures were fair and had been adhered to. It therefore encouraged districts—they are the principal housing authorities generally—to set up internal appeals procedures for homeless applicants. Another representation also favoured setting up an internal appeal system for dealing with complaints brought by homeless applicants. Within the next month or so the Government hope to consult with local authorities in respect of a new code of guidance dealing with the matter.
The Civil Justice Review body appreciated that the matter was appropriately to be dealt with in connection with a review of the substantive law of homelessness with which the Bill is not concerned. The total number of applications turned down by local authorities in 1988—the last year for which we have a complete figure—was more than 120,000. I said recently that the total number of county court trials was approximately 10,000; so we are dealing with a high volume of business.
A filter mechanism has been included but, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, to appreciate properly whether it would work in such circumstances one would require to know the facts of the case. It is hard to see that in such a case the leave provision would make much difference from the substantive hearing. There are other cases in which the situation is different and no doubt we shall discuss them later. However, in this type of case it is essentially a matter of fact that is in issue.
Therefore, I believe that there is at least a risk that, instead of helping applicants who require an urgent decision (I understand that, according to the revised code of guidance, my colleagues in the Department of the Environment will be advising that all applications should be dealt with within 30 days) the threat of an appeal provision could mean that the local authority would find it necessary to take up longer and more detailed inquiries which would tell against the interests of the applicants.
Naturally one is sympathetic towards our fellow citizens in particular difficulties. However, giving a right of appeal to the county court, without prescription of the grounds of appeal or the way in which they should be considered, is not necessarily to help them. A better way forward is to seek to improve the local authorities' internal machinery for dealing with such matters and not to seek to introduce in the county courts a new and novel load of this kind, particularly at this juncture when we are seeking to ask them to carry out more work of a different character.
Lord Renton: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, can he elaborate on an important point that he made? It concerns the internal appeal within the local authorities. The Government's homelessness review was published in December. It contains no suggestion or indication of any discussion concerning the right of appeal in such

951
cases. As regards the internal right of appeal to which my noble and learned friend has referred—it is presumably informal and not obligatory—can he say when it started, how far has it gone and what is his opinion of the likelihood of it becoming general?
The Lord Chancellor: As I have already said, at present 30 per cent. of authorities have an internal appeals procedure. Under their powers to issue a statutory code of guidance my colleagues in the Department of the Environment wish to recommend the procedure to the other authorities so that they also will embrace that best practice. I submit to the Committee that at this juncture, and in the present state of knowledge, that is the right way forward.
Baroness Faithfull: I wish to ask my noble and learned friend to clarify one matter. When dealing with the Children Bill we requested that the appeal procedure should lie in the chief executive's department and not in the department involved which was the social services department. If, in this case, there is an appeals procedure, will it lie with the chief executive and not with the housing department?
The Lord Chancellor: That is a matter for the local authorities. I have discussed it briefly with those who know more about it. I have been told that in some cases the intimated decision is called into question and is then referred to the chairman of the housing committee as the elected officer with responsibility. He reviews the cases. In some he grants the application; in others he does not. Therefore, the point about low level is taken up. I do not know whether that is the uniform method. Perhaps it is right that elected representatives at a senior level should take the responsibility. I know that that is one method of dealing with the matter. There may be others.
Lord Hooson: I know that my noble friend Lord Meston, for whom I have the greatest regard, signed the amendment, but I have always had doubts about it. I have always believed that the view of the Association of District Councils was correct. I found the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor most convincing on that point.
I believe it is essential that decisions made under Section 64 should be reached speedily, as should the final decision. I believe that if we adopted the amendment we should be following the wrong route. Furthermore, the volume of cases available—that is, 120,000—is a practical reason against the amendment because experience shows the kind of applications that will be made.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I hope that Members of the Committee will not think it too dramatic if I say that an opportunity has been lost. How different is the reply given today by the noble and learned Lord from the speech that he made on the first day of Committee. Referring to the Civil Justice Review he said:
952
"At paragraph 120 it stated that all public law cases should be reserved to the High Court. On the other hand, the review body referred to the problem of a local method of challenging local authority decisions in that area. However, it was thinking primarily by way of appeal. Although it did not go into the matter in great detail, it is plain that the primary option was for an appeal. No doubt an appeal provision could indicate the criteria which the Appeal Court would have in mind and would not leave the issue open as is the case in respect of judicial review".—[Official Report, 16/1/90; col. 587.]
What does that mean unless the following: first, that the bent of the Civil Justice Review was that it should be by way of an appeal to the county court; secondly, that the noble and learned Lord did not find such a suggestion unfavourable; and thirdly, that he hoped that when such a proposal came forward it would indicate the criteria which an appeal court such as the county court would have in mind and,
"would not leave the issue open as is the case in respect of judicial review"?
I wonder what has happened since last week to cause the noble and learned Lord to have a completely different idea about what the Civil Justice Review may have had in mind and how practical he felt the right of appeal to be.
I should not be emphasising those points if it were not that the noble and learned Lord's alternative fills me with apprehension. I mentioned—and this is not controverted—that this is the only type of important welfare provision we make where there is no right of appeal. A right of appeal usually means an appeal to a body other than the one which made the decision. If it is a decision which is queried within that body, it is usually called a right of review.
That was the position until 1983 when it was found by pure chance, if I may put it that way, on a legal decision that the county courts which had previously entertained these matters on an application for a declaration did not have that jurisdiction and that it should only be a question of judicial review. As a rule, those cases went on the basis that the local authority had misdirected itself in law. There were some decisions which said, "On construing the statute as we do, we do not regard this as a priority case", or, "We do not regard this as meaning that the homeless person has not brought his own homelessness upon himself. On prima facie consideration we believe that that is wrong. Therefore, the homeless person has no right to this preferential treatment". It has also been found that many local authorities differed in their interpretation of the statute.
It is not sufficient to say that at some date in the future there may be some sort of review procedure by an executive in the local authority. We have the chance here and now to put that matter right. We can give the county court that jurisdiction with the right, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, very helpfully pointed out, of seeing that the queues are not too many, certainly in regard to hopeless cases, by the matter being quickly looked at by the judge when he gave leave or refused leave. On the last occasion when the noble and learned Lord turned down judicial review in the county court, I thought he was openly saying to everybody that what is needed here is an appeal procedure to the county

953
court and that he would look favourably on that. Therefore, we brought forward this amendment with all-party support. If the noble and learned Lord cannot change the tune which he played today—and I say that with all deference—then I should ask which tune the Committee wishes to play.
The Lord Chancellor: My position today is entirely consistent with what I said on the last occasion. I was then dealing with what the Civil Justice Review appeared to have in mind. However, that said quite plainly that before anything of that sort could be dealt with, there would have to be a substantive review of the law on homelessness. As regards the position I take today, that is consistent with what I said last time and I am not in a position to change it.
Lord Mishcon: I appreciate the courtesy of the noble and learned Lord. I wish to see whether there is a sympathetic symphony which will now be played by the Committee.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 36A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents,159.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Amherst, E.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Marsh, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Meston, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milverton, L.

Byron, L.

Mishcon, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Nicol, B.

Cawley, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Parry, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Renton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Falkland, V.

Seebohm, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Gregson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grey, E.

White, B.

Hacking, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Harvington, L.

Willis, L.

Hughes, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hunt, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jay, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wynford, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ackner, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ailsa, M.

Allerton, L.

954

Ampthill, L.

Killearn, L.

Annaly, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Atholl, D.

Kitchener, E.

Attlee, E.

Lane, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bolton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Manton, L.

Brain, L.

Margadale, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Melville, V.

Brookes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Cowley, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Diamond, L.

Pender, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Downshire, M.

Portsmouth, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pym, L.

Elibank, L.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Romney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Roskill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gainford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Geddes, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gisborough, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Goodman, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goold, L.

Somers, L.

Grantchester, L.

Somerset, D.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stedman, B.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Griffiths, L.

Strange, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Halsbury, E.

Hanworth, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Havers, L.

Swansea, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L.

Teynham, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hood, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hooson, L.

Tryon, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ullswater, V.

Ilchester, E.

Walston, L.

Ingrow, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wise, L.

Joseph, L.

Young, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 [Costs]:
5.1 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Amendment No. 37 pre-empts Amendment No. 38. However, it appears that it may be convenient for the noble Lord to take the two amendments together.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 6, line 41, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert —
("(c) he has provided financial support to a plaintiff who has commenced or continued proceedings in the outcome of which he has no substantial interest.").
The noble Lord said: If Members of the Committee will be good enough to look at Clause 4(4) of the Bill they will see that there is provision for the circumstances in which the court may make an award of costs against a party. Those circumstances are:

"(a) he is a party to the proceedings;

(b) he is the legal representative of such a party;

(c) he has supported the bringing of the proceedings, whether or not financially".

It is paragraph (c) to which this amendment is directed. I fail to understand in a statute what the words "whether or not financially" really mean in the context of a party supporting the bringing of proceedings.
For example, if I know a plaintiff and say to that plaintiff, "I am absolutely delighted; I understand you are issuing a writ tomorrow for libel against the Daily Whatsit. You certainly have my support. Good luck". In those circumstances is that somebody who has supported the bringing of proceedings "whether or not financially", on the basis of course that I have not helped the proposed plaintiff financially at all? To have such vague words in a statute struck me, if I may say so with due respect, as being quite remarkable. In order therefore to give some positive nature to the provision the amendment reads that,
"(c) he has provided financial support to a plaintiff who has commenced or continued proceedings in the outcome of which he has no substantial interest".
I am speaking, as was indicated, not only to Amendment No. 37, but also to Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I wish to speak only to the second of the amendments. Paragraph (d) reads:
"he has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings".
Perhaps I may put a case to my noble and learned friend which is very frequent in probate and other proceedings. Take the case of an executor propounding a will. A later lost will is discovered and brought in by way of counterclaim generally. The beneficiary or executor under the lost will will want to bind by the judgment everybody interested under any earlier will or indeed under an intestacy; otherwise he may find a series of actions against the new-found will. What he does is to cite all those people to seek proceedings. They are not parties to the proceedings. They have an interest in them. If they want to intervene they can and then become parties. If they do not do so I cannot for myself see why they should be liable in costs.
956
The theory of costs in our legal system, although it is now largely in the rules, was worked out by the judges on the basis of justice; that no one should be prejudiced by having to bring an action as to which he has a right to succeed.
If I borrow £20 from my noble and learned friend, promising to repay it after a year and if after a year he asks for it back, I am bound to give it back to him. If I toss him into an expensive or even inexpensive law suit in order for him to get back his £20, he ought not to find himself to any extent out of pocket because I have disputed and contested his right to recover his debt. That is so with every type of case.
If a third party is merely cited to seek proceedings because has has an interest but has not intervened to make it more expensive for the citing party, why, in justice, should he be liable in costs? I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would consider that type of case.
Lord Wilberforce: Perhaps I may raise another point before the noble and learned Lord replies. In principle the amendment seems very reasonable, but I should like to ask the mover of it why it should not apply equally to defendants. Why does this apply only to plaintiffs?
There may be some point I have overlooked, but there are cases—and everyone will know the recent one—in which a defendant is supported by someone who has no financial interest in the case. It would seem right in that sort of case to give power to the court—it does not have to exercise it—to make an order for costs against such a person. I suggest that that point ought to be considered.
The Lord Chancellor: So far as concerns the Supreme Court, the wording of the law has until now in general terms given the court discretion to award costs against anyone. The court is left to exercise that discretion.
Over the years the courts found it very difficult to believe that anyone could be saddled with costs. For example, if a passer-by were to be taken in and told, "You will pay the costs of the proceedings," it would be said that Parliament did not intend that. That would be right; Parliament did not intend that. But it intended the court to exercise discretion. It no doubt trusted the court to exercise its discretion in such a way that a passer-by would not be saddled with the costs of proceedings in which he had no interest.
However, it developed the implications in such a way that in the Aiden Shipping case it was found very difficult to do justice under the implied conditions that the court had put forward. It was a case in which arbitrations were back to back. A and B were arbitrating, and B and C were arbitrating. It was in A's interest that the dispute between B and C should be dealt with in a particular way and B was required in effect to react to the actions of A. But A was not a party to the dispute between B and C.
Mr. Justice Hirst was faced with the conundrum late on a Friday afternoon. He thought that common sense suggested in that case that although A was not

957
a party, A should be obliged to deal with the costs. The result has been a review of the development of the law of costs. We have sought to try to cover all the possible cases that have been illustrated in the authorities, but not in a positive way.
My answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is that the conditions specified here are conditions that must be satisfied if an award is made. Those are necessary conditions for the making of an award; they are not sufficient conditions. The court must decide whether or not to make such an award.
With regard to the last illustration of my noble and learned friend of lending me £20 —
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It was the other way round.
The Lord Chancellor: —if, quite contrary to his normal character, at the end of the year he refused to repay and I took action, I would be a party to the proceedings and therefore the court could make me liable as a party to the proceedings. However, I hope that in that case I would not be made liable.
This provision is to apply in the county court at all levels. We are trying to give guidance about the kind of people who should be considered. It is not saying that the courts should grant —for example, in the case of the disputed will —costs against those who did not appear to dispute the will even if the party bringing the counter-claim in that case wanted to bind them. But the court would have a discretion. All these costs shall be in the discretion of the court. We have sought in the light of the development to indicate the classes of people against whom the court might make an award of costs without leaving it as open as the very early legislation did.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble and learned Lord continues, the argument could be shortened if both parties agreed as to what was being said. As I understood the noble and learned Lord, he talked in terms of this being guidance. Is he aware that subsection (4) reads:
"The court may only make an award of costs"?
The Lord Chancellor: Indeed; and I am saying that it is a necessary condition that it should be satisfied, but not a sufficient condition. The court has a discretion as to whether or not to award costs against people answering this description. There is no discretion to award costs against people answering any other description. That is the purpose of the provision. The mere fact that a person is covered by that list does not mean that the court will make an award against him. That is the point. It is a restriction of the people against whom an award may be made in order to provide clear guidance to all the classes of cases of which I know in which such an award has been considered.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Roskill: Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor allow me to raise two matters resulting from what he has said? Those of us who have in the past tried personal injury cases —my
958
noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths has much longer experience of that than I have —know that at the end of an injury case where a defendant is successful the defendant's counsel will rise and say to the judge, "My Lord, I ask for costs". The trial judge then looks at counsel for the plaintiff, who says either, "My Lord, it is legally aided," or, "It is a trade union case". In the former case there would be no order for costs. In the latter case, in my experience, the trade union invariably pays the costs. But I have never heard of any order being made against the trade union.
The other case that occurs to me off the cuff is this. Sitting in the Commercial Court, one has two different types of cases. The first is an ordinary shipowner charterer case. The shipowner is supported by his P&I club, or his defence club. The defendant may equally be supported by his P&I club or cargo underwriters may be exercising rights of subrogation. In any of those cases the Pamp;I club, the defence club and the cargo underwriter are supporting the claim. I can only say that I have never heard —and so far as I know nobody else has —of any order for costs being made directly against the P&I club, a defence club or cargo underwriters.
The noble and learned Lord suggests that it is merely an empowering provision. But, with great respect, it surely goes against the principle that somebody who is only in the background should even be able, under rule of court or otherwise, to be made liable for costs.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I read the Aiden Shipping case with great interest and entire agreement. I notice that my noble and learned friend was a member of the Appellate Committee. However, he has not answered the case that I put to him of the party cited in C proceedings. Why should a person, merely because he has an interest in the proceedings, who has in no way put the other party to costs be even within the reach of a costs order? That is the point that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was making. It seems to me to be a valid one.
Lord Prys-Davies: In support of my noble friend, perhaps I may say that I also have read the shipping case. The decision was taken at 5.45 in the evening. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us exactly what interests are covered by Clause (4) (d)? The term is extremely wide. It could cover a social, moral, financial or legal interest. Can the noble and learned Lord explain what interest one has in mind?
It may very properly be said in support of paragraphs (c) and (d) that we can rely on the courts to exercise this jurisdiction with reason and with justice. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases that would be the position. However, if and when problems arise it will be claimed that these two paragraphs have expressed the jurisdiction in very wide terms without any limitations. That causes us considerable concern.
The Lord Chancellor: It is necessary to review the provision against the background of the existing law. Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 states:

959
"Subject to the provisions of this or any other Act and to rules of court, the costs of and incidental to all proceedings in the civil division of the Court of Appeal and in the High Court, including the administration of estates and trusts, shall be in the discretion of the court, and the court shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid".
That is a completely open power. We are proposing that this section should now be used in the county court as well as in the High Court. I believe that it is desirable to indicate at least in broad terms the limits of that power. That is the purpose of the clause. But we are not in any sense saying that the power should be exercised.
My noble and learned friend Lord Roskill gave an example. If someone who has mastery or control over a litigation puts up as a person to run the litigation as the nominal plaintiff someone without funds, the court certainly has power —I could find some instances where it was exercised —to impose an order against the person referred to as the dominus litus in the litigation for the costs incurred in it by the unsuccessful defendant. I am not suggesting that this is more than a limitation of the generality which has previously existed in order that there should be no question of these restrictions being brought into account.
I certainly do not believe that it is necessary or wise to limit to financial support the support of the bringing of proceedings but the court would be very slow to make an order against someone who did not support the proceedings financially unless there was a good reason for doing so. This provision is a good deal narrower than the present legislation. The purpose is to lay these considerations before the court. It is of particular importance in the county court, because this will be the basis of the cost regime, where at the moment these matters are regulated primarily by rules of court.
Lord Mishcon: I say with deep respect that the noble and learned Lord might have been wiser merely to give the same wide discretion to the county court judges to make orders as to costs without limiting in this rather misleading way their powers in regard to orders against certain parties. We should have enough faith in the county court judges to give them an absolute discretion without telling them that they may only award costs against various people.
In regard to my amendment, the noble and learned Lord has given no example of what he would regard as support other than financial. Does the fact of someone saying, "I am glad that you have brought these proceedings. I shall turn up in court and back you and support you all I can", give a hint to the judge that he might make an award of costs against that person if it came out in evidence?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, asked about the defendant. In looking at the provision in subsection (4) I took it for granted —I thought I understood the reason for it —that the only person against whom the court could make an award of costs in regard to support was someone who supported the bringing of proceedings or the continuance of them, which must mean the plaintiff. Anyone who said, "I am going to help you to defend
960
this action because it is meritorious that you should defend it. It is an outrage that the plaintiff brought it against you", would not be subject to the court's discretion in regard to an order.
I have made it sufficiently clear that I think it would be wiser not to have his provision and to leave the matter to the court's discretion. However, if we are to include a provision, my amendment is necessary in order to limit it to financial support. I repeat that the noble and learned Lord, who most courteously answered this argument, has not given one example of what support would be covered by the words "whether or not financially". I do not know whether he cares to do so now.
The Lord Chancellor: There are a number of possibilities. One example is somebody who is prepared to give evidence in support of a case where that person is not acting in bona fide. I am not suggesting for a minute that the court would do more than have power to consider these matters. I do not see why the only support that should be considered is financial support. Sometimes bodies support a test case without actually giving financial support. It might be that the way the case was conducted and the nature of the costs incurred were affected by that support.
All I have sought to do is to analyse the cases and try to offer guidance of the kind that I mentioned, which is restricting the power to the cases cited in this situation. If the noble Lord thinks that it would be better to leave matters as they are, the result would be to leave a completely open discretion. I can certainly see that. I thought that we were being helpful in laying down in as much detail as we could the types of case in which the court might consider making an order without unduly restricting its discretion. The court's discretion is the ultimate buttress of justice in this matter. None of the examples that have been given appears to me to throw doubt on our proposed provisions.
Lord Ackner: On the face of it there is a completely open discretion, but decisions have shown the principles upon which that discretion should be exercised. Therefore to widen the apparent discretion by references as vague as this can only lead to confusion, and confusion when one is trying to simplify matters in courts that are to receive a large impact of extra work cannot be an advantage.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The rules relating to costs are fairly well understood by the profession and by the judiciary. To alter them in this way in a part of the Bill primarily concerned with transfers between the High Court and the county court is an imprudence and might lead to a good deal of confusion. Does my noble and learned friend consider it wise to include this clause in the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: I am perfectly content to consider whether we should have subsection (4), which attempts a classification in the light of Aiden and subsequent cases. If my noble and learned friends

961
believe that it imports confusion instead of help, that is the last thing I want to do. I am perfectly content to consider whether subsection (4) should be included. I would not be content to leave it in and leave out "whether or not financially".
Lord Mishcon: I am glad that we have had this debate. It has been extremely useful, as have the remarks of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Hailsham. I said that it might be sensible to leave discretion where it is, governed by the case law, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred. I was merely drawing attention to what appeared to be a dangerous provision. I observed that the only example given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was to my mind a highly dangerous one—where someone gives evidence which seems to support the plaintiff's case and which is given in bad faith, query the order for costs. This is a provision which talks about supporting the bringing of the proceedings, not supporting the proceedings at trial, whether or not financially. It appears that the whole of subsection (4) ought to be looked at again. The noble and learned Lord was gracious enough to say that he would reconsider the provision in the light of today's debate. In those circumstances, but with some pleasure that I brought the matter forward, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert:
("(4A) No trade union or trade or professional associations shall be liable to have an award of costs made against it by reason of having supported the bringing of proceedings —

(i) by a member for damages for personal injury or for breach of that member's contract of employment; or

(ii) by their dependents or personal representatives of a member for damages in respect of that member's death.").

The noble Lord said: I can deal with this amendment briefly. If subsection (4) is removed, there will be no need for the provision now put forward. On the other hand, if the subsection is not removed, it will be necessary to make clear that no trade union or trade or professional association should be liable to have an award of costs made against it on the basis of financial aid or otherwise.
The cases mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) are, if I may say so, the minimum requirement at this stage. It may well be that trade unions and trade associations would in the future be concerned in other proceedings which ought to fall within the provisions of this amendment.
I put this amendment forward as a precautionary, if not probing, amendment. However, in the light of the fact that the noble and learned Lord is minded to consider the whole question of subsection (4), I promise noble Lords not to extend the debate beyond making these remarks. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble and learned friend will not favourably consider this
962
amendment. It proposes to give a separate and special immunity against an order for costs to two classes of people only; namely, trade unions and professional associations. It suggests that in cases where other people might be mulcted in costs, if the organisation concerned happens to be a trade union or a professional association then such a body would be immune. That seems wholly indefensible. I hope therefore that Members of the Committee will not accept the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I have already said that I shall reconsider the question of subsection (4). I understood the noble Lord to say that if the subsection were to be removed he would not wish this amendment to go forward. In the circumstances, perhaps he will feel able to withdraw his amendment today so as to enable me further to consider the position.
I should say that I certainly would not contemplate this amendment on its own, for the reasons given by my noble friend. It would not be appropriate. However, I can see that it may become dependent upon the existence of subsection (4) in that they are linked in this way.
Lord Mishcon: I intend to take the course which I previously indicated and which the noble and learned Lord correctly repeated. I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I was careful in the amendment to limit the immunity of trade unions or professional associations to cases which I should have thought would have met even with his approval; that is, where a trade union or professional association helps a member in respect of proceedings for personal injury, or for breach of contract of employment, and also where it assists dependents with a claim in regard to a member's death. I should have thought that with those limitations I would have received the support of the noble Lord's heart. However, I presume that his mind has overruled his heart on this occasion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I thank the noble Lord for the gracious way he responded to my remarks. He has, with his usual skill, deliberately avoided the point. The point is that if any body other than a professional association or a trade union, in good heart, supports such pathetic cases to which he referred, it would still be at risk as regards costs. He proposes a very special immunity. Frankly, given the relationship between the trade union movement and the Labour Party, one fully understands why.
Lord Mishcon: It is not a relationship which covers all professional associations, although I wish that every one of them would support my party.
Having said that, if subsection (4) stands because the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord tells him that it should do so, some such amendment ought to go forward. Of course, I would have no objection to other proper bodies being added to the two bodies mentioned in the amendment. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) No award of costs may be made against any person without that person being given an opportunity to show cause why the award should not be made.").
The noble Lord said: We have seen that under subsection (4), as it stands, it will be possible for the court to make an award of costs against a person who is not a party to the proceedings; and, indeed, against a person who has probably not been served with notice of the proceedings. We have also noticed that the jurisdiction under subsection (4) is very wide. We believe that it may be too wide. If subsection (4) is to remain, it is our submission that it would be unjust to make an award of costs against a person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause as to why the award should not be made against him.
If the jurisdiction under subsection (4) is to stand, we feel sure that there will be borderline cases. There will be circumstances where it will be open to argument whether a person who is not a party should be ordered to pay the costs. If the amendment was accepted by the Committee, it would at least ensure that the whole picture is presented to the court before it decides to exercise its jurisdiction. However, if subsection (4) was abandoned, the need for this amendment would not arise. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Leaving aside the question of whether subsection (4) is to stand, surely an order for costs is never made without giving the person affected an opportunity to make representations. Irrespective of what happens to subsection (4)—and, it may be a failure on my part to understand —I do not see the force or the sense of, nor the need for, this amendment.
Lord Meston: I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it ought to be inconceivable that an order for costs should be made without the party concerned having the opportunity of being heard. As I understand it, the provision suggested by this amendment is not only fair. It is also entirely consistent with the existing provision which is applicable when one applies for costs against the Legal Aid fund for a successful unassisted party.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I oppose the amendment for the very reason given by the noble Lord. It is wholly inconceivable that a court would act contrary to the proposed amendment. I find it slightly irksome for Parliament to be able to tell judges that they really must act in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The Lord Chancellor: It seems to me, with the greatest respect, that that is a complete answer as to whether subsection (4) should stand. As I explained earlier, the present law gives power to award costs against persons who are not party to the case. However, as my noble and learned friend, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, no court would think of
964
making an order against a person unless it was a special kind of order, like an Anton Piller order, without giving that person the opportunity to be heard.
Lord Prys-Davies: The amendment would place the matter beyond dispute. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred to the Anton Piller procedure. That is an example of where an order can be made without the party having an opportunity to make representations. I shall not press the amendment, but we reserve the right to come back to it if Clause 4 remains part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 41, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may find it convenient to deal also with Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. Amendment No. 41 pre-empts Amendment No. 42.
Lord Renton Lord Renton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41:
Page 7, leave out lines 3 to 13.
The noble Lord said: To save time and make progress I do not intend to move Amendment No. 41. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 go with it. I can write to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on that point.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 7, line 21, at end insert —
("(8A) The Lord Chancellor may by order amend subsection (8)(a) by substituting, for the percentage for the time being mentioned there, a different percentage.
(8B) Any such order shall be made by statutory instrument and may make such transitional or incidental provision as the Lord Chancellor considers expedient.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment allows the Lord Chancellor to amend by order the maximum amount by which costs may be reduced as a penalty for commencing in the High Court a case which should have been commenced in a county court.
The costs sanction has existed for a long time and is presently set out in Sections 19 and 20 of the County Courts Act 1984. That provision has been moved to its new place in Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 both because it assists consolidation of all the relevant enactments concerning costs and because the sanction applies to cases which have wrongly been brought in the High Court and is therefore more appropriately found in legislation about the Supreme Court than about the county courts. The power to alter the percentage is appropriate in the light of the type of power that is given to the costs sanction at present. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 7, line 25, at end insert —
("(10) Unless the legal representative has acted on behalf of a party without authority, an award of costs may only be made against a legal representative if the court is satisfied that there has been a serious dereliction of duty to the court by the legal representative.").
The noble Lord said: There must of course be circumstances where it is appropriate for the court to order the personal payment of costs by a legal representative. As I understand it, the only power of the court to award costs against a legal representative arises from the court's inherent jurisdiction over solicitors. I believe —I am subject to correction —that it can be said that that jurisdiction is exercised where the solicitor has been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty to the court or where he has acted without authority.
The amendment merely gives recognition to that principle or practice. If I have misunderstood the principle, I am sure that I shall be corrected. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the criteria which now apply will continue to apply after the Bill comes into force. The jurisdiction would of course be extended to apply to all legal representatives. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment. What is the purpose of it? It does little other than codify existing practice. Why on earth should it be supposed that the existing practice, which has continued for years and years, should in any way be changed by the passing of the Bill? It is a fetter on judicial discretion. As the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls has said, surely one can leave the judges to exercise their own discretion, unfettered by Parliament.
Lord Prys-Davies: I said that in addition to reflecting the present position the amendment would extend the jurisdiction so that it applies to all other legal representatives and not merely to solicitors.
Lord Ackner: The best point of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, which he may have overlooked, is that when we look at Schedule 7 —all 20 pages of it —and see the extraordinary melange of people who in future may well be judges, it is perhaps desirable to spell out everything.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said, up to a point. However, if the Bill's full intentions are carried out, the expression "legal representative" will not be confined to members of the legal profession. A certain amount of redrafting will be necessary if that is intended.
Lord Havers: I have knowledge of a case in which a member of the Bar, who had improperly pleaded something he should not have done, was made to pay the costs.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: First, "legal representative" is defined in the clause as follows:
"in relation to a party to the proceedings [it] means any person exercising a right of audience or right to conduct litigation on his behalf".
I should have thought that the correct rule would be to leave the matter to the court's discretion. I have no doubt that we shall have an opportunity to consider the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner in more detail at a more appropriate stage.
The amendment is unnecessary because one cannot be sure that one knows about all possible cases. This matter would be better left to the court's discretion.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for the support which the amendment has drawn, perhaps on grounds which I did not advance. I am not convinced that the amendment should be withdrawn; nevertheless, I shall withdraw it. We shall read carefully what has been said and consider whether the amendment should be brought back in a more perfected form so that the present principles will apply to all legal representatives. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may raise with the noble and learned Lord one question which puzzles me. It may be as a result of my ignorance, although I have looked at the Notes on Clauses and cannot find a solution to my problem. The point lies in subsection 8:
"Where, in complying with subsection (7), the responsible person reduces the amount which would otherwise be awarded to the person in question" —
I am not on the English language point on those lines—
"the amount of that reduction shall not exceed 25 per cent.".
Why 25 per cent.? Why a limit in an enactment of Parliament to that percentage which curtails the court's discretion? Who hit upon the figure of 25 per cent.? Is it drawn from some rule or provision which I have been unable to trace?
The Lord Chancellor: It is always difficult to get everything right. I thought that it was wise to limit the power in case people thought that it could be exercised in too draconian a manner. It seemed to me that a maximum of 25 per cent. was a reasonable figure to take.
Lord Wilberforce: With respect, whatever difficulties remain have been taken care of by Amendment No. 44 which gives the noble and learned Lord power to alter the figure. One has to start with something and give him power to alter it upwards or downwards. It is not left in an unsatisfactory position by a combination of those two subsections.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I too was puzzled by the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised. I should have thought that the figure ought to bear some relation to the comparative county court costs and the High Court costs. I assumed that 25 per cent. was such a comparative cost but apparently not. It is a figure which my noble and learned friend has snatched out of the air. It may be all the better for that, but it is difficult to justify, particularly in view of the point which my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce made that we now vouchsafe to my noble and learned friend perfect power to do what he likes with the figure.
Lord Mishcon: I should have thought that rather than putting a figure of this percentage in the clause and having to rely upon a statutory instrument —which not only takes the time of Parliament, if Parliament cares to discuss it, but incurs some other costs of a not minimal size —it would have been much more sensible to have left it again to the discretion of the court. I see no point in the minimum. However, having made the point during discussion on clause stand part, I ask the noble and learned Lord to be kind enough at least to consider it.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall certainly consider it. I indicated that we thought this was a good figure. I had regard to the present level of cost between the High Court and the county courts but it is impossible to justify such a figure in great detail. It seemed to me to be a reasonable figure. However, I shall consider whether the matter needs to be put in this way. So far as possible it mirrors the present situation in a slightly different way. We need something along the lines of subsection (8B) in order that that aspect should be considered. However, I am very happy to look at it again.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Exchange of witness statements]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 46 to 50:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("enabling the court to direct") and insert ("requiring, in specified circumstances,").
Page 7, line 31, after ("trial;") insert —
("(aa) enabling the court to direct any party to civil proceedings to serve such a statement on the other party;").
Page 7, line 32 after second ("a") insert ("requirement or").
Page 7, line 33, leave out ("the direction") and insert ("it").
Page 7, line 35, after second ("a") insert ("requirement or").
The noble and learned Lord said: If it is convenient to Members of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 together. Clause 5 contains the power for rules of court to enable the courts to direct exchange of witness statements between the parties. This amendment would add a power for the rules themselves to require such exchange without an order of the court. In other words, it might be possible to do it generally, either for all cases or for classes of cases without an order. Ways are increasingly being sought of reducing the need for interlocutory hearings in cases where standard directions and orders can be made by rules
968
of court setting out what is to happen in certain circumstances.
Since exchange of witness statements may become a standard order in many kinds of cases, it would be undesirable if it could only be ordered by the court and not standardised in rules. I beg to move these five amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: I apologise for popping up again on clause stand part, but it strikes me that there is something a little misleading in the marginal note. The noble and learned Lord used the expression "exchange of witness statements". The clause provides that the court may direct any party to civil proceedings to serve on the other parties a written statement. One can well see that in certain circumstances the court may only order one party to do this. The marginal note again refers to "Exchange of witness statements" as though the order could only be made by way of exchange. In other words both parties have to receive the order. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would care to comment in order to clarify the matter and make sure that the marginal note of "Exchange of witness statements" is not inaccurate.
The Lord Chancellor: The idea is generally to give equal treatment to both sides. The way in which the rule is expressed is to order one party to serve witness statements on another. There might be cases in which it was only appropriate to do it in respect of one side, perhaps at a particular time. The side note is a matter to be determined in the light of the final content of the clause. I shall certainly keep in mind the point the noble Lord has made.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In the interests of legislative economy, I wish to draw attention to subsection (3) which says:
"This section is not to be read as prejudicing in any way any other power to make rules of court".
I venture to ask why that is necessary. How can that section possibly prejudice any other power? If it cannot, it seems to me one of those little stock phrases that have been imprisoned in the computers of parliamentary counsel which scream to get out and succeed in doing so during the course of the Bill. I might have made the same point on the previous clause but this is really an extraordinary example.
The Lord Chancellor: If we can omit that subsection without harm, I shall be happy to do so. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me to take advice on the point.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am much obliged. I am perfectly content with that.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 7 [Restrictions on appeals to Court of Appeal]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Meston: I oppose the suggestion that Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill. I do not apologise for doing so because this is regarded, not just by me, as a matter of great importance.
As I understand it, Clause 7 was not foreshadowed in the Civil Justice Review. It seeks to amend Section 18 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and it is necessary for me to explain to Members of the Committee what Section 18 deals with. It sets out a list of important restrictions on the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. In some categories of case there is an absolute bar on appeal; in some categories there is a right of appeal only with the leave of the court.
The first important point to note is that all those categories are spelt out in the 1981 Act; that is to say, in primary legislation. They have existed for a long time. The only alteration in recent years has been the added category of case in which it was said that there should be an unrestricted right of appeal. That is where access to a minor is entirely refused. Having pointed out that factor, it is not difficult to guess what my first broad objection to Clause 7 is. It removes certain categories of case from primary legislation and leaves them to the mercy of a rule-making body. I suggest to the Committee that rights of appeal, particularly in sensitive and significant areas, are simply too important to be taken away from primary legislation.
My second broad objection is that what would go by virtue of Clause 7 is the clear statement in Section 18(1)(h) of the 1981 Act that there is an unrestricted right of appeal in cases involving the liberty of the subject, custody of children, refusal of all access to children and injunctions. We have no idea what is to happen to those existing categories under the proposed rules. As I have already indicated, my concern is to preserve an unrestricted right of appeal in matters of such importance.
I am tempted to rest the argument there without attempting to guess the reasons for Clause 7 and without attempting to anticipate the arguments in support of it, or indeed without seeking to anticipate what may or may not appear in the rules which I assume are as yet unwritten, let alone in any future revisions of those rules. One can only presume that the rules, when they appear, will not preserve the status quo. If they did so there would be no need for Clause 7. One can only suspect that rules will be introduced to impose some filter on what may be regarded as hopeless appeals to improve further the efficiency of the Court of Appeal.
Efficiency is of course important, but I suggest that the Court of Appeal certainly has become in recent years highly efficient. One simply must not lose sight of the fundamentals. I suggest that it is a fundamental principle that there should be an unrestricted right of appeal; for example, if one's child is removed, if one is denied all access to one's child, if one is locked up or if one's assets are frozen.
970
I have two further subsidiary points to make. In child custody cases particularly what makes an appeal or a proposed appeal hopeless is a judicial decision of this House, reported in 1985, called G. v. G. Under that decision this House held that the Court of Appeal should only intervene in a child custody case if it is satisfied that the judge at first instance was plainly wrong. The Committee will understand that that makes it difficult to get an appeal off the ground. Responsible counsel —certainly counsel advising for the purposes of legal aid for appeals—recognise that difficulty and, generally speaking, are reluctant, or should be reluctant, to advise an appeal. I suggest that that in itself is or should be an effective filter.
Whether or not that ruling is supportable is a wider and different question. However, I should mention the powerful letter printed in The Times on 31st August 1989. The letter was written by Sir John Latey, perhaps one of the wisest of our Family Division judges. He wrote in his letter:
"There is a grey area in these cases where, though one cannot go so far as to say that the court below was plainly wrong, one is left with clear uneasiness that it may well have gone wrong. In such cases should not the appellate court have power to direct a rehearing?"
I accept that that is a suggestion made about the law as it should be and not as it presently is. Nevertheless, that is something we should consider.
Finally, it may be possible to live with the requirements of Clause 7 if it were clear from the rule-making provision that the proposed appellant would have the opportunity at least to seek leave from the Court of Appeal. As Clause 7 stands, the rules may prescribe that,
"an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal only with the leave of such court or tribunal as may be specified".
In other words, it seems that it may be possible for the rules to state that if the court at first instance refuses leave to appeal in such a sensitive case that is the end of it and the proposed appellant does not have the benefit of at least one trip to the Court of Appeal to seek leave. I return to my basic proposition, which is that matters which are now left uncertain by Clause 7 are too basic and too sensitive to be left out of primary legislation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the spirit of what has been said by the noble Lord. The words,
"as may be specified by the rules in relation to that case",
are a form of drafting which opens the door to potentially extremely worrying consequences. If one could be assured that this wording could be altered to ensure that in any event the Court of Appeal could always give leave, and that were assuredly stated, the main point of my objections would be met. Time is short and there are other objections to the provision, but that is the main one. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could possibly take that on board.
The Lord Chancellor: I was not proposing to enter into a full account of my position at the present moment. However, in view of the point that has been raised I wish to say, first of all, that what is proposed here is that these powers should be dealt

971
with by the rule-making body for the Supreme Court. I believe that the rule-making body for the Supreme Court has in it those who would want to ensure that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway are met. However, I accept that it would be an improvement to make it clear that such a concession would be granted only with the leave of the Court of Appeal and,
"such court or tribunal as may be specified by the rules".
In other words, I certainly intend that it will always be possible to ask the Court of Appeal for leave.
The only other point I wish to mention at this stage is that the idea is not to go across the board without careful consideration. The purpose of the provision is to enable us to give separate consideration to different classes of cases and not to go across the board immediately, but rather to leave this matter to be considered carefully in relation to each class of case. As I said, I thought the fact that the rule-making body was the rule-making body for the Supreme Court would be an important safeguard in that connection. I think this process will take some time. I do not envisage it happening very quickly, and it is something we shall have to consider carefully. However, this seemed an opportunity to make the necessary provision in primary legislation.
Lord Lane: I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. This is a sensitive area and at this time it is particularly sensitive because there is to be devolved to the county court —this is now happening —a large volume of work. With the best will in the world, the county court does not operate with the same facilities as the High Court. The transcripts of judgments and the notes of the judges are probably not as well or efficiently done as they are in the High Court. That will inevitably result in a greater volume of appeals.
Perhaps I may suggest that the proposal in Clause 7 merits very careful consideration indeed. It merits consideration as to whether the law should not be left as it is, at least for the moment, until we see where we are going, with the enormous difficulties that everyone knows are arising and will arise in the county court.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his opening speech on Second Reading, at col. 122 of Hansard of 19th December 1989, said:
"Our keynote is to improve access to justice for all who need it"
The clause seems to me contrary to the spirit he was urging. It is an attempt to remove from the potential litigant a right which is an absolute right in cases relative to the liberty of the subject, custody, access and certain injunctions, particularly the Mareva injunction to which reference has been made, under which a person's property can be totally frozen pending trial, or the Anton Piller order which is a most robust order enabling a person to obtain permission to enter and search another's property.
972
It may well be said that all we are trying to do is to keep out those cases which waste the court's time because they have no prospect of success. Some very wise words were spoken by Mr. Justice Megarry, as he then was, later to become the Vice Chancellor, in the case in 1965 of John v. Rees. He said:
"As anyone who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the Law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which somehow were not, of unanswerable charges which in the event were completely answered, of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained, of fixed and unalterable determinations that by discussions suffered change".
This Chamber, I know, and for certain reasons knew before I was elevated to it, is very jealous about legislation seeking to remove access to the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and certainly the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Hooson, may remember some five years ago a debate about Clause 43 of the Administration of Justice Bill. What was proposed there was by primary legislation and not this somewhat back door procedure.
The Committee may know that in judicial review the applicant must first apply to a judge or judges of the divisional court for leave. If he fails to obtain it he is not entitled to appeal but —and this is almost the same —is entitled as of right to apply to the Court of Appeal. At that time the Court of Appeal was —and still is, although it has had a substantial addition of new judges —under great pressure. In order to reduce that pressure the suggestion was made, without proper consultation of the judiciary (for which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was not to blame) that the right to apply should be removed.
When the matter came up at Committee stage my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham conceded that there had not been proper consideration by the judges. He said that he would withdraw the proposal and come back at Third Reading with an alteration. That alteration left the right to apply but under modified circumstances requiring the leave first of the divisional court and then of the Court of Appeal. It was put forward as a modest amendment giving the applicant something that was almost as good as what he already had. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that it was better because there were more stages.
The justification for all of that effort was that the present applications occupied a month of the time of the Court of Appeal consisting of three judges. Before the debate on the Report stage my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington had gone to the trouble to inquire of the Bar how long it took. He informed the House that so far from it being a month of judicial time it was at the most eight hours. I am happy to say that this Chamber refused to accept the amendment thereby underlining how important it was that the House should consider any attempt to remove access to the Court of Appeal.
I know that it will be said, "Ah, but the Court of Appeal is merely being given the right to consider whether it should grant leave". I am not happy about that situation at all, for this reason. When the suggestion arose in Clause 43 the Master of the Rolls

973
was under great pressure with backlogs of lists. That pressure could have been eased by Clause 43, or it could have been eased, at it was, by the supply of more judges. However, the supply of more judges cost more money. One can always anticipate resistance from the Treasury when more facilities are required.
The Committee will remember our debate last Tuesday with regard to Clause 1. Although my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was anxious that Part I be passed in order to reduce cost and delay by transfer into the county court it was pointed out by many, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in particular, that if that transfer occurred now there would be a fearful shambles in the court and that it was a question which could only be dealt with in years, not months.
Since that debate I have received a letter from a very experienced and much respected QC who appears frequently before your Lordships' appellate committee. Like most senior barristers, at considerable cost to his practice, he gives up time to sit as a recorder. His letter is pertinent to the amendment. He says:
"I have just completed two weeks of sitting in the Inner London Crown Court as Recorder. Before I did so, I tried to sit for a further couple of weeks in February or March. However, the circuit administrator"—
the civil servant—
"informed my clerk that there were no available sittings during those two months.
I therefore enquired when I came to Inner London as to why it was so difficult to be able to sit. I discovered that two courts are being closed throughout February and March solely because the Lord Chancellor's department has required three trained court clerks from Inner London to be deployed to the County Courts. This is because they cannot recruit staff for the County Courts at present abysmal rates of pay and are therefore desperately having to redeploy staff from the Crown Court. This will leave only eight trained court clerks to service 15 courts, 13 during February and March.
During the five years in which I have been sitting in Inner London I have witnessed the obvious decline in the availability of trained court staff and the consequences for the public including the defendant. The effect of this latest move will undoubtedly be to deprive defendants of their liberty for longer periods than is necessary".
That quite indefensible robbery of Peter to pay Paul is relevant in regard to the proposal because if, despite his undoubted powers of persuasion, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is still unable to ensure that proper facilities are provided to service the courts, the Court of Appeal suffers more and more delays as a result. These rules exist and when my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls says, "I must have more judges, more courts and more staff", the answer will be, "You must exercise your discretion and refuse, as you are entitled to do, more appeals to your court".
Some judges take the view —I do not share it —that matrimonial matters are barely justiciable. Other judges take the view that, without hearing anyone, they can discern immediately what the inevitable outcome of the case will be. Under the pressure that would exist in those circumstances it is easy to see how the public's right of access to justice, which my noble and learned friend is so anxious to improve under the Bill, might have the reverse effect. That is
974
why I support the proposal to remove the entire clause.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may say, first, how delighted I am to be able to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and how much I appreciate the comparatively moderate tones in which he spoke. I am sure that that moderation will apply whichever part of the Bill we discuss.
I wish to leave the perfectly proper Treasury point raised by the noble and learned Lord. I wish to emphasise that my support for the amendment is based upon the public view —a very proper view —of their rights to go to our courts, to obtain a decision and, where appropriate and on advice, to be able to appeal against a decision which they regard as wrong.
Perhaps I may go off at a tangent. although the point is relevant, to tell the Committee how difficult it is for members of the profession to explain to the lay client our rules in regard to rights of appeal. Some noble Lords may not know that when a court of first instance, with all the learning of a High Court judge, makes a decision that goes to the Court of Appeal which then reverses the decision, the leave of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords must be obtained before the citizen may have his appeal heard, the appeal being that the judge of first instance was right and the Court of Appeal was wrong.
It is difficult enough for the layman to have explained to him that he must obtain the leave of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords when a judge of first instance found in his favour. It is impossible to explain to the layman that the House of Lords has on occasion —quite a few occasions —refused leave to appeal to the litigant who was successful before one of the High Court judges who delivered his judgment in accordance with the law as he saw it. There have been such cases. It is difficult enough to explain that to the layman, but, even after the explanation, he is left with a sense of righteous wrong.
We are dealing here with a highly dangerous proposal which seeks to limit, by the rules of the Supreme Court or by statutory instrument, people's right to go to the Court of Appeal. Cases regarding the liberty of the subject and immigration cases may be involved. As noble Lords have heard, custody of children may be involved. Possibly the most precious and sensitive cases involve individuals' rights to be with their own children. As a result of possible arguments about pressure on the Court of Appeal, those cases may require leave to appeal where no such leave is now required.
The case for that being done by primary legislation alone, with the due consideration of Parliament, is unanswerable if we consider the phrase so often used in regard to the Bill —the true interests of justice. We must also consider, as was so often mentioned on Second Reading and on the first day of Committee proceedings, the fact that the public must be assured of their right to enter our courts of justice when they feel that their civil rights have been wronged.
The doors of the Court of Appeal should also be open unless, after due consideration, Parliament

975
otherwise dictates. There are safeguards. In legal aid cases a legal aid certificate will not be granted unless the legal aid committee considers that there is an arguable and proper case to go to the Court of Appeal. In cases which are not legally aided, the practitioner will always point out the sanction of an order being made for costs against the person whose appeal was in any way reckless. It would be ordered automatically if the appellant were unsuccessful.
We should not pass the clause; indeed, we dare not pass the clause.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In view of what has been said by noble Lords, perhaps I may respectfully ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether, in order to avoid a Division, he will consider taking the clause back for consideration, given that there is general concern throughout the Chamber.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I sincerely hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will do no such thing. If this is a convenient moment, I hope that I may express my views.
It was for the first time in October 1984, when I gave the second annual report on the work of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, that I raised the question of whether there should be some further and perhaps better restrictions on the rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Since then in, I think, every annual report and certainly most of them I have pleaded for that restriction. I was considerably surprised to see the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and even more surprised to be told for the first time yesterday that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice was opposed to the proposal. I had thought that it was widely supported among those concerned with the work.
I appreciated before the debate, and appreciate still more tonight, that the reasons we want the restrictions are widely misunderstood. We do not seek them for the convenience of the judges, nor for the administrative convenience of the court or the court staff. The primary reason we seek them is to prevent the tear-jerking hardship —it is frightening to see it —suffered by litigants who, no doubt despite the advice that they are given by their lawyers, persist in arguing cases which are wholly and completely unarguable. They beggar themselves and their families in the belief that no stone must be left unturned and no share, property or savings unrealised in order to redress what they consider to be an injustice but which is in fact a completely unappealable case.
It is said that the decision on who should be allowed an unfettered right and who should be allowed a fettered right of appeal —because no one is suggesting that these people should be denied a right of appeal —or the choice between unfettered and fettered rights should be enshrined in primary legislation. As I shall tell the Committee very briefly
976
in a minute, this is an extremely complex subject and unsuited to primary legislation. However, the point that I wish to make is that at the moment it is not contained in primary legislation. At the moment the position is that by far and away the largest number of appeals for which leave to appeal is required comes within the category which depends entirely on a unilateral decision by the Lord Chancellor for the time being. He is empowered under Section 77 of the County Courts Act 1984 to prescribe those categories of case in which leave to appeal is required either from the trial judge or from the Court of Appeal.
I think that it was my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham who did it but it may be that the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has added to it. The current position is that, if anybody claims more than half the monetary jurisdiction of the county court or, if it is an appeal from a county court judge who himself has heard an appeal from a registrar, leave to appeal is required. There are plenty of wily litigants who, knowing that they have a claim which is worth a good deal less than half the value of the county court jurisdiction, up their claim, thereby knowing that they will have an unfettered right to go to the Court of Appeal regardless of the merits.
The next source again depends on subordinate legislation because, although my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner no doubt was thinking of the fact that Section 18 refers to rights of appeal in relation to interlocutory decisions, he did not tell the Committee how one can detect an interlocutory decision, and that itself is subject to subordinate legislation. That has proved so difficult that the Rules Committee has now produced a general rule, which is subject to no fewer than 40 exceptions, that can be found in the annual practice. Subject to the special provisions of paragraph (f) of Section 18(1), it is whether an order is an interlocutory or a final order that governs whether there shall be leave to appeal. In fact it is only in relation to paragraph (f) of that section that primary legislation wholly rules. It provides —and I am delighted to hear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will override it if he has the power —that one can only appeal to the Court of Appeal from a costs order where the costs are in the discretion of the learned judge or from a consent order if the judge concerned agrees.
There is no power in the Court of Appeal to give leave at all. I think that that must have been thought to have been so undesirable that by a decision —which I have great difficulty in explaining but which of course I loyally apply —in the Scherer v. Counting Instruments case we are given the opportunity of ignoring wholly Section 18 and granting a right of appeal if it can be said that the judge failed to act judicially at all. I do not seek to explain it: I merely mention it as one of the complications of life which would go if the Lord Chancellor in the Rules Committee —not by himself; the Lord Chancellor is a member of the Rules Committee —is allowed to provide detailed rules.
Let us not forget that the Rules Committee consists of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the

977
Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor, one or two (I forget which Lords Justices, certainly two other High Court judges, two barristers and two solicitors. If the Executive ever wanted to hijack the courts, I strongly advise it not to try to do it through the Rules Committee.
The objection to the present system is its total complexity in so far as it is in primary legislation —and relatively little of it is —its total inflexibility and sometimes, perhaps I may say, its plain stupidity. That stupidity is included in Section 18. On one occasion I was enraged to find a gentleman knocking at the door of the Court of Appeal saying that he had an extremely urgent appeal on which he had an unfettered right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. It arose because he had gone to the judge in chambers on an emergency application. The respondent was British Telecom or its predecessor. He wanted a telephone fitted that afternoon. British Telecom's answer was that he had four lines already which had been ceased for non-payment of the bill. Not surprisingly the learned judge in chambers threw it out. Within half an hour he was in the Court of Appeal, as I said. In retrospect I am a little ashamed of it but in fact it seemed easier to hear him at once than to throw it out again. However, he should not have been allowed at all to take up the time of the Court of Appeal.
I regret to say that some appeals are truly unarguable. It may be that the decision of this Chamber in a judicial capacity in G v. G is wrong. But in my view we simply have to follow it. In the light of that decision so many discretionary decisions taken by judges in matrimonial cases are simply unappealable. I would defend the decision to this extent: in those terrible situations which arise in the matrimonial field it would be a bold man who could say that there is a right decision. The plain answer is that the judge has to do his best and no one can say that there is another answer which would be better. However, families throw themselves financially and emotionally into these contests and can ruin themselves in so doing.
Some provisions are already subject to a filter but at a lower level. Judicial review is an example. At the risk of boring the Committee and extending the debate (but I happen to know what I am talking about) perhaps I may just mention judicial review. It works as follows. One goes to a High Court judge with an application for leave to be allowed to bring judicial review proceedings. The judge has a look at it and in some cases, particularly if he thinks it urgent, he may grant leave as being a fairly sensible way of bringing the respondent to the court to find out what the case is all about. Having granted leave and gone through the matter very thoroughly he says that the case is totally unarguable. As things are the unsuccessful party then has an unfettered right to go to the Court of Appeal, although there was a filter at an earlier stage which he managed to by-pass but which the same judge, having gone carefully into the matter, in effect says, "Had I known the facts, I would never have granted leave". That is something at which the Rules Committee would want to look.
978
I am not suggesting that necessarily it should be altered but certainly it should be looked at.
The existing system works well but it applies to only about one quarter of all appeals. That is not a subjective opinion; I can prove it objectively. The success rate where the appeals are subject to leave was 34 per cent. in the past year and 37 per cent. in the year before. The success rate where appeals are not subject to leave in both 1988 and 1989 was 21 per cent. That shows quite clearly that the provision is filtering out some of the more hopeless appeals.
Furthermore, anticipating the assault of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, an assault based on Mr. Justice Megarry's remarks about open and shut cases, I mention that in the past two months of November and December, the Court of Appeal has been conducting a pilot experiment which works as follows. We took all the appeals in which leave to appeal was not required and every judge was asked, when he first looked at the papers and before the appeal was argued, to fill in a form which asked: Do you notionally grant leave or do you notionally refuse leave? There were 111 appeals dealt with in that way. In 97 of them leave to appeal was notionally granted. Of course the parties did not know that; they were not involved in any way.
However, just on the papers, in 97 out of the 111 cases leave to appeal was granted. The success rate in those cases was the success rate that one would expect; namely 34 per cent. —almost the same as in the ordinary run of cases where leave is required. Leave was refused in 14 cases. Of course those appeals were duly heard because the refusal was purely notional. One only of those succeeded. I was very bothered that there should be even one that succeeded, so I asked the judges who had been concerned what had happened. It was a matrimonial case in which, after they had reached their notional decision not to grant leave to appeal, the husband had been guilty of a vicious assault on the wife which, if it had occurred earlier, would have made all the difference because they were concerned with the custody of a child. One really cannot tailor a system to cope with the situation where events change after the time when you have to make a decision.
Perhaps I may just mention that it is not only the appellant who is affected by unarguable appeals. So is what one might describe as the victim, the respondent to the appeal. He is the one who, when all is said and done, is being denied the benefit of his judgment; he is being denied any benefit of peace of mind.
In anticipation of this debate and when I heard that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice was going to oppose it, I called a meeting this morning of all the Lords Justices who were available, and that was most of them. I am authorised by them to say that the proposal put forward by the Government has their support subject to two caveats.
The first caveat is that they would like to be consulted about the particular categories of case which would be subject to leave or not subject to leave under the Rules of the Supreme Court. I do

979
not doubt for one moment that they would be very fully consulted, if not by the Lord Chancellor. After all, I am myself a member of the Rules Committee, and I am perfectly capable of consulting my own colleagues.
The second caveat was that they would like consideration given to amending this Bill to enable two judges to sit together to consider a leave to appeal. It is thought that that would be an improvement. By a quirk of drafting it is not possible under the existing Act. It has to be one judge or three judges under that Act. Some of them think it would be better to have two. I quite see that if there were any doubt about it it might be a comfort to any single Lord Justice who wondered, "Am I really right to put my own judgment on the line to the extent of shutting somebody out?" It might be a comfort to him and a help if he had somebody else to consult.
The final point I should like to make concerns the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner that if the going got tough, if government money was tight and resources were inadequate, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would be on the telephone to me saying, "Master of the Rolls, will you please tighten up on the number of cases in which the court is giving leave to appeal?" I think I can assure my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner —I doubt whether the Lord Chancellor needs any such assurance —that he would get an extremely dusty answer.
Lord Griffiths: I find this clause entirely satisfactory as it stands in the Bill. I should like to take the opportunity to remind your Lordships of the nature of the body that is responsible for making the Rules of the Supreme Court, because the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to leaving the matter to the mercy of some rule-making committee. In fact, those responsible for the Rules of the Supreme Court are the Lord Chancellor, together with any four or more of the following persons: the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor, three other judges of the Supreme Court, two practising barristers, one of whom has to be nominated by the chairman of the Senate and Inns of Court of the Bar, and two practising solicitors. We have a truly independent legal profession in this country and it is unthinkable that the Lord Chancellor would have any opportunity of choosing either the barristers or the solicitors just to appoint yes-men and make them four of the rule-making committee. Indeed, the vigilance of the Senate of the Bar and of the Law Society would ensure that that could not take place.
I can think of no more informed or wiser body to consider this very delicate decision as to which appeal should be as of right and which should require leave. For my part, I am perfectly content to leave it in their hands. I am confident that you would get a very much more closely informed decision from them than if it were just left to the emotions of a parliamentary debate.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: I entirely agree with what has just fallen from my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths, subject to the fact that I am not wholly happy with the drafting of the clause.
As I understand it, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has assured us that the intention of the clause is that, whenever leave is required in relation to a category of cases in virtue of an exercise of this power, the applicant for leave will never be denied the opportunity to pursue his application to the Court of Appeal and to the full court if it is denied to him at any lower stage. Subject to that caveat, I am entirely happy with the clause, and I enthusiastically support it.
To describe a clause which has that effect as giving power by delegated legislation to deny access to justice —cases such as liberty of the subject, family orders, custody of children and the like —is quite misconceived. Take the present position in relation to somebody who is convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life, or who is convicted and sentenced for any other crime. Such a person, unless he has a point of law, requires the leave of the Court of Appeal in order to appeal. He seeks leave of the single judge. If he does not get it he goes to the full court and argues his case for leave. In a sense, when leave is required in civil cases, not only does the necessity for the applicant for leave to go and argue his case before the Court of Appeal and get leave if he has an arguable case confer an advantage on the respondent, who is not brought to the court at unnecessary cost, but also, if he has any means, it confers a positive advantage on the applicant for leave to be told at an early stage that his case is quite hopeless and unarguable, having had a full opportunity to argue it. He is thereby saved the waste of any further funds in his hopeless endeavour.
Lord Roskill: Perhaps I may support what has fallen from both my noble and learned friends who have just spoken. In view of what has been said about the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court, perhaps I should disclose an interest because for almost all my eight and a half years as a member of the Court of Appeal I was the Court of Appeal member of that committee. No committee on which I have ever sat has been more careful or more scrupulous in ensuring that the powers conferred upon it by statute are exercised so as to secure just results from the exercise of those powers.
The second point I wish to make is that anybody who has sat in the Court of Appeal over a long period knows that for many years there has been an indefensible dichotomy between cases where there is an appeal as of right and those where there is no appeal except by leave. As I am sure my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls knows, what is an interlocutory appeal has never been susceptible of accurate definition.
My third point is that which my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls made last. During Committee we have heard many emotional appeals about the position of would-be appellants. I wonder how many Members of the Committee have watched

981
the reactions of respondents who have been successful in the court below as they are dragged through an appellate system when to any rational person looking at the matter objectively the case is wholly unarguable. The inevitable disturbance of family life caused by some unhappy dispute over custody or access is protracted rather than simplified and brought to an end.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the difficulties in explaining the reasons why a client of his or of anybody else who has succeeded at first instance but failed in the Court of Appeal is unable to obtain leave to appeal before your Lordships' House. I believe that the restriction was introduced in 1933 at about the time that I was called to the Bar. It was introduced in order to meet endless complaints that people were being dragged up through the hierarchy of tribunals in order finally to meet their Waterloos in your Lordships' House. I now recall that the reform was greeted with almost unanimous approval.
Lord Mishcon: We were all impressed by the experience of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls who has our great respect. We emphasised, as did another of his colleagues, the way in which the Rules Committee acts and the personnel involved. Can he inform the Committee how often the Rules Committee meets and is it a fact that it has not met for two years?
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: One of the things that always charms me about the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is that he is so able an advocate. In particular, he obeys rule 1; that is, never ask a question unless you know the answer. It is true that the committee has not met for about two years. On the whole, that has been to the profit not only of the committee but of its deliberations, which are conducted on paper. Its members are busy people.
The department produces suggestions which have been stimulated by the Supreme Court Rules Committee and other people. I am not averse to submitting written suggestions, as my noble and learned friend will confirm. The suggestions are circulated for comments and we take it from there. It is a possible criticism that there might be one or two cases in which it would have been better to have met, but we did not. I am sure that, in the light of the noble Lord's intervention, if the clause stands part of the Bill and we come to deal with anything as important, the members of that committee will not only circulate their views but, having cleared their minds, will meet in person.
Lord Mishcon: Will the noble and learned Lord accept from my presumption that I should not have obtained leave to appeal from him had I tried and, secondly, that I knew the answer to the question which is why I asked it?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I confess that I was worried about the clause when I first saw it and I should like to ask my noble and learned friend one question. Is it his intention that any rules which may be prescribed that require leave of appeal to
982
the Court of Appeal will make clear, first, that the individual has the right to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave and, secondly, if necessary, to apply to the full court? If that is so, the clause appears to be unexceptionable.
As has been said, the position then would be similar to that of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). No one can seriously say that the need to obtain leave is in any way a complete fetter on people because they always have the right to argue the application for leave to appeal to the full court. If that is the intention of the clause as regards civil matters it appears to be unexceptionable and should be passed.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I too have been racked by doubt as the debate has proceeded. I began from the point of view that the clause was too wide and made proposals which should be dealt with by primary legislation. Of course one must be impressed by the weight of the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls and other noble and learned Lords. It may be that the practicality of the matter is with them but, as a layman and one who has had political experience in the other place, I believe that we would be most unwise not to give great weight to the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
The matter is one of great sensitivity especially at the present time. In dealing with the matters which affect children, the liberty of the subject, immigration and so forth we must be particularly sensitive and careful. We would be unwise to reach any definite conclusion on the matter this evening. It would be wise to read and think about what has been said; at least that is what I should like to do.
Law reform is always difficult. It is almost impossible to carry out satisfactorily without consent. When we have to consider a difference of opinion between the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, we would be wise to reflect on the position most carefully.
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls has said, the point has been raised in almost every annual report that he has submitted since 1984. Indeed, since I have been in office as Lord Chancellor I have been extremely conscious of it.
I had to consider carefully the submissions contained in the annual report, particularly those in the last report. I do not hesitate to read the contents of the 1989 annual report because it is an important matter. My noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham has suggested that Members should consider the matter and, therefore, I wish to put the considerations fully before the Committee. It states:
"The justification for the present system whereby some categories of appeal —most interlocutory appeals and some appeals from the County Courts —can only be brought by leave of the trial judge or of the Court of Appeal self, is threefold:—
1. It is no kindness to alow a litigant who is unsuccessful in the trial court to incur costs protesting at this result, if the decision is demonstrably correct or, which is alas all too often the case particularly in matrimonial disputes, if there is no 'right' answer

983
and the trial judge, doing the best that he can, must inevitably be the final arbiter.
2. Allowing such appeals to proceed causes grave injustices to the successful party, who is denied the benefit of the judgment in his favour pending the outcome of the appeal and almost always incurs irrecoverable costs resisting the appeal.
3. The employment of the resources of the Court and the hearing of such appeals inevitably postpones the hearing of other appeals where there is a real issue to be decided".
That is my answer to the access to justice question referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. I had to consider, as must Members of the Committee, access to justice for everyone. It is an important reason for the present restrictions on rights of appeal that those who have a real point should be able to get on with it rather than have to wait unduly while completely hopeless appeals occupy the time and resources of the court.
I quoted from paragraph 5 which describes the present position and justification for the rules. The report continues:
"It is to be hoped that in the context of forthcoming legislation arising out of the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review, consideration will be given to extending the requirement for leave to appeal across the board, both because there is no justification for allowing any appeal to proceed if it has no prospect of success and because the present dividing line between those in which leave is required and those in which it is not, is quite illogical".
The report then goes on to illustrate some of those cases to which my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls referred.
Against that request, it seemed to me that consideration should be given to this matter. When I considered it, I felt that this was not a matter in which one would be wise to go right across the board without detailed consideration of individual cases, including their timing. I take especially into consideration what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has said. There may be a time and tide in the affairs of man to which one should look. One may have to be careful in relation to the work which is going down and has gone down to the county court, as to precisely which types of cases may be subject to that requirement.
Personally, I cannot think of a more powerful committee to decide that than the Supreme Court Rule Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, from a sedentary position, points out, as the Master of the Rolls said, that it does not meet. I believe that some of the most effective committees proceed best upon paper. It is necessary for the individuals to sign the result. When I ultimately make a rule, I do so after the others have signed. Therefore, perhaps one avoids the difficulty of designing a horse which some committees create, and in this particular case, one has, in effect a document in which each of the members of the committee approve the rule in question. I believe that that is an extremely good way of doing that where it is possible to reach some degree of agreement in principle. If there was a dispute in principle about the matter, of course a meeting might be convenient.
However, the Supreme Court Procedure Committee makes recommendations about changes which are required, and of course they come from individual members of the court. The Master of the
984
Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice and many others have suggestions for improvements in the Supreme Court rules. That is an extremely powerful committee and Members of the Committee may think it unlikely that it would very readily allow interference with the course of justice. I submit to Members of the Committee that this matter should be considered in detail by reference to particular types of cases by that committee.
I make it plain that I intend to put into the primary legislation by amendment that leave can always be given by the Court of Appeal. I shall consider the point made by the Lords Justices this morning that it may be necessary to consider whether a two-judge court would be appropriate in some circumstances. That is something which I shall consider further. Normally, there would be either a single judge or the Court of Appeal itself. However, I shall certainly consider that matter because there are provisions which allow for a two-judge Court of Appeal in certain circumstances at present.
Certainly I make it clear that the leave of the Court of Appeal will always be open to be applied for even if, in addition, one can obtain leave from the lower court. I believe that to be the right way forward. I believe that that will also enable us to take proper account of timing because I hope that this Bill will last for some considerable time. I should expect that process to be careful and deliberate and properly adjusted in terms of time.
Personally, I feel that it would be quite wrong for me as Lord Chancellor to refuse to give consideration to what the Master of the Rolls, with the support, as he has told us, of the Lords Justices who were available, has asked us to do. As I say, I cannot think of a better committee to look at that.
There is one thing my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said which I feel I should not let pass without challenge; that is, the suggestion that if leave to appeal were to be required and if resources were scarce, the Lord Chancellor would either himself or through his officials direct or indicate to the judges how they should discharge their judicial functions. I regard it as one of the fundamental responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor to safeguard the independence of the judiciary in the exercise of its judicial functions and to safeguard the independence of the judical process. That is one of the aims of the Lord Chancellor's Department as set out in our departmental strategy.
I personally would not for a moment tolerate myself doing such a thing. I never contemplate the idea of telling anyone how to exercise a judicial function. Of course, the Court of Appeal is entitled to direct people at lower levels as to how they should carry out their judicial functions and those at lower levels have a duty to obey those instructions. However, I am talking about the Lord Chancellor, not sitting in any appellate court, in a situation where resources are scarce, directing that leave to appeal should be granted in fewer cases. That would be utterly wrong. I would not think of doing that myself and I would not tolerate that being done by any official on my behalf. Certainly as far as I know that has never been attempted. I should take very

985
strong action if it were ever suggested to me that that had been done.
The judges and the judges alone would have responsibility for deciding whether or not to grant leave. As my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls made plain, the only criterion for granting leave would be whether there was any real prospect that the case would be successful. That would be the only consideration. If the case was hopeless, leave would not be granted. If the case had some prospect of success, leave would be granted. I understand that to be the criterion. I commend this clause to the Committee, subject to the undertaking which I gave to bring forward an amendment on the lines which I indicated at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: As the matter has been referred to, I should like to endorse what my noble and learned friend has just said about the function of the Lord Chancellor. Not only do I accept from him that he would never act in the way suggested but I assure the Chamber that I never so acted; nor has anybody with my permission ever so acted. I can also say with confidence that my father, who was twice Lord Chancellor, would never have acted in that way; nor has any other Lord Chancellor to my knowledge.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Rippon of Hexham Lord Rippon of Hexham moved Amendment No.50A:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("The Construction Division
—(1) There shall be created an additional division of the High Court ofJustice to be known as the Construction Division.
(2) The Construction Division shall consist of judges nominated under section 68(1)(a) of the Supreme Court 1981, to deal full-time with official referees' business in London.
(3) Judges of the Construction Division shall be known as Construction Judges.
(4) Schedule 1 to the Supreme Court Act 1981 (which deals with distribution of business in the High Court) shall be amended by adding at the end —
"Construction Division
4. To the Construction Division are assigned all causes and matters constituting "official referees' business" within section 68(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which are commenced in or transferred to the Division."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the role and status of official referees. Official referees' courts form a special group of courts within the High Court. They have their own registry in which all steps in actions, from issues of writs and originating summonses to enforcement proceedings, can be taken and court records are kept. They are manned by six London official referees who are assisted by 16 official referee recorders and, from time to time, by visiting judges. I am told on most days there are nine or ten official referee courts sitting.
The official referees' courts are concerned, as the Committee may know, mainly but not exclusively with cases relating to the construction industry, which is, by most criteria, the largest industry in the United Kingdom. Of course, it undertakes much work abroad.
The volume of work undertaken by official referees has grown continually since the early 1970s and in most recent years has increased by about 15 per cent. a year. The cases tried in length, complexity and in the amounts of money involved are among the largest dealt with by the High Court. In addition, official referees hear applications for leave to appeal and appeals from arbitrators in construction cases; they also sit as arbitrators.
I suggest that at the present time the position of the official referees' courts is wholly anomalous. Although they form a de facto division of the High Court, they are not legally recognised as such. Their registry is theoretically composed of parts of the Chancery Division's registry and the Queen's Bench Division central office. Their judges, although selected direct from the Bar to be London official referees and forming a special category for the purposes of judicial salaries, in law are circuit judges. Therefore the official referees feel —my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may be aware of this—that there is a tendency for the official referees' courts to be either overlooked or ignored. They are of course proud of their history. The description "official referee"' dates from 1873, but it really gives to the layman (and many lawyers themselves) no indication of the nature of the work which is performed by the official referees' courts.
I understand that the Official Referees' Users' Committee, which consists of representatives of the professions and bodies engaged in the construction industry, as well as of official referees, the Official Referees' Bar Association and solicitors, included in their proposals for the Civil Justice Review that the official referees' courts should be made a separate division or a specialist court within the Queen's Bench Division. I understand —and this is on the record —that the Civil Justice Review final report, although it recognised the official referees' courts as specialist courts within which proceedings should be commenced initially, did not make any specific proposals in answer to the representations made.
The amendment which I propose would provide proper legal status for the courts consistent with their importance, particularly to the construction industry, though not exclusively. I am also informed that adoption of the amendment would not involve any public expenditure. I hope therefore that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will carefully consider the views of the official referees, even if he cannot give a final answer today.
There may well also be a better name for a new division than "Construction Division", though that is one they themselves suggest. However, since the creation of a new division of this kind would require primary legislation, this seems to be the only time when it is appropriate to put forward these views and suggestions. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hacking: Through no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, or myself, the noble and learned Lord has had a very short time in which to consider this amendment as part of the Bill. It was tabled only towards the end of last week. Not only is the noble

987
and learned Lord in that difficulty; as already identified by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, the Civil Justice Review, while recognising the specialist role of the official referees' court in paragraphs 105 and 118, did not give detailed consideration to that court. The Civil Justice Review, for example, gave detailed assessment and review of the Commercial Court in chapter 11, paragraphs 754 to 817. That is not to criticise the Civil Justice Review, whose task was almost endless, but to state the fact that the noble and learned Lord is not assisted in this matter by the Civil Justice Review.
In the circumstances therefore I ask the noble and learned Lord if he will kindly listen to this debate, as I am sure he will because he always carefully listens to our debates, listen to the contributions which are made and give himself an opportunity to see some of the written representations which have been made to his department. For example, a long letter of some eight pages in length was written to his department by the then senior official referee, Judge Lewis Hawser, on 23rd July 1987. More recently, and since the publication of the Civil Justice Review, a discussion paper has been prepared by a working group of the Official Referees' Users' Committee on 29th July 1988. If the noble and learned Lord will give himself that opportunity to consider both what is said in this debate and the written representations, perhaps he will then kindly give the matter further consideration and defer reaching any decision during the debate this evening.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, told the Committee, the official referees' court represents one of the specialist functions of the High Court. Indeed, as identified in the Civil Justice Review in paragraph 105 there is generally a movement in the High Court to provide specialist courts: for example, judicial review, special appeals in revenue cases, Admiralty cases, commercial cases and intellectual property. Indeed, it could be said that most of the work of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice is highly specialised work. A point made in the Civil Justice Review is that this is perhaps a feature which distinguishes the High Court from the county court.
Of those courts which have had particular success in their specialist role there can be named the Divisional Court —judicial review through the Crown Office List —the Commercial Court, in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, played a significant role when he was the senior judge in that court, and the court to which I particularly draw the Committee's attention, the subject of this amendment, the official referees' court.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has already told the Committee, the official referees' court takes virtually all the construction industry disputes which are heard in the High Court. It has therefore become de facto a construction specialist division sitting in the High Court in its new premises in St. Dunstan's House, Fetter Lane. Again, as the noble Lord told the Committee, this court deals with very large sums of money, almost invariably six-figure claims. The litigation cases before the official referees' court are
988
also very complex and lengthy. This comparison is not in any way scoring points because the virtue of efficiency of the Commercial Court is widely recognised but the caseload of the official referees' court is, I am told (I see that the noble and learned Lord is frowning at me) marginally more than the caseload of the Commercial Court.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Although it is not on my own front, perhaps I may ask a question. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I do not know the answer. I understood that the official referees wanted to become High Court judges. I understand though that that raises all sorts of issues. However, this amendment would leave them as circuit judges because Section 68(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act refers to "Circuit judges". If that is so, what is the point of the amendment?
Lord Hacking: If the noble and learned Lord will bear with me I will explain more of the reasons for the amendment. At this stage what is being sought in this amendment is that the official referees' court should be in a separate division within the High Court of Justice, though the presiding judiciary of it will remain circuit judges.
The further reasons which I advance for the proposition that a construction division of the High Court be created in this manner arises, as the Committee has heard, out of the great increase in the number of construction disputes which are heard in London. That has arisen out of the increase in negligence actions, in particular involving construction and engineering activities. More than that, certain reforms have taken place in the official referee's court which have made it a more attractive forum. It has had the ability since 1980 to award interim payments, and cases now to start in the official referee's court.
One of the features of the official referee's court, like the Commercial Court, is that it has been an innovative court. It has a users' committee as does the Commercial Court. It divides up actions and orders the trial of preliminary issues. Such practice is attractive to litigants as it isolates issues of law for determination. It has also been innovative in such matters as exchange of witness statements and the meeting of experts. With both those innovations the court took it upon itself to persuade the parties on a consensual basis: now it is included in the Rules of the Supreme Court.
The decisions of the official referee are widely reported in specialist law reports, journals and periodicals concerned with building and engineering law such as the Building Law Reports and the Construction Law Journal. As the Committee has heard, the court also performs the function of acting as arbitrators and takes appeals from arbitrators which are referred to it.
I hope that that gives the Committee an understanding of the role of the official referee's court and how it has become a de facto division of the High Court in construction matters. The role of the official referee's court has even been recognised by such bodies as the Review Body on Top Salaries which in its report of 1988 states:

989
"The work of the London Official Referees, normally six in number, is of a specialised nature. The cases concerned are usually lengthy and technical disputes concerning civil engineering contracts which involve the prolonged examination of documents and schedules, and the assessment of expert evidence.… The Official Referees are required to acquire and develop skills and experience in a highly specialised area of law dealing with issues involving complex technical evidence".
Notwithstanding that, for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, they remain in this anomalous position where they do not have the status of a division of the High Court, nor the status of High Court judges. For all those reasons I ask the noble and learned Lord to give further consideration to the amendment. It has the support of the Law Society and of the Official Referees' Bar Association.
Lord Lane: I confess that I do not understand the objective of the proposal. No one doubts that the official referees do a wonderful job of work. They relieve the judges of the High Court of a number of cases which are extremely time consuming. That leaves the judges of the High Court free to do work that is possibly more intricate and more difficult. No one queries that the official referees have all the qualities that the noble Lord, Lord Hackling, has enumerated.
However, this proposal adds absolutely nothing to the present situation. The official referees are now heavily remunerated thanks to the Review Body on Top Salaries, much to the anger of a large number of other ordinary circuit judges. They are organised as though they were a division of the High Court. The official referees are not High Court judges. I now understand —I had misunderstood to begin with —that they do not intend that they should become High Court judges. They are organised under the aegis of their own supremo, Judge Lewis Hawser. They are under the charge of a High Court judge, Mr. Justice Garland, who is answerable to the Deputy Chief Justice and myself. To that extent they have all the resemblance of an ordinary division of the High Court.
Why this proposal is made I cannot understand. If it is to change the name from official referees to construction judges, then perhaps everyone might have saved themselves time.
The Lord Chancellor: I fully appreciate the work of the official referees. I had the honour of opening their refurbished premises at St. Dunstan's House. When I was in practice I used to do quite a lot of work in the area in which the official referees work in England, although mine was, generally speaking, in Scotland.
I say first to my noble friend Lord Rippon that primary legislation is not necessary for this purpose because there is power in the Supreme Court Act for Her Majesty on a recommendation of the judges mentioned —I shall come to them in a moment —to direct any increase or reduction in the number of divisions of the High Court. The judges are the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor.
Secondly, I had not understood the amendment properly. I thought that the intention in subsection
990
(2) of the amendment was to make the present judges immediately judges of the High Court. In other words, the judges of the Construction Division of the High Court would be judges at presently nominated under Section 68(1). If that is not the purpose, as my noble friend the Lord Chief Justice has stated, I am not sure what this amendment Is intended to deal with. If it is to change the name to construction judges, I share the doubt of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham as to whether a Construction Division of the High Court is a particularly attractive name for them. In view of the amount of new building that may be required, I believe that it is open to some misinterpretation. From that point of view, I doubt whether that is good.
I shall certainly consider further the arguments that have been put forward. However, I believe that the present situation is satisfactory. At the moment I can see no advantage in giving effect to the amendment.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: As we have heard this afternoon, the Master of the Rolls is expert in collecting voices. The voices that he collects have a spokesman in this Chamber. The official referees have done their best to collect the voices and have asked me to present their point of view to the Committee. It is clearly a matter of some interest and one would hope that brothers in law would understand their concern about their role and status. The amendment does not refer to their pay. As the Master of the Rolls suggests, it may be that they wish to be High Court judges. It may be, as he understands it, that that might be the right way of proceeding. My noble and learned friend has explained that primary legislation is not necessary, and has stated that he will consider the position. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater: This may be a convenient time to break for dinner. I therefore beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Co-operative Development Agency (Winding up and Dissolution) Order 1989
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November 1989 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Co-operative Development Agency was established by the previous government under the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978 with a wide remit,
"to promote the adoption and the better understanding of co-operative principles and to represent the interests of the co-operative movement".
This legislation followed upon the recommendations of a working group of representatives of co-operative interests. One of the recommendations of the working group's report was that the Government should bear the cost of setting up a co-operative development agency and running it for a period of three years, a cost which was expected to be £900,000. At the end of three years it was expected that the CDA should no longer be dependent on public funding and would rely upon contributions from the co-operative movement and income from charging fees. Despite the wide remit provided by the legislation, the board of the CDA, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, decided to concentrate on the worker co-operative sector, as strong sponsoring bodies already existed in the consumer, housing and agricultural sectors.
The CDA has had success both in promoting the co-operative concept and in encouraging the setting up of worker co-operatives, and of local advisory bodies to help them. Due to its efforts, and those of the other bodies involved, more than 1,500 co-operatives were created.
The previous Government's plans for the agency to become self-financing, however, were not borne out by experience. The present Government extended the life of the agency through the 1981 CDA order, which allowed the agency to take up the further £600,000 provided for under the 1978 Act. This limit was raised to £3 million under the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984. Through the 1984 legislation, the Government also gave the CDA new powers in the areas of training, joint ventures, and administering loans and grants. These new powers were intended to help the CDA to widen its role and cease its dependence on the public purse. But the CDA has been unable to establish self-sufficiency and has had to rely on government grant in every year since its inception.
With the ceiling of £3 million set in the 1984 Act due to be reached around the second half of 1990, the Government needed to decide whether to extend the life of the current CDA. In 1988 the then Minister with responsibility for small firms, Mr. John Cope, asked the chairman of the CDA to present proposals for the agency's future. The CDA's proposals suggested that there was no major continuing role in promoting co-operative development and that the agency might in future concentrate on employee participation and employee share ownership through ESOPS.
The Government considered the CDA's proposals very carefully. We accepted the case that the work of supporting and promoting co-ops could be carried out by other organisations at local level, but could not accept the argument that the CDA's role should extend to ESOPS. There is already considerable private sector activity in this area and we felt it would not be appropirate to give such responsibilities to a statutory body.
In January 1989 the Department of Employment issued a consultation letter to organisations in the co-operative movement with a proposal that the
992
CDA should be wound up. The responses showed a wide range of views on what support the Government should give to co-operatives, and were evenly divided on the question of continuing to support the CDA. Organisations which supported the proposal for closure were mainly in the worker co-operative sector. There was a general impression in these responses that the CDA had done its job, and that there was now a well-established network of local co-op support bodies. They therefore saw no continuing need for a statutory body to promote co-operative development.
We accordingly asked the CDA to prepare plans for its closure. These propose that the agency should cease functioning by the end of September of this year. Final closure, following a three-month winding up period, will be completed by the end of December 1990. The CDA has contacted organisations supporting co-operatives, setting out details of its current activities and seeking views on those which other organisations might want to take on after it closes. The CDA has chaired and provided the secretariat for the co-operative inter-sector forum and has been active in setting up a study group from within the forum to make recommendations on the continuation of a representative body for the movement as a whole. The Government have said that they are prepared to consider an application for financial support towards the costs of setting up and running such a body, provided that this funding is on a short-term, pump-priming basis and is at least matched by contributions from the co-operative movement.
I should like to record the Government's appreciation of the work of the board members of the CDA, in the early days under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and more recently his successor, Mr. Ralph Woolf. The board has been ably supported in its work by the two directors of the agency, Dennis Lawrence and George Jones, and their staff. The decision to wind up the CDA does not mean that the Government do not support the co-operative concept. Co-operatives have an important role in the Government's housing and agricultural policies, and co-operative ideas continue to be important in small firms and enterprise. We feel that co-operatives may have particular potential in carrying enterprise and business attitudes into some groups or areas as an alternative to conventional forms of business. The Minister of State has said that the Department of Employment is prepared to consider applications for support for innovative co-operative projects.
In conclusion, we are happy to support the co-operative concept and are prepared to contribute to the funding of a representative body and towards innovative co-operative projects. We do not, however, see a continuing need for a statutory body to promote co-operative development, and we propose that, having done its work, the Co-operative Development Agency should now be wound up. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November 1989 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, tonight we all play an unworthy part in killing off the Co-operative Development Agency. In the totality of British life and in the management of the economy, we are used to talking in terms of millions of pounds and sometimes of billions of pounds. We are dealing here with the demise of a body which makes a call on the Exchequer of perhaps £200,000 or £300,000 and which, in all its 12 years of life, has made a call on the taxpayer of between £3 million and £4 million. That is pretty small beer. Some of us not only helped at its birth but connived to bring about its conception. We are entitled to be sad. Yes, I am even more mad than sad at the waste of good money and at the mindless vandalism which the destruction of the CDA epitomises.
Like the Minister tonight, I have read the account of proceedings in another place. I was impressed by the fairness of the Minister, Mr. Tim Eggar. He delivered the coup de grace to the CDA, sustained with a number of logical points which the noble Earl used in his speech tonight. I took some heart when I studied what he had left us with. I shall comment later on the positive points that the Minister made, and I acknowledge that we still have something left. It is not much, but beggars cannot be choosers.
The burden of my complaint is more the unfairness and even cynicism and hypocrisy of the Government when they deal such a savage blow to co-operative enterprise in the form of the Co-operative Development Agency while sustaining and supporting other forms of enterprise which use the co-operative ethic as a central pillar of their philosophy. The Government, the Minister tonight and his ministerial colleagues in another place have time after time lauded the co-operative idea and professed support for the co-operative sector, yet they demonstrate that support in a philistine way. It makes no sense to me or to thousands of others outside.
Funding for the CDA since its inception compares badly with what has been provided since 1967 for agricultural co-operatives. The co-operative development division of Food from Britain had an operating expenditure for 1987–88 of £559,508. This covered advisory and legal services. In that year the division formed seven marketing co-operatives and considered 78 grant applications. The cost of these to public funds was £819,000. Under European Community regulations, 15 agricultural projects were grant-aided to a total of £1,659,366. EC grants worth £373,000 were also made to forage groups. Moreover, 26 grants to fruit and vegetable producer organisations were made for launch aid totalling £678,135.
No one wishes to see less aid for agricultural co-operatives, but there are large and powerful regional agricultural organisations of many years' standing in England by comparison with the small and relatively new workers' co-operatives which resulted from the formation of the CDA in 1979. I speak for many when I tell the Minister that we find it strange that a modestly funded body like the CDA is to be wound up while a well-established and financed body, under the wing of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is to continue.
994
When a Labour Government established the CDA in 1978, it was hailed by all parties as a significant measure. For far too long, this country poured its economic energy into two prime sectors; namely, the private sector and the public sector. In many countries, a third force was flourishing—the co-operative sector. Here in Britain a measure of support for the values enshrined in the co-operative idea resulted in the CDA receiving all-party support. It was never meant to be other than a catalyst for co-operative ideas, a body to stimulate and encourage others —that is, individuals, local authorities, trade unions and private businesses —to turn to co-operative solutions for answers to their problems. It worked, although perhaps too well for the liking of this Government.
The time of the 1980s substantially has been the decade of the CDA. Therefore, we must set its achievements alongside the circumstances and challenges of that time. On less than a shoestring, it has a remarkable record of positive achievement. It has an outstanding record in, for instance, establishing marketing co-operatives. Indeed, 63 groups had been formed by 1989, introducing the co-operative concept to traditional business and improving the competitiveness of small businesses, thus enabling them to compete internationally.
In 1989, 40 projects were at varying stages of development. They cover a wide range of industries including garment manufacture, printing, medical equipment supplies, ship repair and hotels and tourism. The CDA has worked up the concept of group marketing until it has succeeded in practice. What a splendid gift to British employers and employees. What a waste to condemn those innovators to the scrapheap of history!
As the Minister said, perhaps it has been in the sphere of working co-operatives that the CDA has had its most outstanding achievement. From virtually a standing start, more than 2,000 worker, neighbourhood, community and marketing co-ops were registered and actively trading in 1989. That is a record of which I am intensely proud. It fully justifies the pioneering work of many. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, must be grateful, for he was wholly behind the creation of the CDA. I can tell the Minister that when I discussed tonight's business with him, he was bitterly disappointed.
Sitting behind me today as I speak is my noble friend Lord Oram. He was the first chairman of the CDA. For over 30 years before it was established he inspired the concept by his writings. As I said, he was its first chairman and he will no doubt speak for himself. I venture to suggest that he will be as angry and dismayed as are the rest of us.
The Minister was right to pay full and generous tribute to other individuals. I refer to Mr. Ralph Woolf, who served for a long time as chairman. I should also refer to the inspired choice of George Jones as the director of the CDA. Together they gave the CDA status, stature and purpose. Much of what has been achieved must be owed to them and I am personally truly grateful.
Where do we go from here? No explanation has been forthcoming from Ministers, either in this

995
House or in another place, to justify the cruel, senseless murder of a fine initiative in the sphere of job creation and of economic regeneration. If ever an instrument earned the charge that it owes more to dogma than it does to realism, it is the order which we are debating this evening.
The Minister of State in another place, Mr. Eggar, has consulted widely on the way forward. I pay tribute to him and to those endeavours. We have to build upon them. In essence, having taken quite the wrong decision to abolish the CDA, and having made speeches in both Houses paying warm tributes both to past performance and to the future potential for co-operative expansion, Ministers wish to wash their hands of this distasteful third arm in our economy —that is, co-operative enterprise —as quickly and as cleanly as possible. The Co-operative Forum is to be the vehicle to take this forward. The scenario poses many questions. I believe that the House, and the wider co-operative movements, are entitled to some answers.
In cols. 1041 and 1056 of Hansard of 10th January the Minister of State said that funds to establish a new co-operative forum would be forthcoming from the Government, to match pound for pound funds assembled by the co-operative movement. That is an invitation which was repeated here tonight by the Minister. However, can we be told how much is in the Minister's mind? For example, are we talking about five, six or seven figures as a contribution from the Government towards this activity?
Both the columns I mentioned referred, as did the Minister here tonight, to a short-term pump-priming basis. How long is short? Are we thinking in terms of months or of years? Further, in both columns, and again tonight, Ministers said that they will support innovations. That comment is to be found in col. 1042 of Hansard of 10th January. What does the support of innovations mean? Does it mean funds to establish secretarial support for the forum and in addition moneys for projects proposed by the forum?
Throughout the speeches made by Ministers they have laid heavy stress on the role of TECs. It is said that they will be encouraged by Ministers to look at co-operative solutions to inner-city problems. The Minister in another place declined to lay a duty to do so, relying upon a word in the ear of the chairman of the TECs to encourage co-operatives. I should like to make a better suggestion to the Minister tonight. Why not ensure that co-operative solutions are positively examined and evaluated by putting men and women with strong co-operative links on to the governing board of every TEC? It is a simple but direct way of assuring doubters that the Minister says what he means and means what he says. In this connection I assure the Minister that names can be supplied very quickly.
Finally, will the Minister clarify the legislative status of the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978? This order winds up the agency. Does that leave the 1978 Act on the statute book.
As I said, I am more sad than mad for I genuinely believe that a good idea has been throttled in pursuit of the Government's ideological dogma. There are
996
many ways in which co-operative solutions can resolve the problems of the marketplace and of the workplace. It is quite imcomprehensible that for the tiny sums involved the Government have thrown the onus for carrying these forward on to volunteers, initiatives by hard-pressed local authorities and other co-operative institutions, while at the same time funding co-operative activity in other spheres of our economic life with millions of pounds. It does no credit to the Government or to Ministers. They should both be thoroughly ashamed of this spiteful action.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the order. It is clear, whether we like it or not, that the Government are intent upon dissolving the Co-operative Development Agency. However, the support of my party has been so keen and prolonged, notably by my noble friend Lord Grimond, that I do not feel I can let this occasion pass without comment.
The Government stressed that in 1988 it was the CDA's view that the task of promoting and supporting co-operatives could be carried out at local level. They also claim that a factor which weighed heavily in their ultimate decision to wind up the agency is that the responses to the Department of Employment's consultative letter of January 1989 showed that those supporting the proposal for closure were largely in the co-operative sector.
I am in no position to question that. My concern is to ensure that in the dissolution of the CDA the bodies which are called upon to fulfil its functions are in a position to do so adequately. In that connection, when the order was introduced in another place last week, reference was made to the training and enterprise councils, which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has mentioned, and to local CDAs; but local CDAs cannot be said to cover the whole country. Where they operate, they are largely dependent upon funding by local authority finances. How can we have confidence that that funding will continue?
As for TECs, they have yet to prove their worth, even in the matter of training. It remains to be seen how they will fill the role the Government seem now to be assigning to them of assisting in the formation of co-operatives. Led by employers in the private sector, how are they to secure the knowledge and advice needed to support co-operative ventures? Is there any reference in the TEC tender documentation to the need for development of co-operatives? Perhaps the Minister will respond to that question when he replies. The national CDA, as I understand it, is at present under an obligation to encourage co-operatives. Will that obligation be transferred to the TECs? Evidently not, for all the Government have been able to say so far is that the councils will be expected to assist in that way.
I do not want to speak at length, but those are some of the misgivings that we have about the forthcoming dissolution of the CDA. It is for the Minister to dispel them if he can.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton in his severe criticism of the order. Some 12 years ago he and I were happy to be in at the birth of the CDA. We are correspondingly sad this evening to be present at its death. It would be better if, instead of passing the order, we reversed the famous words of Mark Antony of old, saying, "We come not to bury the CDA but to praise it". I say that because, as was said by the Minister and my noble friend, I was privileged to be the first chairman of the CDA and to help launch it on a decade of constructive work for co-operative development.
In many ways there is great potential in this country for co-operative development —for the development of a third major sector of the economy, not the public sector, not the private sector, but co-operative activity. Of course we have already a powerful consumer-controlled movement in retailing, wholesaling, insurance and banking. We are just at the beginning of developing co-operatives in fields which have been neglected in this country, the country where co-operation was born. I refer to housing co-operatives, credit unions, farmers' co-operatives, workers' co-operatives and community co-operatives. In all those areas seeds have been sown throughout the past decade, partly,though not exclusively, under the influence of the CDA. Particularly successful has been the growth of workers' co-operatives, which have increased from some 200 when I became chairman to some 2,000 today. Much of that growth is to the credit of the Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM), whose work will of course continue after the CDA is gone.
The sad thing about the Government's decision to bring in the order is that just when those seeds are showing signs of taking root they are being deprived of one of the organisations which can nurture them.
We have in this country a lopsided co-operative movement —powerful, as I said, in retailing, wholesaling, banking and insurance, but weak in those other areas of co-operative organisation that I have listed. Although they are weak, their potential is great. The effect of the order will be largely to deny them the fulfilment of that potential.
In other countries those other co-operative movements have not been neglected. If we look at Sweden we see a comprehensive co-operative movement, including successful and widespread housing co-operatives; if we look at North America, both the United States and Canada, we see the successful credit union movement, which provides credit for its members on terms far more favourable than are available by other means; if we look across the Channel to France, we find a large network of successful agricultural co-operatives. Workers' co-operatives in northern Spain are a well-known success story in the Mondragon complex; and in Italy workers' co-operatives, particularly in the construction industry, are major enterprises. Among their many achievements, they are helping to rescue Venice from the invading sea. Incidentally, even gondoliers have their co-operative society.
998
Faced by all those achievements by co-operators in other countries, we are entitled to ask: why are co-operatives in those other fields so weak in Britain? Secondly, we are entitled to ask: what should be done? In my view what ought not to be done is to wind up the CDA. Instead of being negative, as the order proposes, we should be positive. We should look for expansion rather than contraction. Unfortunately, it is now too late to ensure the continuation of the CDA; but, as my noble friend Lord Graham has said, we can welcome the Government's willingness, as indicated in another place, to consider providing money for a new institution —a forum in which the various sectors of the co-operative movement can be brought together as a kind of think-tank in which they can share experiences and co-ordinate their promotional efforts. The Minister has made it clear that that is conditional upon the movement providing matching funds. That I believe to be a wholly acceptable condition. I hope and believe that discussions can proceed whereby that condition can be fulfilled.
In order to help co-operatives achieve their potential in all the fields that I have mentioned, we need a new partnership —a partnership between the consumer-co-operative movement and the Government. Therefore the proposal for Government funds matched by co-operative funds is a welcome, though modest, compensation for the loss of the agency. I very much hope that early progress along these lines can be achieved and that the Minister will answer favourably the questions that my noble friend has asked.
8 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am moved to participate in the debate tonight for a variety of reasons. I had my first business experience as an employee of the co-operative movement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I was rewarded in due course with the highest honour that the co-operative movement can award. I became chairman of the Co-operative Congress. Therefore I share with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, a sense of dismay and disappointment at the proposals which are now before us. I understand that it is within the conventions of this House that we do not vote against the proposals, although I feel inclined to do so. In the House of Commons the vote on this proposal was 191 to 180, which suggests that we might be tempted to proceed with a vote in this House and give the House of Commons another opportunity to review its decision.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and others who have spoken, as a mixed economy man I am attracted to the idea that we ought to have some organisation which is committed neither to the capitalist ethic nor to the idea of large state enterprise. The contribution of the co-op gives the individual a role in society, whereas in the large organisations —be they state-run or the large industrial conglomerates —the individual plays little role in making decisions as a shareholder or an employee.
The co-op is designed to bring the owners, employees and customers of the business into the area of decision making and directing their own

999
affairs. I regret to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but it is a sad fact that the democratic basis of the co-op in this country, in the large co-operative societies, has somewhat diminished since the days when I was actively involved.
I am attracted by the Minister's offer to give us the opportunity of continuing this work at least on a transitional basis. I hope that the co-operative movement will respond to the idea of contributing to the forum. I hope it will embarrass the Government by the pound-for-pound subscription and thereby ensure a very substantial commitment by the Government to the new co-operative forum.
Perhaps I may make an appeal to all our friends who support the co-operative idea. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has made the point that an all-party appeal is being made to the Government and I regret the exclusiveness of the co-operative as affiliated to the Labour Party. I recently wrote by invitation an article on trading policy in a co-op journal. The following week the editorial of the Co-operative News said that Lord Taylor had written on the matter of trading policy, "But we don't need any advice from Members of the SDP". Similarly, the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches has assured the House of the continuing interest of the Liberal Party in the affairs of co-operative development. I suggest to our co-operative friends in the Labour Party that in making their appeal for support they should not be isolationist.
There are two things which I hope for. I hope that we shall respond to the ideas of the forum. Further I hope that we shall show the Government that we mean what we say tonight in this House about our commitment and that we shall do so through our existing co-operative organisations. I feel slightly humiliated, I must confess, in asking the Government for handouts to support the co-operative idea. When I look at the resources of the co-operative movement, the total retail sales of co-ops last year in this country were £5,768 million. The assets of the retail societies were £944 million —nearly £1 billion of assets. At the pinnacle of all this the Co-operative Insurance Society had a premium income of £894 million and assets in excess of £3 billion.
I think that through our existing co-operative organisations we ought to say, "Yes, we believe in the co-operative idea. All right, the Government are withdrawing their support for the Co-operative Development Agency but we will show them, we will be proud, we will support and stimulate co-operative development by the establishment of funds to replace the Government's support, but from our own resources". I think that that would do us a lot of good and I hope that the co-op will feel able and be proud enough to respond in that way.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, my noble friends on this side and others have made our feelings very clear regarding the dissolution of the CDA. I do not propose to go over the matter again except to say that I share their dismay and disappointment at the situation in which we find ourselves this evening.
1000
I have two questions to ask and two comments to make. Perhaps if I ask the questions first I may receive an answer. Can the Minister say how many jobs have been created by the activities of the Co-operative Development Agency? How much has each job cost the taxpayer? If the Government cannot give an answer it means that they have not even worked it out. If so, I fear that we must be even more convinced that the reasons behind this winding up are dogmatic rather than practical.
The two comments which I wish to make are, first, to remind your Lordships that worker co-operatives do not fail as often as small businesses. There is a very good reason for this, well known to most of us. The other point that I wish to make is that co-operatives are truly local. When there is a good, workable system of worker co-operatives in a society it brings stability to that industrial base, particularly in small communities, which is simply not available through any other means.
It is a great shame that we have reached this stage. The Co-operative Development Agency has been responsible directly and indirectly through local agencies for setting up some wonderful job opportunities in local communities. I am extraordinarily sad to see it go.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I wish to follow the example set by my noble friend Lady Nicol and put a question before I make my comments. Will the Minister provide information relative to the second paragraph of the preamble to the statutory instrument? It says:
"Whereas the Secretary of State has consulted with persons appearing to him to represent the interests of the co-operative movement and with such other persons appearing to him appropriate by virtue of section 1(3) of the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978(b) … as required by section 3(5) of the 1984 Act".
Would the Minister care to provide the House with the information as to who those persons were and whom they represented?
I feel that this is an opportunity for me to say that in Northern Ireland I speak as a member of the board of management of the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency. That body has been supported by the separate legislation provided for it. I realise that that legislation concerns Northern Ireland and is separate and distinct from what the Minister is to deal with tonight. That body has recently been supported by the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development and by the international Irish fund. It was supported on the understanding that it would enable some developments to take place in Northern Ireland on a co-operative basis.
I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Oram for the help and the advice that they have given and for the manner in which they participated in the founding of the Co-operative Development Agency in Northern Ireland. The agency has had its problems and its difficulties but it is proving itself in the Northern Ireland context in a manner which is perhaps difficult to understand in the context in which we are discussing the agency this evening. It is helping communities to come together and to build up relationships and values

1001
which have sadly been eroded over the past 20 and 30 years in Northern Ireland.
Another area for development arises out of the privatisation of transport. This has allowed community transport arrangements based on community development to be promoted. Other initiatives have been developed in broadcasting, the arts, drama, house repairs, entertainment and the theatre. Those are a number of areas where such developments were practically unknown at one point. Those initiatives have been developed on a community basis through the instrument of the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency. I am not saying that great heights have been reached, but here is an example of something that is flourishing in the context of Northern Ireland. Sadly, however, the provision that we are discussing tonight will not give us any encouragement to take further steps. Finally, I wish to know who was consulted in this matter.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I have listened intently to the points which have been made. I shall now try to address the main concerns that have been raised. One of the questions that has been asked is why, if the CDA has done an acceptable job and if the Government have valued its services, is its life not being extended again. However, the situation now is not the one we had in 1984 when the CDA was allocated further public money to enable it to achieve the original hopes of its proposers that it would become self-reliant. After over a decade of trying, it was clear to us that the CDA would not achieve that aim. Thus the question arose of whether statutory functions would still be needed in the new decade and of where long-term support for CDA functions should come from. We are clear, as was the CDA board, that the central co-ordinating and representational work of the CDA should be funded by the well established bodies in the co-operative movement if they feel that they have common interests which ought to be represented by a new central body.
We are happy to consider initial assistance, should it be required. More generally, and with reference above all to the CDA's efforts to develop worker co-operatives, we have not changed our view that the existence of almost 100 local advisory bodies, together with enterprise agencies and the new training and enterprise councils, will enable help to be given on the ground where it is needed. There are also national non-statutory bodies with the expertise to give help where a national perspective is required. The advice network is developing to the extent that further funding for the CDA would compel it to duplicate work which could be done by others.
I shall move on to the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked why agricultural co-operatives were better provided for than worker co-operatives.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I did not ask why they were better provided for but why they
1002
were so miserably provided for in comparison with the support for agricultural co-operatives.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall say a few brief words on agricultural co-operatives. I hope that will answer the noble Lord's point. Agricultural co-operatives are not treated much differently from those in other sectors of the economy other than in the availability of grants under the agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme. Since the implementation of the common agricultural policy in the United Kingdom, agriculture and horticulture have had to compete with industries in other member states where co-operatives are well established. The agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme has therefore been aimed at encouraging co-operation, particularly in marketing, so that the United Kingdom's industry could compete on equal terms.
As regards the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on pump priming, pump priming funds will be those needed in the first one or two years to help an innovative project get off the ground and become self-sufficient; for example, through charges or additional sponsorship. I hope that also answers the noble Lord's second point. We have no limit in mind for individual projects. The amounts notionally available are analogous to the annual sums which the Government might otherwise have spent in maintaining the CDA until 1993. Exact deployment under the industrial development legislation will depend on the number, cost and quality of the projects put forward.
As regards the third point of the noble Lord on legislation my answer is brief. Although the Government are not repealing the legislation, primary legislation would be needed to re-establish the CDA as it stands at present. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked about men and women being put onto the boards of TECs. Members of training and enterprise councils are drawn from local business communities, local authorities, voluntary organisations and other sources. They come therefore from a wide sphere of society.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked what support for innovations meant. This would cover expenditure on a match-tapering basis on a new co-operative forum but also other innovative projects proposed by the forum or by others.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, suggested that certain functions of the CDA will be lost. The Department of Employment will continue to promote co-operatives as a form of enterprise within its general policy towards small firms, independent bodies such as ICOM, regional and local co-operative support organisations and local enterprise agencies best placed to continue the CDA's advisory services. There is also an important new development in the setting up of the training and enterprise councils. TECs will also decide whether support is needed for co-ops within their areas. Co-ops are of course able to take advantage of existing counselling and training available through the training agency. In addition the small firms service will route all inquiries to co-operative and other business organisations.

1003
I hope I understood the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, which I believe concerned the funding for co-operative development after the dissolution of the CDA. The Government are always happy to consider support for innovative ideas as part of a general policy to promote enterprise. We are especially keen to promote new ventures which deal with genuine needs, for example, in the inner cities. Each proposed project would be assessed on its merits. We would not wish to give preferential treatment to co-operative enterprises over other forms of small business. We would not therefore consider re-introducing the statutory grants scheme as existed under the industrial common ownership legislation from 1976 to 1981 as no other small business sector has access to such a scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked about the forum. I hope that I can provide the answer that he requires. The Government acknowledge that the forum is a useful platform for the exchange of views and ideas between various sectors of the movement. We are waiting to hear proposals as to how it can be carried on. When the co-operative movement reaches agreement on the constitution of and funding provision for a new representative body we shall be prepared to consider a case for funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked about job numbers. It is estimated that 1,500 co-operatives have started since 1978 and that 7,500 jobs have been created as a result. It is not possible to say for how many of those the CDA was responsible. There are now more than 100 local advisory bodies, plus ICOM and other national bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked a question in relation to Northern Ireland. The main co-operative bodies were consulted, including the Northern Ireland CDA. I believe that it would be unfair to individual bodies to say what their responses were.
We are changing the nature of our support to reflect the realities. Government support for co-operatives has not diminished in the slightest. Our future policy and support will be focused on developing innovative projects, particulary those with potential for special groups. We want to encourage co-operative means of developing people's talents and capacity for self help, especially for those currently without work. We firmly believe that our strategy will achieve that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate the fullness of the noble Earl's replies, which have been helpful. However, does the Minister not understand that neither he nor the proposition has a friend in the House? Everyone who has spoken has spoken against the proposition and has done so with feeling and passion. Does the Minister understand that there are a great many unsolved mysteries as to the future against the background that the Government, as the Minister said in his closing words, profess full support for the co-operative idea?
In view of the blanket opposition to the order before the House tonight I invite the Minister to
1004
withdraw the order and bring it back when further proper consultation has taken place.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to withdraw the order. I hope that I have answered all the questions. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 1990
8.23 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November 1989 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 1990 also standing in my name on the Order Paper. I propose to move the second order formally once the first order has been dealt with. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the orders have been amended to read "1990" rather than "1989", which was the date when they were first laid.
The orders, when made, will enable the United Kingdom to grant to the European School at Culham in Oxfordshire and to its staff the same privileges as those enjoyed by the other European schools and their staff in other EC countries. Thus we can fulfil our obligations under European Community law and under the agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the board of governors of the European School signed at Brussels on 18th October 1988.
The European School at Culham was set up in 1978 and is one of nine such schools in Community countries. It educates the children of staff of the Joint European Torus project (JET) who have been seconded from the European Commission, other EC countries and other European centres.
The United Kingdom acceded to the statute of the European School and Protocol on 30th August 1972. Article 28 of the statute provides for the conclusion by the board of governors of the school of agreements governing the treatment of the school. It is in accordance with that provision that the headquarters agreement between the United Kingdom and the board of governors concerning the European School at Culham was concluded. That headquarters agreement is designed to ensure, in accordance with Article 28 of the statute, that the school can operate:
"in a favourable atmosphere under the best possible physical conditions".
The agreement serves the purpose of applying in detail the general provisions on establishment and government of European Schools which are included in the statute and the protocol. It is, therefore, ancillary to the statute and protocol (which are themselves regarded as pre-accession treaties) and therefore comes within the terms of Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972.
It is therefore proposed that the first draft order before the House —that relating to the privileges of the European School —should be made under Section 1(2) of the 1972 Act specifying the privileges which the European School is to enjoy in the United Kingdom. The second order specifies the headquarters agreement under Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act as a Community treaty and provides the basis for the first order. The headquarters agreement sets out the privileges which the European School is to enjoy in the UK.
The principal privileges to be conferred are, firstly, for the European School itself: legal capacity; exemption from taxes on income and capital gains; relief from VAT; exemption from import duties. Secondly, for teachers seconded to the school by member states: exemption from social security legislation; "first arrival" customs privileges; exemption from income tax of earnings, limited in the case of staff seconded by the United Kingdom to the European supplement paid by the school.
Similar privileges have been granted by all other host governments. The locally recruited staff at the school do not benefit from these privileges. The House will note that no one is given any immunity. We are satisfied that the privileges accorded under the draft orders are necessary both to fulfil our obligations in including those reflected in the European Court judgment in the Hurd case and to enable the school at Culham to function effectively.
I commend the European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 1990 to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November 1989 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Reay.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining both of the orders to us. The European School established at Culham 11 years ago has, I understand, been a success. I am advised that it has a good reputation and that the children who have attended it have done well.
It is worth noting that it is a fairly large school, with 825 pupils. As the noble Lord said, places are available to students who are not children of employees of the Joint European Torus project (the JET research project on thermo-nuclear fusion) for whom it was initially planned.
It is also noteworthy that the curriculum of the school is provided in five languages—Dutch, English, French, German and Italian. If it was established in Wales, Welsh would have to be added to that list. It should also be noted that there are nine similar schools throughout Europe and that the board of administration of each school has both teacher and parent representatives. I am sure that there are lessons to be learned by our own Department of Education and education authorities throughout the land from those schools as they have developed.
As the noble Lord has said, the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 1990 designates the agreement
1006
between Her Majesty's Government and the board of governors at the European School as a Community treaty. The privileges order implements the agreement between the two parties with respect to income tax, customs charges, and capital gains and VAT on school equipment. Those are substantial privileges. Indeed, one feels rather regretful that the benefits that will flow to the school under the privileges order in terms of money released for equipment and resources are not also available to our state schools in this country.
The noble Lord will have noted that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments found some of the Government's replies with respect to the European School to be less than —I quote the word used in the second report —"illuminating". The committee noted that the Government took the view that the European School has the capacity to enter into an international treaty, but have not stated why they took that view. That is dealt with in paragraph 6 of the second report. Perhaps the noble Lord will enlighten us and confirm whether that is standard procedure when dealing with treaties.
Secondly, on the question of the other eight European Schools being given similar privileges and exemptions, will the noble Lord say how many British subjects attend them as students? Furthermore, will he advise the House of any representations that he has received from the governors of the school with respect to the proposed changes and how he thinks they will affect the running of the school? Will there be any significant change?
Finally, I regret to say that the joint committee criticised the statutory instruments as being defectively drafted. I was sorry to see that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he thinks there is any validity in that criticism.
We agree that the school at Culham should be dealt with on a par with other schools and we wish the school every further success. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am being unduly pernickety, but I think it proper to ensure that the criticisms are dealt with at this time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to say a few words about the statutory instruments. First, I concur with my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the Leader of the Opposition, that it is a great pity that many of the sums of money and facilities available to the European School are not, alas, available in our own schools in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that when the noble Lord replies to the debate he will deal seriously with the objections raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its second report, because these are two serious matters. They concern the competence of the European School to make a treaty. I sympathise with the committee's point of view. It also calls into account the validity of the orders. It would be sad if the House passed orders which were ultra vires after we had been advised by the joint committee that they were so.

1007
My second point concerns the privileges given to the school and its staff. It is not only members of foreign countries who will be accorded the privilege of not paying United Kingdom income tax; staff members seconded to the school by the United Kingdom Government will also be involved. In other words, they will be civil servants who will be exempt from United Kingdom income tax on salaries and emoluments paid to them by the school.
Some of us believe that the school is an elite institution which gives privileges to a small elite from the European Community similar to the kind of privileges which were given, and might still be given, in Eastern bloc countries to the Communist apparatchiks who have run those countries. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us whether, in addition to being exempt from United Kingdom income tax on their salaries, staff members seconded to the school by the United Kingdom will be exempt from the poll tax. If so, the House will perhaps want to consider that matter. If they are so exempt, will their spouses also be exempt? That serious matter should be addressed by the Minister.
Finally, I regret that the orders have come before us at so late an hour. It almost appears as if the Government want to slip this kind of legislation through. I am sick and tired of European legislation of great note being slipped through when people are at dinner or doing other things, when they should be alert to what is happening and to the powers given to the EC or taken away from this Parliament, particularly the House of Commons. I hope that the Government will bring forward important orders of this kind at a more reasonable time when more people can embark upon the debate and scrutinise the legislation in the acute way in which it should be scrutinised.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, staff members seconded to the school by member states other than the United Kingdom are exempt from income tax in respect of salaries and emoluments paid to them by the school. We understand that a good many teachers come from member states to teach in our schools. Will they receive the same privileges? Secondly, what is the cost per pupil, what fees must be paid by those who go to the school and do any pupils go free?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for his generally constructive approach to the orders. I have no doubt that his remarks about the school, which has a good reputation, will be appreciated. He asked me a number of questions of which he was kind enough to give me notice, although unfortunately not sufficient notice for me to be able yet to have found answers in all cases. He made a point, which was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about the defect in the original orders.
The orders were defectively drafted and, in the light of the criticisms made by the Statutory Instruments Committee, they were redrafted and
1008
relaid. The noble Lord also asked me how many British pupils there were in the other eight European Schools in other Community countries. I regret to say that I have not yet been able to find that out, but, when I do so, I shall write to him.
We all respect and enjoy listening to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but there is no question of the orders being slipped through or being in any way ultra vires. It was open to anyone who wished to do so to take part in the debate. I shall consider the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and reply to her in writing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat my question before the noble Lord sits down. I asked him whether British nationals seconded to the school, and their spouses, would be exempt from poll tax. I should like an answer to that question.
Lord Reay: My Lords, there is no provision in the headquarters agreement which will exempt those people from the community charge.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 1990
8.39 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th December 1989 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th December 1989 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
8.40 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 8 [Representation in small claims and certain other cases]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, line 16, after ("may") insert ("with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has been tabled in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Hooson. It relates to Clause 8, which is a very odd clause. Clause 8 comes in Part I, which is designed essentially to move cases into the county court. Yet it is concerned with the legal representation or the non-legal representation. Part II has elaborate provisions, which no doubt will be debated at length from Thursday, as to the type of person and safeguards and the degree of consultation which is appropriate and necessary before non-lawyers and even those who do not practise

1009
consistently at the Bar appear in court. The process of consultation is laid out in great detail.
This is a rogue clause in a way because it gives the right to the Lord Chancellor, without even consulting any member of the judiciary, to say that,
"there shall be no restriction on the persons who may exercise rights of audience, or rights to conduct litigation, in relation to proceedings of such a kind as may be specified in the direction".
It then goes on to say that in relation to the county courts that power should only be exercised in certain specific cases. It leaves aside proceedings in other unspecified venues. I imagine that the magistrates' court would be one. I do not know what other courts may be in mind. For instance, I have not checked to find out whether in the Lands Tribunal it is necessary for the advocate to be a solicitor or a barrister, but I suspect that it would be.
So far as concerns the county courts, the current position —which I am told by the president of the council of circuit judges is deemed by them to be wholly satisfactory —enables them on a case by case basis to decide whether a non-lawyer (that is, neither a solicitor, a barrister, nor, I imagine, a legal executive in the cases where they have rights of audience) can, if appropriate, attend and conduct the case. The clause gives to the Lord Chancellor, without consulting any of the heads of the divisions, the county court judges or the chief of the metropolitan magistrates (assuming that the magistrates' courts may be one of them) power to decide what at first blush looks like categories of persons. I imagine that it will not be dealt with on a person by person basis. I assume that what is in mind is categories of persons who shall be entitled to conduct litigation and also have rights of audience. No indication is given as to what the Lord Chancellor must have regard to.
That seems, certainly in the view of the county court judges, a wholly unnecessary provision to insert. But there is a constitutional aspect because it relates to the discharge of the judicial function by the judges. A judge is dependent upon the proper presentation of a case. Also, although it may be a somewhat old-fashioned idea, he is in charge of his court. To be told that categories of persons over whom he has no specific control except in the limited nature set out in this clause should be there to conduct litigation before him seems constitutionally quite wrong. It involves, so to speak, a minister deciding on an aspect of the discharge of the judicial function; namely, the type of representation that he has to tolerate —that is what it comes to —if an order is so made.
I wish to make these points quite clear. Let us suppose that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor states as a category that all professional debt collectors shall have a right of audience in the county court for the recovery of amounts due under contracts. Maybe he decrees that all probation officers shall have a right of audience in matters relating to proceedings to recover domestic premises, which I should have thought covers almost the entirety of Rent Act litigation —one of the most difficult fields of litigation in so far as it relates to domestic premises.
Such persons will ex hypothesi have no code of conduct; otherwise they would have qualified under Part II with all the protection that exists there. They will have no duty to the court because that duty arises out of the professional code which is imposed upon the members of the profession. There will be no disciplinary body to deal with any of their deficiencies. Moreover, since contingency fees on a limited basis are now to be the "in" forensic philosophy, what is to stop such a person going beyond the bounds of what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has in mind and involving himself in the American approach to contingency fees? What is to stop X saying to a plaintiff: "I am pretty glib. I am very good at debating and arguing. On the basis that I get 50 per cent. of anything you recover, I shall do the case for you. I am in fact a recognised debt collector or recognised whatever the category is that the Lord Chancellor mentions". Who is to discover that and, if it is discovered, what is to happen without any code or discipline at all? Why should a circuit judge, a county court judge, who will have any amount of additional burdens placed upon him in the trial, in the conduct of his cases, be landed with non-lawyers, save on a case by case basis which he can control?
My noble friend Lord Hooson has already said in Committee:
"A fear that I have heard expressed many times at the Bar and by judges is that the Lord Chancellor's Department is slowly but surely taking control not only of the Bar and of the solicitor's profession but of the judges as well". —[Official Report, 16/1/89: col. 555.]
That is the underlying fear. Here one leaves it essentially to the Minister —an overworked Minister who no doubt will rely heavily upon the Civil Service —to decide in this limited field the extent to which a judge is to be assisted (probably the reverse) in the conduct of litigation of complexity; namely, Rent Act litigation and, so far as subsection (2)(a) is concerned, contracts unlimited. The extended jurisdiction of the county court —by that I mean the jurisdiction by reference to pounds, shillings and pence —covering virtually all commercial cases, comes within this extraordinarily wide power.
I submit that some form of control should be put upon it in the form of judicial input. We are concerned with a judicial activity; namely, hearing and determining a case. I have suggested that the input should be the Lord Chief Justice for the very simple reason that, through his senior presiding judge and the presiding judges, he has contact throughout the whole of the circuits and can discover from circuit judges and registrars just what they want done in relation to extending the case by case system. Therefore the Lord Chief Justice will be in an admirable position to say, when the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Lord Chancellor suggests a category of person, "No, I have consulted with the county court judges and the registrars (as they used to be called until this Bill). They have said that this a most unsatisfactory arrangement and we do not want it". I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I find Clause 8 in its present form most unacceptable for the reasons given by the noble

1011
and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but I should like to emphasise several defects in it before I come to the particular amendment which can to some extent rectify those defects, although not entirely.
The main trouble about the clause is that it impinges on Part II of the Bill but clearly has not been dovetailed with it. By the provisions of subsection (3) in particular it pre-empts decisions which will have to be made under Part II with regard to rights of audience and conduct of litigation. The whole tenor of the clause is to grant rights of audience to people who are unqualified in any sense. As the noble Lord has said, it will open the door to the malpractices —I am afraid there have often been malpractices —of people who are well known to be in the business of debt collecting. Frequently they have used very harsh methods, mainly against people who do not have great means. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will look most carefully at this clause because it is quite unacceptable in its present form.
The suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is that the Lord Chancellor, before giving a direction that there should be,
"no restriction on the persons who may exercise rights of audience, or rights to conduct litigation, in relation to proceedings",
which may be specified in the direction —again we do not know exactly what all those proceedings might be —should obtain the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. That is not an unreasonable suggestion bearing in mind the present responsibilities of the Lord Chief Justice with regard to the working of the courts. We should also bear in mind —later this evening we shall come to an amendment to be moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale —that in this part of the Bill there are some things that the Lord Chancellor cannot do without the consent of the Treasury which he is required to do. If the Lord Chancellor agrees that there must be some things in the Bill that he cannot do without the consent of the Treasury, is it unreasonable for us to suggest that there are some things he should not do without the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice?
I hope that my noble and learned friend —for whom, like others, I have the greatest regard but who has perhaps, in rather a hurry, landed himself with details in this Bill which on reflection he may not relish —will agree to the amendment in the light of what has been said and will take a very careful look at the clause as a whole.
Lord Meston: With respect, I share some of the misgivings which have been expressed about Clause 8, or Clause 8 as presently drafted. According to a side note to Clause 8 it applies to small claims —but it does not say anywhere how large or small a small claim is to be —and to certain other cases. In fact, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said, those certain other cases could be very large and important. For example, a claim in a county court for the recovery of an amount due under a contract could provoke a massive counterclaim. Certainly under the rules as they now are the case
1012
would continue to proceed in the county court however complicated the counterclaim might be, for example, involving the sort of case which would normally be conducted in front of an official referee.
Clause 8 seems to provide a useful power on the face of it to allow for representation if the alternative is no representation at all, but the difficulty with Clause 8 is, first of all, the opening words which read:
"The Lord Chancellor may at any time direct that there shall be no restriction on the persons who may exercise rights of audience, or rights to conduct litigation".
That appears to be what I would describe as an all-or-nothing power, that is to say it does not say that the Lord Chancellor is to be empowered to impose certain restrictions on certain categories of person. So once the Lord Chancellor has in his wisdom given a direction under Clause 8(1) the doors are open to all sorts of people, be they struck-off lawyers or any other person, to conduct litigation in the county courts in these categories of case.
In my submission it is wrong that in that situation there should not be much closer control of the proceedings at the local county court level and of the way in which they are conducted. I do not want to anticipate the arguments which I shall develop in relation to Amendments Nos. 64 and 66. For the present I will simply support the amendment and the reasons behind it.
The Lord Chancellor: As I understand this clause —and so far as I am concerned it has not been prepared in any great hurry—its meaning is as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said: I am empowered by this clause to direct that there should be no restrictions on persons who may exercise rights of audience. It does not empower selecting particular groups, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner suggested, but I may have misunderstood him. The purpose of this is to give effect to Recommendation 48 of the Civil Justice Review that:
"Litigants in small claims cases and in debt and housing cases which are proceeding in a County Court should have a statutory right to be assisted or represented by a lay representative of their choice, subject to the discretion of the court".
That is what I sought to give effect to in the clause. I have not gone the full length of making that provision directly because one would want to see how it worked and relate it to particular classes of proceedings.
The next point I make is that I think my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner is incorrect in suggesting that this could apply to anything except the specified proceedings in the county courts, because it says,
"The power to give a direction may only be exercised in relation to proceedings in county courts",
for these purposes.
9 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I am sorry to intervene. Clause 8(1) reads:
"in relation to proceedings of such a kind as may be specified in the direction".
The next subsection deals specifically and exclusively with the county courts. I derived my

1013
proposition from Clause 8(1), which is in no way limited. It is only in subsection (2) that there appears a restriction on a particular class of court.
The Lord Chancellor: With the greatest respect, I do not believe that that is the correct construction to put on the clause. It reads:
"in relation to proceedings of such a kind as may be specified in the direction".
Subsection (2) states:
"The power to give a direction may only be exercised in relation to proceedings in county courts",
and then lists the purposes. Therefore, there is no power to give direction other than in relation to the county courts and those particular proceedings.
Subsection (2) restricts the power to give directions to proceedings of that kind. Within proceedings of that kind the Lord Chancellor has power to select. When he does so that would be proceedings of a kind specified in the direction with a consequence of subsection (1). Therefore, the only proceedings that I intend to cover are those in the county court of the kind referred to in the direction.
The point considered carefully by the Civil Justice Review was the existing legislation, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has referred, allowing lay representatives to appear only with the leave of the court. The Civil Justice Review found that unsatisfactory because advice agencies offering representation services could not be certain whether their workers would be allowed to appear. The purpose of the provision is to give effect to that recommendation in cases of the kind described.
As I said in relation to Clause 1, it would be my purpose to consult widely before exercising any power under the Bill if it becomes an Act. In my submission, it would be important to have the views of all members of the senior judiciary—that is all the heads of division —and also those of the county court judges and others.
The provision in existing legislation dealing with such matters is Section 61 of the County Courts Act 1984, under which the Lord Chancellor already makes directions that certain categories of person in relevant legal employment may address the court in county court proceedings. No requirement of concurrence appears in that section and I am not persuaded that there is now any need for such concurrence.
My noble and learned friend referred to the Lord Chancellor as being a Minister, as of course he is. However, by statute he is also the President of the Supreme Court. In carrying out the duties of that office he would undoubtedly take account of the views of the senior judiciary in exercising the power.
Accordingly, I venture to suggest that this is not an appropriate place in which to insert a statutory need for the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. I hope that any directions I give will be in accordance with the views of the Lord Chief Justice. However, it is right that the statutory responsibility should rest with the Lord Chancellor and that the scope of his direction-making powers should be restricted as is the case in Clause 8(2).
1014
That is a different situation from that dealt with in Part II. As my noble and learned friend said, I have provided elaborate arrangements for concurrence by all the heads of division. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wish to point out that he has mentioned whom, among others, he would certainly consult. In those circumstances, has he any objection to following the kind of phraseology used in Clause 1(5) provided that, before making any order under this section the Lord Chancellor shall consult with the heads of division and the senior presiding judge?
Secondly, having been supported sub silentio by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce in my off-the-cuff interpretation, would he also be kind enough to undertake that the draftsmanship of the provision is reconsidered? I venture to think that he may wish it to be clarified in the sense that he has mentioned. I should be grateful for answers to those two points.
The Lord Chancellor: As regards the second point, I have the greatest respect for the opinions on construction of my noble and learned friends Lord Wilberforce and Lord Ackner. I have not yet seen the force of the opposite construction but undertake to put the views expressed and those which have been delivered sub silentio before the draftsman for his advice.
As regards the first point, I have no difficulty in accepting such a consultation provision if, on consideration, my noble and learned friend thinks it wise. The clauses were seen by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and the other heads of division. My main reason for not including them here —and, with great respect, it may not be entirely appropriate to do so —is that the provision is concerned only with the county court. It follows the precedent in Section 61 of the Act which puts the responsibility on the Lord Chancellor. Where jurisdictions of the High Court are concerned, as they are in Clause 1(1), the situation may be different. However, I undertake to consider both matters in the light of what has been said.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws this amendment, I should like to say that, as a layman, it seems to me deeply unsatisfactory that we should be passing Acts of Parliament when three highly intelligent, articulate and well-trained lawyers are arguing over the meaning of one clause. That seems unsatisfactory to an ordinary citizen. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, or my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is right. However, it seems to me deeply unsatisfactory that they cannot agree about the meaning of this point. We should not be passing legislation in that way. It should be plain to everybody. If two Law Lords are arguing about the meaning, it cannot be satisfactory.
The Lord Chancellor: I entirely accept that. However, for legislation to pass the test that all noble

1015
and learned Law Lords take the same view on it would be putting a fairly high standard on legislation because I am not a complete stranger to cases of statutory construction in which this House has divided three to two.
Nevertheless, if it is possible to avoid that, it is highly desirable; I accept that. I invite my noble friend to apply his own mind to this matter. He is just as able as any of us to appreciate these arguments. However, I certainly take his point and if possible I will try to make this matter plainer.
Lord Renton: In the further consideration which my noble and learned friend is going to give, he may care to consider making more sense of the last line and a half of subsection (1) and make it clear that it is limited by the terms of subsection (2) by adding at the end of the third line of the subsection such words as, "as mentioned in subsection (2)". That would make it clear that subsection (1) is limited by the terms of subsection (2).
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for that suggestion.
Lord Mishcon: I was going to raise this point under clause stand part. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Wilberforce, for making the point and to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for helping with some suggested phraseology.
So that we all know that this is a very serious point —and it looks to be an example of loose drafting —I ask the noble and learned Lord, who at first sight did not perhaps appreciate the argument, to look again at subsection (1). Anybody can read that perfectly intelligently as meaning:
"The Lord Chancellor may at any time direct that there shall be no restriction on the persons who may exercise rights of audience, or rights to conduct litigation",
full stop. One may then ask: what about subsection (2)? At first sight, subsection (2) reads as though there must be a limitation in the county court on that right to direct because it states:
"The power to give a direction" —
one only has to raise one's voice to get the meaning—
"may only be exercised in relation to proceedings in county courts".
There is the limitation. Therefore, without any further words or clarification, subsection (1) is of a general application and subsection (2) appears to be of a limited application in regard to the county court.
Having said that, I merely add my humble voice to those of noble and learned Lords who have spoken in regard to this matter. I make one final point in order to abbreviate any speech which I may make on a subsequent amendment. The noble and learned Lord may well consider that this is a matter at which Parliament should at least have a glance. Instead of his giving himself the power to make a direction without any further ado except possibly consulting certain of the high judicial offices, this matter should be subject to a statutory instrument. Therefore, where such powers are given —they are very
1016
important —Parliament at least has a chance to have a word about that. I believe he would find that that would be more generally acceptable. However, that is the subject matter of another amendment which I shall move, but the Committee has been saved a further speech by my making my point now.
Lord Hooson: Perhaps I may reinforce what has been said. I supported this amendment and added my name to it because I believed that the meaning was obscure. I thought that a safeguard was needed. That is why I supported the idea of adding the words:
"with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice".
So often in this Bill we have accepted the arguments of the Lord Chancellor because we accept his undertakings and we can see what he has in mind when he explains it. However, when we look at the wording of the Bill we so often find obscurities. Of course we know perfectly well that undertakings by the Lord Chancellor of what he intended cannot be relied upon in court when this matter comes eventually to be interpreted. We rely entirely on the wording of the clause or section as it becomes.
If I could have gleaned from this clause the restricted intention that the Lord Chancellor has explained today, I should have had doubts about whether this amendment was necessary. I am bound to say however, from my limited experience and knowledge that the interpretation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is certainly a possibility and I should have thought on a plain reading of Clause 8(1) is correct. There is no limitation on it and therefore this needs looking at again.
Lord Morris: Before we leave this amendment if the words "under this section" were included after the word "direction" in Clause 8(2), as in Clause 8(3), the position would be made a great deal clearer. Undoubtedly the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on Clause 82(1) makes it absolutely plain that any power to make orders or regulations conferred by this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and other than those mentioned will be subject to the negative resolution procedure of either House of Parliament. I may be completely wrong but I believe that that covers a direction under Clause 8.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: There are different types of action by the Lord Chancellor under the existing Acts and direction is one of them. Regulation-making power is different. This is intended to be a direction on the same lines as Section 61 of the County Courts Act.
I am happy to consider the question whether it should be done by statutory instrument, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested, because I agree that it is of some importance. On the other hand, the Civil Justice Review, which had a fair amount of acceptance generally, was supporting this in relation to all these types of case and therefore I thought I was adding an additional safeguard by having consultation before I actually made an order in respect of any particular class of proceedings. That was intended to give a further safeguard.

1017
I am perfectly content to consider the question to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred. I do not think I want to carry the argument on construction further for the time being. My main argument is that the only power to give a direction is that which is limited by subsection (2).
Lord Ackner: My noble and learned friend has agreed to consider putting into the clause a reference at least to consulting some of the judiciary. I selected the Chief Justice because I did not think it was necessary to consult the heads of divisions. When one looks at Hansard one will find it was my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who referred to the heads of divisions. The person who is essentially the conduit pipe for the consultation is the senior presiding judge who has at his fingertips the respective knowledge from the circuits. If my noble and learned friend will agree to consider including him, then I will wait and see what the amendment looks like.
I should finally like to say that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, of course in his most friendly manner, chided me for not appreciating that he was there to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. I notice that the Civil Justice Review made the recommendation —if I have the words correctly —"subject to the discretion of the court". That is exactly what I am trying to do. In so far as the Lord Chancellor is decreeing that this should be subject purely to his discretion, which is how the clause reads, he is making an inroad into the independence of the judiciary (albeit a small one) because it is on the independence of the judiciary that one relies for the competent control inter alia of its courts. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("at any time") and insert ("by order").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment are grouped Amendments Nos. 56, 59, 60 and 61. I have already spoken to this. The noble and learned Lord has been good enough to say he will consider including the words "by order" and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("there shall be no restriction on the persons who") and insert ("persons (in this section referred to as "authorised persons") who would not otherwise be entitled to do so").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment are grouped Amendments Nos. 63 and 67. The Committee has already heard that it appears there is no limitation here, the present clause being defective, I suggest, because there is no power to make a more limited order. Once a direction has been given there would be no power, for example, to stop a solicitor who had been struck off the rolls for dishonesty from setting up in business as a small
1018
claims advocate —a threat that I believe was mentioned in the course of a discussion on the previous amendment.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and I seek to set out a series of qualifications to the order —the specification of categories, the imposing of restrictions and so on —that I hope the Committee and the noble and learned Lord will find useful. The new subsection would also widen the basis on which the court may refuse to hear someone. The present restrictions on the court are unruly behaviour and matters of that kind. However, I should have thought that we could properly add dishonest behaviour or gross incompetence and such matters. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will regard it as a useful amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: As a non-lawyer I venture with great trepidation into what has so far been an almost exclusively legal preserve. Perhaps I may begin by saying that I am very much in favour of this clause in general as implementing the relevant recommendations of the Civil Justice Review. In all humility, I have no difficulty on my own initiative in putting the same construction on the clause as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
My Amendment No. 54 has not been grouped with the amendments that we are now discussing. If I understand the amendments correctly, what I am suggesting seems aimed in part at the same problem. I should like to offer a short contribution at this stage.
Until I saw Amendment No. 67 and listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I had not thought that there was any controversy or complication about individuals being represented by a friend, relative or advice worker. However, there seems some substance in the fear of the possibility of large corporate creditors using unqualified debt collecting agencies to bring cases to court. The reason that I speak to my amendment at this stage is that it is aimed at allowing the Lord Chancellor to distinguish between different parties. For instance, he could direct that individual defendant debtors could use lay representatives, while corporate creditor plaintiffs would be obliged to use qualified and properly regulated lawyers. I believe that that approach is preferable to the group of amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just spoken. I believe that it would be a mistake to go in for complex and excessive regulation in this area. The approach in Amendment No. 67 strikes me as being over-cautious and too hedged about with restrictions and conditions.
I should be opposed to the present amendments. However, if they fail —as I think that they should —I would hope for a better fate for my Amendment No. 54.
Lord Meston: I speak in support of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. His Amendment No. 63 overlaps Amendments Nos. 64 and 66 which stand in my name.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has made is that Clause 8, as I said

1019
earlier, provides a useful power if the alternative is that there should be no representation at all. However, as I also said earlier, Clause 8(1) appears to give the Lord Chancellor what I describe as an all or nothing power. I understood him to agree with that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that that would seem to leave the door open to the conduct of litigation by a struck-off lawyer fresh out of prison. One asks the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor why he does not allow himself in Clause 8(1) a measure of discretion to exclude certain categories of people. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 53, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I entirely support him in that amendment.
Amendment No. 63 touches on the further limitation in Clause 8(4) regarding the power of a county court judge or registrar to control such a lay representative. It exists only if such a person behaves in an unruly manner. I suggest that the word "unruly" is too limited. It does not cover other forms of improper behaviour. In my amendment I seek to extend it to people who fail to show,
"appropriate standards of conduct or competence".
The lay representative may lack the necessary training or qualifications in advocacy or the other basic skills needed to present even a straightforward case in court. If the clause stands in its present form, that representative, however incompetent, provided he is not unruly, can continue.
I have some experience of this in industrial tribunals where there is no restriction on lay representation. A minority of people appearing as representatives behave quite improperly. They ask leading questions, they prompt witnesses and they withhold documents. Other categories of people appear to have learnt their skills in advocacy from American television programmes. They think the requirement is very loudly to shout "Objection" every three seconds. If such behaviour is to spread to the county court, the judge ought to have some ability to control it, particularly if it does not fall into the category of unruly behaviour. Accordingly, I support this batch of amendments to enable the judge to control the incompetent as well as the unruly. The incompetent can often do as much harm as good to the litigant he seeks to represent. We should certainly seek to broaden Clause 8 if it is to pass into law.
Lord Renton: This is a wide-ranging debate on a rather limited amendment. As I understand it, we are discussing Amendment No. 53. If I am wrong I shall no doubt be corrected. I wish to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in referring to his own amendment, Amendment No. 54. There seems to have been an assumption that anything in the Civil Justice Review should be acceptable. I do not think that we should necessarily make that assumption. It is relevant to our discussion to find what was said in the Civil Justice Review but we are not bound by it. If we find that when translated into legislation some of it appears to be unsatisfactory, we should depart from the Civil Justice Review.
1020
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, made a second point. He wants the Lord Chancellor, in giving a direction under subsection (1), to be able to give a direction as to the type of parties that come into the picture. He referred to large corporate debt collectors. It must be inferred from what he said that he does not relish the idea of their being parties. The small individual debt collector may be even more ruthless on some occasions. Indeed, I remember when I was serving for a constituency as a Member of another place that it sometimes came to my notice that that was so. Therefore, I am just a little doubtful as to whether the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will deal effectively with the danger he has in mind.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: These amendments are designed to increase the powers of the Lord Chancellor under Clause 8. From that point of view, I do not think that much can be said against them. When the Bill was being drafted I felt that we should go for what I understood to be the thrust of the Civil Justice Review, which was to give the client the right to be assisted or represented by a lay representative of his choice. In some cases it could be a neighbour or someone of that kind who is requested. Therefore, if one were to specify too much the type of person required difficulties might arise. The discretion mentioned in the Civil Justice Review was one which would affect corrupt or unruly representatives. I have provided a power so far as concerns corrupt or unruly representatives later on in the clause.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, the order-making power in Amendment No. 67 certainly indicates a tremendous amount of possible detail. But of course it is only possible. I would not perhaps think it right to exercise many of these powers. The existence of the powers does not in itself create any harm. I have also provided power to amend orders. It may be that in the light of experience some of those powers will prove to be of use.
Subject to any further remarks which Members of the Committee may wish to make, I am certainly prepared further to consider these powers. My opinion at present is that I would not be inclined to restrict the provision too much. I would tend to leave the matter very open and leave it to the parties to have their own representatives, the understanding being that these are small cases, the lowest type of cases, in the county court. Moreover, the proceedings which would actually be applied could be restricted within these categories. I believe that having an absolute right to choose one's representative, subject to their being reasonably ruly—I trust that that is the correct expression —is a valuable right for the client to have. Indeed, that was what the Civil Justice Review was really aiming at.
Lord Mishcon: If I may say so, I appreciate the fact that the noble and learned Lord thought we were trying by way of this amendment and the worthy speech of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to help him overcome a difficulty in which he might otherwise find himself. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said,

1021
Clause 8(1)—and I thought that the noble and learned Lord agreed with him on a previous occasion in this connection —is an all-or-nothing direction. Therefore, to say, "Well, I am perfectly prepared to allow these persons the right to conduct litigation or to exercise rights of audience subject to the provisions contained in subsection (2)", may be a harmful exercise of power if there is not the permission to deal with the matter —and it is only permissive —within the qualifications set out in the amendment.
There is never any point in labouring something when the noble and learned Lord has been good enough to say that he has heard the arguments and that he will consider them to see whether there is such validity in them that he would like to come forward, perhaps not with an acceptance of the amendments—I say "the amendments" because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, thought we were dealing merely with Amendment No. 53, although I said that it was grouped with Amendments Nos. 63 and 67 —but an understanding that he will look at the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 8, line 18, after second ("to") insert ("parties or").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to pursue the amendment, but I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to work out what may be done he will not make it too complicated and will not go in for powers which he thinks he may not need. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for that indication. I feel myself to be between two extremes in this matter. I should like to be as accommodating as possible and to try to pick up the spirit of the Civil Justice Review. As I said earlier, many of those people may want a friend or neighbour to represent them. It is hard to make them a class, because if one does it by positive classes one may be in some difficulty. It may be correct to say, "anyone, subject to restrictions which may prove to be necessary after considering the matter". I take account of what the noble Lord has said. I shall have it in mind when I consider what to do. If I can meet everyone's wishes I shall be happy, but I suspect that I may not be able to do that completely.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I must draw the Committee's attention to the fact that if Amendment No. 55 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 inclusive.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: There is no need for the Committee to worry. This is a probing amendment
1022
so that I may ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether he can give us some idea of the scope of the proceedings under subsection (2). In subsection (2)(a) we find:
"for the recovery of amounts due under contracts for the supply of goods or services".
That is a wide concept. Nearly everything that the normal person buys or the services that he requires are covered by such contracts. We understand that the provision is intended to deal with small traders. The side-note says, "certain other cases". Will my noble and learned friend give us some idea of what he considers to be the maximum amounts that could be claimed under subsection (2)(a)? That is my first question.
My second question relates to subsection (2)(b), which refers to "domestic premises" which are defined in subsection (6) as
"any premises which are wholly or mainly used as a private dwelling".
That provision would invoke the whole of the landlord and tenant legislation. One wishes to know whether my noble and learned friend has in mind any particular value or size of private dwelling which would come within the expression "domestic premises". I am not referring to subsection (2)(c) because I do not believe that much difficulty arises under that paragraph. It is merely an application of the small claims section of the County Courts Act.
The Lord Chancellor: As I tried to explain earlier, the purpose of subsection (2) is to limit the power which is available under this section. Recommendation 48 of the Civil Justice Review said that litigants in small claims cases —that is (c) —in debt cases —that is (a) —and in housing cases" —that is (b) —
"which are proceeding in a County Court should have a statutory right to be assisted or represented by a lay representative of their choice, subject to the discretion of the court".
That discretion is explained as relating to corrupt or unruly representatives. I have tried to reflect that. As the noble Lord says, the mere fact that the Civil Justice Review recommended it is not binding on us. On the other hand, the Civil Justice Review has been fairly generally accepted and it is a reasonable basis on which to proceed.
I have in mind that if I were making a direction under this clause, I would start pretty small and see how it worked. In other words I would go fairly low. As the noble Lord said, "small claim s" is pretty clear. Regarding housing and debt cases I have in mind starting with low figures and seeing how they worked. However, I should wish to consult about these matters before I came to any conclusion. I have tried to follow as nearly as I can the general description given by the Civil Justice Review. I hope that that answers my noble friend's question.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that explanation. If he is able to give us any further indication at Report stage I am sure it would be appreciated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is purely a drafting change to make it clear that the three circumstances in which the Lord Chancellor may direct that there shall be no restriction on the persons who may exercise rights of audience set out in Clause 8(2) may be exercised separately. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 8, line 27, at end insert —
("(d) for the enforcement or non-enforcement of judgement debts;
(e) under the Consumer Credit Act 1974").
The noble Lord said: This is not an area in which I move with any great familiarity. I put the amendment down as it seemed to me that the clause did not go far enough in carrying out the conclusions of the Civil Justice Review as regards debt. I am encouraged by the support which the amendment has received. It is certainly not intended to be in any way controversial.
The review was particularly concerned that defendants should be entitled to be represented by friends, relatives and advice workers in debt cases before the county court. It had evidence that registrars had refused to hear, for example, money advisers. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Clause 8 applies to all the relevant debt work before the county court. Unless I have got it all wrong—which is quite conceivable—it seems to me that we need words such as those in the amendment to be sure that the power to give a direction under this clause as regards debt cases is sufficiently comprehensive. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: From these Benches we would very much like to support the amendment. It is also my impression that subsections (2)(a), (b) and (c) do not go far enough. Therefore we believe that the scope of Clause 8 ought to be widened so as to include the two categories of proceedings mentioned.
If we take the enforcement or non-enforcement of judgment debts, in the vast majority of cases the debtors do not go near the court when the judgment is entered. It is only when an application is made to the court for the party to be examined as to his means, or if the defendant wishes to suspend the execution, that he first seeks advice and goes to the door of the court. As legal aid is not available, we think it is extremely important that lay representation should be available to that person at the hearing of such proceedings.
I am not quite sure about the scope of the proceedings that come under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, it is my impression that the point at issue may not necessarily be the recovery of a specified sum, which would be dealt with under the terms of Clause 8(2)(a), but it could cover the right of the plaintiff to determine hire purchase, a credit agreement or the return of goods. In my part of the world people often buy
1024
under the terms of a catalogue agreement. Here again, if I have understood the provision correctly, it is important that a defendant should be able to put his case to the court through a relative, friend or advice agency if he requires their assistance. I wish to support the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The headings that have been chosen for the amendment strike me as being entirely appropriate for this procedure. If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall take a chance further to consider this matter. I have the impression that some of the points may already be covered, but I should like to make sure of that. I shall make sure that the drafting is sufficiently wide to ensure that those points are covered.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I shall not weary the Committee with examples of cases which seem to me to fall outside the Bill as it is drafted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 63 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 8, line 39, after ("manner") insert ("or is failing to show appropriate standards of conduct or competence").
The noble Lord said: Although I spoke to this amendment earlier in relation to Amendment No. 63 which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I did not understand the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to deal with the point which both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I sought to make, which is that the court's powers under Clause 8(4) are too limited towards people who behave in an unruly manner. If you literally throw the book at a judge he can throw the book back and refuse to hear you. However, if you behave dishonestly or behave incompetently and withhold documents a judge is not given power under Clause 8(4) to refuse to hear such a representative. I suggest that it is proper, particularly in the context of opening the courts to wider lay representation, to give a judge or registrar proper powers to refuse to hear not just people who are unruly but also people who do not otherwise behave in a proper manner. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Are the powers under Clause 8(4) not inherent in the power of a judge to control the proceedings of his court? The situation may be slightly complicated by the law of contempt of court because possibly the county court is not a court of record. I should have thought that, apart from that case, any judge can control proceedings in his own court without the danger of writing in a provision too narrowly, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has suggested.
Lord Renton: I should like to support Amendment No. 64 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I stress that, if lay people are to be brought in who have uncertain qualifications or none at all, it is essential that the judge should be able to stop their

1025
appearance if they are wasting time through lack of the proper conduct or incompetence.
In Amendment No. 65 I proposed that subsection (5) be left out for the very reason given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Why should the court have to give reasons in those matters? I should have thought that that was a new departure and quite unnecessary. However, if we have to have something on the lines of subsection (5) then I believe that Amendment No. 66 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Hooson, and myself should be adopted, leaving out "conduct" and inserting "reasons".
Lord Byron: As a practising solicitor I should like to speak in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said. Clause 8 as a whole gives very wide powers. It falls outside the whole structure of Part II of the Bill, which has a great many complicated safeguards that are designed to deal with new classes of advocate and new classes of people who will be conducting litigation. It comes under the heading of "Miscellaneous" and forms part of Part I of the Bill. To that extent it is anomalous.
When I first read the clause, and in particular subsection (4), it struck me that the draftsman had used inappropriate language in referring to "unruly" as the only limiting factor. I take what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said: it may be that the court has inherent power. However, if such wording is to be used in subsection (4) it seems to me that it should be extended. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I too support the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We thought that paragraph (g) of Amendment No. 67—which I promise the Committee I shall not move—was rather more appropriate in that it allowed an order to be made specifying circumstances in which a county court may refuse to hear an authorised person. In that event the correct language can be used to cover all those matters.
I should be perfectly happy if on reconsideration of the matters mentioned in Amendment No. 67 the noble and learned Lord thought that the wording of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, specifying appropriate standards or conduct or competence in general terms was better.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not want to lose sight of the object of the clause, namely to allow parties in small litigation of this kind in the county court to choose their own representative.
What are appropriate standards of competence in such a situation? If I am a litigant I may feel that my neighbour speaks better than I do. I may feel that the neighbour should be brought along. The Civil Justice Review found that at present the court has a power to allow the neighbour to speak. However, one never knows whether or not the court would allow it. Therefore it is right to give the client a statutory right to have lay representation of his or her choice subject to the safeguard against corrupt or unruly representation.
1026
I find it very difficult to graft on to that concept the idea of appropriate standards of competence. Appropriate standards of conduct are covered by the idea of "unruly". The idea is that the judge says what is to happen; in other words, he rules. A person who is not prepared to accept his ruling, is considered unruly and the judge will have the right to put him out and to refuse to hear him further.
However, appropriate standards of competence seem to be out of this matter altogether. I do not think that the neighbour should have some legal qualification, for example. One wants most of all a degree of conciseness and articulation, but it is not possible to specify that in relation to lay people. We want to make it fairly flexible, with the court excluding people only if otherwise it would do positive harm. The client wants to be represented in that way. Generally speaking, he is entitled to represent himself but he may have no competence. A party is entitled to represent him. We may go too far by trying to regulate standards of competence in that way.
Lord Renton: The main point that noble Lords on both sides of the Committee have in mind is the fear that the county courts' time will be wasted by people who mean well but do not know what is relevant to the matter in hand. It would help a great deal if my noble and learned friend would consider inserting in the Bill a measure to stop timewasting.
The Lord Chancellor: When I suggested in the Green Papers the idea that timewasting in relation to advocates should be controlled by the court, I was told that it might affect the interests of justice because people were entitled to make their case without being restricted in that way. The word "unruly" covers that because the judge may say, "Now, come on, you have told us that already. You do not need to tell it us all over again". If the lay representative persisted in disobeying that ruling, he would be unruly. That is the kind of conduct covered by the word "unruly". That is what the Civil Justice Review had in mind. The judge makes the rules there and then and, if a person does not obey those reasonable rules, he quickly becomes unruly and the judge need not listen to him any further. Most of those dangers are covered by that generous expression.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My noble and learned friend used the words "corrupt or unruly". I do not think that the word "corrupt" is in the subsection. Obviously, that kind of conduct should be controlled. Is that not an argument for accepting the view of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and for excising the clause and leaving the matter to the discretion of the judge in control of the proceedings?
Lord Ackner: It should be recalled how much of the average county judge's time is spent dealing with litigants in person. In this ivory tower we tend to forget the great strain for a judge to cope day in, day out with the litigant in person. If he has to cope with the barrack-room lawyer in person, it is a wholly excessive strain on his patience. The word

1027
"competence" does not mean competence in relation to a trained advocate but in relation to someone who can follow the questions, read, recognise the issue and put the defendant's or the plaintiffs case. If he cannot put the defendant's or the plaintiff's case better than the plaintiff or the defendant himself, he is incompetent and will not help the plaintiff, the defendant or the judge and the judge should be entitled to say so.
10 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: Very briefly I want to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is absolutely right when he asks the Committee to be realistic. It is all very well to give rights of representation to various categories of people. I am all in favour of it if it will help people to have justice administered to them when they cannot speak for themselves and cannot afford other representation or do not find it suitable.
However, one cannot leave the judge naked in his court, if I may respectfully put it that way, having to listen to representatives because the noble and learned Lord has made a direction that he should do so and finding it impossible within this Act to relieve his court of people who first of all (the example was given) behave dishonestly by pretending that there are no documents when they exist, and so on, and then insist upon making long speeches of complete irrelevance, which may even be of a political nature and goodness knows what else in that connection. One cannot leave him absolutely naked, without the right written into this Act, where he honestly and justly feels that the person is not competent and has not behaved properly. I am not talking about unruly conduct, which is usually looked upon as physical conduct and not mental conduct or oral conduct (if I may use that term).
We have to look carefully at this matter. I thought that it had to be so carefully looked at that I put in my paragraph (g) such qualifications in regard to conduct and so on as the direction might contain. I left it therefore to general terms. However, this is a serious matter and if the county courts are to deal with a lot of work and we are anxious to speed that up, let us not, as the noble and learned Lord rightly said, sit here in an ivory tower and not take into account what many of us had in the early days of our professional life; namely, experience in the county court, when some of us wondered at the impatience of many judges but more of us marvelled at their patience.
Lord Grantchester: More often than most I have sat on tribunals and courts hearing not only litigants in person but representatives of litigants who are not qualified. In those circumstances it is the duty of the judge and the tribunal to assist as much as they can the litigants and their representatives because it is their duty to achieve justice. When there are incompetent people in front of you, you have to treat them kindly and point out the way in which they should conduct themselves and their case.
If we are to achieve justice in the county courts, as judges we must act in that way and not seek to
1028
exclude such people because they do not show the proper competence and the appropriate standards of conduct that one would expect from a member of the Bar or a solicitor. One has to help them. It is one's duty to get the right answer; it is one's job to listen to them and to guide them. I do not support this amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I should like to say a few words about this matter. I have heard suggestions that we ought to be careful about disbarred barristers and solicitors who have been struck off. I agree. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will also consider solicitors' clerks who, by statute, have been made subject to an order by the Law Society that they never be employed by a solicitor. That is a category at which I believe one should look.
Finally, there is what I believe to be the most terrifying category of all; namely, the ex-barrister, or worse, I suppose, the barrister, who is a vexatious litigant so found. They do exist. The prospect of such a person appearing as a representative of a litigant in the county court fills me with horror.
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly I take account of what has been said but I bear particularly in mind —and this is what the Civil Justice Review had in mind —the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The real point that needs to be affirmed is the right of a party in this kind of small case to have a lay representative of his choice. I want to give effect to that principle and I shall try to safeguard it as best I can. I rather think that your Lordships as a whole may want to do the same.
Lord Meston: Of course that is right. It is a question of making sure that the Bill carries that into effect. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I should like to think that what I seek to introduce into the Bill is inherent in the powers of the county courts as they stand. If there is any doubt about that, the powers of the judge to control his court ought to be in the broadest possible terms. He should not have his hands tied by a limited statutory power.
I go back to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said at the beginning of the debate on Clause 8. At the heart of this is the judge's ability to control the proceedings in his own court. I venture to suggest that the word "unruly" is not wide enough. As has been pointed out, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor added to it by saying "unruly and corrupt conduct". Corrupt conduct is not necessarily unruly. If an advocate, be he a lay advocate or a professional advocate, lies to the court he is not necessarily being unruly. But he is certainly acting in a way which falls short of the appropriate standards of conduct and possibly of the appropriate standards of competence. That is the phraseology of the amendment.
As to competence, if the lay representative is simply mildly incompetent one would hope and

1029
expect that he would be treated in the kindly way in which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, suggested. If, however, there comes a point when there is clearly gross incompetence and the litigant who is meant to be helped by this clause is in fact having his case seriously hindered, the court ought to have the discretion to refuse to allow that person to go on to represent the lay party concerned.
1030
Obviously it is too late to press the matter any further. Nevertheless, it is a matter which perhaps needs to be looked at again. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look at it again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 67 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 8, line 44, at end insert—
("(7) Any direction given under this section may be varied or revoked by a further direction given by the Lord Chancellor.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 68 is intended to give power to vary or revoke a direction in the light of experience. If we go to the statutory instrument for doing this the same power would be appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Penalty for failure to warn that hearing will not be attended]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In deciding whether to impose a penalty and the amount thereof, the court shall give preference to compensation by an award of costs to the other parties to the proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 because this is intended to be a coherent set of amendments to Clause 9.
Clause 9 gives the courts the right to penalise parties who either do not turn up or who do not give due warning that they will not be able to turn up at court for a hearing which has been fixed. On the face of it that is entirely laudable, and I hope that what I am seeking to do is not seen as an attempt to water it down. My only concern is to ensure that it is a power which is used in proper cases only and that when it is used the court has in mind certain priorities.
When a person fails to appear at court or fails to give due notice of his desire to cancel the hearing or of his inability to appear, the court's time is wasted. The clause allows the court to penalise that person or his legal representative if he is responsible. The other people whose cases might have been heard on that day had the court known that there would be an ineffective hearing also suffer but they cannot be compensated. The main victim of such behaviour is the other party to the litigation but the clause does not seek to compensate him or her. However, it is hoped that in such circumstances the court can and will grant an order for costs, probably on an indemnity basis, in order to compensate the main victim of the failure to attend.
I am concerned that, in operating the provisions of the clause, the court has in the forefront of its mind the priority that should be given to secure compensation for the other parties, particularly where the person in default is of limited means. In other words, where there is a choice between compensating the other party to the proceedings or penalising under the clause and securing compensation for the public purse, the other parties to the proceedings should get first bite.
Default may not be the fault of the person who fails to appear but that of the legal representative. He is covered, because Clause 9(2) provides for that. I do not seek to argue today that legal representatives
1032
should be exempt nor to deal with the vexed question of immunity. However, it should be borne in mind that professional advocates who fail to appear at court or to give the court notice of a cancellation are likely already to be in pretty hot water. They will be answerable to the court and to their clients. A barrister will be answerable to his chambers, a solicitor to his firm and both to their professional body.
I should like to see written into the Bill the requirement that the court should consider whether the person conducting the proceedings can be or has been disciplined by his professional body for his responsibility for the failure in question. In other words, the court should think at least once if not twice before deciding to impose any additional jeopardy on the professional representative. I hasten to repeat that I do not seek exemption for lawyers or other representatives.
The basic proposition contained in the series of amendments is to impose an order of priority. The intention is to ensure, first, that the compensation does not detract from the compensation in costs which should go to the other party to the proceedings and, secondly, that the court has in mind the fact that professional people who are at fault should not be exposed to more jeopardy than is absolutely necessary.
The wording of the amendments may be imperfect. It is my own but I have borrowed at least some of it from Section 35 of the Criminal Courts Act 1973. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: I find Clause 9 as it stands totally unacceptable. Here we are dealing with civil proceedings in civil courts. Those courts are open to everybody who wishes to bring a case or who wishes to defend a case. Of course, it you want to present yourself in a court you must abide by the rules. If you do not, you must expect certain consequences. If you do not turn up when the case is supposed to be heard, there is a risk of the case being dismissed or judgment being given against you. There is a risk of costs being ordered against you, and if you are a professional representative there is a risk of your being reported to your professional body—the Law Society or the Bar Council. All that goes without saying and does not require legislation.
In my submission, that is totally sufficient to deal with those cases of default and failure to appear. I find it quite inappropriate that those matters should also be sanctioned by fines; in other words, that there should be a criminal stigma on the person who fails to comply with a professional obligation. Moreover, I suggest that it is quite inappropriate to erect a whole system of summonses, bureaucracy, service of the summons, appearance to justify and bailiffs enforcing the fine in order to carry out that additional sanction.
The proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, are entirely appropriate. They signal the right remedies. The proper thing to do is to impose

1033
a sanction by way of costs or disciplinary proceedings, or by dismissing the case or giving judgment in default. That brings home the very point that the clause as drafted is quite inappropriate.
I suggest that, in any event, the clause is unnecessary and should be deleted. In that case, I support the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, who intends to oppose the Question that Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill. At the very least we must accept these amendments suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. With them, I should perhaps reluctantly be willing to accept the existence of fines as a last remedy, very much in reserve. I dislike that. Without an emphasis on the ordinary civil remedies liable to be imposed on people who do not comply with their obligations, I find it quite impossible to accept this clause.
Lord Grantchester: I also support the objections to this clause. As I understand Clause 9(4), a person who is in contravention of the clause and fails to turn up at a hearing can be fined. I assume from that that in due course, if he does not pay the fine, he can be sent to prison. I believe that that goes one step too far. I understand that non-payment of fines results in an automatic prison sentence. I cannot see that that provision is at all justified.
Lord Coleraine: I put my name down as intending to oppose the Motion that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill. However, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have cut most of the ground from under the clause. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, have completed that task. Nevertheless, I should like to make a few points about the principle.
First, there are two points on the drafting of the clause which concern me. Subsection (1) is expressed so as to apply the clause to any hearing in the High Court or county court. I am not quite clear what that is intended to mean. However, there are so many hearings before and after a trial or hearing of an action to which the clause could apply that I doubt whether that was the intention.
On Second Reading I drew attention to the fact that I had not been able to find that proposal in the unified list of recommendations of the Civil Justice Review. Subsequently my noble and learned friend very kindly wrote to me. He told me that, although it is not expressly recommended in the recommendations, such a penalty was suggested by the Civil Justice Review as part of its proposed system of court control of case progress. That is made clear in paragraph 225 of the report. Plaintiffs would be required to give the court notice of disposal by settlement or otherwise before the date when the case is set down for trial, subject to a fixed penalty for failing to give such notice.
I may be very much mistaken, but I make two points about the suggestion. To suggest that a party has to give the court notice before the date fixed for setting down does not seem to make sense. It certainly does not throw much light on the clause
1034
now before us. My noble and learned friend went on to suggest, to me at least, that his thinking is that this clause should only apply to the formal hearing or trial of the action. I hope that he will be able to throw light on that.
The second point which I find perplexing is also reflected in the drafting of Clause 9 and provides that where a party to proceedings,

"(a) has failed to appear; or

(b) has failed to give the court due notice of his desire to cancel the hearing or of his inability to appear at it",

he may be summoned.
I am always aware that the little words "or" and "and" when appearing in a list of options do not necessarily mean what they seem to mean. However, I should think that there are here shown two heads of the offence whereas there should be only one. An offence should combine failure to appear and failure to give the court due notice. The defence outlined in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) appears to relate only to the second head of the offence. For that reason I wonder whether I am perhaps right and this should be amalgamated as one offence.
At Second Reading I described the principle of this clause as authoritarian and the treatment that it would mete out to barristers, solicitors, parties in person and lay people who represent them as draconian. I drew attention to a number of other offences that are contained in the County Courts Act and which are treated as criminal offences. I do not propose to weary the Committee with them tonight, but they are very strange bedfellows indeed with this offence.
What has to be said about the clause is that the powers are really unnecessary. The courts already have powers to penalise parties who fail to turn up. A court can order the costs thrown away by non-appearance to be paid by the culpable party or it can proceed to adjudicate on the proceedings in the absence of the party who fails to attend.
Speaking as a solicitor, if it is a solicitor who is at fault he can be ordered to pay the costs under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and no doubt also under Clause 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. In this respect the provisions of this clause go far beyond what is necessary and far beyond the test established in the case of Myers v. Elman, which was recently confirmed in the Court of Appeal. This case established that before an order for costs can be made against a solicitor personally he must be guilty of serious dereliction of his duty to the court. The test implied in this clause is considerably lower than that. The clause is unnecessary and may well cause much more trouble than it is worth.
I have no doubt that there are noble Lords who will suggest that anything which disciplines those who come before the courts and fail in the duties which the courts expect has the effect of assisting other litigants to take their place in the court and have their hearings disposed of expeditiously. However, one can go too far. I believe that this goes too far. I believe that reform must be for the benefit of court users and not of court administrators. That is the exact point at which this clause falls down.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Committee has heard powerful objections to the clause. My noble friend addressed the Committee with authority on the matter. I agree with all that has been said in objection to the clause. However, there is one further matter that ought to be noted before we pass from it. As it is so very late at night, I shall do no more than refer to subsection (4) which is a particularly heinous example of a Henry VIII clause.
None of the excuses that were put forward in respect of earlier, similar clauses applies to this. It cannot be said to be consequential on anything. It empowers a member of the Executive to impose what is a suitable penalty. It empowers him to do that by negative resolution. Whatever can be said in favour of the earlier Henry VIII clauses, there is absolutely nothing to be said in favour of the Executive altering a penalty which has been imposed by Parliament and claiming the right to do so by statutory instrument subject only to negative resolution.
I should like to mention one other matter in this connection. The report of Sir Robert Andrew recommends that parliamentary counsel should come under the aegis of the Law Officers. When that was rejected, the noble Lord the Leader of the House very kindly and courteously wrote to me explaining that of course every statute is examined by the Law Officers. I asked a question about that in relation to Clause 1. My noble and learned friend did not answer it. He had a great deal to answer on that clause. However, I ask him again: were the Law Officers consulted on this provision? Was their attention drawn to it? Was their attention drawn to the fact that it was subject only to negative resolution? I do not adopt the Westland approach and seek to know what advice the Law Officers gave. I merely ask, so that we can know what control there is, whether they were consulted and whether their attention was drawn to these matters.
Earl Russell: I should like very briefly to add my voice to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has said. I indicated last week that there is a place for Henry VIII clauses. I must apologise for having somewhat misled the Committee last week by quoting a precedent from memory. I quoted earlier legislation as having referred to the pricing of wines. It referred, in fact, to the import and export of wines and therefore had the effect of importing statute into an area previously governed solely by prerogative. So Henry VIII clauses are not necessarily arbitrary.
I agree entirely with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The fixing of the penalties for a breach of an Act of Parliament is an entirely inappropriate area for Henry VIII clauses. This is something to do with political obligation. Most of us have had to explain to our children and no doubt to others why we are bound to obey the law. In the end, the argument has to be that we do so because we are consenting parties to it. We are consenting parties to penalties laid down by Parliament.
1036
However, as soon as the penalties are fixed by executive action we shall have people subjected to penalties to which they have not consented. Making the punishment fit the crime will lead future Lord Chancellors into temptation, to which the noble and learned Lord will, I am sure, be well able to stand up but to which I fear perhaps some successor of his might be susceptible. This casts grave doubt on the theories of political obligation which are at present accepted in this country. In Parliament of all places we ought to look on that subsection with grave misgivings.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The Civil Justice Review was set up for the purpose of identifying the causes of, among other things, problems of delay in the courts and recommending action to alleviate them. One of the key approaches to that is set out in paragraph 225 of the report. It says:
"The court itself will require to have an effective case monitoring system, applied either at the commencement of the case or at the point where it becomes defended, and will require notice of the defendant's intention to defend. The court record will show the date by which the case is due to be set down. The court file should record setting down within the prescribed period if that takes place. Plaintiffs should also be required to give the court notice of disposal by settlement or otherwise before that date, subject to a fixed penalty for failing to give such notice, payable by the plaintiff's solicitor. Three months before the due date for setting down the court should issue reminder cards".
It is on that basis that the clause has been suggested. Having regard to the nature of the delays which the Civil Justice Review analysed and the cause of them, it is right that the court should have power itself to deal with a party who has failed to appear or has failed to give the court due notice of his desire to cancel the hearing or of his inability to appear at it.
It humbly seems to me that questions of costs are already in the discretion of the court. There is ample power to award costs, a point discussed earlier. The suggestion was made that I should not restrict the power to award costs at the court's discretion. The power to award costs is there. Costs would be awarded in respect of the costs incurred by the other party if that other party is incommoded. This clause does not deal with that point as it is satisfactorily dealt with already. It deals with the damage to the progress of litigation generally which the making of an appointment that is not kept does to the other litigant. People who are not parties to these proceedings may not directly be affected by the outcome of the proceedings but may well be affected by the delays which are unnecessarily caused to the court in that way.
Two parties may settle a case and then fail to give notice to the court that the case has been settled. It may have been booked for quite a long period. The court sets aside the time to deal with the case but the parties settle and do not give the court notice. That kind of situation is extremely damaging to the progress of litigation and is not dealt with by an award of costs against the parties, because both

1037
parties may be in the same position. Therefore, I strongly suggest to Members of the Committee that such a clause is highly appropriate in that situation.
I turn now to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I think that in accordance with usual convention the question of whether the Law Officers have been specially consulted is not a matter which is normally disclosed without their consent. Therefore, it is right—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I trust that my noble and learned friend will allow me to intervene for a moment. I raised this point in relation to Clause 1. Has there been any attempt to obtain the Law Officers' consent to answer, not a question of what advice they gave, but whether they were consulted?
The Lord Chancellor: No, not as yet. The situation is that I take the responsibility for this particular provision. Moreover, I think it only right that I should take such responsibility.
So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 69 and 71, I must say that I do not regard them as necessary in the circumstances of this case. For example, as I said earlier, it may well be that the other parties to the proceedings have agreed with the party in question that the case should be settled. That may be the reason for there being no appearance or notice to the court about the matter.
These are only powers to the court. I have no reason to suppose that they will be exercised except in very necessary circumstances and with due regard to all the circumstances. I cannot believe that the court would use such power except in circumstances where it felt that damage had been done to the public interest. So far as concerns awarding costs to other parties, this would be a separate matter for separate consideration. It is a distinct issue from the one dealt with by an award of costs.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce said, it is perfectly possible that the court may have other options. For example, if a plaintiff did not turn up early in the case he might lose it. One of the greatest dangers in this respect, referred to by the Civil Justice Review, is where the case has been settled without notice. That strikes me as a situation which ought to be dealt with, if the circumstances so justify, by the use of such a power.
Therefore, I submit to Members of the Committee that this is a proper power for the court to have. I certainly think that it would be very sparingly exercised; but it would give the court power to enforce a programme of court control which the Civil Justice Review found was most important if civil justice in this country is to progress at a reasonable rate and if unnecessary delays are to be avoided.
Baroness Elles: I have been most impressed by the legal arguments put forward both for and against this clause. However, no one has suggested that there could be a perfectly simple way of knowing when people have settled a case and knowing whether they will appear in court. We live in an age where there
1038
are telephones, computers, terminals and many other means of communication.
It seems to me that the courts could organise themselves in such a way that the onus would be on them to find out if a plaintiff, or defendant, and the relevant people attending to his case will appear in court. If the court does not receive a reply within, say, 48 hours, it should then assume that these people will not appear. It seems to me that the onus and the inertia have been on the wrong sides. It also seems that if the courts are to have better, quicker and more efficient justice—as is the purpose of the Bill—perhaps they should be looking at simple and practical means of overcoming what are clearly very difficult and delaying procedures.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend has made the point. With the best information that it has, the court has assigned a date, and then for reasons about which the court has not been informed—for example, negotiations between the parties which have settled the matter—the hearing is no longer needed, and time is lost. In extreme cases a whole day of a judge's time and a courtroom may be wasted.
The clause merely gives the court a power—we do not say that it should be exercised—to deal with such a matter. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Elles that every practical arrangement to avoid such an occurrence should be made. However, the fact is that whatever arrangement is made there is always the chance that something is agreed between the parties which they do not intimate to the court. That is the mischief at which the provision is aimed. The power is a reasonable one for the court to have to deal with such an eventuality.
Lord Grantchester: The trouble that arises from cases being settled normally arises because they are settled late. When a case is settled the day before the hearing or in the morning before going into court, the court may waste a day. I have never heard of the court's time being wasted through a settlement and a failure to inform the court thereof. I do not believe that that is a difficulty which is met in the courts. I have never met it. This provision is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The Lord Chancellor: As I said earlier, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham set up the inquiry which examined the matter carefully and made an important point about court control of delay. It is one of the recommendations in paragraph 225. Having regard to the general acceptance of the Civil Justice Review, it seems to me to be appropriate for the court to have the power. If the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is correct, the power will be seldom exercised. I am entirely in favour of that.
Lord Meston: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained the mischief at which Clause 9 is directed. We all understand the mischief. But as several noble and learned Lords and noble Lords have pointed out, the mischief generally speaking is adequately dealt with under the court's existing power in relation to costs and the disciplinary powers of the professional bodies.

1039
With reference to the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, the court now has a wider power than hitherto to order solicitors to pay costs. Recent Court of Appeal decisions have indicated the width of the court's power to order a solicitor to pay costs. That is a position which is perfectly respectable if one seeks to oppose Clause 9. I do not seek to do that in my amendment; I merely seek to impose a requirement to apply a certain set of priorities. Whether or not the power under Clause 9 is to be exercised sparingly, the power to order costs and the power to impose a penalty are distinct. The same facts may bring about the court's desire not merely to impose an order for costs but to impose a penalty under the clause. They are distinct provisions. My intention, as I hope I have explained, was to give priority in the mind of the court to the other party to the litigation to ensure that he gets his costs and does not have to take second place to the penalty imposed under this new clause.
The noble and learned Lord reminded us of the one situation which can be the fault of both parties—when they settle and both omit to tell the court. I have looked at my amendments and I cannot see how they detract from the power of the court in that situation to impose a penalty on either party or both under Clause 9. The considerations in my amendments would be otiose. In any event my amendments do not seek to tie the hands of the court; they simply put forward certain considerations in certain circumstances.
Accordingly, I respectfully suggest that there is still some force in my amendments. I do not intend to press them at this stage of the night but I should like to think about the position, study the debate and possibly come back at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.45 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: I do not think that there is much more to say at this stage except that this is a case where my noble and learned friend has identified one particular point where the parties and their representatives can throw the court administration into confusion. I think that is the case where some time before the hearing date a settlement is reached and by some extraordinary oversight nobody tells the court. During the period—it may be a week or a month—between the settlement and the hearing date, the court could well fully use the two or three weeks which might have been set aside to deal with other litigants. In such a case the settlement may well have been in terms that the parties are to bear their own costs, so nobody has to come back to the court for an order for costs and it cannot be dealt with by way of costs. I should have thought that this was the only case in which such an offence should produce this result. I feel that there must be better ways of cracking the nut than with this sledgehammer.
1040
Having said that, there is the question of the case which is settled just before the hearing. It might be settled the night before but nobody tells the court. It may be that they should have told the court, but the court will find out pretty soon the next morning what has gone wrong: nobody is there and the case has been settled. Although proceedings will be slightly put back, the effect will not be very great. So the problem does not arise in cases where settlements take place immediately before the hearing date.
The final point is that I ask my noble and learned friend whether I am right in thinking that this clause is only intended to relate to formal hearings of the trials of actions and not to other interlocutory hearings.
The Lord Chancellor: The main matter is the one that I have mentioned. The possibility of occupying the time for appointments on an interlocutory basis can also arise. Since I have been in this office I have certainly come across many occasions in looking at the history of cases that have been brought to my attention by members of the other place, when somebody, having applied to set aside a judgment, has asked for an appointment, one has been made, nobody has turned up and no notice has been given to the court. That is very wasteful of the court's time and resources and I think it right that the court should have the power to deal in general with the situation described in Clause 9.
In considering the future, I shall certainly take into account all that has been said. In the meantime, I hope Members of the Committee will agree that Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Administration orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 10, line 25, leave out ("administration").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 72 is a drafting amendment to new Section 112A(4). The proposed subsection (3) makes it clear that the proposed subsection (4), which prevents creditors from cutting off supplies of gas, electricity or water, is to apply in cases where either an administration order or an order restricting enforcement is in force. As presently drafted, however, the proposed subsection (4) refers only to administration orders, and this amendment clarifies that both sorts of orders are intended to be included. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Assessors]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("whether or not").
Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
("(2B) In any proceedings prescribed for the purposes of this subsection a district judge may summon to his assistance one or more such persons even though no application has been made for him to do so.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 are drafting amendments in

1041
clarification. They make it clear that when rules of court permit district judges to sit with assessors the presumption will be, as for judges, that an application of the parties is required but that rules of court may go on to dispense with that requirement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 11, line 32, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has asked me to move his amendment because, quite frankly, he is feeling the lateness of the hour. The amendment seeks to leave out from page 11, line 32, the words:
"with the consent of the Treasury".
In Clause 11 we are amending the County Courts Act. When we come to subsection (3) of proposed new Section 63 of that Act, we find it states:
"For subsection (4) there shall be substituted—
(4) In such cases as may be specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Treasury, the remuneration of any assessor summoned under this section shall be paid, at such rate as may be so specified, out of money provided by Parliament".
I find it strange that in a matter which really deals with the internal organisation of government we should find that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has to obtain the consent of the Treasury. That does not mean necessarily the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it means really an officer of the department. It is all the more strange that it should be so in this context, because the subsection states:
"out of money provided by Parliament".
The Treasury will have asked Parliament to put estimates before another place before the money can be made available at all, as I understand it. It really is absurd that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has expressed reluctance at being asked to get the consent of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, should be required in the circumstances I have described to have to get the consent of a Treasury official.
I should have thought that perhaps it might be said that he should consult the Treasury, but even that would concern the internal affairs of government administration. We do it a great deal at the behest of the Government, but it is a terrible waste of time to write into primary legislation matters which are not fit subjects for legislation but are concerned with the internal administration of government. I do not want to labour the point. It is abundantly clear. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester: This is a fairly standard provision in Acts of Parliament in which people are called on for assistance and to sit with courts and tribunals. There are specified rates.
Lord Renton: To follow what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has said, the statute book is already littered with that phrase and phrases like it. Sometimes it is "with the approval of the Treasury", sometimes "with the consent of the Treasury" and
1042
sometimes "with the concurrence of the Treasury". This nonsense has been going on for years. I am inviting the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to help to bring it to an end.
The Lord Chancellor: There are some things which the Lord Chancellor is prepared to help with and some which he would rather leave to others.
It is a consistent requirement, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has said, that where a question of remuneration is to be settled the consent of the Treasury should be required. It is not correct to say that that consent is obtained from an official of the Treasury. The normal procedure is that an order made under a clause such as this would be signed by the Lord Chancellor and a certificate would be signed by two Lords Commissioners of the Treasury as concurring.
It is important, particularly in these days when judicial review is a powerful remedy, that the distinct statutory responsibilities of Ministers should be recognised. I believe that it is right that the Treasury's responsibility in that area should be recognised and that the Lord Chancellor's powers in that situation are interlocked with those of the Treasury in such a way that there would be distinct responsibility for the two aspects of the matter.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I am very sorry that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale is not here. I am sure that he will read the report of the debate. I gave a very similar explanation to him in respect of a similar amendment in the past.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for his lucid explanation. I do not find it convincing. It would be perfectly satisfactory as part of the internal arrangements of the Government for it to be provided by direction from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that two Lords Commissioners of the Treasury should sign the document which the Lord Chancellor has passed over to them. It is totally unnecessary to write it into the statute book.
As the hour is late and as my noble and learned friend has given his explanation, however unconvincing, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [County court rules]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 12, line 16, after ("rules") insert—
("Rules made by virtue of this subsection applying any provisions may apply them as amended from time to time."").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 76 makes it clear that the application by county court rules of other rules of court includes later amendments made to those rules. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Standards of performance and service.
—(1) In discharging their functions under sections 27 and 28 of the Courts Act 1971, the Lord Chancellor, the Minister for the Civil Service, the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the Treasury shall ensure that reasonable standards are met and can be maintained for the unified administrative courts service with a view to promoting efficiency and avoiding delays in the work of the Supreme Court and county courts.
(2) The standards referred to in subsection (1) above are standards of performance and service including targets for the time within which any functions or duties will be discharged.").
The noble Lord said: It seems to be my lot to move the final amendments at a rather later hour of each night of the Committee's sittings. I do not ask noble Lords again to address their attention to the amendment that I moved last Tuesday night, but I ask them to consider the two amendments standing in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and of two other noble Lords. We consider these to be important amendments.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House or his representatives on the Front Bench will give us some assistance. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us whether he is willing, between now and Report stage, to meet representatives of the Law Society, the Bar Council and other persons representing, for example, the consumer associations, which all have a deep and important interest in the amendments. If he did that, the kind of discussion that we would have had if there had been a greater attendance tonight might be had on a rather more informal basis.
The other assistance that I ask of the Government Front Bench is that, if the two amendments are tabled again on Report, they are discussed when there is a likelihood of a greater attendance in the Chamber so that they may be considered by a more representative Committee.
The Lord Chancellor: With regard to the first point raised by the noble Lord, I have made it plain to the Law Society, the Bar and all interested bodies that I am willing to meet them at any time to discuss any matters connected with my responsibilities which they wish to discuss. If someone wants to arrange a gathering such as the noble Lord suggested, I shall be happy to meet the people concerned.
Perhaps I should take this opportunity to say that I am considering introducing an amendment to deal with the subject covered by Amendment No. 78. As noble Lords know, a debate has been going on for quite a time between the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, successive Lord Chancellors—first my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and then me—and the committee in the other place which is responsible for the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in connection with actions by officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department who are made available to the courts for the administration of the courts. The wording of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
1044
legislation under which he operates makes it difficult for me to agree that he has jurisdiction over those officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department who carry out administrative functions of the courts because his jurisdiction is limited to administrative acts which are administrative acts of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Unless the court were part of the Lord Chancellor's Department—and no one would like that—the jurisdiction is excluded.
I have never wished to exclude the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration from any consideration of what my officials may or may not have done. I do not in any circumstances seek to protect them from examination of their actions in a suitable case, but I consider it necessary from the point of view of the independence of the courts and the judicial process to ensure that I did not in any way allow the Parliamentary Commissioner to deal, with my consent, with matters outside his jurisdiction in that area.
Having considered the matter, I think it may be possible to make a provision enlarging the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration but still securing the independence of the judiciary, judicial activities and the judicial process. I therefore hope—and this is as far as I can go at the moment—to bring forward at Report stage an amendment that noble Lords will feel might solve this rather difficult problem. It is not an easy area in which to get a satisfactory boundary but I hope that we shall be able to do so. That may be of interest to the noble Lord.
So far as concerns the other question about the timing of the consideration of a particular amendment, the noble Lord dealt with the time at which it was tabled. I support that primarily the time at which it is considered will be in question. I do not think that I can do more than undertake to bring his desire to the attention of my colleagues who are part of that wonderful mechanism known as the usual channels in the hope that the noble Lord's wishes at least to some extent may be fulfilled if he deals with the matter at Report stage. It may well be that we shall be able to achieve some agreed position on this matter by that time.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may briefly mention that when we come to Clause 19 the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and I will move an amendment to make the Lord Chancellor's Department or any official of it subject to the jurisdiction (if that is the right word) of the ombudsman. I feel, and I think that probably the noble Lord, Lord Meston, also feels, that it would be far more appropriate if the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration were to have that responsibility. I mention this point simply because from the most interesting and acceptable statement just made by my noble and learned friend, I am not quite sure whether when he considers this matter and brings a proposal forward at Report stage, there will be anything said in what he proposes about the administration of his own department. I think that it would be helpful to know that at this stage.
The Lord Chancellor: The administration of my department is already subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. As I said earlier, the only difficulty is that the jurisdiction is directed in this area at the administration of my department. Even though officials of mine support the judges in the court, the administration of the court that they carry out is not part of the administration of the administration of my department. But there are some areas that they cover which it may be appropriate for him to examine. The question is whether we can find in this difficult area a suitable formulation to define what is proper, as it were, for the judges and their instructions on the one hand and what it is proper for the Parliamentary Commissioner to look at on the other hand. That is the problem.
I entirely agree with the view that it would probably be more appropriate, if anyone is to oversee this area, for it to be the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who acts on requests by Members of the other place, rather than the legal services ombudsman.
Lord Mishcon: Far be it for me to call anybody to order. I suppose that I am usually a sinner myself. But I understand that Amendment No. 78 has not yet been called and Amendment No. 77 alone has been called. I rise to say that by arrangement with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I was due to move Amendment No. 78. Therefore I have been waiting for an opportunity to do so. Obviously I have listened to what the noble and learned Lord said. The last thing that I want to do is to extend the debate on this amendment. I have heard what the noble and learned Lord has said with distinct pleasure. Maybe it would be very helpful if when Amendment No. 78 is called I could utter one sentence which might assist him.
The Lord Chancellor: I am extremely grateful for any assistance. I certainly did not intend any discourtesy to the noble Lord. I think in moving Amendment No. 77 the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred to Amendment No. 78. It was for that reason that I thought to give that information. But I shall be delighted to hear the noble Lord at the appropriate time.
Lord Grantchester: I had wished to speak to Amendment No. 78, so should I wait until the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has moved the amendment? I was about to speak in case he failed to move it.
Lord Hacking: Perhaps I may wind up the discussion on Amendment No. 77 and say that, in view of the helpful answers of the noble and learned Lord and his expressed willingness to discuss both Amendments Nos. 77 and 78, and in view of his further kindness—he has much greater access to the usual channels than I do—in offering to send an appropriate message down the usual channels, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
("Investigations by Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5 of and paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, the discharge of all or any functions or duties of any kind whatsoever by officers and other staff appointed under section 27 of the Courts Act 1971 shall be subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.").
The noble Lord said: I am going to suggest, if I may—and the suggestion is made most respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, as well—that having regard to the importance of this amendment we do not move it at this stage, especially as the noble and learned Lord has said that there will be an amendment at Report stage brought before us. I would have thought at this hour, having regard to the importance of the matter, I should not move the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble Lord sits down, could I make it clear that I said that is my intention. I hope I shall be able to carry it out. I do not give a full undertaking because we have not yet completely solved the difficult question, but I certainly have every intention of bringing forward an amendment if I possibly can in time for Report.
Lord Mishcon: That is good enough for me.
Lord Grantchester: I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, was going to move Amendment No. 78 so I could say something. He has now not moved it. If I am out of order I can only create trouble later on.
Lord Mishcon: The last thing in the world I want is to create trouble for the Committee or to be a party to it. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester: I wanted to make one observation, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for allowing me to do so.
The suggestion of dealing with maladministration within the court system applies equally to the tribunal system, some tribunals being under the control of the Lord Chancellor's Department and some not. As a result of that, some tribunals now recompense litigants where there has been maladministration, but those under the Lord Chancellor's Department do not, as I understand it. I hope that the whole problem of maladministration within the courts and tribunals system can be looked at and that this will not be confined purely to the county courts.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall certainly have that in mind. I do not think the question of whether compensation is paid is precisely the same question, but they are obviously related.
Lord Mishcon: On that basis and at this stage, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.

  CATALYTIC CONVERTERS
  CATALYTIC CONVERTERS
  TOY SAFETY: EC LEGISLATION
  TOY SAFETY: EC LEGISLATION
  NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL: OFFICIAL ADVICE
  NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL: OFFICIAL ADVICE
  BSE IN YOUNG ANIMALS
  BSE IN YOUNG ANIMALS
  GUN CLUBS: CONTROLS
  GUN CLUBS: CONTROLS