Sitting of 29 January 1990

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL(By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered tomorrow.
  Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me, as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament and member of the Franco-British parliamentary group, to ask whether you would welcome the French Members of Parliament who are gracing us with their presence in the Gallery today?
  Mr. Speaker: We never refer to those who are present in the Gallery or elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Energy Efficiency Office
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the forward budget of the Energy Efficiency Office.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office for
    2
    the current year is £15 million. Its budget for future years will be substantially increased by funding for the proposed new insulation scheme for low-income households.
    Mr. Campbell: How can we be confident about that assertion, given that the office's budget has been cut from its 1986–86 level of £24·5 million to £15 million for the current year? Did not the Government give evidence to the United Nations that we can save up to 60 per cent. of our fuel bill over the next 15 years by more effective methods of energy conservation? Should not we be looking for more investment and more commitment from the Government to energy efficiency, which would have substantial effects on the environment?
    Mr. Morrison: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is overestimating the figure at 60 per cent.—it is about 20 per cent. The fact that £40,000 million is still being spent shows that considerable savings can be made. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that a significant amount of money was spent on advertising. I hope that he will agree that the fact that energy efficiency is at the top of the list of priorities of many businesses and domestic households shows that that money was well spent and need not be spent to the same extent again.
    Mr. Moss: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that spending on energy efficiency has increased dramatically since 1979? Does he accept that an industrywide voluntary code on energy efficiency labelling of appliances would be warmly welcomed by Conservative Members?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. Compared with 1979, about £500 million is being saved on energy costs, which by any stretch of the imagination is a significant sum. My hon. Friend may know that the Department is conducting a study on domestic electrical appliances, which we shall publish as soon as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are definite savings to be made.

    North Sea(Investment)
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was capital investment in the North sea in 1989 and 1988.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): Capital investment in the United Kingdom continental shelf oil and gas projects was £2·1 billion in 1988, and my estimate for 1989 is £2·5 billion. Recent forecasts by the National Economic Development Office suggest that capital investment could reach £3·7 billion in 1990.
    Miss Widdecombe: What effect have the changes in petroleum revenue tax and their relative tonnages had in respect of the southern basin?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government modified the offshore taxation regime to maintain the right environment for investment. I cannot give my hon. Friend exact figures, but it is generally accepted that the North sea has one of the most favourable taxation regimes in the world. All the evidence shows that North sea activity is booming.
    Dr. Reid: I thank the Minister for giving us the capital investment figures for the North sea. Can he tell us what proportion of that investment goes to British firms and, in particular, what proportion of North sea oil steel purchases goes to the Clydesdale tube works—the only British Steel tube works? There is a grave suspicion that, despite all the efforts of the work force and management at the Clydesdale works, foreign tube producers are increasingly penetrating the North sea market. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion is accounted for by British tube works?
    Mr. Wakeham: The North sea is a great success story for British suppliers, who have a large proportion—about 80 per cent.—of the business, which is obtained by fair competition. There has rightly been an increase in imported steel tubes—mainly because British Steel was not in a position to supply.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that increasing investment in the North sea is now producing forecasts of self-sufficiency in oil for another 10 years? Is not that a tribute both to the effectiveness of the Government's policy and to the enterprise of the oil industry?
    Mr. Wakeham: That is absolutely right. The surplus on trade in 1989 was a little bit down on the figure for 1988, but in the coming years the balance is expected to increase significantly to about £2 billion a year, the high investment in the North sea will ensure a healthy balance well into the 1990s.
    Mr. Doran: We welcome the increase in expenditure that the Secretary of State has explained to us, but quite a large proportion of that expenditure goes on safety. The Secretary of State will be aware that hardly a week goes by without another safety problem arising in the North sea. I gather that only this morning the Shell Eider platform required partial evacuation because of a gas leak. When will the Secretary of State consider seriously the safety system in the North sea? Investment in technology is not
    4
    enough, and there is clearly a problem with the multiplicity of agencies, including the Department, responsible for safety in the North sea.
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept much of what the hon. Gentleman said. He is right that there was trouble this morning at the platform that he mentioned, but everyone was safely evacuated and there was no damage in that respect. We continually stress the paramount importance that the Government attach to the safety of offshore workers and repeat that safety standards will not be compromised for any reason. We constantly seek ways to improve the safety of all offshore workers and do not hesitate to introduce any new changes that we think necessary.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Did the figures that my right hon. Friend gave include figures for onshore workings? Will he confirm that there are valuable deposits available both onshore and in the English Channel and that the development at Wytch Farm is to be welcomed, in view of the enormous increase in the resources that have been found there?
    Mr. Wakeham: The figures that I cited were for offshore workings, but my hon. Friend is right to point to the significance of onshore developments.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals he has to promote the more efficient use of energy.
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent initiatives he has announced to encourage greater energy efficiency.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Powers for the introduction of a new scheme of grants towards the cost of insulation measures in low-income households are contained in the Social Security Bill, which received its Second Reading on 22 January.
    Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am well aware of the proposals in the Social Security Bill. Does the Minister accept that those puny measures do no more than to take us back to 1988 in terms of energy efficiency promotion? It is all very well giving us fine words, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is about time that his Department produced a time scale, even if it is only for the measures in the Social Security Bill?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is being a little less than generous. No doubt he will know that some 700,000 households have benefited from insulation projects over the past few years, and it is intended that many more thousands should benefit from the Social Security Bill.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Minister bear it in mind that although there are 23 million vehicles on the roads, the internal combustion engine is only 27 per cent. efficient, and that our conventional power stations are only about 37 per cent. efficient? Will he have a look at that matter and see whether the efficiency of the stations and the vehicles could be improved?
    Mr. Morrison: I learn something new from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) every day. I was not aware of that fact about the internal

    5
    combustion engine. My hon. Friend is a great expert on all matters connected with power stations. We listen carefully to him and shall pay particular attention to his comments on this question.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have also made a mistake. I should have called the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran).
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of the statement last week by the chairman-designate of British Petroleum to the effect that the consumption of oil was likely to increase and therefore the price to follow it, that he message is clear for industrial and other users that we must cut our present £40 billion a year energy bill?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted that the electricity and gas industries, BP through BP Energy and Shell through Emstar, and contract energy management are directing what will be the private sector to the same end that the Government are aiming for through the Energy Efficiency Office.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that while the increase in the insulation grant, for which many of us have been calling for some years, is welcome, the scale of energy expenditure in the United Kingdom is vast—amounting to £40 billion, as the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) said—and that our ability to meet the targets, which even the Government claim are achievable, seems to be virtually non-existent? What will the Minister's Department do, in conjunction with other agencies outside the House, to ensure that the savings are achieved?
    Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the figures. While over the past 10 years GDP has increased by 20 per cent., energy consumption has held level. That is a good set of figures and in that respect we are the best in the Common Market. Because of the large figure of £40 billion spend, to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) referred, and the 20 per cent. potential savings, we shall continue to promote in every way possible what is in the interests of all householders and every business.
    Mr. Benn: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether his Department was consulted before Mr. Bernard Ingham was offered a university appointment sponsored by British Nuclear Fuels plc? Is it right that a Government press officer should accept that post, particularly in view of Mr. Bernard Ingham's long reputation for opposing journalists who have been critical of the nuclear industry?
    Mr. Morrison: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that is a matter for me. I know nothing about that.
    Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate South Western electricity board on its efficient use of its time and skill over the weekend in restoring electricity to many of the villages and towns throughout the south-west? Is he aware that many elderly people in my constituency, particularly along the coastline of Devon, are still without electric light, heating and telephone communications? Will my right hon. Friend consider bringing in private
    6
    contractors in the electricity industry to help the electricity board to speed up the rate at which it can reconnect people who still have no electricity supply?
    Mr. Morrison: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the South Western electricity board, as I am sure that all hon. Members would, on its tremendous efforts to restore electricity supplies.
    On my hon. Friend's point about whether the electricity board's efforts can be augmented, I am sure that all the possibilities are being considered to ensure that electricity can be restored as soon as possible. Obviously, that will take time in the more distant communities. I am advised that it may take even until Thursday or Friday in some cases, but everything will be done to reconnect supplies as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dobson: The Minister has told us about his airy-fairy plans for energy efficiency in the future, but he should consider what is happening now. With regard to the community insulation programme, draughtproofing jobs completed last year fell by 30,000 and loft insulations fell by about two thirds. In London and the south-east alone, the number of operatives involved has fallen from 1,100 to 150. Surely the Minister should he doing something now.
    Mr. Morrison: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would notice—certainly his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) has noticed—that we are doing something, and that was mentioned on Second Reading of the Social Security Bill—
    Mr. Dobson: That is just talk in the House. Do something.
    Mr. Morrison: Of course, we are. If the hon. Gentleman were to look carefully at the reasons behind the figures that he gave, he would realise that the number of long-term unemployed has fallen substantially. That means that there are fewer people to do the job under the old programme. That is why we are introducing a new programme that will help tens of thousands of low-income households.

    British Gas (Disconnections)
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many customers of British Gas were disconnected for debt during the last financial year.
    Mr. Lester: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many customers of British Gas were disconnected for debt during the last financial year.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: This is a matter for British Gas. However, I am delighted that the number of British Gas customers disconnected for debt is now lower than at any time since records were first kept in 1977.
    Mr. Stewart: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's reply as it shows beyond doubt that privatised British Gas is superior in all respects to that which went before it in the days of nationalisation. That reply also refutes the Labour party's allegation that British Gas puts profits before consumers.
    Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that it is unpleasant for Opposition Members to

    7
    admit that the privatised British Gas is a great success. The number of disconnections, calculated on a yearly basis, to September last year was some 23,200, which is about half the number disconnected in the year before British Gas was privatised. The fall in the number of disconnections, let alone the comparative price of gas, demonstrates that British Gas is a success story.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that pensioners are reminded of the new British Gas code of practice and to explain to them that since privatisation, gas standing charges have increased by less than the increase in the cost of living?
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will be aware that British Gas has consulted all 17 million of its customers and that it is making them aware of the services that it offers—that number includes, of course, pensioners. In the past five years standing charges have fallen in real terms by some 33 per cent. and, since privatisation, they have fallen by about 18 per cent. That is a good record.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Minister's figures, but are there are any further plans to ensure that the particularly vulnerable, pensioners and the mentally ill, have an opportunity to register that vulnerability or to get someone to register it on their behalf, or will the industry provide a mechanism whereby vulnerable customers can be identified? In that way, they could be protected against accidental disconnection as a result of their inability to deal with reminders or any paperwork. Such things happen. The new arrangements could result in a further reduction in the disconnection rate for good reason.
    Mr. Morrison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the figures and I know that in the past two and a half years that I have answered questions on this subject, he has been concerned with it. The figures demonstrate that British Gas is concerned to ensure that such small, select groups are properly catered for and looked after. I regret to say that, every now and then, one or two people may slip through the net, but every effort is being made by British Gas.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing that British Gas wants to do is to cut off a consumer and, therefore, a customer? Sensitive arrangements are now in hand, however, and Southern Gas ensures that there is a minimum period of 77 days from the date of the first bill to the disconnection. Those arrangements also include counselling, when British Gas seeks to discuss the situation with the customer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the message that should go from the House is that anyone in difficulty with his gas bill should please get in touch with his gas board?
    Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The staff at the gas showrooms and offices that I have visited are most sympathetic towards their customers and are at pains to try to point out the procedures that are available to them.

    British Coal
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. O'Brien: Did the chairman of British Coal raise with the Secretary of State the significant problem of waste disposal in the Selby coalfield? I remind the Secretary of State that when the public inquiry into the development of the Selby coalfield was held in 1976, it was stated that there would be no waste to be disposed of there, but now there are over 1·25 million tonnes of waste per year, all of which has to be disposed of in my constituency. As the possibility that there would be waste disposal problems was denied at that public inquiry, will the Secretary of State prevail upon the chairman of British Coal to institute a public inquiry into those waste disposal problems, because of the significant effects that they have on my constituency, including the filling in of two miles of the river Calder, which cannot be regarded as acceptable in any language? When the Secretary of State next discusses British Coal matters with the chairman, will he raise the question of an inquiry into the waste disposal problems at the Selby coalfield?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether an inquiry would be helpful, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about a matter involving his constituency. The waste disposal arrangements at Selby are a matter for British Coal, but I shall draw the chairman's attention to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Dr. Michael Clark: When my right hon. Friend met the chairman of British Coal, did he discuss with him the speech that the chairman made at the Institution of Mining Engineers on 24 January, in which he said that colliery managers are now more free to manage and that miners and trade union officials are more open minded, more flexible and more realistic than they were 10 years ago? Is not that good news for the coal industry and does not it show the progress that has been made in the industry during the lifetime of this Government?
    Mr. Wakeham: I was present when Sir Robert Haslam made those encouraging remarks at that dinner. Indeed, I made some encouraging remarks myself about the future of British Coal if it takes the opportunities that are available to it to continue the productivity gains that it has already made. Its productivity gains of 75 per cent. on the pre-strike levels are a good example of what can be done, but I am afraid that more will have to be done in the future.
    Dr. Kim Howells: When the Secretary of State met the chairman of British Coal, did he discuss with him the recent appointment of Coopers and Lybrand, the accountants, as the body to administer the so-called "fossil fuel levy" which I believe the Minister should more accurately term the "nuclear levy", as it is designed to subsidise the nuclear sector? Will the Secretary of State give the House some details about that levy, such as the amount and the way in which it will be levied upon the customers of the electricity industry?
    Mr. Wakeham: I did not discuss that matter with Sir Robert Haslam, but the details of the levy will be announced shortly. I know that the cross-Channel link and the electricity that comes from France are of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman, and I am happy to give him some details about that. As he knows electricity is

    9
    traded in both directions and as it is an interruptible supply it will not qualify for the non-fossil fuel obligation, and therefore will not receive the "nuclear levy".

    Coal Privatisation
    Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to introduce a Bill to give to miners the opportunity to become owners of the coal mining industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): Employee participation will be looked at closely in the context of privatisation proposals for coal which we hope to bring forward in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Gow: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has the congratulations and best wishes of the House on his first appearance on the Front Bench at Question Time? Is he aware that 85 per cent. of those who work for the water industry bought shares when that industry was privatised? Does he realise that the longer he postpones the privatisation of coal the longer he denies to those who work in the coal industry the opportunity that was rightly given to those who work in the water industry to become worker-shareholders?
    Mr. Baldry: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I commend to the House the excellent speech that he made on 19 January. It is worthy of re-reading by every hon. Member. In it, he clearly set out the merits of the Government's programme of privatisation and its undoubted benefits for consumers, customers, taxpayers and, most particularly, employees.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister appreciate that many thousands of men in the mining industry will be unable to buy British Coal shares because under Government policy, once the contracts between British Coal and the electricity supply industry become operative, 30,000 miners will lose their jobs? What interest will they have in privatisation?
    Mr. Baldry: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, but I can tell him that the coal industry, perhaps more than any other, depends on the fullhearted co-operation and enthusiasm of its work force to be successful. Unlike the Opposition, we believe that employees should have every opportunity to buy shares in their own industries and we see no reason why the coal industry should be treated any differently.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we have returned the coal industry to a shareholding democracy through the market there will be little need for a Department of Energy any more? Will he assure us that we shall not retain that massive Government Department for the nefarious promotion of the efficient use of energy and will he agree with the previous Secretary of State that he looks forward to locking up the doors and throwing the keys into the Thames?
    Mr. Baldry: Having only just arrived at the Department, I should not be forecasting its demise.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss coal imports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the level of coal imports.
    Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry, including coal imports.
    Coal imports for the period January to November 1989 were 11·2 million tonnes. We do not produce estimates for future years.
    Mr. Skinner: How can the Minister justify that massive increase in imported coal—to more than 11 million tonnes in less than a year—when we already have a balance of payments deficit of more than £20 billion? Is it not economic lunacy to add to that bill? Does he realise that that figure is equivalent to more than 10 pits and more than 11,000 jobs of miners who, having been thrown out of work, would have to be picked up by the taxpayer, who would have to pay their dole and welfare benefits? What is the point of it all?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman may make his point; he has made it a number of times before. He referred to a massive increase in coal imports, but the figure that I quoted was 11,188,000 tonnes, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was less than the figure for 1988. The figure was for 11 months, not for 12. We cannot speak of those figures, therefore, as a "massive increase".
    Of course, no Government have ever restricted the import of coal and we do not believe that restricting competition is in the best interests of the coal industry and of the long-term security of jobs, which rely on its being a competitive industry.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the world price of coal is somewhat lower than the price charged by the coal industry to the electricity boards? Does he therefore agree that coal imports are in the interests of the consumer, that they will lead to lower electricity bills for pensioners and that they will help to safeguard jobs in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Wakeham: I believe that overwhelmingly the main source of coal supplies for United Kingdom generating industry for a long time to come will be British Coal. But my hon. Friend makes an important point. The House may be interested to know that United Kingdom coal imports in 1988 cost an average £35·67 a tonne, compared with British Coal's price of £41·16 a tonne. So there is not a staggering difference, as some people make out, but there is a significant difference and British Coal must continue to improve its productivity.
    Mr. Eadie: As the Secretary of State is aware both that it has been clearly established that if the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill passes through the House there will be an increase in coal imports and that the chairman of British Coal has said that he is against that Bill, is it not lunacy to proceed with it, especially when the Government and the nation are being confronted with our horrific balance of payments deficit, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, and more miners will be made redundant as a consequence? Is that a sensible energy policy?
    Mr. Wakeham: It is not an amazing surprise that the chairman of British Coal should not be wildly enthusiastic about any Bill that he perceives will increase competition.

    11
    Nevertheless, we believe that competition is right. The hon. Gentleman's time scale is wrong. Even if the port is built as intended and all the necessary arrangements are made, it will be a good many years before much extra coal is imported through it. Moreover, British Coal has other competitors in the market, such as oil and gas. There is no need to build additional ports to bring in those facilities. That is why it is essential that British Coal continues making substantial improvements in future. That is its long-term security.
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another major competitor is nuclear generation and that if coal prices were increased, which is the Labour party policy, that would change the balance in the figures more closely in favour of nuclear generation which, incidentally, many Conservative Members would welcome?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am a strong supporter of nuclear energy. It has a part to play in the diversity of supply which we want. My hon. Friend is right that the significant difference between the nuclear industry and the others is that the nuclear industry must pay the full costs of disposing of its waste, and we know of the difficulties that that produces. That is not necessarily so of fossil fuel generation.
    Mr. Barron: What will happen to coal imports this year? It is all very well to quote the figures for 1989, but the Secretary of State is well aware, as I am, that the two new generating companies established by the Bill to privatise the electricity supply industry have so far contracted to import 6 million tonnes of coal to generate electricity—
    Mr. Paice: Not enough.
    Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Not enough" and perhaps he can explain that.
    Until now British Coal has lost 5 million tonnes. It signed a contract for 70 million tonnes this year, but it does not know which electricity generators will need the coal. We do not know what our base load generation will be. As a consequence, there is low morale in the British coal industry from top to bottom. The Secretary of State does not know where the coal flows will come from, from pits to generating stations, and we do not know what the industry's future will be until we hear answers to these questions.
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman makes many remarks. If he had listened to the original answer he would have heard that we do not produce estimates for future years. He should understand that coal must be imported if we are to use a great deal of United Kingdom coal which has a high sulphur content. It is necessary for the mix. I should have thought that in a balanced prospectus of the position, he would say something about the fact that this is the first time that British Coal has had a long-term contract to supply the British generating industry. I should have thought that that was a good thing.

    Combined Heat and Power
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what current action the Government are taking to promote the use of combined heat and power.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My Department is actively promoting combined heat and power through the best
    12
    practice programme. We are also discussing some joint promotional activities with the Combined Heat and Power Association.
    Mr. Key: To what extent is the private sector involved in combined heat and power schemes? Can my hon. Friend tell me—if he cannot do so today, perhaps he will write to me—whether the energy technology support unit is involved in work with straw burning, in support of farmers who face a ban on straw burning from 1992?
    Mr. Morrison: The private sector is quite substantially involved in combined heat and power schemes. There are 120 such schemes in industry and 300 in buildings. I hope that such involvement will continue to expand. I shall write to my hon. Friend giving him precise details about the energy technology support unit. It is the sort of area in which it is becoming involved, and in which it has an important role to play.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that one of the most coal-efficient, energy-efficient proposed plants is the Bilsthorpe plant in central Nottinghamshire? Is he further aware that, despite the efforts of the Member of the European Parliament, the county council and its chairman of finance, Mr. Paddy Tipping, to obtain planning permission for the plant, The Independent on Sunday yesterday said that Mr. Edwards, the commercial director of British Coal, intends to shelve that plant? Will the Minister reassure the miners in central Nottinghamshire, many of whom travel from my constituency, that that plant will go ahead?
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), whose constituency includes the site of the proposed plant, will no doubt bring these matters to my attention, and my right hon. Friend and I shall consider them.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the use of his power to appeal against the leniency of sentences.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Since I February 1989, when this power took effect, I have applied for leave to refer the sentencing in nine cases to the Court of Appeal. I have withdrawn two cases in the light of further information. Leave has been granted in the remaining seven cases and sentences have been increased in six of the cases. I have referred one case to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland; the sentence in that case was also increased.
    Mr. Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his use of that power, which has led to more sensible sentences, and, even more important, a more rigorous climate of sentencing in the courts. Is he aware that many believe that stronger sentences are the most effective way to deal with the problem of crime?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Very occasionally—and I emphasise that it is very occasionally—a sentence is passed by the courts that is manifestly unduly lenient. When that happens, the

    13
    effect on public confidence is entirely disproportionately damaging. The new power that Parliament has provided, and which I exercise with great care, is valuable.

    Taken-over Cases
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General how many private prosecutions, in number and percentage figures have been (a) taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions and (b) thereafter discontinued, in each of the years 1985 to 1989, inclusive.
    The Attorney-General: Between 1987 and 1989, 10 private prosecutions out of at least 28 taken over by the Crown prosecution service were discontinued. It is not possible to obtain information about cases before that date or to express the numbers as a percentage of all private prosecutions, except at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on whether cases where the Director of Public Prosecutions took over a prosecution and then sustained it might have been cases where the original prosecuting authority should have continued to prosecute—and often cases which were considered for public prosecution in the first place? Can he also assure the House that when matters come directly to the DPP or indirectly through another prosecuting agency, in those cases that involve transport safety or safety at work corporate manslaughter is always one of the options now considered by the DPP?
    The Attorney-General: We always consider every possible course consistent with the interests of justice. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the director usually takes over a case when he considers it to be in the interests of justice to do so. Normally he will do so for that reason only. But where a prosecution has been brought by, for example, a body with prosecuting power, that body will normally pursue the prosecution. Only in a case where, for example, it is necessary to combine prosecutions that the director himself has brought with cases that have been brought by a prosecuting authority will the director take over and continue the prosecution.

    Shops Act 1950
    Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Attorney-General what information he has on the number of prosecutions under the Shops Act 1950 since the ruling by the European Court of Justice last November.
    The Attorney-General: As my hon. Friend is aware, prosecutions under the Shops Act 1950 are brought by local authorities, and I have no information on the number of prosecutions brought since last November.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread evasion of the Sunday trading law by big multiple retailers and that certain local authorities find it impossible to cope, even though the position has recently been clarified by the European Court? How can we justify preaching the rule of law to the meek when we fail to enforce it against the mighty? When will my right hon. and learned Friend take action against wrongdoers?
    The Attorney-General: It is the duty of local authorities, by virtue of section 71 of the Shops Act, to enforce the provisions of that Act in their areas. I have yet to hear
    14
    from a local authority that finds it impossible to do so. Local authorities have powers of prosecution. In addition, the Local Government Act 1972 empowers them to claim injunctions to prevent flouting of the law, including the Shops Act, in their areas when they think that such action would be in the interests of the inhabitants. I think that, generally, a local authority is in the best position to judge that matter in respect of its own area. Indeed, that has been recognised in the framing of the legislation. Any one who has a direct and individual concern has the means, in law, to bring an authority to account by seeking judicial review or by seeking my consent to relator action. Therefore I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to take an initiative, either nationally or locally, at this juncture.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Having listened to the Attorney-General's explanation, may I ask him to read the Prime Minister's reply last Thursday, as recorded in column 1050 of the Official Report, when she referred to upholding a law once it had been passed by Parliament? It is high time that the Shops Act 1950 was given some special attention by the Attorney-General and was implemented fully in respect of those who blatantly refuse to abide by it.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has not given due weight to the fact that section 71 of the Shops Act conferred upon local authorities a duty to enforce the law in their areas. I commend to the hon. Gentleman what I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).
    Mr. Raison: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Shops Act is so perverse that evasion and defiance of it are inevitable? Does he agree that the only rational course is to go back to the legislation that was brought forward, admittedly unsuccessfully, in the last Parliament? Does not he agree that total reform is the only way out of this mess?
    The Attorney-General: Tempting though it is to acept that invitation, it would be wrong for me to answer a question relating to a matter that is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Fraser: Does not the Attorney-General think that there is something wrong when the law is enforced unpredictably between one local authority area and another, sometimes in a quite contrary fashion? Would not it be helpful if the Attorney-General were to publish some guidelines on prosecutions, in order to eliminate unnecessary small cases and to give the same kind of guidance to local authorities as has been given to police authorities in relation to other offences?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that it is necessary for me to give guidance to local authorities when the two statutory provisions that apply to them in this context are clear. For example, it is a matter for them, when they are deciding to seek or not to seek an injunction, to consider whether to do so would be in the interests of the inhabitants of their area. That is the language of the section.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would give credence to the Church of England's campaign against sensible reform of the Shops Act 1950 if cathedral shops stopped opening on Sundays in defiance of that legislation?
    The Attorney-General: I note my hon. Friend's remarks, which will no doubt be heeded in high places.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 8 January, Official Report, column 701, what consideration he has now given to the position of Coopers and Lybrand regarding those who have been commissioned to write a report for the Government on the privatisation of the Property Services Agency-Crown Suppliers becoming involved in a potential management buy-out.
    The Attorney-General: I have inquired into this matter. None of the information available to me indicates any improper or unlawful conduct by any of those involved, as I believe the hon. Member has very fairly indicated upstairs that he now accepts.
    Mr. Dalyell: Without going into the case of Mr. Etherington, to whom Mr. Brendan Gough, chairman of Coopers and Lybrand, wrote a long and courteous letter, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he ought to examine the principle of those who have been asked to produce objective reports that are paid for by the taxpayer—as Coopers and Lybrand are—being involved in management buy-outs? Is not that sailing a little close to the wind?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman made that point upstairs. Every case that is brought to the attention of the Law Officers is examined on its merits and in the light of the surrounding circumstances.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Nepal (Family Planning)
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to visit Nepal to discuss further funding of family planning through the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I have no current plans to visit Nepal, but I am always very ready to consider viable proposals for family planning and in the related area of mother and child health.
    Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great economic pressure has been put on Nepal as a consequence of the closure of its borders with India? Will she indicate to both Indian and Nepalese Governments the importance that the British Government attach to opening those borders, to allow free trade between those two countries? In view of the pressure on the Nepalese Government, will she consider making a one-off grant direct to the Nepalese family planning association, so that its important work can continue even though the Nepalese Government may reduce its grant to that association to make pressing economic savings?
    Mrs. Chalker: We are hopeful that there will be a settlement soon between India and Nepal. We have given support during the trade dispute, and we expect to increase aid in the current year by almost £3 million over the last
    16
    year. That will help to accommodate new projects and the additional costs of development projects. I am glad to tell the House that last week the Nepalese Government agreed to a primary health care programme that will assist women and families in urgent need of family planning advice. We need to give sumultaneous attention to mother and child health, which we are doing in a number of ways.

    Food Production
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is being spent in the current year on food-growing schemes in Ethiopia, the Sudan, Bangladesh and other Third world countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: We accord high priority to food production, both in our bilateral support and in our contributions to multilateral programmes. Current year expenditure from our bilateral programme on food-growing schemes is some £1·8 million in Bangladesh, £2·9 million in Sudan and £02·7 million in Ethiopia.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the direct food aid being given to Bangladesh, Sudan and Ethiopia. Does she agree that until those countries are assisted in growing their own food, they will be unable to feed their populations in the long term? Will she use her imminent visit to Bangladesh to impress on that country's Government the urgent need for Bangladesh to grow its own food—with help, when it is needed?
    Mrs. Chalker: The most important thing of all for those three countries, but particularly for Ethiopia and Sudan, is that they should enjoy peace. Without it, there is no chance of achieving the right policy environment, to ensure that farmers have the inputs that they require to produce food on time. Those farmers should also get the right prices for their produce. We must ensure that farmers are able to grow produce in all those countries, but that cannot be done at a time of civil war. I shall be talking to the Bangladesh Government about a number of food-growing programmes, including fish farming, to help supply the people of that country with the necessary vitamins.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Given the Minister's emphasis on peace—with which we would all agree—does she accept that if they followed the lead of the United States in cutting defence spending her Government would be able to be far more generous to the Third world? In the light of the conflicting views that we are told exist in the Cabinet, will she tell us exactly where she stands on the issue? Is she in favour of defence cuts that would enable the Third world to obtain more money from the Government?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am certainly in favour of helping the developing world; I am also in favour of multilateral disarmament. I am not, however, in favour of putting the country's defences at risk. No Government could have been more active than ours in seeking to persuade the Ethiopian Government to establish a peace and get food to the starving people who need it so badly.
    Sir Bernard Braine: All hon. Members on both sides of the House will endorse my right hon. Friend's statement that it is not much use talking about agricultural development in an area where bitter civil war still rages. Is she aware that recent reports show an increasing flow of

    17
    Ethiopian refugees into the southern Sudan, and that the situation is critical? What efforts are being made to ensure that relief food reaches Port Sudan and Khartoum in time to save lives?
    Mrs. Chalker: I assure my right hon. Friend that we are doing all that we can to get food to the various areas that need it. Furthermore, now that we have successfully persuaded the Ethiopian Government that they should allow the food through the joint relief programme to those in need, I hope that the rebels will also agree to do so. I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that I shall be announcing a further £2·6 million of food aid for Ethiopia, and a further £1 million of emergency relief.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the news that the Minister is going to Bangladesh next week. While she is there, will she take the opportunity to consider two issues? First, will she look at the apparent imbalance in the geographical distribution of aid? Some districts seem to receive less support than others. Secondly, will she consider the back-up mechanisms that might be available to Bangladesh through aid from Britain, allowing training and educational opportunities to Bangladeshi school-leavers so that they can help the agriculture industry and develop new technologies in the future? It is not just a matter of agriculture; it is also a matter of education.
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is right. Let me point out, however, that our aid to Bangladesh last year, at §56·8 million, was the highest ever. We have been giving awards for training in the United Kingdom, and about 300 new awards are currently being provided each year. We are also trying to help with natural resources, energy, communications, health and education, particularly education and health projects for women. It is a very full programme that I shall be discussing next week.

    Nepal
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what nonfinancial assistance has been given to Nepal during the last 12 months.
    Mrs. Chalker: We provided over £7 million in non-financial assistance to Nepal in 1988–89, the last full financial year for which figures are available. This covered training awards in Britain, and technical co-operation which included assistance with forestry, agriculture, education, water and sanitation and roads.
    Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, owing to the trade and transit dispute between Nepal and India, there is a considerable shortage of fuel for cooking and heating? Is she aware that, without petroleum products, there is a great danger of an acceleration in the deforestation which is already a cause of concern? What can we do to help to ensure that Nepal receives more petroleum products in the short term?
    Mrs. Chalker: We discussed with the Nepalese Government an airlift of fuel, but together we concluded
    18
    that their stocks of fuel are adequate for the time being. We are watching the position. As for Nepal's environmental needs, we share its concern over the deforestation of the hills. That is why we are providing £2·9 million to accelerate research that will lead to the introduction of new species of trees to assist the area. A further £3·9 million is to be made available for the improvement and management of community forest areas.

    Bangladesh
    Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Minister for Overseas Development's forthcoming visit to Bangladesh.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to the reply given on 8 January, Official Report, column 552, what subjects will be discussed during the Minister for Overseas Development's forthcoming visit to Bangladesh.
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall pay my first visit to Bangladesh from 6 to 9 February and will have general discussions on our aid programme with a number of Bangladesh Government Ministers. I expect to discuss the follow-up to the successful flood control conference which Her Majesty's Government hosted in London last month. I look forward to visiting some of our current aid projects.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the progress that has been made with flood control projects in Bangladesh, and in particular what role the United Kingdom is playing in those projects?
    Mrs. Chalker: The British Government were one of the first to respond to the worst floods in living memory in Bangladesh in August 1988. We provided £8 million in emergency relief and a further £17 million for rehabilitation. We have now embarked on establishing a longer-term flood control strategy. That began at last month's international conference in London. I am glad to say that all the projects have had donor pledges. There will be a full programme of flood prevention measures.
    Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend talk to the Bangladeshis about the role of the non-governmental organisations? Will she also consider providing help to Bangladesh for reforestation to create the soil stability that is needed to prevent flood damage and improve food production?
    Mrs. Chalker: To my knowledge, we are supporting CARE, Save the Children Fund, Action Aid, Oxfam and especially a local Bangladeshi non-governmental organisation. I shall consider further possible roles for non-governmental organisations through our joint funding scheme. We are already considering the possibility of providing help for reforestation. We have carried out a study in the Sundarbans area on the coast. That is essential if we are to prevent cyclones from causing damage inland.

Hillsborough Stadium Disaster (Taylor Report)
3.32 pm
Mr. Speaker: Statement, Mr. Secretary Waddington.
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What can it be? We have not yet heard the statement.
Mr. Allen: As usual, the statement was not made available until now. That makes the contribution of any hon. Member not as informed as it might otherwise be. With your authority, will you reconsider this practice on future occasions?
Mr. Speaker: Whether copies of statements are made available to Back Benchers—I have a personal view about that—is a matter for the Government, not for me.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the final report of Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the tragedy at the Hillsborough stadium on 15 April 1989. Some months have passed since that terrible event, but not long enough, I know, to dull the pain suffered by the bereaved, and I wish to place on record my sympathy for them and for those who sustained injury.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What can it be? The Home Secretary has only just started to make his statement.
Mr. Heffer: Some of us who are deeply concerned about the matter have not got the report. If we are to ask intelligent questions, the report ought to be in our hands. All I have is the interim report, not the final report. The interim report was issued in August of last year. We have not got the final report. If we are to discuss the matter properly, may we have the final report before we discuss it?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which I am afraid I cannot answer. Whether a report is made available at the time a statement is made is a matter for the Home Secretary and for the Government. It is not a matter for me, but I understand that a report—I believe it is an interim report—is available in the Vote Office now. [Interruption.] Order. I correct myself. I have not been able to go there. It seems that the full report is available.
Mr. Waddington: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
I am most grateful to Lord Justice Taylor for the report, which sets out clearly why we have had so many major tragedies at football grounds over the years and why we have had disorder and hooliganism.
As the House familiarises itself with the report, it will become clear that it is addressed as much to the football industry as it is to the Government. Lord Justice Taylor explains how, in his interim report, he concentrated on overcrowding because that was the cause of the Hillsborough disaster, but now he goes on to talk of a game whose image of which has been much tarnished and
20
of a blight over the game due to old grounds, poor facilities, hooliganism, excessive drinking and poor leadership.
Lord Justice Taylor does not spare those who run the industry. He says, indeed, that the provision they make for their customers is often not merely basic but squalid; that squalid conditions can have an impact on safety; and that, in his view, they also lead to lower standards of behaviour.
Lord Justice Taylor says that the Football Association and Football League have not seen it as any part of their duty to offer guidance to clubs on safety matters, and he questions whether the directors of many clubs are genuinely interested in the welfare of their supporters or their good behaviour. Players, too, are criticised, with Lord Justice Taylor pointing out that incitement from the pitch or bad behaviour by players, which is not confined to soccer, has a major influence on the crowd.
I acknowledge that some clubs have made an effort to improve standards, but Lord Justice Taylor's clear conclusion was that the majority had not and that the game has a future only if the directors and the players can change their priorities and give a leadership which is plainly lacking at present.
He agrees with the Government that there must be a move towards all-seater stadiums, and points out that section 11 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 specifically provides the machinery for that. The change will improve safety and behaviour, and we intend to bring it about.
Lord Justice Taylor makes clear that the bulk of the finances for ground improvements will have to be raised by the clubs themselves. He says that there are ways of raising the money if the clubs' management is enterprising and resourceful, and he points to the opportunities presented by sponsorship. He also points to the revenue that flows to the football authorities from television rights and says that the football authorities should ensure that this valuable source of revenue is directed towards improving stadiums. He canvasses the possibility of a levy on transfer fees which he says have reached a level which many regard as grotesque.
There is a whole series of detailed recommendations set out in chapters 3, 4 and 5 on matters relating to spectator safety, such as gates and gangways. Indeed, of the 76 recommendations, 43 in substance appear in the interim report. The Government accept these proposals, some of which can be implemented immediately; some will need further work. For convenience, I have placed in the Vote Office a schedule setting out the Government's response to each.
Hon. Members will recall that section 13 of the Football Spectators Act provides for the Football Licensing Authority to supervise the safety responsibilities of local authorities in respect of designated football grounds. We intend to implement that provision. Lord Justice Taylor welcomes the establishment of the Football Licensing Authority but would like us to go further and extend its remit to cover other than football grounds. This would require primary legislation, and we will have to consider whether it is justified.
Part III of the report contains a number of proposals relating to crowd control and hooliganism. It acknowledges the crucial role of the police in crowd control. Lord Justice Taylor rightly reminds us that, without the work of the police, many sporting events would be chaotic and could not be permitted to take place. About 5,000 police officers are engaged on football duties

21
each Saturday during the season, largely at the expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. He pays tribute to them for their service, and I want to add my thanks to the police for the way that they carry out the difficult, thankless, and often unthanked, tasks that are thrust upon them.
The report recognises the advances made in the last couple of years in the effectiveness of the policing of football, particularly inside grounds, and to the major impact of closed circuit television on the hooligan problem. It also mentions other measures taken by the Government, such as the restriction on the sale of alcohol and the power given to the courts to make orders excluding convicted hooligans from grounds.
Lord Justice Taylor also recognises the great potential value of the police national football intelligence unit in dealing with football-related crime and with hooligans travelling to matches abroad.
As I have said, Lord Justice Taylor takes the view that better facilities and better treatment of fans will bring better behaviour. Beyond that, the report recommends the creation of three new specific offences to apply at designated sports grounds—throwing a missile; chanting obscene or racialist abuse; and going on to the pitch without reasonable excuse. It also asks for consideration to be given to extending the courts' powers to impose attendance centre orders and for the use of electronic tagging in the case of offenders convicted of football-related offences. The specific new offences suggested seem, to some extent, to duplicate offences which are already available in the Public Order Act 1986, but I shall look carefully and quickly at all these suggestions.
I now come to the proposed football membership scheme. Lord Justice Taylor examined the invitation to tender for a scheme which was issued by the consultants employed by the football authorities. He came to the conclusion that he could not support a scheme of that kind, because he could not believe that the technology would work well enough to avoid the danger of congestion and disorder. He was also concerned about the call on police resources. Instead, he proposes the measures to which I have referred.
In the light of this advice, the Government have decided not to proceed with the establishment of a football membership authority, but part I of the Act will remain on the statute book. Work will continue to see how the shortcomings identified by Lord Justice Taylor could be overcome in case we have to return to the matter again, should the problem of hooliganism not be defeated by the alternative strategy proposed in the report.
Let no one imagine that this means that there will be any let-up in the fight against hooliganism. Those who, unlike the Government, have for so long shrugged off their responsibilities will now have to face up to them.
The Government intend to proceed as quickly as possible to the establishment of a football licensing authority and, subject to consultation, section 11 of the Football Spectators Act will be used to direct the Football Licensing Authority to require all-seater stadiums—with standing being reduced by stages and entirely eliminated in first and second division grounds by August 1994 and in all Football League grounds by 1999.
The necessary steps will be taken to ensure improved arrangements for crowd control and better training for police and stewards. There will be urgent consideration of the case for new offences and for new powers to deal with those excluded from grounds by the courts. The clubs will
22
be compelled to get rid of the terraces. But Lord Justice Taylor indicates how much more they can do to create a better atmosphere by improving the now often squalid conditions to which they subject their supporters—squalid conditions that can encourage squalid behaviour.
Those clubs that have not faced up to their responsibility now have a final opportunity to do so; and if they do not now act, the public will not forgive them.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: First, let me take this opportunity to express once again our sympathy for all those whose relatives and friends were killed or injured in the tragedy into which Lord Justice Taylor inquired. Secondly, I offer the Opposition's thanks to Lord Justice Taylor for his thoughtful and thorough report. If sensibly applied, it can provide the basis for much-needed improvements throughout our football grounds.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the report is explicit in describing the proposed football identity card scheme first as likely to increase—not reduce—hooliganism inside and outside grounds; secondly, as probably not technically feasible; and, thirdly, as more likely to increase the risk of death and injury than to reduce it?
Is the Home Secretary aware that, whatever language he may use today to save the Prime Minister's face and preserve her reputation for inflexibility—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hattersley: Whatever language the Home Secretary may use today, the identity card scheme is dead as a result of the report. Once again, the Government have wasted time and money creating the illusion of activity. Most of what the Taylor report recommends could have been implemented by agreement two years ago had the Government chosen to make progress instead of trying to make headlines.
I assure the Home Secretary that no regular football supporter doubts the need to improve the conditions in most of our grounds—to improve safety and to improve facilities. We therefore offer our support for a number of the specific proposals recommended by Lord Justice Taylor, particularly those that would ensure that law-abiding supporters, who make up the vast majority of football spectators, are treated like civilised human beings.
Is the Home Secretary aware that we support the more vigorous use of exclusion orders to prohibit known hooligans from attending football matches? We urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to extend attendance orders to all those excluded from football grounds, to ensure that they are kept under supervision on match days.
Equally, we support the proposal that it should be a specific offence to throw a missile, and that racist chanting should be made illegal. We welcome the action proposed against ticket touts and we shall examine whatever proposal the Government bring forward to prohibit spectators from running on to pitches. But will the Home Secretary agree that, as the report makes absolutely clear, it is important to distinguish between pitch invasions intended to breach the peace and actions motivated by simple enthusiasm—what Lord Justice Taylor describes as "joie de vivre"?
We certainly support the idea of seats replacing terraces, but is the Home Secretary aware that the

23
proposal to prohibit standing at football grounds by law has yet to be justified either on grounds of safety or on grounds of convenience? Many law-abiding supporters prefer to stand, and it is perfectly possible for standing accommodation to be provided in a way that endangers neither safety nor law and order. Should not the Government be discussing with the football authorities the provision of a seat for every supporter who wants one and the creation of safe standing areas for those who do not?
I want to ask the Home Secretary a specific question on which we pressed him to no avail during the months of the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Bill. If he persists in making football grounds all-seater stadiums by law, is it his intention to make it illegal for a spectator to stand in a seated area? [Interruption.] The incredulity of the Home Secretary and his supporters confirms that they have been to only one football match in the past 40 years—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very serious matters.
Mr. Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary confirm that paragraphs 112 and 114 of the report do not endorse the Prime Minister's view that the £70 million spent recently on transfer fees is available for ground improvements? If the Prime Minister is so opposed to the present level of transfer fees, why does the Chancellor make them tax-deductible when there are no capital allowances for improvements to buildings and physical facilities at football grounds?
I urge the Home Secretary to take a realistic view about the financing of football. In this country, the arts are assisted inadequately and our national game is not helped at all. Will the Home Secretary now convene a meeting between the pools promoters, the football authorities and the Government at which the whole issue of football finance can be discussed? Eight years ago, the Government increased the pools betting duty by 2·5 per cent. Were that decision to be reversed, the pools promoters would pass the entire saving on to football. Will the Government at least consider the possibility of helping the game in that way?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, will the Home Secretary understand that attempts to solve the problems of football by conflict and confrontation have now clearly failed? We need some co-operation. I hope that the Government will provide it.
Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) correctly stated Lord Justice Taylor's criticism of the scheme which he considered, as outlined in the invitation to tender drawn up by the consultants employed by the football authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government wasted time and trouble on the Bill. At least the Government showed themselves prepared to address the problems. Opposition Members have never even recognised the problems. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) had the stupidity to say on Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill:
"I do not believe there is any such thing as football hooliganism."—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 916.]
24
That is the kind of arrant nonsense that we have heard from Opposition Members. While we were at least trying to do something about football hooliganism, the Opposition were not prepared to do anything.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook calls for better conditions in grounds, and then immediately says that he does not agree with all-seater stadiums, which are the obvious way of bringing about better conditions in grounds. He also referred to specific offences. I have already said that I will consider urgently whether they should be introduced. However, I should point out that, again unlike Opposition Members, the Government have already been prepared to address themselves to those problems, and we created new offences in the Public Order Act 1986.
Having said at the outset how much he welcomed Lord Justice Taylor's report, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook then said that he rejected its fundamental conclusions, because the whole strategy that Lord Justice Taylor says should be implemented instead of the introduction of the football membership scheme is the introduction of all-seater stadiums. Once again, the Opposition are not prepared to face up to their responsibilities. They are prepared to do precisely nothing. They will not have the membership scheme, nor will they accept the Taylor report. We wait anxiously to hear what they propose to do about the problem and whether they still agree with their right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath that there is no problem and there is no football hooliganism.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook then trivialised the entire debate by his stupid remark about people standing in a stand where there are seats. On such an occasion as this he should not demean himself by making such thoroughly irresponsible and stupid remarks.
As to the money available for ground improvements, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a number of important matters are raised in Lord Justice Taylor's report. He refers to the fact that there is such a thing as the Football Trust, which is funded by the pools companies from the spot-the-ball competition—£9 million per annum goes into the game from that. Since 1958, £120 million has been given to British football in that way. The Taylor report goes on to point out the income that goes into the game from the Football Promoters Association as a result of its use of the fixture list—£14 million a year goes to the Football League from that source.
Lord Justice Taylor suggested that there could be a levy on transfer fees. He also pointed out the considerable sums of money that go to the football authorities and the game as a result of television rights—last year £7 million went to the Football Association and £11 million went to the Football League as a result of those rights.
After the damning report by Lord Justice Taylor, in which he asks the football authorities to address themselves to their responsibilities, it would be irresponsible if right hon. and hon. Opposition Members were to allow a message to go out to the football authorities to the effect that, once again, they can shirk their responsibilities because the Opposition, if the British people were ever to return them to power, would take all the responsibility off their shoulders and force the bill on to the taxpayer.
Mr. Steve Norris: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my hon. Friends and I join him in paying tribute to the 5,000 police officers who turn out

25
every Saturday, in all weathers, inside and outside grounds, to deal with the problem of football crowds? In view of the recommendation to use a great many more better trained stewards, employed directly by the clubs, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the time is right for the burden of the cost of such policing to be charged direct to the clubs?
Mr. Waddington: Lord Justice Taylor has said that realistic charges should be made for policing within grounds and he hopes that, in that way, the clubs will recognise that they should devote more effort to the training of stewards. Therefore, in time, those clubs would need to use fewer police officers in their grounds. An intolerable burden is placed on the entire community as a result of the way in which the game is conducted now. A tiny proportion of the cost of policing is paid for by the clubs; the vast amount of the cost is paid by the community. I therefore wholly applaud Lord Justice Taylor's recommendation that stewards should be trained so that fewer police officers are required at grounds.
Mr. David Blunkett: On behalf of the city of Sheffield and myself, I want to reiterate the condolences already expressed this afternoon from our city about what happened on 15 April 1989. I welcome the abandonment of the identity card scheme, and I welcome the penalties spelled out in the Taylor report.
Does the Home Secretary accept that it is prevention and not punishment that we are seeking and that investing in multi-purpose, continuous-use stadiums offers a sense of responsibility and the possibility of benefit to us all, and that therefore such investment should be seen as a responsibility of Government?
Does the Home Secretary accept that, while football has a substantial and major responsibility for putting its own house in order and therefore for investing in the sport, clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday which have invested in their grounds and not in large transfer fees need the Government to join in partnership with them in trying to ensure that we have grounds fit for the future, similar to those that Lord Justice Taylor saw in Europe and adopted as a model?
Does the Home Secretary accept the necessity of improving access, comfort, facilities, and entertainment in grounds? Does he further accept that it was penning, fencing and inadequate access that led to the tragedy at Hillsborough, not a lack of seating? Therefore, does he not agree that investing for the 21st century is the responsibility not only of the football clubs, but of the Government if we are to find a satisfactory and lasting answer for the future?
Mr. Waddington: Obviously, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that prevention is more important than punishment. However, I cannot accept that providing stadiums is the Government's responsibility. Like any other commercial enterprise, a football club owes a duty of care to those it invites on to its premises. It is absurd to argue that, when such a commercial enterprise fails in its duty to provide for the safety of its customers, the public should step in and pay the bill. When the hotel industry had to meet a prodigious bill to provide the new fire precautions that were demanded by the House, nobody said that the whole bill for that had to be paid by the taxpayer. Everybody said that that was the responsibility of the hotel industry.
Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend totally reject the double standards and hypocrisy shown by the Opposition, who have screamed for the Taylor report to be implemented, but are now squealing because they do not agree with some of its recommendations? Does my right hon. Friend agree that implementing the report will mean substantial costs to football in terms of all-seater stadiums, that it will mean an unavoidable drop in attendances and, regrettably—this is the part of the report that I find most distasteful—that it will mean the dropping of the one measure that gave some hope that we might at last combat hooliganism in this country?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport for having had the guts to start the scheme in the first place and for beginning to take some action after 20 years of argument, so will my right hon. Friends now have the guts to implement the other parts of the Taylor report that they like and to continue with the football membership scheme, which is the only method of identifying hooligans in and around football grounds?
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will remember that, during our debates in the House, we said that hon. Members would be able to come back to this matter after the enactment of the legislation and to reconsider it in the light of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Taylor. We have honoured our undertaking to the House by coming along today and saying that, in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's report, we do not consider it right now to proceed with the appointment of the Football Membership Authority. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that that is the correct course to take. However, it certainly does not mean that we are shirking our responsibility. I have made it absolutely plain that part I will stay on the statute book. If the alternative strategy does not work, we shall he in a position to return to the matter.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is there no sense of contrition on the Government Benches that they have had to abandon the scheme in the light of the criticisms made by Lord Justice Taylor, which precisely mirror the criticisms made by hon. Members of all parties, including those on the Government Back Benches? Is it not the case that the quality of the report and the substance of its recommendations, some of which will require additional primary legislation, emphasise how unwise the Government were to proceed to push the Football Spectators Act 1989 through the House, using a guillotine, after Hillsborough? Is not the proper course for the Government now to use this comprehensive and trenchant report to open a dialogue with the football authorities to address the problems of crowd hooliganism and crowd safety?
Mr. Waddington: I do not know whether the hon and learned Gentleman is following the line taken by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley); I am sure that he is too responsible for that, so I assume that he is saying, unlike the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, that he accepts the Taylor report. If I am right in thinking that he accepts it, and that he accepts that we must move to all-seater stadiums, he will be fair enough to acknowledge that it was the Government who proposed all-seater stadiums last summer.
Mr. David Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement, and I welcome Lord Justice Taylor's report. May I speak for the smaller clubs in football? The Football Spectators Bill gave an opportunity for football and the Government to work together, through the Football Membership Authority, to produce much-needed revenue from the identity cards, to enable us to bring our football stadia up to standard.
Football has now dug an even bigger hole for itself by mobilising its troops against the Government's proposals, which has resulted in smaller clubs facing the cost of putting seats into their stadiums, which they clearly cannot afford. Once again, the big clubs, which have brought about the demise of football, have won their argument. They will be able to afford the proposals, but, as sure as day follows night, smaller clubs will go bankrupt. Football has pressed the destruct button by backing this proposal.
Mr. Waddington: I am not sure whether football has backed it or not, but my hon. Friend is quite right. Many of those who fought so long against the idea of a football membership scheme may not be quite so happy today, because the alternative strategy proposed by Lord Justice Taylor will undoubtedly be extremely costly. Hon. Members will see when they read the report that Lord Justice Taylor expects most of the cost to be met by the clubs.
Mr. Stanley Orme: As a member of the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Football Spectators Bill, and having heard the Home Secretary today, I despair at his attitude and response to the Taylor report. Surely he should now be advocating the Government setting up a round table conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Taylor report should be the basis for such a conference and every interested body should be invited to it. The House should then be given a report. Why will not the Government do that?
Mr. Waddington: I see nothing wrong with discussions. One should always keep talking to interested parties, but the point of the Taylor report is not that we should have a round table conference but that the clubs should address themselves to their responsibilities. That is the message that must go out from the House today. The time has long passed when the clubs can just come along and have a cosy chat. The time has come when they must measure up to their responsibilities and duties.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the police will be grateful for the tributes paid to them by Lord Justice Taylor—tributes which have been generously endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend this afternoon? Is he further aware that the police will welcome paragraph 250 of the report, which deals with the excessive consumption of alcohol; and the interesting proposals for earlier kick-offs on Saturdays, thus providing less time for supporters to kick their heels in bars around the towns in which football stadiums are situated; and the suggestion that consideration should possibly be given to Sunday matches? What is the Government's response to those observations?
Mr. Waddington: I hope that the football authorities will consider carefully Lord Justice Taylor's suggestions about the possibility for earlier kick-offs and Sunday matches. Lord Justice Taylor was apparently urged by some witnesses to suggest that we were wrong to put on the
28
statute book all our restrictions on the consumption and serving of alcohol in the grounds. I am glad to say that that is yet another instance of Lord Justice Taylor making it absolutely plain that the Government were right in their action. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was hopelessly wrong on Second Reading when he said that it was not a good idea to restrict the sale of alcohol in the grounds.
Mr. Heller: Does the Secretary of State accept that I wholly agree that we should have all-seater stadiums? I am delighted that both Liverpool and Everton football clubs have accepted that and believe that it is vital. I know that there is some opposition to it, but when the general public understand that they will get a better deal from all-seater stadiums, they will accept it wholly. Hooliganism was not the issue at Hillsborough.
May I draw attention to paragraphs 14 to 21 of the report, which are the most important? I have my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to thank for giving me a copy of the report. Nobody else did. The Government did not give me a copy. At Hillsborough, 95 people died, many of whom were my constituents. Those people came from Liverpool and the Merseyside area, but also from elsewhere.
I agree that identity cards should be eliminated, but the issue before us should be safety. That is my concern and the concern of my constituents. I want a clear declaration from the Government that Lord Justice Taylor's proposals will be carried out so that our people will never again face the problems that they faced and so that there will be no more deaths at football matches.
Mr. Waddington: I said that the Government accepted the detailed proposals in the report about safety. For the convenience of the House, there is in the Vote Office a schedule which sets out clearly how we propose to proceed. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's statesmanlike, sensible remarks about all-seater stadiums, and I hope that he will have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a debate on the matter this week, so today questions should be asked of the Home Secretary rather than long comments made which might be made more happily in a speech.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clear message of the report is that clubs must now be properly managed for the benefit of spectators and that there must be a clear commitment to safety and proper investment by clubs and their managements in upgrading the facilities, as well as confirming the Government's recommendations for all-seater stadiums?
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is right—there must be an improvement in standards. The best way to show our respect for those who died at Hillsborough is to ensure that there is a real improvement in the conditions that people have to endure when they visit football grounds.
Mr.Joseph Ashton.: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such thing as the football industry, to which he keeps referring? Some 99 per cent. of clubs do not pay dividends, do not make profits and rely

29
on share and director subsidies and raffle ticket selling by the fans. Why is it that, when there was a public safety angle to the salmonella in eggs problem, the Government quickly subsidised the farmers, even though they have a profitable industry? Why is it that, when a Bill is introduced to privatise the electricity industry, the Government offer massive subsidies to dispose of the nuclear sector when stations are being decommissioned? Of course, they had to back down because private industry would not touch it.
Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman follow the example set by the 1966 Labour Government, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) gave a massive grant to football for the 1966 World cup? Such grants would tremendously improve football grounds.
Mr. Waddington: When a commercial enterprise invites people on to its premises, it has a duty to ensure that those premises are safe.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some Conservative Members are delighted that the football identity scheme has been put into cold storage? Does he ever watch on television any of the great sporting events in America? If so, has he noticed that those great events are family affairs to which people take their children? Can we not learn something from the American experience? Is not the answer what the Taylor report recommended—all-seater stadiums?
Mr. Waddington: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I also agree with what Lord Justice Taylor said about there having been a blight on the game. We must improve conditions, and I hope that when that happens it will have an effect on crowd behaviour.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Although we have not had time to read the report, I have no doubt that, based on the interim report, Lord Justice Taylor and his assessors have done an excellent job. If the report's recommendations are acted upon, that will be the key to the future of football.
Is the Home Secretary aware that there will be an interim period before the report's recommendations are carried out? Is he further aware that, despite disorders in previous years—outside, not inside the ground—all in Sheffield were agreed that the club's previous plan was a good one? If it had been carried out, the disaster would not have happened. I have not read the Taylor report, but I ask for an assurance that, in the interim, the plans of each football ground, which have been drawn up in association with local councils, will be reconsidered and put into effect—something that did not happen at Hillsborough.
Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The report says, among other things, that there must be an absolutely clear agreement between the police and the clubs setting out whose responsibility it is to do what. One of the terrible facts about events at Hillsborough is that some people did not seem to know what was their duty and what was the duty of others.
Mr. Jim Lester: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Lord Justice Taylor has done a signal service to the Government by taking a dispassionate, cool, analytical look at football, by taking
30
evidence from all sources and by listening with great care to supporters, players and all those who wanted to give evidence? As a result, he has produced a report that I accept in every respect. It ill behoves hon. Members, whether on the Conservative or the Labour Benches, to criticise bits of the report that they do not like.
Does not the report also signal the mistake that was made in putting through legislation without consultation and, without careful consideration in Committee? I served on the Football Spectator Bill Committee. Were not all the recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's report put forward in Committee and rejected by a majority of Members who perhaps were not entirely cognisant of the issue? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that we never again undertake legislation in that way?
Mr. Waddington: I agree with my hon. Friend's reference to the cogency of the report. It is a document that repays careful study. I cannot agree with his strictures on the Football Spectators Act. That Bill was introduced after effort after effort had been made to persuade those responsible for the game to take action themselves. The Government were forced to take action because those responsible would not do so.
Miss Kate Hoey: Will the Home Secretary explain to the House the role that he envisages for the Minister for Sport in the implementation of the recommendations of the Taylor report? I put that question in view of the fact that the Minister for Sport led us through the disastrous Committee to which I was a party. What does the Home Secretary intend the Minister for Sport to do?
Mr. Waddington: The scheme of the Act involves the setting up of a Football Licensing Authority, which, in turn, will set in train a mechanism that will lead to all-seater stadiums. The Minister for Sport was responsible for putting on the statute book an Act that allows for the setting up of the Football Licensing Authority.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. and learned Friend will recognise that this report is just the latest indictment of the directors of football clubs for their complacency in failing to do more about stadiums and conditions for the fans. Directors should now be pressed to accept their responsibilities. The Government's responsibility must be the protection of the millions of people living close to stadiums, or along the routes thereto, who are not the least bit interested in football. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the report's recommendations about the use of attendance centres, tagging, and so on, are implemented quickly so that the hooligans may be controlled?
Mr. Waddington: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said about the responsibility that now rests on the industry. I want to make it absolutely plain that all that I have said this afternoon is contained in the report. It is Lord Justice Taylor who has addressed these matters and has come to the conclusion that those in the industry must show a new responsibility.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Home Secretary accept that the report's recommendations on safety and improved facilities, which are long overdue, will be welcomed widely? Does he accept also that the virtual

31
rebuilding of grounds that is involved in the provision of covered all-seater stadiums is quite beyond the resources of most third division and fourth division clubs, many of which have been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for years? The Government provide substantial public help to commercial undertakings in the arts. Why do they refuse to do likewise in order that our national game may be brought up to a decent standard?
Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Taylor report, he will be impressed by what Lord Justice Taylor has to say about the opportunities that are open to clubs to attract new revenues and by the money that is available already. One must put this matter in perspective. If the Football Association and the Football League continue, year by year, to obtain from television rights the same amount of money as they obtain now, they will have drawn, by 1999, no less than £162 million from that source alone. Nobody has suggested to me that the total cost of providing an all-seater, covered stadium would be more than £162 million.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On behalf of hon. Members some of whose constituents died at Hillsborough, and who are in contact with support groups of parents and friends of those victims, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that the Taylor report, with all its implications, is very welcome. He no doubt realises that those people will share the view that had there been an all-seater stadium at Hillsborough on that dreadful day the accident that led to this report would never have occurred in any circumstances. Will he, in the light of what has been said about transfers—we are all aware that the £1 million footballer is not uncommon—give serious consideration to primary legislation on a levy, so that money from transfers may be put into ground safety to make sure that spectators enjoy their football peacefully and out of danger?
Mr. Waddington: I agree that no more important safety measure could be introduced than all-seater stadiums. I do not think that anyone would doubt that for one moment. I hear what my hon. Friend says about a levy on transfer fees, but it is for the clubs to address that matter. It is no use saying that the money circulates round and round, because when one considers the sale of a player to a continental club and sees new money coming to a club as a result of such a sale, it is not easy to comprehend why that new revenue does not go to improving the ground.
Mr. Doug Henderson: The report demonstrates Lord Justice Taylor's understanding of football and football clubs, but that will come as no surprise to those in the north-east, who know that he spent many of his younger days as a spectator at St. James's park, Newcastle. Will the Home Secretary give a firm commitment that, before the Government come forward with any other proposals that may later have to be withdrawn, they will consult more widely with football clubs throughout the country and—particularly in respect of all-seater stadiums—with football supporters' asociations, who have most to gain and most to lose by any decision made in that regard?
Mr. Waddington: Obviously we shall be interested to hear all that the clubs have to say. However, I ought to
32
point out to the hon. Gentleman that the legislation to bring about all-seater stadiums is already on the statute book.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that, not too many years ago, there were signs of disturbance at race meetings throughout the country, but immediately afterwards the racing authorities put their house in order. They did so imaginatively and without asking for Government resources. As a consequence, a growing number of families attend race meetings throughout the country. Is not that a pointer to what should be done by the football authorities?
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
Mr. David Alton: I assure the Home Secretary there will be widespread support in Liverpool for Lord Justice Taylor's painstaking and workmanlike report. There will be support also for today's announcement by the Government that they will suspend the compulsory identity card scheme, and that some semblance of civilised surroundings will be provided for all football spectators and not just for the very rich.
I want to press the Home Secretary on one matter. He said that even the passage of time would not dull the pain of the bereaved. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that many families are still trying to obtain compensation but have been caught up in a protracted and litigious procedure that has not met their needs. The Home Secretary has received representations from myself and from other right hon. and hon. Members, Liverpool Law Society, and families who have been bereaved. What action is he taking to ensure that more expeditious procedures are introduced?
Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but that matter is not for me to consider. Those who have suffered loss, damage or bereavement as a result of someone else's negligence have a right to recover damages in the courts.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the delay in implementing the football membership scheme will throw a greater burden on the police in attempting to contain hooliganism outside grounds on match days. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware also that at present football clubs make no financial contribution to police activities outside their grounds. Clubs reimburse probably as little as 20 per cent. of total policing costs, the other 80 per cent. falling as a burden on local ratepayers, now community charge payers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend re-examine that aspect as a matter of priority to see whether it would be appropriate to ensure that football clubs contribute to the cost of policing outside their grounds?
Mr. Waddington: The position is even worse than that outlined by my hon. Friend. The Taylor report says that only about one tenth of the total cost of policing London matches is met by the clubs. The right way forward is that recommended by Taylor, which is to make realistic charges for the cost of policing inside football grounds, which will encourage clubs to train stewards and ultimately to have fewer police officers inside.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that getting rid of the terraces is likely

33
to affect the price of tickets, and is he resigned to football's becoming a rich man's game? Does he realise that many third and fourth division clubs are in a parlous state? My club, Newport County, ceased to exist because of financial difficulties. What ideas has he for direct assistance from public funds for the installation of grandstands at such grounds?
Mr. Waddington: I can only repeat that those who invite people to a sporting occasion as a commercial venture have a duty to ensure that the ground is safe for those people. It is their responsibility, and no other person's.
Mr. John Greenway: As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, the safety of the fan must be paramount. and it was on safety grounds that some Conservative Members felt unable to support the Football Spectators Bill. In the light of today's statement, does he agree that the real benefit of football membership schemes is that they would bring fans and football management closer in the interests of football, and that we should deal with the hooligan by taking tough and swift action against him? Will he assure the House and the country that, if they are to embrace all Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, the Government will implement the aspects of law and order that deal with hooliganism, such as electronic tagging and the wider use of detention centres?
Mr. Waddington: I assure my hon. Friend that we intend to take tough action against hooligans, and I shall be examining Lord Justice Taylor's precise proposals as a matter of urgency.
Ms. Joan Walley: Does the Home Secretary agree that ground safety is the most important aspect? He has said that football clubs must take the cost on board. Will he examine the various grants given by the Football Ground Improvements Trust to all Football League clubs? Having looked at the figures, he will probably agree with Opposition Members that it is the clubs in the third and fourth divisions and some in the second division such as Port Vale that are most in need of Government financial aid so that their grounds can be made safe for all the supporters who use them.
Mr. Waddington: Clubs in the third and fourth divisions will have a longer period over which to move from standing to all-seater stadiums. It is up to the football authorities to consider whether additional aid should be given to those whose revenue is smaller than that of clubs in the first and second divisions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard for the subsequent business, in which a considerable number of hon. Members wish to participate. I will take three more questions from each side; then we must move on.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Lord Justice Taylor's report is a blueprint for action, not words, and that British football's international reputation will depend on the speed with which clubs implement the improvements that it recommends? How will my right hon. and learned Friend control hooligans who might otherwise go abroad and damage that reputation through their appalling behaviour at grounds on the continent and elsewhere?
Mr. Waddington: I did not mention this afternoon—because I think that it is well known to the House—the fact that we are moving swiftly to implement part II of the Football Spectators Act, a measure that I think even the Opposition applaud.
Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Home Secretary accept that the half dozen richest clubs in the country can well afford to install all-seater stadiums? What he seems not to understand is that no million-pound footballers play for West Bromwich Albion; that the television cameras will not be following me, or paying a fee, to watch Stockport County play Aldershot next Saturday; and that, for millions of people in this country, watching their home town football team is not a commercial proposition, as he so blithely puts it, but a long-standing commitment inherited from their parents.
How many football games has the Home Secretary been to see this year, and how many has the Prime Minister ever seen? Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks nonsense about clubs funding their own all-seater stadiums, will he tell the House how much money the Government take out of football through their pools betting levy?
Mr. Waddington: I do not doubt for one moment that those who go to football grounds do not think that they are going off on a business venture. However, that does not alter the fact that those who run the grounds are operating business ventures. It is for those who operate business ventures to ensure that they operate them properly and safely.
I think that I ought to invite the hon. Gentleman to look at what Lord Justice Taylor says about the pool betting tax. He makes a number of points, and says that the comparison that is often made with racing is not apt. He points out that there is far more scope for money to be taken out of the pools industry, but that that money could come out of the industry in a variety of ways—either more money from spot-the-ball competitions, or through a voluntary levy, or through an increase in the amount that is paid by the football promoters for the fixture list.
Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. and learned Friend's firm statement will be greatly welcomed in Shrewsbury. The people of Shrewsbury have bitter memories of the effects of a visit by Middlesbrough fans which turned the town upside down.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the general public is concerned not just about safety at football grounds but also about safety outside football grounds? Will he remind those who call for more public funds that substantial sums of public money have to be made available to fund the 5,000 police officers who are needed to protect the non-football-watching public from the effects of hooliganism?
Mr. Waddington: It is quite disgraceful that a game should be run in such a way as to make it necessary for 5,000 police officers to be used every Saturday afternoon to keep the crowds in order.
Mr. Roland Boyes: All of us want people to be safe and improvements to grounds to be made, but the Home Secretary neither knows nor understands football. I hope that he will follow the example of the Minister for Sport and accept my invitation to Hartlepool United's next home match, when he might

35
gain a greater understanding of the problems that fourth division clubs have to face. Does he not accept that, without both direct and indirect Government aid, a large number of third and fourth division football clubs will not be around in 1999 to build all-seater stadiums?
Mr. Waddington: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Hartlepool United. I shall consider it carefully and will have a word with him after questions on the statement. I am afraid that I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's question; I was so overcome by his invitation.
Mr. Alistair Burt: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that in recent years, particularly since the Bradford fire, a number of additional safety burdens have been placed on clubs. He may also be aware that one of the problems has been the conflicting requirements of the various safety authorities—the local authorities, the fire brigade and the police. Sometimes they have asked for different things. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Football Licensing Authority will exercise some supervisory mechanism so that no longer will too many people ask the clubs to perform different safety functions which they just cannot perform? Will the Football Licensing Authority remove that problem, particularly for the smaller clubs, as it has cost them dear?
Mr. Waddington: Lord Justice Taylor certainly confirmed our earlier view that there simply must be a licensing authority to supervise the way in which local authorities exercise their certification procedures. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress how necessary it is to have such a body.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have been unable to call all hon. Members who wished to participate. I shall certainly bear their claims in mind when we discuss this matter again.
Mr. Denis Howell: I suppose that it is a great compliment to be grossly misquoted twice by the Home Secretary during questions on one statement. I remind him that, when I said that there is no such thing as football hooliganism, I meant that there is violence and hooliganism in society, of which football hooliganism is one part. The Government committed themselves at the general election to eradicating it, but it is worse now than when they came to office in 1979.
What on earth will the Government do about the World cup this year? Part I of the Act has gone, the Football Membership Authority has gone, the computers have gone and the possibility of feeding names into computers has gone. Unless the Government tell us what action they propose to take, in June this year all the people whom Lord Justice Taylor and the rest of us have spent
36
years discussing will be free to cause havoc in Europe. It is no good the Minister for Sport telling us that it is a matter for the Football Association. I want the Government to take the action that was proposed in part II. [HON. MEMBERS: "They will."] I know, but they will not have any names to feed into the computer. As a result of the chaos that the Government have brought about, what will happen in June is a matter of the greatest concern.
The Home Secretary should understand that some of us believe that all-seater stadiums are desirable and inevitable and wish to have them as soon as we can. However, although we asked the Minister four times in Committee, we still do not know whether 10,000 people at one match I described in Committee, who were allocated seats at Manchester City but refused to be seated, would be committing a criminal offence. Will the Home Secretary explain how we shall deal with that phenomenon?
Finally, does not the Home Secretary understand that, because of the free-market economy to which his Government are committed, transfer fees in Britain are determined by those paid in Europe? It is inconceivable that we could have a levy or a regulation on those fees because, as I understand it, it would be unlawful under European legislation. The Home Secretary's comments on that would be helpful.
Mr. Waddington: The point that Lord Justice Taylor made about transfer fees was that such large expenditure on transfer fees seemed rather grotesque and obscene when so much blatantly needed to be done to improve the premises into which people were invited.
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for my earlier strictures, but they were meant in good part to provoke him to respond. I must tell him that I was quoting exactly from his speech on Second Reading, I am afraid that his denials will not stand him in good stead, because his precise words were:
"I do not believe there is any such thing as football hooliganism"—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 916.]
I am afraid that those words will endure, and I shall not be able to resist the temptation to throw them back at him from time to time.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989 will be in operation before June, and that before then there will be negotiations with the Italian Government which will enable a list of corresponding offences to be drawn up, so that convictions for any of those offences in Italy can result in exclusion orders in Britain.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has persisted with that ridiculous point. If he had studied the matter for one moment, he would realise that it is intended that the safety certificates will be so operated that eventually the terraces will go and the clubs will not be able to invite people to stand on the terraces. Quite clearly, when people go into a seater stand, it will be up to them to decide whether they stand or sit, but I believe that most of them will have the sense to sit.

Question Time
4.44pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the casualties of the practice of taking points of order arising out of questions is the opportunity for Ministers, with the total understanding and good will of the House, correcting themselves on points of fact. It is a bit difficult to raise a point of order one and a quarter hours later. It is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) very properly asked the Energy Minister about his former press secretary, the Prime Minister's—
Mr. Speaker: Order. He may have done, but what has it to do with me as a matter of order in the House?
Mr. Dalyell: It has to do precisely with the practice of Ministers correcting themselves on points of fact. I shall not go into the substance of the issue. I simply draw your attention to the fact that, when the Minister of State said that he knew nothing of the matter, very overtly and within the sight of us all, the Secretary of State passed him what was clearly a ministerial note on it. That was understandable, because it would have been quite incredible had Energy Ministers not known about the actions of BNFL in sponsoring a highly paid civil servant.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is clearly a continuation of Question Time. I cannot take points of order arising out of answers. It is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Government or for the right hon. Gentleman to have it put right.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What can be further to it? It is not a point of order.
Mr. Dalyell: It is a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: No. It is not a point of order which I can answer.

Orders of the Day

  Employment Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  There is considerable pressure to speak in the debate. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to keep their speeches brief, please. I am not proposing to limit them to 10 minutes today, but if brief speeches are made, most of the hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate will be called.
  4.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  On 29 June 1983, in my maiden speech to this House, 1 referred to the closed shop as a critical area—critical for the personal freedom of individual workers as well as for the link between strikes and unemployment—in which the legislative support given to the individual was inadequate. On 8 November 1983, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Trade Union Bill, in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) also took part, I criticised the Government for not taking action to remedy that injustice.
  Although progress has been made, since 1983 it remains the case that what has so far been achieved is not enough. It is therefore a particular privilege for me today to move the Second Reading of this Bill, for it will provide the legislative support which for so long has been missing. It takes the final step in making the closed shop unlawful.
  It is a hammer blow for the freedom of the individual to choose for himself whether or not he wishes to become a member of a trade union. It puts paid once and for all to the tyranny of forced association, which has for so long been cherished by the trade unions and the Labour party.
  The Bill can be seen as the culmination of the long process of reform which began 10 years ago, when the first Employment Bill of this Government was introduced by my right hon. and noble predecessor, Lord Prior.
  Sir David Mitchell: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves that point, members of the Select Plymouth Brethren are concerned that they believe it to be a requirement to employ trade unionists as a result of proposals in the Bill. They find that against their consciences. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider their point?
  Mr. Howard: I shall carefully consider that, but I fear that I cannot hold out too much hope that it will be possible to accommodate the concern expressed by my hon. Friend.
  I pay tribute to all my predecessors who have contributed to that process of reform, in particular my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who was responsible for the Employment Act 1988 and for the preparation of the Bill.

  39
  There can be no doubt about the transformation which has taken place in British industrial relations in the past decade. In the 1970s, this country lost, on average, 13 million days a year through strikes. Over the past three years, the average has been less than a third of that figure. By 1988, strikes were at their lowest level for over 50 years.
  At the same time, we have seen the end of many of the most notorious restrictive practices which held back the growth of our economy in the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, we have seen improvements in productivity which were wholly out of reach in the previous decade. Manufacturing productivity has grown at over 5 per cent. a year since 1980—far better than the average of 1·5 per cent. in the 1970s. In the 1960s and 1970s, this country was bottom of the international league for productivity growth; since 1980, our record of productivity growth has been better than that of any other major industrialised country.
  Nothing did more to drive investment away from this country in the 1970s than our record of strikes, poor productivity and overmanning. Nothing has done more over the past 10 years to convince investors that Britain is the place in which to invest than the reduction in the level of strikes, the improvement in our productivity and the elimination of inefficient and archaic working practices.
  That transformation has occurred because this Government, unlike our predecessors, have had the courage to put sensible step-by-step reforms on to the statute book. Without our legislation, flying pickets would still be able to spread disruption far and wide as they did in the winter of discontent, millions more employees would still be working in closed shops imposed on them without the least regard to their wishes, and strikes would still be called by the intimidation of the massed meeting in the company car park, without any recourse to the secret ballot.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the closed shop, but may I return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell)? For obvious reasons of principle, the Brethren welcome the ending of the closed shop, but they argue that, if they are compelled to employ someone who belongs to a union, he will be compelled to serve two masters, which is unacceptable to them on religious grounds. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the reply that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West on this important issue?
  Mr. Howard: I understand the reasoning behind the concern that has been expressed, but I fear that I can do no more, even for my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), than repeat the assurance that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). I shall consider the matter, but I am doubtful about the extent to which I shall be able to accommodate it.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister, who is a lawyer and a member of a closed shop, explain why what has happened in the past two years has been contrary to what he has just been saying? Trade unionists in bus, rail and tube services, the Post Office, the National Health Service and the BBC and the National and Local Government Officers Association have scored victories
  40
  against employers to ensure that they do not fall behind inflation. If everything is so rosy, why do the Government continue to hammer ambulance workers, who are trying to get a decent wage increase? If everything is so good, why is everything so bad?
  Mr. Howard: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he relishes and takes such joy and glee from the number of working days lost. I gave the House the figures for 1988—the last year for which figures are available. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of working days lost through industrial action, and I would have hoped that the House would rejoice in that, because it should appreciate that that has led to tremendous improvements in Britain's economic performance and the economic prospects of our fellow countrymen.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The Minister appears to want to avoid the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the legal profession, which has been raised time and again when the closed shop has been discussed. As a lifelong trade unionist and ex-employee of the Trades Union Congress, I can tell the Minister that we like voluntary trade unionism, but we do not like working with free riders.
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman likes voluntary trade unionism, I hope that he will not oppose the first three clauses of the Bill on the closed shop.
  It is quite wrong to suggest that the law is a closed shop. Lawyers, like doctors, must obtain qualifications before they practise. Does the hon. Member for Bolsover believe that doctors should not be required to obtain qualifications before practising? That is an entirely absurd analogy, as everyone knows, not least the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Minister feels strongly about geting rid of the closed shop and spoke of "tyranny" in that context. Why did not the Department or his predecessor bother to collect complaints on the closed shop? I wrote a letter to his predecessor, to which I received a reply on 16 November, about the number of employees who have complained about the closed shop since 1979. The reply says:
  "Complaints are received each year on the operation of the closed shop but it is not possible to establish accurately how many were made by employees."
  Labour Members would be more convinced of the Minister's arguments if he produced some hard evidence of complaints of tyranny.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady evidently fails to understand that there is a clear point of principle at the heart of the Bill—that people should not be refused employment because they are or are not members of a trade union. The breach of that clear principle has led to much injustice in the past.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The Minister says that the principle has led to "much injustice". What injustice? Will he explain that, because I have negotiated closed shop agreements for 100 per cent. trade union membership? We always made provision for people who held religious convictions and did not want to join a trade union, but that is now being outlawed by the Bill.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I shall remind him in a moment of some of the injustices that have occurred.
  The principle underlying all our legislation has been the need to achieve a fair balance of rights between the rights of trade unions and those with legitimate disputes with their employers and the rights of employers and employees who simply want to get on with their business and protect their jobs. We believe that the role of law in industrial relations is to limit abuses of industrial power and to guarantee the democratic rights of trade union members. That is the principle that underlies the Bill.
  The first three clauses of the Bill are on the closed shop and discrimination in recruitment on grounds of union membership. Conservative Members have always taken the view that no one should be refused a job because they do not hold a union card. That restriction on employment has no more place in any civilised society than a refusal to give a job to somone on the grounds of their colour or sex.
  It is just as indefensible to deny someone a job because he is a union member as it is to deny someone else a job because he is not. The Bill is therefore entirely even-handed in its approach. It makes it unlawful to refuse a job either on grounds of union membership or on grounds of union non-membership. As a result, once the Bill becomes law, discrimination on grounds of trade union membership or non-membership will be every bit as unlawful as sexual or racial discrimination.
  Mr. Stan Crowther: Will the Secretary of State explain what right he is giving to trade unionists if he is not giving them the right to have their union negotiate on their behalf? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Bill is even-handed, but it is not even-handed if an employer may merely say to the worker, "Of course you can join a trade union but don't expect me to talk to your trade union about your wages and conditions." What does that achieve?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must know that negotiating rights are an entirely different matter. We are discussing the important principle that no one should be denied a job because he or she is a member of a trade union. That principle will achieve legislative support for the very first time in this Bill.
  The Bill defines refusal of employment widely. It makes it unlawful for an employment agency to refuse any of its services to someone because he or she is or is not a trade union member and it specifically prohibits advertisements that discriminate on grounds of union membership. In each case, the remedy is a right of complaint to an industrial tribunal. If a trade union or any other person or organisation brings pressure on an employer to discriminate against people who are or are not union members, the Bill allows them to be joined to the proceedings and made liable for penalties.
  Anyone who doubts the violation of civil liberties involved in the closed shop—here I come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer)—need only recall the thousands of people who were forced into union membership against their will by the last Labour Government's illiberal and indefensible legislation of 1974 and 1976. Hundreds of people were thrown out of their jobs without a penny of compensation as a direct result of that legislation, simply because they refused to join a trade union. As a direct result of that
  42
  legislation, the United Kingdom was held to be in breach of the European convention on human rights. Yet the hon. Member for Walton asks "What injustices?"
  The Bill will put an end once and for all to that legacy of shame. It will strip the closed shop of its last vestiges of legal protection, and not a moment too soon.
  Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, although the Bill will make the pre-entry closed shop unenforceable in law, a 100 per cent. voluntary trade union shop will still be legal and acceptable?
  Mr. Howard: The terms of the Bill are entirely clear. The Bill will make unlawful the refusal of employment to anyone on the grounds that he is or is not a member of a trade union. There cannot be any doubt about that.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State has made much play of injustices and the closed shop. What does he have to say to members of the National Union of Journalists in Aberdeen, who went on a legitimate strike and were sacked within 48 hours? Management now say that they will not, in any circumstances, discuss with the union the possibility of negotiations to end the dispute. Management say, "It's over. Too bad that they've got the sack, but that's the end of it." Those trade union members have been sacked simply because they tried to exercise their trade union rights. How does the Secretary of State propose to deal with cases such as that?
  Mr. Howard: It has always been lawful—it was lawful under the legislation that the last Labour Government passed—for those who go on strike to be dismissed. That is a step that the employers are entitled to take under the law; that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Howard: No, I must get on.
  Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
  Mr. Leighton: I am sure that on reflection—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Howard.
  Mr. Howard: We are now given to understand—
  Mr. Leighton: But the Secretary of State misled the House—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear to me and to the House that he is not giving way at this stage. I suggest that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) should wait a while and put his own points. I am sure that I would want to call him.
  Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State misled the House, no doubt unintentionally, and I am certain that, on reflection, he would prefer to deal with the point now.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Howard.
  Mr. Howard: I am told that I have already given way eight times. I am anxious to deal with the provisions in the

  43
  Bill. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to make a speech in due course, and I must get on.
  We are now given to understand that the Opposition share our determination to get rid of the closed shop. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will make his party's position clear this afternoon. I hope that he will say, without equivocation, that the Labour party will not oppose the first three clauses of the Bill and, if he does, no one will welcome that volte face more warmly than me.
  But I confess that I have a lingering doubt. For one thing, the Labour party's policy review is entirely silent on this subject. It has a long section entitled "The Right to Join a Union" but not a word about the right not to join a union. Perhaps that was an oversight. Perhaps the subject was regarded as so unimportant that it did not justify any pronouncement or even thought on the part of the Opposition.
  It was not, it appears, until my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) intervened to put a question to the hon. Member for Sedgefield during our debate on the social charter on 29 November that the hon. Gentleman addressed the matter at all. My right hon. Friend asked about the implications of the social charter for the closed shop. As the Library brief delicately put it, the hon. Gentleman
  "found it difficult to respond to Mr. Raison's intervention".
  The most cursory perusal of Hansard for 29 November will reveal just how much of an understatement that was.
  To do the hon. Member for Sedgefield credit, he lost no time in seeking to put the matter right. Within three weeks, he was writing a letter to his constituents in which he clearly set out his support for ending the closed shop. The House might think that such speed of response would evoke warm enthusiasm on the Labour Benches. Judging by Labour Members' faces this afternoon, that enthusiasm is somewhat lacking.
  One of the hon. Gentleman's shadow Cabinet colleagues told Tribune that the change of policy was "a gross mistake" and "totally unnecessary", and at the last count, 35 Labour Members had signed early-day motion 282, which says:
  "the closed shop … is of fundamental importance to the workers and the trades union movement".
  The hon. Member for Walton sagely nods in his place. No doubt we shall hear from him later this afternoon. Various trade union leaders have been putting their own gloss on the situation.
  I have high hopes of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I hope that he will make it clear that the Opposition now believe that strikes to enforce a closed shop should remain unlawful. I hope that he will make it clear that he believes that union-labour-only clauses in contracts should remain unlawful. I hope that he will join me in urging all trade union leaders to take immediate steps to dismantle the closed shops that still cover more than 2 million jobs in this country. There is no need to wait until the Bill is passed. They can take action now, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage them to do so when he speaks in a few moments.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take documents published by the Labour party with a pinch of salt? The Labour party's 1987
  44
  manifesto contained a commitment to publish a code of practice on trade union ballots on industrial action, but only last week the Labour party voted against such a document. The specific words of the manifesto that I have in mind are that the Labour party would act
  "by laying down general principles for inclusion in union rule books. These will be based on a right of union members to have secret ballots on decisions relating to strikes".
  That is the sort of double-talk that we get from the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
  Mr. Howard: I can certainly understand my hon. Friend's scepticism, which is no doubt well-founded, given the Labour party's record. But we must have high hopes of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and we await with great interest his remarks this afternoon.
  I want now to consider secondary action. The Government's position on that issue is quite simple. We do not believe that any business should be threatened with disruption unless there is a direct dispute between the employer and his employees. That is the position that the Bill will achieve. The scope for organising lawful secondary action was limited by the Employment Act 1980.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State seems to have finished his consideration of the first three clauses which deal with employment agencies and using information about trade union membership. Will the Secretary of State deal with organisations such as the Eonomic League which, for example, employs paid spies to attend anti-apartheid meetings to discover the names of trade union members who are also members of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in order to give false and misleading information to employers? While the Bill states that evidence from agencies like the Economic League might be used at an industrial tribunal, it does not make those organisations illegal. What protection will the Secretary of State provide for people, because those organisations currently get round the law by claiming that they do not keep information on computers?
  Mr. Howard: There is no reason to make the activities of those organisations illegal. I understand that the particular organisation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is prepared to make information on individuals available to people who ask for it. This Bill provides the protection that no one can be denied employment simply for being a trade union member. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that, instead of introducing red herrings into the discussion which are irrelevant to the point at issue.
  Mr. Tony Blair: With due respect to the Secretary of State, that is not a red herring. Clause 1(4) specifically makes unlawful the practice of unions holding lists from which they will accept people for jobs. Why should there not be a commensurate provision to allow people to take a case to a tribunal if they are refused a job for being on an employer's blacklist?
  Mr. Howard: Those lists have nothing to do with the critical question of membership or non-membership of a trade union. For the purposes of the Bill, the critical criterion is simply whether someone is or is not a trade union member. The hon. Member for Sedgefield is guilty of introducing the same red herring into the discussion as his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).
  Mr. Blair: With great respect, we deserve an answer to this point. Employers' lists may specifically refer to people because of their union membership. In so far as they do that, will the Secretary of State introduce the same provision as that in clause 1(4) in respect of trade union membership?
  Mr. Howard: There is no need to introduce any such provision. The provisions in the Bill will be entirely clear. It will be illegal to refuse someone a job because of trade union membership; that is more than sufficient protection. The premise on which the hon. Gentleman bases his intervention is entirely wrong. The lists to which he refers are not simply lists of union members and his parallel is therefore mistaken.
  Mr. Blair: I am afraid that the Secretary of State is wrong. Clause 1(4) deals specifically with lists relating to union members. In other words, clause 1(4) could have been subsumed under the general requirement in clause 1(1), but it is not. Clause 1(4) deliberately refers to the practice of using a list to discriminate against people who are not union members. In so far as employers use lists relating to union membership, why will the Secretary of State not have a similar provision banning them?
  Mr. Howard: There is no evidence that lists of trade union members are used in the way in which the hon. Gentleman described. However, there is evidence that lists of trade union members—which are dealt with in the Bill—are kept and used for purposes that would circumvent the provisions in the Bill. There is a clear difference.
  Mr. Blair: Let me make the Secretary of State this offer—
  Mr. David Madel: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but some of us want to contribute if we are called. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is guaranteed to be called. Can you protect Back Benchers?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is totally beyond my control if the Secretary of State wants to give way as he is doing at the moment.
  Mr. Blair: It is fair of the Secretary of State to give way, and I am grateful to him. Some of us believe that this point is very important.
  Let me make the Secretary of State this offer: if we can produce evidence that such lists, in so far as they relate to union membership, exist and are used, will he undertake to legislate about them?
  Mr. Howard: I will undertake to consider any evidence that is adduced. No doubt the evidence will be considered when those matters are dealt with at length and in detail in Committee. That is the appropriate way in which to deal with the matter.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Since the whole issue blew up a couple of years ago, I went out of my way to talk to people who work for the Economic League. It would be advisable if Opposition Members did the same. I understand that the league has approached Labour Members in an attempt to explain what the leagues does, but Labour Members have refused to speak to league representatives. I understand that, far from compiling lists
  46
  of trade unionists, the league simply compiles lists of individuals who set out quite deliberately to create industrial mayhem and disruption in industry.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Heffer: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Howard: No, I must press on.
  Mr. Leighton: Give way.
  Mr. Howard: No. My understanding of the matter is entirely in accordance with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). However, we can explore those matters at greater length and in detail in Committee.
  Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State give way now?
  Mr. Howard: No, we must press on.
  Mr. Heffer rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise this point, but I appear on the Economic League's list twice. Will the Secretary of State tell us how people like me who, over the years, have consistently—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. A point of order must be something that the Chair can answer, and I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Howard: I hope that the Committee of Selection will recognise the keen interest of the hon. Member for Walton in these matters, and will invite him to join the Committee. I am sure that his presence would give great pleasure to the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
  The scope for organising lawful secondary action was limited by the Employment Act 1980 to employees of customers and suppliers of the employer in dispute. However, in March 1988, we saw just how damaging the threat of secondary action could be to British job prospects.
  In that year, Ford had planned to invest £40 million in a new electronics plant at Dundee, creating 1,000 jobs. It had negotiated a single-union deal with the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Other unions, led by the Transport and General Workers Union, complained that the AEU had thereby broken TUC rules. Mr. Ron Todd announced that all components from the new plant would be blacked. So Ford took its plant, its £40 million and its 1,000 jobs to Spain.
  Mr. Bill Jordan of the AEU rightly described that form of threatened secondary action as the
  "unacceptable face of trade unionism".
  The Opposition, under their TGWU-sponsored leader uttered not a peep of protest at that wanton loss of jobs. We do not want that to happen again. That is one reason why clause 4 of this Bill will ensure that no union ever again has the protection of the law if it behaves as the TGWU did over Dundee.
  The Bill also breaks new ground on tackling the problem of unofficial action. Let us be clear: unofficial action is and always has been a major problem in this

  47
  country. More than 20 years after the Donovan commission drew attention to the damaging effects of unofficial action, it is still the case that some 75 per cent. of strikes are unofficial. That means that they take place without being authorised in accordance with union rules and without being put to the test of a secret ballot. Last year, some 40 per cent. of days lost through strikes were the result of that sort of unofficial, unauthorised, unballoted industrial action.
  Furthermore, unofficial action is almost a unique blight on this country's industrial relations. It is far less common in other countries and virtually unknown in some. And What is perhaps particularly relevant to this debate is that it is unlawful in countries such as Germany, the United States, Canada, Sweden and Denmark.
  Unofficial action damages jobs and businesses and, as we saw last saw summer, it can disrupt the life of the community as a whole; and it can do all this without the trade union having to accept any legal liability for the consequences of the action or even having to give financial support to its members who are on strike. Unofficial action is a classic case of power without responsibility.
  The Bill corrects two anomalies in the law as it affects unofficial action, and in doing so it will, I believe, significantly discourage such action in the future.
  In the first place, the Bill corrects the manifest anomaly that unofficial action—even when organised by shop stewards or other union officials—does not have to be put to the test of a secret ballot. The effect of clause 6 is to put strikes organised by shop stewards and other lay officials on the same basis as strikes organised by national or regional officials.
  If a union fails to ensure that strikes organised by its shop stewards have majority support in a secret ballot, that union will forfeit immunity, just as it does now in the case of a strike organised by its national officials. If there has been no ballot and the union wishes to keep its immunity, it will need to repudiate the strike as soon as possible. That repudiation will have to be unequivocal.
  That means that it will no longer be possible for unions to ignore unofficial strikes or to use them in order to damage employers without risk to union funds—where they are not confident that the majority of their members would support official action in a secret ballot.
  The second anomaly that the Bill will correct concerns the law on unfair dismissal. The law in this country has always provided that anyone who goes on strike in breach of his contract of employment is liable to immediate dismissal. That has been the position under successive Governments, but the law on unfair dismissal means that, if he is to avoid any risk of complaints to a tribunal, an employer must dismiss either every single one of his employees who goes on strike or none at all.
  In the context of unofficial action, that is an unreasonable constraint on an employer whose business may be seriously damaged by a strike organised by a handful of troublemakers. We believe that in that situation the employer should have the option of dismissing strikers selectively without the risk of being taken to an industrial tribunal
  Mr. Leighton: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Howard: I am sorry, but I must press on. I have already given way generously.
  Mr. Leighton rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will not give way.
  Mr. Leighton: The previous Secretary of State was much more courteous.
  Mr. Howard: That option will be available only in cases of unofficial action which is not organised by a shop steward or which has been repudiated by the trade union concerned. Furthermore, the Bill provides that, in cases of repudiation, the option of selective dismissal will not be available until a full working day after the union has taken the decision to repudiate. That will give the union time to let its members know that the strike does not have its support, and time for the strikers to return to work.
  The provisions of the Bill will ensure that unions take full responsibility for strikes organised by their officials—whether shop stewards or general secretaries. This Bill will ensure that in future strikes organised by shop stewards are either explicitly repudiated or put to the test of a secret ballot. The Bill will ensure that, in future, everyone will know exactly where he stands in cases of unofficial action—not just the union, but its officials, its members and the employers whose business is the target of action. That is why I believe that the Bill marks a positive step forward in enabling employers and unions alike to tackle the problem of unofficial action which has bedevilled industrial relations in this country for far too long.
  Mr. Blair: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us of another country within the European Community that allows the dismissal of people on unofficial strike without recourse to a court or tribunal?
  Mr. Howard: There are many EC countries in which all unofficial strikes are unlawful. One must look at the entire legal context before one starts to make comparisons on that point. We can look at this matter in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House if he is suggesting that, for comparative purposes in such matters, one can get a true appreciation of the subject by taking one element in isolation, as he has sought to do, without looking at the general position in its proper context.
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Mr. Howard: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to speak. We shall be able to debate the matter in Committee.
  The Bill's provisions on unofficial action are fully in accord with the principles underlying all our previous legislation: that those who exercise industrial power should take responsibility for their actions, that they should be accountable to the people they seek to represent and that they should operate within clear legal limits which protect the community, businesses and jobs.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield and his hon. Friends may oppose the provisions today. I am confident that, in due course, they will become as recognised and as widely accepted a part of our legal framework as have the other reforms which we have introduced in this sphere in the past 10 years.

  49
  The remaining clauses amend previous legislation so as to extend the rights and protection the law provides in a number of areas. Clause 5 provides people who work under contracts for services with the same right to a ballot before being called on to take industrial action as people who work under contracts of employment already enjoy. Clause 8 extends the range of issues on which the trade union commissioner can give assistance to trade union members. Clause 10 provides a simplified procedure by which codes of practice may, with the approval of Parliament, be amended in the light of changes in the law.
  Clause 11 provides for the merger of the redundancy and national insurance funds. That will simplify their administration, but will not affect the entitlement of employees to redundancy and other payments in any way. Finally, clause 12 will enable all secondary school pupils to benefit from work experience from the beginning of the summer term in their penultimate year at school.
  This is the fifth major Bill to reform industrial relations that the Government have introduced since 1979. Each Bill has been opposed by the Labour party, but each Bill in turn has now become an accepted part of the framework of industrial relations in this country. On issue after issue, we have been told by Opposition Members that our legislation was unnecessary and would not work. On issue after issue, they have been proved wrong.
  The role of the law in restraining the abuse of trade union powers and in guaranteeing the democratic rights of trade union members is no longer in question. That is why opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that our legislation has the support not only of the overwhelming majority of the British people, but of most trade unionists.
  What is the policy of the Labour party on the reforms? The hon. Member for Sedgfield is a master of honeyed words, but the latest authoritative statement on these matters comes not from him, but from his colleague in the shadow Cabinet, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
  The latest issue of The Labour and Trade Union Review contains a long interview with that hon. Gentleman, whose smiling countenance appears on its cover. He deals in some detail with his party's attitudes to these matters. He refers clearly, explicitly and unequivocally to his party's policy towards what he calls the "Tory trade union legislation". He says:
  "We shall repeal all of it. There's no little bits you can keep of it. There is nothing you can keep of this legislation".
  In fairness to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, he seems to have the clear support of the leader of his party. In 1986, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said that Labour would "undo the lot". In 1988 he said:
  "our commitment is to clear it".
  Where does the hon. Member for Sedgefield stand? Over the weekend, I wrote to him asking him to repudiate his hon. Friend's statement. I hope that he will do so without equivocation tonight. If he does not, we shall know that the hon. Gentleman's words count for nothing and that he is quite without authority to speak for his party. We shall know that it is to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that we should look and listen if we want an authoritative statement of the Labour party's position.
  Our position is clear. We believe that the law should protect the trade union member and the worker who does not wish to become a trade union member. We believe that
  50
  the law should protect the community at large from the abuse of trade union power. We believe the law should protect the creation of jobs. That is the philosophy behind all our trade union legislation since 1979. Those are the principles of this Bill.
  The Bill will extend personal liberty against the closed shop, and safeguard jobs and prosperity against the threat of unofficial industrial action. It will protect our freedoms, improve our industrial relations and strengthen our economy. I commend it to the House.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: The Secretary of State dealt with the provisions relating to secondary action and to unofficial action with less than total enthusiasm. When he spoke on the radio the other morning, he told us that the Bill would be the Government's last piece of trade union legislation, but he left many of us wondering whether he regretted that it is his first. Having heard his speech, we can now see that he himself acknowledges that there are major problems in the legislation, especially with regard to secondary action and unofficial action. I shall deal with those later, because I must first tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill is important as much for its priorities as for what it proposes.
  We have the highest inflation rate of all comparable countries and the largest balance of payments deficit of all EEC countries, including Greece and Portugal—a deficit which encompasses new industries as well as old, developing nations as well as developed and capital goods as well as consumer items. Our interest rates are higher in real terms than anywhere else in the western world, and added £3 billion to industry's bill in the past year alone. However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, above all we have a deficit in training skills. We have a forecast shortfall of 80,000 to 100,000 computer analysts alone by the mid-1990s. In any one year, half Britain's work force receives no training. We have gaps in our mathematics, languages and basic educational qualifications. Indeed, the head of the Government's Training Agency said recently:
  "at every level we are towards the bottom of the training league table."
  The previous Secretary of State for Employment said in a statement that I can only assume was not meant to be complimentary that the results of his own "Training in Britain" survey were "mind-boggling". However, instead of the Government introducing a Bill to improve skills, upgrade training, encourage investment and stimulate innovation, we have a Bill that is a leftover from the old agenda of the industrial cold war. The Secretary of State has introduced a Bill designed not to solve the real problems of Britain today, but to deal with the lingering malaise of the present Conservative party—
  Mr. Howard: Was it simply an oversight that the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention not only our productivity and growth in earnings, but the item in our economic performance that is most relevant to the Bill, which is jobs and employment? The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention the 2·75 million jobs that have been created in this country since 1983 and the fact that our unemployment rate is now a fraction of the average in the European Community.
  Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's claim of 2·75 million jobs has been comprehensively

  51
  debunked, not least by the report published recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife Central, (Mr. McLeish), which has not been challenged in any particular by the Conservative party. I advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that unemployment is now higher than in 1979, when the Government came to power, and nothing can hide the fact that on inflation, interest rates, our balance of payments, and skills, after 11 years of Tory government this country is now woefully behind.
  Despite all that, the first measure that the new Secretary of State for Employment brings before the House as the stamp of the new regime is a Bill about which he has once again given us the ritual incantations about the evils of the trade unions and of the over-regulated workplace. We were told that those were the problems when the Government introduced the Employment Act 1980, we were told that those were the problems when the Government introduced the Trade Union Act 1984, and we were told the same in 1988 and in 1989. Now, 11 years on, when our trade unions are more constrained than unions practically anywhere else in Europe and when our Labour market is less regulated, we are still told that the trade unions and the overregulated workplace are to blame.
  It is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's misfortune that the one thing that has changed beyond all doubt is that now, when industry is fighting interest rates of the present level, when our education system is teaching fewer 16 to 19-year-olds than are taught in any comparable country, when out adult work force is now serviced by fewer training managers than there are now anywhere else in the EEC bar Greece and Portugal, the people of this country know that it is not protection in the workplace that is causing Britain's problems, but the fecklessness of Cabinet Ministers in their workplace. They have no one left to blame but themselves.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): When is the hon. Gentleman going to get to the Bill?
  Mr. Blair: In a moment.
  The Secretary of State set a context for the Bill; let me now set it in its true context. The Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress are now probably closer on training than they have been for years, and they are united in their anxiety to deal with 1992 and the greatest competitive challenge facing this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be the only Employment Minister in Europe who wants to spend three or four months in Committee, pitting one side of industry against the other.
  If all that we could say about the Bill was that it is merely irrelevant, that would be one thing, but it is not merely irrelevant. Much of it is wrong, damaging and unfair.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman note that in my constituency we have an excellent training establishment which is run by a trade union—the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union? Sadly, the rest of the trade unions decided that the EETPU had no right to belong to the TUC, which is a pretty good indication of the sort of trade unions that support the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Blair: There it is. That is the authentic voice of division. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that the CBI and the TUC are today close about the need for training. I am delighted that the training provisions in Esher are so good. The training provisions everywhere in Britain should be good, yet they are not, as is conceded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  In the Bill the Government have laid down two tests about union membership. First, they have said that the provisions should deal with union membership in the same way as race and sex are dealt with. Secondly, they have said that the provisions should be in line with the European social charter. Clause I contains two major flaws and I should be grateful if these points could be dealt with when the Minister responds. Conclusive presumptions are made in clause 1 in that if people are refused a job when the job requirement is that the person either is or is not a member of a trade union, that person is conclusively presumed to have been refused a job for that reason.
  Clause 1(4) also contains the conclusive presumption of refusal of a job for non-membership of a trade union. As far as I am aware, that system is unknown in both race and sex discrimination laws. The conclusive presumption means that the employer cannot even prove that there may have been another reason for dismissal. That is extremely rare in general law, and it would mean that a person could be refused a job for a wholly extraneous reason that had nothing to do with union membership or non-membership, yet he would still be entitled to claim.
  I should be obliged if the Minister who winds up would deal with the following example. Five or 10 people apply for the same job. They could be refused on the basis that they were not on an approved list of union members; all five or 10 could then claim unfair dismissal and be conclusively presumed to have been dismissed for that reason in respect of the same job. That cannot possibly be right, and it is way out of line with race and sex discrimination law.
  The Bill is not even-handed in its approach. Most people would consider it entirely reasonable that if the Bill describes a requirement for union membership—that is, for a list of people who are union members—the same provisions should apply to lists of people who may be discriminated against on the ground that they are union members. So there is no reason why the Bill cannot include a provision in very much the same terms as clause 1(4) to put an end to the obnoxious practices of the Economic League and the employers who go in for them. If the Secretary of State is serious about dealing with that problem, he should deal with it now. I take it from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier that, if we can provide evidence in Committee, he will legislate to this effect.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I have to go and make an urgent phone call while he is dealing with this point.
  Will my hon. Friend join me—and, I am sure, the Secretary of State—in welcoming the dismantling of organisations in eastern Europe such as the Securitate? Will he also agree that the employment of private spies by public businesses in this country is obnoxious and to be condemned?
  Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is right. One of the problems about the Economic League and the lists that it uses is that

  53
  they are not published, so people do not know that they are on them. Some of the most horrendous cases that have come to public notice have been in respect of people who had no idea that they were blacklisted.
  As the Secretary of State knows, it is unlawful to dismiss someone for his union activities. There are higher penalties at law for dismissing a person for that reason, but it is not wrongful to refuse to employ people on the basis of their union activism. Surely that is a gap that this Bill could fill, and it would be in line with an even-handed approach.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned clause 1 only in the context of two technical amendments which he hopes can be resolved in Committee. Will he confirm here whether the Labour party officially accepts the ending of the closed shop and will not in any circumstances seek to reintroduce it?
  Mr. Blair: I have already made that absolutely clear.
  The two flaws that I have identified are not technical: they are substantial. If they are dealt with, fine. Let us see whether the Minister will deal with them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have just answered it. Perhaps Conservative members should wake up. I have made it clear that if the flaws in clause 1 are dealt with we shall be happy to support it—if not, we shall not. We shall support it if it is even-handed and drafted in accordance with the European social charter. I cannot put it more plainly than that.
  I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having passed so quickly through secondary action and unofficial action this afternoon, and I shall expose why he did so. I imagine that he has done his homework rather carefully now that the Bill is having its Second Reading. The Government proposition is that there is no set of circumstances, no matter how close the connection between one group of employees and another, in which the first group in dispute with its employer is entitled to ask the second for assistance. In other words, apart from a limited right in respect of picketing, all forms of sympathy and secondary action are to be forbidden.
  That proposition is so manifestly unfair and unreasonable, for the reasons that I shall adduce, that it is fatal to any pretence of even-handedness in the Bill. What is being forbidden is not merely the right to take sympathy action but the right to ask for it. If one group of employees want another to take sympathy action they can only ask: they will still have to go through balloting procedures, and, given the limitations on the generosity of human nature, there are bound not to be many occasions when such a request for action is granted.
  To prevent such requests in all circumstances would be unreasonable and unpractical, but hon. Members need not take my word for that. Lord Prior went through all this in detail—the Secretary of State called him in support of his claims this afternoon—on Second Reading of the Employment Act 1980. Lord Prior was quite definite about this:
  "the only other position that we could take would be to say that there will be no immunity for anything other than primary action"—
  In other words, the Government's position today.
  "I do not believe, for reasons that I shall give, that that is either a practical or reasonable position to take. We have sanctified that there should be no limitations on how far
  54
  immunities stretch. We are seeking to reach a position which we believe is fair and which recognises the traditional rights of the trade union movement."
  The ability to take limited secondary action has thus been in existence for 10 years. Where is the clamour to alter it? Where is the desire on the part of employers, let alone the trade unions? Lord Prior went on to utter words that Conservative Members should take to heart:
  "the clause … seeks a position which is balanced and reasonable. Simple repeal of the immunities for all secondary action would not be right. I know that some of my hon. Friends would query that remark. I shall … tell them why.
  I have said on a number of occasions from this Box that, just as it is not reasonable to leave trade unions with more power than they need in the vain hope that they will not misuse it, so also it would be unreasonable to weaken them to the extent that they are unable to defend their members against attack. Finding the right course calls for enormous effort and thought on the part of us all. It will not be achieved by reburnishing our prejudices."—[Official Report, 17 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1490–98.]
  That is what this Bill is all about.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has made great play of Lord Prior's words in 1980. Will he now deal with the departure of Ford from Dundee in 1988?
  Mr. Blair: That was a dispute between two unions; it had nothing to do with secondary action, and it is ludicrous to suggest that it provided a basis for legislation against all secondary action. Even if it was a case of secondary action, the Government are today proposing a ban on all sympathy action. That would mean that National Health Service managers could contract out ambulance work to a private company and the NHS workers could not even ask the private ambulance men to black the work that they were doing in their place.
  Will the Secretary of State confirm the following example of how extreme the proposition is? It applies to circumstances in which a company shuts down its premises and moves the work to another company. That other company could even be an associated employer of the first company. Even if the second company were part of the same group of companies and the workers were part of the same trade union, doing the same work that the other employees were doing, the first group of workers would not be able to ask for support from the second for the primary dispute.
  I hope that hon. Members realise how extreme the proposition is. An employer will be free to use his contractual or commercial power in any way he chooses directly to undermine and circumvent the industrial action of the union, but the union will have no commensurate right whatever to ask for sympathy action to make the action effective. I cannot understand how that can be explained as reasonable.
  Mr. Heffer: Has my hon. Friend considered what happened at Tate and Lyle in Liverpool? The factory had been open for well over 100 years and had had only one dispute in that time, so it did not face any great problems, yet it was moved out of Liverpool and the building left derelict. Families had worked there for generations. but were put out of work. Does my hon. Friend recall what happened at Birds Eye in Kirkby? The factory was moved to another area. Again, there was no industrial dispute. There was no consultation and the anouncement was made on a Friday afternoon. Does my hon. Friend agree that Tory Members should consider that?
  Mr. Blair: Surely hon. Members can see what a grotesque position the proposition leaves us in.
  Mr. Eggar: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), will he reflect on the way in which he announced the Labour party's policy change on the closed shop? Did he consult his hon. Friends and the trade unions? Was the announcement in accord with the provisions of the social charter that he is enunciating now?
  Mr. Blair: We have heard it all now—when a Minister has to get up and ask me about the internal democracy of the Labour party. It is touching to see Tory Members displaying their grief. There they were, all togged up in their party best for the party, and they put their hands into the magician's hat, hoping to pull out a nice white, bright, sprightly, lively rabbit, but instead find that they are holding a very dead fox. That is the truth of the matter. When, during a discussion on secondary action, a Minister has to refer to an earlier debate, we know how weak the Government feel their position to be.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) as an old dead fox?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot adjudicate on an issue such as that.
  Mr. Blair: We can see in the Bill issues which Tory Members do not like to discuss. Unfortunately for them, we will discuss them and discuss them now.
  The Minister has consistently said that he wishes Europe and Britain to be the same on issues such as these. Indeed, the Green Paper makes great play of what happens in Europe. In France, sympathy action is allowed where there is a common professional interest between employees. In Italy, it is allowed where there is a "sufficient community of interest" either of an economic or contractual nature. In Denmark, a reasonable and fair interest between employees justifies sympathy action in law. In West Germany, where the position is complicated because of collective bargaining agreements that cover virtually an entire industry, making the position more restrictive, sympathy action is allowed where the employer who is the subject of sympathy action is doing the work of those on strike or where companies are associated. In Belgium, sympathy action is permitted where there is a direct interest, and in Holland it is allowed unless it is manifestly unreasonable. In Spain, it is allowed where those taking part share the same professional interests.
  In other words, in every other part of the EEC jurisdiction, sympathy action is permitted, although it is limited; the labour court is given wide discretion when applying those limits; and workers have broader rights in other respects, not least the right not to be dismissed when lawfully on strike. In some jurisdictions, such as West Germany and Italy, an employer, not a union, can be injuncted for his importation of strike-breaking labour into an official dispute. The rights that are given abroad are infinitely more wide-ranging than those in the Bill.
  The Government are also moving way out of line with the rest of Europe on unofficial action.
  Mr. Howard: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I hope that he will tell the House in precisely what circumstances his party would make secondary action lawful.
  Mr. Blair: I well understand the Secretary of State's desire to talk about anything other than what is in his Bill—
  Mr. Howard: Answer.
  Mr. Blair: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know the Labour party's policy, he can read the policy review. The only question that is relevant to the Bill is whether we support the Government in abolishing secondary action. We do not.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the policy review talks about making secondary action lawful where there is a "genuine interest" and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in a letter to The Independent published on 19 October asked for a definition of the phrase "genuine interest". We are still waiting for an answer. Why does the hon. Gentleman not take this opportunity to enlighten us?
  Mr. Blair: I shall tell the hon. and learned Gentleman exactly why. We shall debate that in our good time, and we are debating his Bill today.
  It is against the background of our being right out of line with Europe on secondary action that we come to unofficial action. In the Bill the Government do not merely seek to extend the procedures whereby a union is liable for unofficial action: they extend them to circumstances involving any official or committee of the union. An official, no matter how low, and any member of any part of any committee of the union will be able to make the union liable to action. That is wholly out of line with the normal agency rules for companies. The union will have to go through arduous procedures to dissociate itself. If a company claims that a union is conniving in unofficial action, it can already take the union to court.
  Worst and most obnoxious of all are the provisions that would allow the selective dismissal of people on site without any recourse to an industrial tribunal. The Secretary of State ducked that in his speech and I shall explain why. In particular, I shall explain why he would not give way to me a second time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only a second time?"] I shall let him intervene in my speech in a moment.
  January's Employment Gazette carried an official statement about what the Government wish to do in this area. It stated:
  "The Government believes that employers in this country should have the same freedom to respond to unofficial action as employers in West Germany."
  That is the test that the Government proposed for this legislation.
  At present employees who are on strike officially or unofficially can be dismissed if they are all dismissed and there is no jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal. In other words, an individual has no right to strike, even where a union has immunity, and there is no right of appeal, even to an industrial tribunal. If an employer dismisses employees selectively, as the Government propose he should be able to do, contrary to a common misunderstanding, the dismissal is not automatically unfair; it is simply that the employee then has a right to

  57
  have the fairness of that dismissal tested before an industrial tribunal. In other words, he cannot be dismissed without the right of appeal. This is for perfectly understandable reasons: there may be circumstances in which such unofficial action is justified.
  The proposal in the Bill is to allow selective dismissal, but without any right for employees to go to an industrial tribunal, no matter what the circumstances of the dismissal are. We are told that the justification for that is the position in West Germany and elsewhere. There is no clear rule about that in other countries. Many, such as France and Italy, allow the right to strike, even where the action is unofficial.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman made West Germany the test—yet in that country, where an employer can dismiss when unofficial action is taken, the works council must first give its consent and, more important, the employee has the right of recourse to a labour court to claim that his dismissal was unjustified in all the circumstances. In other words, the position in West Germany is the same as it is in Britain today and not as the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends it to be. If the proposed changes are made, the law will be quite unfair.
  I issue a challenge to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: if we can show that the law in West Germany is as I have stated it to be, and given that the test that he has formulated is that Britain must be equivalent to West Germany, will he agree to include provisions to that effect in the Bill?
  Mr. Howard: The justice and the legitimacy of the proposed provisions stand by themselves. I justified them during my speech and I shall justify them further in Committee. There is no question of their requiring justification by reference to what happens in any other country.
  Mr. Blair: We now know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with this issue so quickly during his speech. He says that the provisions are self-standing and are not influenced by what happens in other countries. Why, in his Green Paper "Unofficial Action and the Law", did he specifically cite the practice in other countries as justification for this legislation? There is the right to go to a tribunal in the United States, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Japan and Australia. The Government claim to rely on the practice in other countries, hut Britain will be the only country that does not allow that right.
  The Employment Gazette is the official newspaper of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department. It said:
  "The Government believes that employers in this country should have the same freedom to respond to unofficial action as employers in West Germany."
  Why are we not allowed that same freedom, when that was the test which the Government set? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that under the Bill an employer could provoke a walk-out—perhaps by wholly unreasonable behaviour—and sack the trade union officials for reasons wholly extraneous to the unofficial dispute—simply because he does not want trade unionists—yet there will be no right even to claim that a dismissal was unfair?
  The Government cannot claim that such a provision is fair or even-handed. It is a typical Government measure. They take an idea—we know that it comes from No. 10 Downing street, as everything else does—push it beyond
  58
  the bounds of any external validity, carry it to the furthest extreme and end up justifying it no matter what the arguments against it.
  This is a shabby, ill-thought-out and bigoted measure. Most of all, it is wrong because it looks back, not forward. We cannot address the challenges of the future through the prejudices of the past. It is the right hon. Gentleman's Government who are reburnishing their prejudices, as Lord Prior put it, in this Bill. A new decade should require a new settlement in industrial relations law, and part of the principles of that settlement should be first, that it is fair and even-handed between employers and unions; secondly, that it contains certain basic individual rights guaranteed by law; thirdly, that it marches in step and moves with the grain of what is happening elsewhere in Europe, especially as we approach 1992; and fourthly, that it should aim for stability in industrial relations, which is the vital prerequisite of the national effort that we require to put this country back on its feet.
  If we are serious about the gap between Britain and its competitors—in training and skills, research and development, and technology and innovation—we cannot allow measures that will do nothing to assist the promotion of that stability. The Bill is unfair, it curtails certain individual basic rights, it moves us further out of line with Europe, it will provoke industrial conflict and, frankly, it is a Bill too far. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that; it was evident in his speech. The Bill is irrelevant in the issues it concerns. It is dangerous in much of what it proposes and we shall vote against it.
  6.5 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said. His speech was most notable for its omission of any reference to the vast improvement in industrial relations—for example, the reduction in the number of strikes and in the number of days lost. From my entirely independent point of view, the Bill appears to be a piece of legislation that has been brilliantly conceived and excellently put together. It was, of course, magnificently introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
  My only sorrow is that the conversion of the hon. Member for Sedgefield—and conversion it was—came too late to enable him to become a sponsor of the Bill. However, I was more convinced about his conversion before he began his speech than I was as I listened to it. He rather skated over the closed shop issue. Indeed, it appeared to come as a shock and a surprise to many of his hon. Friends to be told that that was the Labour party's new policy.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is right in his approach. This Bill will go down in the history books as the Bill that brought to an end the closed shop in Britain—and by any standards that is a significant achievement. It is made doubly significant because it has been accepted by the Opposition. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sedgefield accepted it even before the Bill was published. There is now as broad a consensus as we are ever likely to have in the politics of industrial relations, and it is that the closed shop should be brought to an end. That is a significant political step. In the 1970s, the Labour party spent a great deal of time seeking to legislate to extend and strengthen the closed shop. There is no clearer

  59
  example of the revolution in industrial relations law in Britain than the attitude that the Labour party now takes and the policy that it now holds.
  The Bill is significant for human rights. There was never any justification for men and women being forced to join a trade union if that was not their wish. That was the finding of the European Court, and I do not think that anyone would now challenge it. Above all, the Bill is significant for the future of trade unions because it marks a new era for them. It means that they will have to persuade people into membership rather than force them, as was previously the case.
  So often, the closed shop has been a recruiting sergeant for the unions. It was not that people necessarily wanted to join a union, but that they knew only too well that that was the price that was put on the job. That price was sometimes paid willingly and sometimes reluctantly. Sometimes people refused to pay it, and they lost their jobs. That was the inexcusable consequence of the closed shop legislation.
  Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the respectability, validity and credibility of the trade union movement are enhanced when unions operate on the basis of voluntary membership rather than on the basis of coercing people into becoming members?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I agree entirely. It is healthy for trade unions and for the trade union movement. Indeed, I think that some good trade unions—not just the electricians union—have already adopted this practice.
  When I worked on Fleet street in the 1960s, a reporter from one of the subsidiaries of The Times had an offer from another Fleet street newspaper. That offer was withdrawn for no reason other than that the reporter was not a member of the requisite trade union. Today, Fleet street is no longer the centre of the newspaper industry. Thanks to the action of a number of brave people, the situation in that industry has changed out of all recognition. But we should not forget that that was the closed shop in operation: no union card, no job. That is why the closed shop is being abolished.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lancashire Publications Ltd., which publishes one of our local newspapers and has for years negotiated with the National Union of Journalists, is now offering a pay rise dependent on there being no trade union activity? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is just as important that people should be entitled to belong to trade unions as to ensure that they may refrain from so doing?
  Sir Norman Fowler: Yes. Indeed, that is one of the points of this Bill. As my right hon. Friend so rightly said, it provides that right for the first time. For the first time, people have the right to belong to a trade union. They cannot be excluded from membership. Since the early 1960s, I myself have been a member of the union to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. John Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, throughout the length and breadth of Britain, there have been thousands of recorded cases of people being denied employment because they were trade unionists? Under this Bill, the onus is still on the individual
  60
  to prove conclusively that an employer's reason for not giving him a job is that he is a member of a trade union. Providing that proof is virtually impossible.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that, when the hon. Gentleman goes through the Bill in Committee, he will cease to hold that view. This is the normal way of setting out industrial relations legislation. I am sure that everyone will want to do everything in his power to ensure that a person who is a member of a trade union is not excluded from employment by virtue of that membership. That is the purpose of the legislation. The approach is an even-handed one. This Bill brings the closed shop to an end. The post-entry closed shop and the pre-entry closed shop are both now ended. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, I hope that unions and employers up and down the country will not wait until this legislation has gone through all its stages in this House and in another place before starting to dismantle the closed shop arrangements.
  I hope also that the change will be noted in the public service. I hope that in this regard the Government, as an employer, will take the lead. I do not know what arrangements exist in organisations such as Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us—if he knows—the extent of the closed shop in that field. But I hope even more that he will assure this House that any closed shop arrangements in the public service will be brought to an end immediately. That is important. The end of the closed shop is a challenge to sensible trade union leaders in this country.
  In future, unions will have to attract members by offering services and by taking up issues such as training and pensions—issues about which their members are concerned. Unions that ignore that message will find their members drifting away and will find recruits hard to come by. Whether there is a future for a trade union will be a matter entirely for that union. In this regard, I certainly have no prejudice—as, perhaps, my union membership indicates. This Bill gives new rights in respect of union membership.
  Nor am I at all concerned that the Bill's proposals in respect of unofficial action may have the side effect of strengthening the position of official unions in this country. It is ludicrous that we should have suffered such damage from unofficial strikes. What sets us apart from the rest of Europe and other countries is not the particular procedure but the amount of damage that is done to industry by unofficial disputes. It is ludicrous that it should be easier to take unofficial action than to take official action. Obviously I should prefer a situation in which there was no strike action whatsoever, but it seems to me that where there is strike action it should be taken by unions operating in the context of the law and subject to legal restraints such as the secret ballot.
  In my view, the reform of industrial relations law is one of the great successes of this Government's period of office. We have seen a reduction in the number of strikes and a reduction in the number of days lost. We have seen union members—as, recently, at Ford's—not simply following their leaders into strike action. Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that the public in this country support the reforms in industrial action that this Government has seen through.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield referred to my legacy to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

  61
  But the hon. Gentleman, too, has come into a legacy—a legacy from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). It is just possible, of course, that that was not the most welcome gift he received in 1989. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's position on the closed shop, as would anyone with any common sense. However, I say to him in all seriousness that he will have to answer the serious, important and crucial questions that my right hon. and learned Friend has put to him.
  The current position of the Opposition is that they would allow secondary action where a genuine striker has had a genuine interest in the dispute. The Opposition would get rid of injunctions and sequestration. It seems to me that that all adds up to a set of proposals that would make striking very much easier. It is very much in the public interest that it should be known where precisely the Labour party stands on these issues. This is not simply a party political issue; it is an issue on which the public will want to have answers.
  Above all—here I have some sympathy with one of the points that the hon. Gentleman made—the question now is, what are the real industrial relations issues in the 1990s? There is no doubt that reform of industrial relations law was the issue of the 1980s, but the process may not be at an end, even after the passage of this Bill.
  The whole advantage of the step-by-step approach is that abuses can be corrected, but I should be surprised if the reform of the law were to have such dominating importance in our affairs over the next 10 years as it had over the last 10 years. It seems to me that the 1990s are much more likely to be—indeed, should be—about involving the work force more thoroughly than ever before. That is an issue that goes way beyond the issues of worker directors and worker councils. It goes into employee share ownership and profit sharing; it goes into team working, and all the rest.
  The 1990s will also be about using the human resources at our disposal; about providing careers, not just jobs, for women; about providing opportunities for ethnic minorities and for unemployed people. But, above all, the 1990s—here I take up exactly the point that the hon. Member for Sedgefield made—will be about making our work force as professional, as skilled, as good, as it conceivably can be.
  The 1990s will be about not only initial training but retraining—training through life. Every right hon. and hon. Member must understand and recognise that both are long-standing issues that go back way beyond this Government and the preceding Labour Government. Training has been a problem for the whole of this century.
  Our experience of industrial relations shows that it is possible to tackle long-standing problems successfully. Ten years ago, no problem was seen as more intractable than had industrial relations, which were said to be too difficult an area to tackle. However, our experience over the past 10 years shows that, over a relatively sort period, British industrial relations can be not only changed but transformed.
  If our industrial relations had not improved, Britain would not have attracted the kind of inward investment that it has. We would not be enjoying the attractive jobs record that we have. Inward investment also proves—this is an objective test—that other countries recognise the great skills inherent in the British work force. Otherwise, they would not want to base operations in this country.
  62
  For the 1990s, we must aim at developing to the full extent the skills of our work force. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on his speech, but at the same time I look forward to his efforts in other areas of importance to our nation.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The Bill is completely unnecessary and has no relevance to the real needs of British commerce and industry. It is not as though the Bill addresses great abuses. Once again, the Government are churning our anti-union legislation. Every two years a new Bill is introduced proving that the Government still think of the unions as the enemy within. Whereas other countries throughout the world co-operate in industry, the present British Goverment believe that there is some electoral advantage in attacking unions and in union bashing.
  I refer first to the reason why the closed shop has persisted in many areas of British industry. As many impartial observers have noted, there is an inherent imbalance between the bargaining power of an individual worker and that of a large employer. Combination and union and collective bargaining offer a countervailing force that can redress the balance. For that reason, many workers seek 100 per cent. union membership, and it is legitimate for them to do so.
  In some sectors of industry, such as printing, 100 per cent. union membership is traditional and can be traced back to the guilds. In other trades, craftsmen are reluctant to work alongside those not having the required qualifications, of which union membership is often the hallmark. The question of safety arises in industries such as mining, where men live and work closely together for long periods in dangerous conditions. They may be reluctant to go down in a cage with someone who is not a union member.
  It has never been the ark of the covenant of Labour party policy that everyone must be coerced into union membership, whether or not they like it. Instead, Labour has historically recognised that the closed shop is a traditional element of industrial relations practice in many areas of employment. It has therefore adhered to the voluntary principle that the operation of a closed shop is a matter best left to management and workers—specially when one has been operated flexibly and tolerantly in the past, taking account of people having conscientious objections. The fact that the closed shop has lasted is proof that it meets the needs of both employers and employees.
  That was graphically proved to be the case by the Industrial Relations Act 1971, introduced by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), which made closed shops null and void. I was not a Member of Parliament at that time but was still working in industry, as a member of a closed shop. I can assure the House that the 1971 legislation had absolutely no effect. During the Committee proceedings of the Employment Bill in 1980, the then Secretary of State for Employment, now Lord Prior, said, "The fact of the matter is, it did not work"—and I know of not one employer who used its closed shop provisions.
  When the present Government came to office in 1979, they tried again. The Employment Act 1980 said that it would be unfair to dismiss anyone having a conscientious objection to union membership. It also required all new

  63
  closed shops to have the support of 80 per cent. of those balloted. The Employment Act 1982 stipulated that any dismissals would be unfair unless the closed shop had received the support of 85 per cent. of those balloted and eligible.
  Almost every ballot was in favour of a closed shop, proving its popularity among those most closely concerned. The Employment Act 1988 made post-entry closed shops unenforceable. The former Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), will recall that it outlawed all dismissals even where a ballot had been in favour of the closed shop. The Government said that, even if there had been ballots, they did not intend to take any notice of them; immunity would be withdrawn from actions to establish or maintain a closed shop, whether pre-entry or post-entry.
  What has been the effect of 10 years of the closed shop being outlawed by the present Government? The astonishing answer is, very little. In February and March 1989, the Department of Employment undertook a survey, which the former Secretary of State may have commissioned, whose results were published in the October 1989 issue of Employment Gazette. It revealed 1,300,000 workers in pre-entry closed shops and another 1,300,000 in post-entry closed shops. In other words, 2,600,000 workers remained in what are known to the Government as closed shops—that is, 10 per cent. of male workers, 3 per cent. of full-time women workers, and 1 per cent. of part-time women workers. The Employment Gazette article concluded:
  "More importantly perhaps, it has shown the closed shop to be more persistent and widespread than had previously been thought."
  Passing a law making closed shops null and void does not prevent one from continuing with the agreement of all those concerned.
  The closed shop was outlawed—otherwise the former Secretary of State and his colleagues would have been wasting their time for the past 10 years—yet it is still as strong as ever. One reason for that is that many employers support the closed shop because it spares them from splinter groups who would disrupt accepted representational arrangements. It spares them also from fragmented industrial relations and inter-union disputes. The simple truth is that the Tories' long offensive against the closed shop has failed in practice. The closed shop, which is rooted in certain industries, remains—and it has become ingrained because those concerned want it.
  Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leighton: I must not take too long, but I will give way later if I have time, as the hon. Gentleman is a valuable member of the Select Committee on Employment.
  Conservative Members consider that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has created a sensation and performed a volte face by conceding the workers' right not to belong to a union. That right, in fact, already exists, but it has not affected the 100 per cent. union membership in areas where such membership is traditional. The social charter—which, incidentally, would not give workers at GCHQ the right to join a trade union—has little to do with the position, which is due to a more
  64
  significant and fundamental development: the movement away from the idea of immunities towards that of positive rights.
  Britain is the only industrialised country in the world with no constitutional right to strike, no right to join a trade union, no right to trade union recognition—and there is no point in joining a union if it is not recognised—no right to collective bargaining and no right to information and consultation. Instead of those simple, basic rights, we have an increasingly unsatisfactory system of immunities. Under our common law, all trade union activity represents an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade, but statutes have given us immunities in relation to action taken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
  Unfortunately, the definition of a trade dispute has become so hedged about and restricted that collective action is now virtually impossible. Any union trying to take such action will almost immediately find itself ensnared by the law. It would be far better to move away from all that, and to devise a clear, comprehensive set of positive rights to enfranchise workers so that their citizenship does not end when they enter the workplace. They should have the right to strike, which should mean the suspension of their contract of employment so that they cannot be sacked if they take strike action. That is the arrangement in virtually every other industrialised country.
  The right to join a trade union also embraces the right not to do so, but that need cause us little concern. As we have seen, the right not to join has already existed for 10 years as a result of the Conservative party's efforts, and has had very little effect; we can live with it quite happily and easily. The right to join a union, however, will be of enormous value and will mark an enormous change. We must ensure that amendments are tabled providing such a right, or else exposing the one-sidedness of the Bill.
  At present there is no protection against denial of access to employment on grounds of union membership; to gain such protection would constitute an enormous victory for unions and workers. It is very unlikely that anyone has suffered in the past 10 years because of not belonging to a trade union, and I should like the Minister to give us the name and address of anyone who has. We know, however, that thousands have suffered because of belonging to a union: D. C. Thomson in Dundee, along with many other firms, requires employees to sign a document stating that they are not union members.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has said, we want to deal with the pre-entry discrimination imposed by blacklists from such organisations as the Economic League, which often gives employers information that is biased and untrue. They tell employers not to employ certain people because they are union members, and that must be outlawed. I hope that victims of such pre-entry discrimination will be able to go to a tribunal and obtain heavy damages from such employers.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I noticed the Minister shaking his head when my hon. Friend said that people could be refused jobs on grounds of trade union activity. Have not two attempts been made in the House to make blacklisting unlawful, and did not the Government oppose both?
  Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend has made a good point, and I pay tribute to her work in exposing such blacklists since she has been in the House.
  Mr. Janman: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has explained, the lists produced by the Economic League catalogue people who are intent on causing disruption once they have gained employment. Why does the hon. Gentleman seem to believe that causing disruption and being a member of a trade union are automatically synonymous?
  Mr. Leighton: They are certainly not synonymous. I do not know why Conservative Members are so shy of our looking into the matter to ensure even-handedness. My hon. Friends will table amendments in Committee for that purpose, and, if the Government are not prepared to grant that even-handedness, they will be pilloried and exposed.
  Fewer and fewer industries employ a huge number of workers. As far as I know, only one factory in the Greater London area—the Ford motor company—employs 1,000 workers or more. More than 90 per cent. of firms employ 25 or fewer, often in office-based, high-tech services, and it is difficult for unions to exercise industrial muscle in such circumstances. It would be far better to enfranchise those workers with positive rights. That will extend their freedom and such a policy will be very popular, and will aid the unions. We must press our amendments to insert the necessary measures in the Bill, for—as will become clear—the Labour party stands for real rights for workers.
  We have already warned that, if official action was made virtually impossible, the result could be an increase in the number of unofficial strikes. Now the Government are trying to legislate to prevent unofficial strikes; most organisations, however, have experienced no unofficial strikes for years. Such disputes are usually spontaneous and of short duration. They are often the result of a deeply felt grievance—over health and safety, for instance—and are generally resolved very quickly. If it were possible to legislate to prevent such action, it would have been done years ago.
  The Bill lays down a convoluted, largely impracticable procedure instructing the unions to police and discipline their members. The Government are schizoid in this regard. Previous legislation took away a union's authority to enforce its rules after a strike ballot, but now the Government have performed a U-turn: they want unions to act authoritatively, as policemen. Clauses 6 and 7 are particularly disgraceful, mean, nasty and vicious, for they allow and encourage the targeting of individuals and the victimisation of prominent trade unionists. Lech Walesa, for instance, would be caught immediately by such legislation.
  In 1978 Lord Dilhorne ruled that selective sackings amounted to unfair dismissal—and so they do. The Bill changes the law to enable employers to do precisely that. Instead of equity, equality and fair treatment, we see an intent to isolate and victimise prominent trade unionists. That is unfair: it discriminates between individuals, treating some as fish and some as fowl. Some will be singled out vindictively and punitively to have their livelihoods taken away.
  An unscrupulous employer could—as Rupert Murdoch did—provoke and engineer a strike or other industrial action and then pick and choose whom to re-employ. That
  66
  would be a licence for victimisation, with no right of appeal. The word for that is tyranny. That is what is being proposed. The Government would make martyrs of them. They ought to remember the case of the Pentonville Five before they go down that route.
  As for unofficial strikes, we all remember the episode that gave birth to the strikes on London Underground. Mr. Roger Straker, the personnel director of London Underground, was interviewed by Personnel Management in October 1989. According to Jane Pickard, who reported on what Mr. Straker said in his interesting interview:
  "It may sound as if he is indulging in jokey understatement when he confides that the recent tube strikes were triggered by a breakdown in communication, but he is, in fact, making a blunt admission of management failure."
  The report continued:
  "He acknowledges that part of the problem both then and in the run-up to the dispute was a poor management structure."
  According to the report, Mr. Straker said:
  "We were caught unawares—and I think the unions were caught unawares."
  It was not that the unions were agitators, stirring up people; even the unions were caught unawares. He also said:
  "We knew there was some discontent, but had not appreciated the momentum. Looking back on it, the major weakness on the management side was lack of awareness of how strong the feeling was. But I think we have to look at how we avoid that happening again."
  The reason for trouble on London Underground was bad management. There was also bad management on British Rail, which caused trouble. However, that was official. British Rail's personnel manager got the sack because of bad management.
  It is wrong to move from the particular to the general and to legislate because of management failure in one case. To amend our law so as to allow the unscrupulous employer, anywhere, to victimise an individual worker would be shameful. The Labour party ought to oppose it with the utmost vigour.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am privileged to be the first on this side of the House to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). It was his first speech from the Back Benches in 16 years. That is a remarkable track record. It demonstrates my right hon. Friend's contribution to the work of the House, both in government and in opposition. My right hon. Friend continued the style that he set when he was on the Front Bench in the delicacy and sensitivity with which he congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend the new Secretary of State for Employment on introducing his incubus.
  My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the difference between the way in which this Government have dealt with employment legislation over the years, on a bit-by-bit basis rather than on the one big chunk basis, as happened in 1970–71. The mistakes that were made then have been well learnt. Consequently, we have a far sounder basis for dealing with industrial relations on a wide front. With my background in manufacturing industry, I welcome the changes and the stability that it has brought to a large sector of manufacturing industry.
  Mr. David Clelland: What manufacturing industry?
  Mr. Shepherd: Light engineering.
  I am mindful of Mr. Speaker's strictures in asking for short speeches. I shall therefore deal with just one narrow but important point that I do not believe is covered by the Bill.
  Early last summer, NALGO was in dispute with its employers. It chose to take action in the Hereford constituency in a rather curious way. A firm of large poultry producers, Sun Valley Poultry Limited, is in my constituency. It is obliged by law to employ on its premises poultry meat inspectors who are actually employed by the local authority. In this dispute, NALGO's local organisers decided that the best way to pursue their action was to withdraw the poultry meat inspectors' labour from Sun Valley Poultry Ltd. The firm was therefore unable to discharge its statutory obligations regarding poultry meat inspection. Its operations were subsequently put into jeopardy.
  Not unnaturally, the firm took legal advice about obtaining an injunction to stop that action. The answer, I am afraid, was no. It was perfectly clear to me that there was a loophole in the law that enabled a curious, convoluted form of secondary action to be taken which was every bit as damaging as the secondary action that is referred to in the legislation and that has been dealt with by past legislation.
  I took up the matter with Ministers in the Department of Employment and was pointed to the case of Barretts and Baird (Wholesale) Limited v. IPCS where the employers had succeeded in obtaining an injunction against NALGO officers who were the meat inspectors of the Meat and Livestock Commission. That, however, was on the basis of lightning strikes. In this instances, there was a long-distance strike. The advice was that there could have been a different judgment if there had been a long strike rather than lightning strikes.
  When the matter was referred to counsel who was expert in employment matters he expressed a
  "clear view … that it did not make a difference and that cases subsequent to the Barretts case had made the position worse."
  Counsel's clear advice to Sun Valley Poultry Ltd. Was
  "that there was nothing that could be done."
  I asked that this point should be taken into account, but when I looked at the Bill I could find no mention of it. It may be that as I am not a lawyer I was unable to spot it in the phraseology of the Bill. I hope that when he winds up the debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell me whether that contingency is taken into account. If it is not, will he undertake to consider the matter between now and the time when amendments to clause 4 can be tabled? If appropriate, I hope that he will consider tabling a new clause to take that point into account.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State reiterated the assertion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield in his Green Paper of March 1989:
  "in general, there is no good reason why employers who are not a party to a dispute should be at risk of having industrial action organised against them."
  It cannot be fair that a small group of employees of a different employer should be able to jeopardise the livelihood and activities of the biggest employer in my constituency. That cannot be correct. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to take this opportunity to legislate and not to allow this state of affairs to continue for a moment longer.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Employment Bill which, whilst it makes welcome provision to make unlawful the refusal of access to employment on grounds relating to trade union membership, nevertheless fails to make any provision for the improvement of good industrial relations, but rather through its proposed amendments to the law relating to strikes and other unofficial industrial action will only serve to embroil employers and employees in further confrontational legal dispute, to the detriment of industrial harmony."
  Towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) set out a list of measures that he foresaw as developments in industrial relations in the 1990s. I would not quarrel for a moment with anything in that list. What troubles me about this Bill is that a major part of it remains a Bill for industrial relations in the 1980s. It contains an unnecessary measure of kicking the trade unions when they are already down and do not need any further kicking, and fails to take the opportunity of starting the 1990s with a Bill for the 1990s.
  There can be only one justifiable reason for an Employment Bill—to enhance good industrial relations. If the Bill contained some of the measures outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, introduced changes that would encourage significantly employees' share ownership, included provisions for more effective works councils and aimed for increased partnership between workers at whatever level in the company from the shop floor to the board of directors to involve them in the activities of the company, it would almost certainly have our complete support. But unfortunately it fails to do that. It does not even address improving the administration of trade union procedure—for example, simply by ensuring that all strike ballot forms are sent to the homes of trade union members rather than there still being an option for ballots to be sent either to members' homes or to the workplace.
  It is important that we accept the need for an effective trade union movement to protect the interests of trade unionists against oppressive, unfair and mean employers. We should aim for a trade union movement which is ever more effective in ensuring that services are provided which members need. In particular, it should provide a service when employees have been injured or if they feel that they have been unfairly dismissed. In that context, the Government and the Labour party—the Labour party was responsible for starting the iniquity—should agree that legal aid should now be extended to industrial tribunals so that workers at all levels can have proper remedies and effective representation available to them if they claim to have been unfairly dismissed.
  During part of the Secretary of State's speech, I heard from behind and around me some dinosaur-like noises about the closed shop, The Labour party really has to recognise that the closed shop is part of its dinosaur attitude to trade unionism. By arguing for the maintenance of the closed shop, Labour Members are giving the trade unions dinosaur food, while the climate changes and kills the dinosaurs.
  The trade unions do not need a closed shop to be effective. They have other advantages that sell their membership to those who might join them. Like right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House, I encourage people to join trade unions if there is any risk of their being

  69
  injured at work or unfairly treated by their employers. If they are in doubt and they ask me, I always say, "Join a trade union because it is a good thing to be a member of a union or a professional body which looks after your interests at all levels and at all times, and is prepared to negotiate for you." Trade unions do not need the closed shop. The closed shop is about as relevant today as compelling all adults to attend religious worship on Sunday whether they like it or not. It has no more logic than that.
  We welcome the introduction into an Act of Parliament of a new right—the right to choose whether or not to be a member of a trade union. What troubles me as I listen to the reaction of Labour Back Benchers around me as I speak is that, whatever the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says, he is hotly opposed on his own Back Benches, in his own party and in the trade unions that support some members of the Labour party. The Labour party has no well understood and genuine interest in improving trade union law. Its interest is in protecting trade unions, be they dinosaurs or not, at least as much as protecting the workers. I join the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in saying that we should move into the 1990s and aim for trade union structures that really protect working people and ensure that they have as much incentive as managers for their workplaces to be profitable and safe.
  I hope that I have made it reasonably clear that we support the abolition of the closed shop. I come to what in our view are severe flaws in the Bill—fatal flaws, at this stage at any rate. The Secretary of State should perhaps have declared an interest. I know that he has not practised at the Bar for some years, but he is a distinguished lawyer. He must know that the Bill could well become a minefield of contention and pedantry. Looking at clauses 4 to 8, I envisage lawyers specialising in labour law rubbing their hands in the Temple. I see the solicitors in Chancery lane who instruct them smiling with glee at the contentions that those clauses present. For example, clause 4 aims to tackle secondary action.
  What will happen if the Ford Motor Company decides to split each plant into a separate plc and then split each part of each plant into a separate plc? Under the Bill as it stands, secondary action by workers in one plc to assist workers in another plc—although the group interest is clearly inseparable—will be unlawful. That makes no sense, except for the pockets of the lawyers who will go into court and earn fees for trying to sort out the mess that the Government have created for themselves. Therefore, I invite the Minister to consider the way in which legal artifice may be used to make primary action into secondary action. There is a real risk of that.
  I now turn to clause 6. In my constituency there is a charming town called Machynlleth, which has a great tradition of railway workers. There used to be a large railway station, but, because of what is happening to British Rail services west of Shrewsbury, that railway station is about to become an art gallery, although I am sure that it will be an excellent art gallery. Perhaps I had better leave British Rail services out of the debate or I shall be ruled out of order. However, I am pleased to say that there are still railway workers in Machynlleth and most of them are still loyal members of the National Union of Railwaymen. Under clause 6, the unpaid, part-time branch
  70
  secretary of the Machynlleth branch of the NUR will be an official of the union, who will be able to make the NUR liable in court because of his actions.
  I am a lawyer, too, and I recall the Solicitor-General, some years before he became Solicitor-General, appearing in a very well known case called Tesco v. Nattrass in the House of Lords, in which it was held that the only person who could bind a company was someone who could properly be regarded as the eyes and ears of that company. That remains the law for many purposes. Under clause 6, a union will be bound not by its eyes and ears but by people who are so far removed from its eyes and ears that they are barely part of its limbs.
  That provision in clause 6 is part of a legal minefield that is unfair to trade unions, because, with the best will in the world, it will have one of two effects. Either it will introduce a new concept of vicarious liability—if it does, I am surprised that as good a lawyer as the Secretary of State is prepared to countenance it—or it will turn trade unions into centralised, authoritarian and unworkable organisations in which the part-time branch secretary at Machynlleth will have no interest. It is extremely important that that provision is reconsidered, because it is nonsense.
  Clause 7 provides for an amendment of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and introduces new section 62A. It says:
  "An employee has no right to complain of unfair dismissal if at the time of dismissal he was taking part in an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action … Provided that, a strike or other industrial action shall not be regarded as unofficial if none of those taking part in it are members of a trade union."
  That, Mr. Deputy Speaker—perhaps as the changeover is taking place I should say Mr. and Madam Deputy Speaker—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Call me Madam.
  Mr. Carlile: Certainly, Madam.
  That raises serious problems. Why is an unofficial strike not an unofficial strike when no trade unionists are involved? Why does it suddenly become an unlawful unofficial strike when but one trade unionist is involved? There can only be one reason for that—that the Government have decided that trade unionists should be discriminated against merely because they have decided to join a trade union. That is fundamentally wrong and contradicts the right in clause 1, which I applaud, to choose whether to be a member of a trade union.
  Mr. Batiste: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlile: No, I will not. I have taken up enough time already.
  Will the Minister reconsider that discrimination and remove it or justify it if he can?
  New section 62A removes the right of an employee to complain to an industrial tribunal that he has been unfairly dismissed for taking part in an unofficial strike. We know what happens in the real world; sometimes unofficial strikes blow up for very good reasons. An employer may unjustifiably decide to lock out part of his work force or discriminate against women employees. The buzz goes round, "We will have an unofficial strike," and a young lad or lass of 17 walks out of the factory with the rest of the work force. Not only youngsters but all workers

  71
  are susceptible to group pressure. How can the Government justify penalising by possible sacking every worker, whatever their strength of character, age or sex, who takes part in unofficial action? To achieve just and even-handed trade union law, we must give all workers the right of access to a tribunal for it to decide whether their action was reasonable.
  Our objection is that the middle and later parts of the Bill remove the possibility of reasonableness being the test of action taken by union officials or workers on the shop floor. The Bill sets rules intended to kick unions, rather than setting standards intended to support working people. We hope that it will be so improved in Committee that we shall be able to support it, but at present that is not possible.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Tim Janman: There have been five major employment and trade union Bills since 1979, four of which have been particularly relevant to industrial relations. Opposition Members made long speeches saying that each Bill would worsen the industrial relations environment and our economic performance, but we have experienced the exact opposite. We ignored those siren voices in the past, so my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should ignore the siren voices once again warning of grave pitfalls.
  The purpose of the legislation introduced since 1979 was to make the trade union movement more accountable to, and therefore more reflective of, the views of its membership, and to put the freedom of the individual first rather than to allow the coercion of the closed shop—certainly the post-entry closed shop—to continue. It made the right to go to work a decision of individual conscience. Under the 1988 Act, we rightly outlawed the disciplining of trade union members because they wanted to go to work when there had been a majority ballot in favour of strike action.
  The Bills introduced since 1979 have tried to restore the appalling imbalance that we inherited between the rights of the individual and the trade union movement and between the power and might of organised labour against capital. That policy has been extremely successful. Far fewer days are now lost because of strikes than throughout the 1970s, particularly when the Labour party was last in power. Even with the tightening of the labour market, and even with unemployment falling to about the level of the late 1970s, the number of days lost through strikes is smaller than in the 1970s.
  The argument often advanced by Opposition Members—that that results not from our legislation but from the fact that we had high unemployment in the early 1980s—is irrelevant. With more people in employment than before, and with unemployment back to the level of the mid to late 1970s, fewer days are lost because of strikes than before the legislation was introduced between 1979 and 1989.
  We have also witnessed substantial improvements in productivity—both in the economy as a whole and in manufacturing. One result of the legislation passed over the past 10 years has been that employers have had much greater respect for trade unions because—even if they have been forced into it, in one sense—trade unions have
  72
  become more responsive to, and have more closely reflected, the needs, aspirations and views of their members. Employers treat trade unions with more respect now that they know that the trade unions' views have more validity. Conversely, trade unions have, on the whole, more respect for employers.
  Now that less energy is being dissipated by the trade union leadership in acts of industrial vandalism and destruction, many trade unions and their leadership have put their energy into more constructive matters, and have sought to try to make genuine improvements in the working conditions of their members. In a wider context, the EEPTU, for example has negotiated a very good private health package for its members. We now have responsible trade unions widening their horizons and expanding the role that they play on behalf of their members.
  That is what we have achieved so far. We now need to consider why the Bill is a logical extension of those earlier Acts. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that there were still 1·3 million people in pre-entry closed shops and a further 1·3 million people in post-entry closed shops. The hon. Gentleman was making a case for saying that we should not have waited for the Employment Act 1988 and this Bill to deal with the pre-entry closed shop: we should have dealt with it in our first Employment Act back in 1980.
  Let me deal first with secondary action. It is logical to extend the removal of immunity in law to secondary action. In my view, it would be morally reprehensible to allow immunity to remain. Immunity should exist only for those directly involved in a dispute with their own employers, and within the definition of a trade dispute. The rhetoric of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East is all well and good, but he knows full well that the Bill will not prevent legitimate action by a group of workers who have a genuine dispute with their own employer and who have been balloted by their local union leaders concerning the kind of industrial action that they would like to take in the context of their terms and conditions of employment, and—where jobs are threatened, for example—provided that the wording on the ballot paper is specific and accurate in stating what the local shop stewards seek a mandate to do. If all those conditions are met and if there is a majority vote, that action can be taken and the right to strike remains.
  Secondary action is an entirely different matter. It is completely wrong that a company in dispute with its own employees can have its goods and services blacked by employees of other companies who have nothing to do with the dispute, and that they and their customers should lose as a result. There is no moral case whatever for immunity to be retained in cases of secondary action. I therefore welcome clause 40, which would end such immunity.
  Earlier legislation reduced the number of strike days lost, but still the public have to put up with a great deal of wildcat strike action, particularly in the public sector. Earlier in the debate we heard from the Opposition that the raison d'etre—the catalyst—for the Bill was the tube strike. I think that the tube strike was the last straw that broke the camel's back. It was the most recent horrendous example of action taken by unions in the public sector—as it often is—to disrupt the daily lives of millions of people without any democratic mandate from their membership to do so.

  73
  It is worth noting that 75 per cent. of strike action taken in Britain at the moment is unofficial. That means that this is not a small problem or a problem limited to one or two strikes—caused by bad management or whatever—or to one or two parts of the public sector. Even given the huge reduction in strike action over the past 10 years, such action remains all too prevalent.
  It is fair to say that many options were discussed by the Government in seeking to solve the problem. One was the removal of the right to strike in essential services. I have always had grave doubts about a de facto removal of the right to strike from anyone in Britain, irrespective of whether they work in an essential service or not. The Government were absolutely right to conclude that they would be foolhardy to take that approach. They have decided upon the right solution. First, they propose to make trade unions far more accountable in law. The unions will have to try to ensure—and prove that they have been doing all that they can to ensure—that they can control the wider elements in their midst, and that people cannot stir up feelings and lead employees out on strike without going through the proper channels.
  Secondly, the Government propose to change the law so that a person involved in wildcat action or negative, disruptive action within his company can be dismissed and will lose the right to take the case on appeal to an industrial tribunal. I congratulate the Minister on sticking with those two solutions and not taking a route that could have some significant public spending ramifications because of the inevitable tit-for-tat that would have resulted. I congratulate the Government for introducing the solutions suggested in the Bill.
  Under all Governments, employers have been able to sack all or none of those on strike. That was the case when the Labour party was in power. I do not think that that fair balance should now apply to people taking or leading strike action when they have no legal, moral or democratic mandate for doing so.
  The third provision on which I propose to comment applies to the pre-entry closed shop. As I said, much of the previous legislation has been about individual rights in the workplace and in society generally. The 1980, 1982 and 1988 Acts dealt with the post-entry closed shop and gave people the right to go to work without fear of discipline or of reprisals being taken against them simply because, as a matter of conscience, they happen to want to do one thing when the majority of their colleagues happen to want to do something else. But the pre-entry closed shop remained untouched, and it is therefore logical and desirable—as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has also concluded—to place it on the same legal footing as the post-entry closed shop. That is all that the Bill would do. There is nothing controversial or contentious about that. It is a natural and logical step forward.
  Although the Labour party still opposes pre-strike ballots, supports secondary action and mass picketing and opposes trade unions being held financially responsible for the devastation that they often try to cause, it at least now seems to accept that strong unions are based on voluntary membership and not on coercion.
  I hope that that conversion is genuine and does not simply stem from directives coming from Brussels. It seems at the moment that the Labour party embraces with both arms anything that comes out of Brussels. It is interesting to speculate whether, in the hypothetical event of there being a Labour Administration after the next general
  74
  election, they would warmly embrace a Brussels directive forcing them to allow private companies to run trains on a contract basis on the rail network. It would be interesting to see how the Labour party squirmed or reacted in response to directives from Europe which the Labour Government did not like for what they argued were perfectly valid philosophical and practical reasons.
  At the moment, let us give the Opposition the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that they have been suddenly converted and have jettisoned principles which they have held strongly for decades. If that is the case, when will we see the same conversion in respect of the students' closed shop and the National Union of Students?
  I welcome the Bill. It is the next logical step and I am sure that it will be taken ably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State as he guides the Bill through the House.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) gave us the historical background to the Bill. I want to remind him, the House and the country of the historical background to the trade union movement.
  At one time, we had the Combination Acts in this country, which denied workers the right to join or belong to a trade union. Many workers organised illegally in an attempt to get rid of the Combination Acts; as a result, they were hanged, imprisoned or transported abroad. Eventually the Combination Acts were destroyed. after a long and bitter struggle.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to big unions and big labour in contrast to the employers. That was reminiscent of the language used by employers in the United States immediately after the second world war. The unions in the United States were very weak until the new deal initiated by Roosevelt. He gave workers rights through legislation. We had not had rights like that in this country because we did not believe in legislation to organise trade unions. In the United States, workers in unions like the steel workers unions and the automobile workers unions began to organise and the Congress of Industrial Organisations was born.
  The CIO can be considered alongside the old craft unions in this country, of which I was a member. We organised because we were craftsmen. Lawyers, who are also craftsmen, ensure that no one other than a lawyer enters that organisation. When I was an apprentice, the craftsmen—as in the United States—ensured that only craftsmen entered a union.
  In the United States the employers eventually had to accept the CIO because there was tremendous organisation among industrial workers. I am only too pleased to provide the hon. Member for Thurrock with a lecture about the trade unions. He must be aware that after the second world war the employers in the United States referred to the workers' organisations as though they were stronger than the employers.
  At one stage, the Conservatives did a similar thing in this country when they produced a pamphlet called "A giant strength". That was the beginning of the Conservatives' campaign against the trade unions. It contained the nonsensical argument that the workers had immense power even greater than that of the employers. That pamphlet was rubbish. Even with the best

  75
  organisation in the world, the working class and the trade unions were never as strong as the employers' organisations. The balance was always against the workers and trade unions and in favour of the employers. The hon. Member for Thurrock may not like that or agree with me, and that is his right.
  Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heffer: No, I will give way in a moment.
  The employers have always been stronger than the trade unions. However, the trade unions have always been under pressure, particularly from Conservative Governments. I remember the Industrial Relations Act 1971 under what I must call the Heath Government. I was a member of the Opposition Front Bench at the time, and I fought that legislation every inch of the way. There were arguments then about the closed shop, and the arguments continue today. As long as employers want to use their strength and power against organised working people who want decent working conditions and to live in decent conditions with decent wages, there will always be a struggle for 100 per cent. trade unionism and for the closed shop.
  I am upset by the fact that Conservative Members believe that trade unionists want to oppress other workers. That has never been our intention. We have never wanted to place the iron heel on workers' necks because they would not join a trade union. In my time, I have negotiated many 100 per cent. trade union agreements, which people can call closed shops if they like—it does not matter. They were not always pre-entry closed shops, but sometimes they were.
  In some cases, Jehovah's Witnesses or members of other religious groups did not want to join the union. Did we say, "Sack them"? Perhaps in some cases they were sacked, but those cases were very few. Trade unionists said, "Right—we are not in favour of sacking those workers, provided that they are not freeloaders going along and getting all the benefits of a trade union organisation. We will make an agreement and they can pay into a charity."
  I am sickened by clause 1(b)(ii) which states that it will be unlawful
  "To make payments or suffer deductions in the event of his not being a member of a trade union."
  That really makes me angry, because that means that everything that I have done over the years as a trade unionist, while accepting that people do not have to belong to a union, will be illegal.
  Mr. Eggar: I have been listening extremely carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and in particular to his description of the closed shop as it was. Why has the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) decided that he does not want to oppose the abolition of the closed shop? Why did the hon. Member for Sedgefield not draw attention to the particular subsection to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has referred?
  Mr. Heffer: I will come to the point about the social charter in my own terms, and not in the Minister's terms. I do not think that the difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and myself is quite as great as the Minister believes.
  Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heffer: No. I shall make my case in my own terms and in my own way. There are differences—everybody knows about them—and I shall speak about them in a few moments. I shall not answer in terms of what the Conservative party thinks, because that is not what I think and it never has been.
  Let me explain why we argue for a closed shop. I was an apprentice joiner before the second world war in the south of England. My trade union was not that strong, but, on going to work, my Dad said, "There are two things, lad, now that you've gone to work: take your tea caddy with you and join the union." That is what my old feller said, and he was absolutely right.
  I joined the union as an apprentice. On some of the sites, the older trade union members would look round and realise that there was a majority of members of the society—that is what we called the union then—on those sites. They would elect a shop steward, and they would then talk to the other workers to try to get them into the union. On most occasions they succeeded. After that, the union would reach an agreement with the employer and it would tell the employer that, as from then, the site was a trade union one and that anyone working on it had to be a member of the union. Conservative Members may say that that is disgraceful, but what is disgraceful about workers working for the benefit of all workers? The union ensured that workers on the sites enjoyed proper trade union conditions and decent pay.
  We never had one worker set against another. We were working for the benefit of all that was why we organised other sections of workers and got a federation steward on the job. The National Federation of Building Trade Operatives meant that trade union organisation on the sites was 100 per cent.
  Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about workers not being set against one another. Does that mean some workers were allowed to disagree with the hon. Gentleman and other workers who shared his views?
  Mr. Heller: I have always agreed with people disagreeing with me—whether in favour or not, that has happened. I am in favour of people disagreeing, as that is the essence of democracy. The day that such disagreement ends and we impose our view on other people is the end of democracy. We do not need to go into that argument, as most people know where I stand.
  I believe that trade union organisation is the essence of democracy. We fought for the right to have the democratic organisation of trade unions. We were part of the Chartist movement. We were the ones who argued for the right to vote and the right to belong to a trade union. My fellow trade unionists and I represent the essence of the trade unionist movement and the essence of democracy.
  The forefathers of Conservative Members fought against our rights, and they should not try to give us lessons about democracy. We do not need any lessons about that, because we understand it only too well. That is why some of us fought from the very beginning for the rights of Solidarity and of others in Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe. We did so because we believe in a democratic basis.
  What is even more worrying than the provisions in the Bill relating to the closed shop are those relating to

  77
  unofficial strikes. I have never said this before publicly, but I believe that I have only been on official strike once in my life.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: That was a mistake.
  Mr. Heffer: Exactly—because it was an inter-union dispute. I was the steward at the time, and I was told by my executive to pull my workers out because we did not agree with a certain trade union. I said that that was daft, but the executive said that it was instructing me, so I told the lads to go out. There was also a dispute at the Cammell Laird shipyard called the "screwy" strike. I was about to be elected as a full-time official, but I opposed that strike, and my vote went down the drain. People said that I was standing up against their interests.
  All the other disputes in which I have been involved related to important worker rights, and they were unofficial. Some of us in the trade union movement have had experience of officials who were almost Conservatives. They never wanted to do anything when it came to the working people. We had to tell them to do something, and we fought for the right of workers to take action.
  Imagine working in a bad shop that was full of fumes. Imagine that one had negotiated with the employer for years about getting some machinery to get rid of those fumes so that one could work in decent conditions. I can imagine the day when a number of such workers would say, "That's the end. We have had enough and we're not working here any longer." By walking out of the gates, they are taking unofficial action. Those workers would not ask the executive of their union about it, as it would no doubt say that it was still negotiating. The workers would be right to say, "Never mind that: we're working there and we can't tolerate it any more."
  If a shop steward is wrongly sacked, there will not be a great argument about it. The workers will merely say, "We voted for him and we will defend him." That is what happens. That is what unofficial strikes are about. It would be stupid to say that every unofficial strike is right, but workers must take such action sometimes.
  Do Conservative Members think that workers like losing their wages? Do they think they like going home to their wives and saying, "I'm sorry, lovey. We're on strike. We'll get no wages at the end of the week and we won't get any dole money. We won't get any money from the union either"? That strike might last three or four weeks. Do Conservative Members think that their wives are understanding and say, "That's all right, love—carry on"? Not likely. I have received a lashing of the tongue sometimes because of unofficial strikes, and so has the average worker with two or three kids. They take such action because they cannot accept the conditions any more.
  If the Bill is passed, it will be the equivalent of industrial slavery. It will force workers to do things that they would not normally do because they will be afraid of losing their jobs. They will lose the right to go to the tribunal—they will lose the right to do anything. That is the essence of the Bill. It is the worst piece of class legislation that we have ever had. We have had five nasty pieces of legislation, but this is the worst. They have all been bad, and I have opposed every one of them, as I will this Bill.
  Hon. Members have a right to know where I stand about the position adopted by my Front Bench colleagues. I believe that they have been somewhat misled by the
  78
  European social charter. I do not want to be tied to that charter. I do not believe that any of us should be. I say, "When it is good, support it; when it is not so good, don't support it." That is my view. It is a simple, straightforward working-class view. I say, "If it benefits us, I am all in favour of it, but if it doesn't benefit us, don't support it." Conservative Members support little in the social charter because they think that most of it is in our favour. I think that all the bits that they do not like are worth while, and I am very much in favour of them.
  The report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities dealing with the social charter, provides a synopsis at paragraph 8(v):
  "Freedom of association and collective bargaining. This involves the right to organise trade unions and to choose whether or not to join them"
  There is not too great a difference between myself and my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench about this. I am not denying for one moment that there is a difference, but we all agree that Conservative Members put their emphasis not on the right to organise, but on the right not to be in a union. The Bill gives the right to be an anti-trade unionist. The Bill gives rights to a whole bunch of people who will undermine the trade unions. That is where Conservative and Labour Members differ on this issue. I accept that we should have the right to organise into trade unions; they put the emphasis on the right to choose to do so or to choose not to do so.
  I return to the point about the United States of America. I once won a scholarship to go to the United States of America to study the trade union movement, and that is what I did. It was interesting that, particularly in the southern states, there was legislation called "the right to work". In fact, it was anti-trade union legislation which stated that people did not have to belong to a trade union. In the states that had such legislation, workers' wages and conditions of employment were far worse than in the states that did not have such legislation. That is why I am not in favour of this aspect of the social charter.
  I believe that my hon. Friends are misled on this issue and that they have got it slightly wrong. I am asking them to rethink this matter. However, I am delighted about one thing: we are all opposed to the Bill and shall vote against it on the Second Reading. I shall join my hon. Friends wholeheartedly in that.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. David Madei: The speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton Mr. Heffer) followed a familiar pattern. I have heard him speak on industrial relations on many occasions. Sometimes he raised the temperature high, but sometimes it was much lower. The hon. Gentleman mentioned United Auto Workers of America and trade union practices there. I shall deal with that point a little later; it relates both to the Bill and to my constituency.
  As has been said, the Bill follows its predecessors in employment legislation in trying to get as fair a balance as possible between management and trade unions. In many ways, it is a furtherance of the step-by-step approach. However, as has also been said, the European social charter is now elbowing its way onto the scene. British industry should be encouraged to note that the social charter clearly recognises that progress in industrial relations should always take account of national priorities and obligations, arising under national regulations.

  79
  Therefore, there is a clear recognition that we have a different history of trade unionism and industrial relations in this country compared with our European counterparts. The preamble and more detailed comments of the social charter on industrial relations take note of that.
  There has been a considerable change in trade union attitudes during the past decade. However, since the Bill was published, there has also been a simple query by management, which takes the form of the question, "Do we really need any more changes in the law? Is it not our job to manage better?"
  Clauses 1 and 2 can be described as the "helpful-access-to-employment" clauses. They are a firm demonstration of the Government's good intentions to make it as trouble free as possible for someone to find a job, be he or she a member of a trade union or not. We must look at that in relation to what is happening in the economy. The job vacancies position is starting to look shaky. High interest rates are still with us and at best we can expect a neutral Budget in March. I hope that, when the Bill is enacted, unemployment benefit offices will go out of their way to explain to people that there are new and welcome protections for individuals who are out of work and who need every encouragement and opportunity to find alternative employment.
  The most contentious part of the Bill is that relating to unofficial strike action and to what can be done about it in employment law. The background has been the same throughout the past 10 years. Most strikes in this country are unofficial and do not last very long. However, even if they are of only a short duration, their effect can be considerable. Twenty-one years ago. Donovan recognised that, stating:
  "Unofficial strikes … will continue until the confusion which so often surrounds the exercise by management of its 'rights' has been resolved by the settlement of clear rules and procedures which are accepted as fair and reasonable by all concerned."
  In other words, 21 years ago Donovan wanted a better understanding of what is expected of each employee when he or she is at work.
  We must ask two questions about the proposals relating to unofficial action. First, will the democratic authority of elected trade union officials be strengthened? We have changed the law to ensure that such authority as trade union officials have must come through the ballot box and through democracy. Secondly, by writing to their members repudiating such action, will trade unions be effective in ensuring that the dispute is quickly solved?
  The Bill goes into considerable detail on that point. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has already referred to clause 6, which sets out a new subsection (5A) in section 15 of the Employment Act 1982:
  "The notice given to members … must contain the following statement—
  'Your union has repudiated any call for industrial action to which this notice relates and will give no support for such action. If you are dismissed while taking unofficial action, you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal.'"
  In my view, that statement is far too blunt. We must include in the Bill a provision to ensure that the union refers to what it is doing to help to solve the dispute and whether it is seeking immediate outside help to resolve it and to get people back into normal working.
  80
  The clause deals with people who are members of trade unions. If we are to say that the union must send out that sort of letter to ensure that it cannot be had up for not taking sufficient action to stop the dispute, we should require the trade union to say more to its members, who may be taking unofficial action, about what the union is trying to do to get the dispute solved. I say that not least because if it is clearly stated in a letter that the union is bending over backwards to get the dispute solved, there is every possibility that the unofficial action will quickly end. In previous Employment Acts we have done all that we can to involve individual trade unionists in the conduct and affairs of their trade unions.
  I now refer to two instances where there could be serious consequences if the wrong decision is taken on unofficial action. Privatised electricity is about to be launched. So far, the electricity industry has had a long history of extremely good industrial relations. Every effort has been made by the unions and the management of the industry to ensure that the employees are properly consulted and, above all, to ensure that, even if there are arguments between unions and management, the supply of electricity is uninterrupted. Already Mr. John Lyons, general secretary of the Engineers and Managers Association, has issued a warning. He hopes that when the new owners take over they will not exercise macho management techniques and introduce practices that have not hitherto existed in the electricity supply industry. Once these private companies are operating, they should take the greatest care before implementing this part of the Bill.
  I want also to refer to the railway industry. Hon. Members have already mentioned unofficial strikes on tubes. The management have said that their consultative procedures were probably not right and that they may have been out of touch. We should all like rapid movement towards a single union in British Rail. Given the extent to which we shall depend on British Rail in the next 10 years, there should be enough confidence in security of employment for management and unions in that industry never to find that unofficial strikes have started due to a lack of understanding of what either management or trade unions have been trying to do to improve conditions in the industry.
  Over the past 10 years, the Government have spent a great deal of public funds on management education. The latest figures available state that in 1987–88 more than £2·5 million was given in the form of recurrent grant to the London business school and £1·6 million to the Manchester business school. That is a good use of public money—to improve management education.
  We should now be thinking about what we can do to extend management education to the shop floor. The purpose of management is to improve relations within a company and to make it more profitable and sensitive to markets, so there is surely a case for extending public funds to improving the education of those on the trade union side. After all, they are also in the business of making the company more profitable and sensitive to the market—and of ensuring that the general good of employees is continually enhanced. As we move into the new decade, we should think of ways of improving training opportunities for shop stewards, who play an important part in the running of their firms.
  In the business section of The Daily Telegraph today, my hon. Friend the Minister of State refers to failures in business and pointed out that it is often lack of

  81
  managment expertise that causes businesses to go under. The lack of that expertise is also often the cause of industrial relations not being what they should be.
  What can be done to promote a more constructive role for trade unions in the 1990s? What can be done to make them feel more a part of our improving industrial society? First, trade unions in certain industries should merge into single unions. The hon. Member for Walton mentioned the car industry. I dream of the day when a united autoworkers union exists in this country. We can debate ad nauseum what went wrong in Dundee, but one of Ford's problems was the unions there could not speak with a single voice.
  By the middle of this decade there will be over-production in the car industry in Europe, and some plants will have to close. Let us ensure that plants in this country do not close. It is imperative that unions in the car industry merge into a single union; that will be better for their members and for the industry. If that proves impossible, I hope that they will at least speak with a single voice in the next decade and beyond. So often, upsets in the car industry have resulted from unions being unable to agree among themselves.
  The unions' slogan used to be, "A fair day's pay for a fair day's work". It should now move on to be, "A generous day's pay for complete flexibility of working practices." If we are to ask that of the trade unions, we must ask something of employers, too. As it stands, the Bill could provide certain employers with an opportunity for doing rash and unwise things in industrial relations. That is why the Bill needs thorough scrutiny in Committee.
  We have made great progress in industrial relations in the past 10 years. I only hope that this Bill is not a Bill too far. It is up to the Committee considering it to make sure that it is not.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: This certainly is a Bill too far. What concerns me about industrial relations legislation under this Government is, first, that there has been far too much of it and, secondly, that it rarely has anything to do with the promotion of good industrial relations. This Bill is no exception to that rule. It purports to be concerned with economic efficiency and individual freedom, but, in fact, in common with all its predecessors of the past 10 years, it is entirely born out of the narrow prejudices of the Conservative party.
  If Tory Members really cared about individual freedom, that care would have to extend to views that did not necessarily coincide with their own. But it does not. If it did, staff at GCHQ would be freed from the political strictures imposed on them by the Government. How will they fare under clause 1, in terms of the right to belong to a trade union? While it is a refreshing change to see such a right proposed in Tory legislation, we all know that it is a right not to belong which the Government will promote and encourage.
  With certain exceptions, I could live with the inclusion of this section of the European charter in British law, provided that the rest of the provisions of the charter were included, along with the important right of union members to be represented by their union. There is no point in being a member of a union unless a person has the right to be represented by the union to the employer.
  82
  Provided that we successfully amend clause 1 in the way outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I do not believe that it will pose serious threats to union membership. After all, virtually outlawing the closed shop has had little, if any, effect. One hundred per cent. trade union membership shops still continue. The reason is that people know the value of union membership. If anyone working in a factory or shop did not know that value he would only have to read the Government's Green Paper, "Removing Barriers to Employment", which clearly showed that in closed shop employment, wages were anything between 10 and 30 per cent. higher than those elsewhere. So there is some value in a closed shop, and workers should realise that. When the Bill leaks out, closed shops will be springing up throughout the country.
  More important, workers will recognise the value of trade unions when they get into trouble with their employers. Many hon. Members on both sides have had the experience of constituents coming to their advice surgeries with a problem connected with work. I will bet that Conservative Members ask the same first question as we do, "Are you a member of a trade union?" Nine times out of 10, the answer is no. They come to the surgery because they are not members. If they had been, we all know that they would not have needed to come, because the union would have resolved their problem.
  I repeat the point made earlier: if membership or non-membership of a union is no longer to be relevant to the recruitment of labour, and if it is to be illegal for an employer to take into account membership or non-membership when selecting applicants for a job, the holding of information on people by anti-union organisations for the specific purpose of influencing their employment prospects should be not only irrelevant but no longer legal. I hope that the Government will be forced by their Bill to concede that point. If one result of the Bill is to put a stop to the sinister activities of the Economic League and the like, we will welcome it, although it will undoubtedly come as an unexpected, unintentioned and unwelcome surprise to Tory Members.
  During the passage of the Employment Act 1988 we opposed the creation of a Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, or CROTUM for short. That would be a rather unfortunate acronym if we ever got a senior commissioner for the rights of trade union members. We opposed the office on the grounds that it was unnecessary, provocative and expensive. As it turns out, we were right on all three counts.
  The budget set for the functioning of that office was £1·5 million a year. The commissioner has taken up 31 cases, some of which were of doubtful validity.
  Mrs. Mahon: Not very cost-effective.
  Mr. Clelland: Exactly.
  However, the commissioner has had to justify her existence and salary, as we predicted. The provisions in clause 8 demonstrate how badly she has failed even to manufacture enough work to justify her existence, to say nothing of her £1·5 million budget. To avoid an embarrassing admission of wasting public money, the Government decided to help her by extending her responsibilities and building her empire. We would welcome an extension of the responsibilities of the

  83
  commissioner if it allowed trade unionists to refer to her their complaints about their employer, not just their union but, again, that does not appear to suit Tory dogma.
  The post was designed in the first place to harass trade unions by encouraging action against them. The further provisions in this Bill are clearly intended to encourage further mischief and harassment. No other organisation has the dubious distinction of having a special commissioner paid for by the taxpayer with the express purpose of supporting actions against it. Such is the extremity of the Government's prejudices.
  By far the most objectionable aspect of the Bill is the intention, once again, to weaken the hand of the employee and to strengthen the hand of the employer. The proposals on secondary and unofficial action are reminiscent of the totalitarian eastern bloc Governments who are now on the wane, and display ignorance or carelessness or both on the part of the Tory party.
  Unofficial action is usually a spontaneous event, inflamed by a sudden happening and of short duration. The Green Paper, "Unofficial Action and the Law", cites the case of a manager attacking an employee physically, which resulted in a walk-out by colleagues. The Green Paper then assumes that the fault lies with the employees, not the manager, whereas it was the manager's action which gave rise to the situation and the subsequent loss of production. Under the Bill, those workers are liable to be sacked lawfully by that same manager, with no right to redress for unfair dismissal. Where is the justice or even-handedness in that?
  If that is not bad enough, the trade union to which the workers belong will be open to prosecution by the employer unless it repudiates the actions of its members, although it may believe that their action was justified in all the circumstances. Such one-sided, draconian measures have no part in modern industrial relations. They can lead only to inflammation of otherwise resoluble incidents. They will, as all perceived injustice does, cause anger and resentment, possibly leading to ugly confrontations and irreversible damage to industrial harmony.
  The Green Paper makes much of the lost production caused by unofficial action. It states that an annual average of 3·6 million days are lost through all industrial action. No figures are given for unofficial action. I want to be generous to the Government's case, so I shall estimate that 2 million days are lost in that way. It is probably an exaggeration, but it helps their case. Are the Government seriously suggesting that those 2 million days lost pose such a massive threat to the economy? We have only to examine the statistics to find out.
  At present, the work force is about 25 million people, which is equal to 125 million working days every five-day working week, or 5,750 million working days in a 46-working week year, if we are generous and assume six weeks' holiday. On those figures the number of working days lost in unofficial strikes amounts to less than one thirtieth of 1 per cent. of the total working days. That is what paragraph 1.2 of the Green Paper describes as a
  "substantial amount of unofficial action".
  Paragraph 1.1 suggests that the elimination of that will make a
  "vital contribution to the improvement of our economy."
  What rubbish.
  84
  If the Government are concerned about the effect of the number of working days lost on the economy, why do they not turn their attention to the 10 million days lost every year through accidents at work? Why not promote good working conditions and good working practices to reduce that figure which is more than 250 per cent. of the number of days lost through all industrial action? No, this Government have presided over a worsening situation in that regard. Indeed, they have even suggested that the imposition of further regulations could be a barrier to business or employment.
  If the Government are motivated by damage to the economy caused by days lost from work, why do they not turn their attention to days lost through sickness, which total 300 million a year, which is nearly 100 times the number of days lost by all industrial action? Why do they not improve health screening and health education, invest more in our ailing Health Service or even pay the ambulance crews?
  In short, if it is the health of the economy which motivates the Government to examine days lost from work, why do they ignore the major causes and attack the most insignificant in terms of numbers? The answer is that this has nothing to do with the economy. The complete elimination of all industrial action by chaining workers to their desks and benches would hardly register in terms of the totality of working days in this country. The elimination of strikes under such a system, however, would probably be used by Tory Members as evidence of good industrial relations.
  This is about the use of Parliament, not to improve the welfare of people or to improve industrial relations, but to pursue unceasingly the political opponents of the Tory party until, as the Prime Minister put it, her main political opponents are "abolished" and Britain becomes a one party Government and she becomes the Ceausescu of Chequers and the dictator of Downing street.
  While the call in East Germany, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland is for the promotion of free, independent trade unions able to take both industrial and political action—the latter even applauded by the Prime Minister—in Britain, the state is busy shackling the unions and restricting the very freedoms so eagerly sought in the East. In tandem, while the cry in the East is for freedom of political action and expression, in Britain the Government are introducing legislation which creates politically restricted posts in public office so that people are denied political freedom if they are to keep their jobs. Solidarity trade unionists in Poland now have more freedom than trade unionists in Britain.
  The Bill is further evidence of the totalitarian tendencies of the Government. It does nothing for freedom, industrial relations or the image of life in Britain in an increasingly free world. It should be decisively rejected by all those who cherish the freedoms for which our country fought so hard, and in the fight for which the trade union movement played such a principal part.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: This has been an extremely interesting debate. It has highlighted many of the serious and real differences in attitude between the Opposition and the Government on industrial relations. The most interesting speech, because it was the clearest

  85
  and represented most significantly the traditional Labour view of industrial relations, was that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I should like to rebut some of the elements in his speech.
  One's attitude towards priorities in industrial relations and the industrial scene as a whole inevitably depends on one's experiences. The hon. Gentleman described his experiences as a shop steward in Liverpool. Equally, each of us must look at what formed our opinions. I had the good fortune to become involved in industrial relations law soon after I qualified as a solicitor which was when the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 came into force
  For many years, I have been actively involved with Conservative Trade Unionists, and I am now its vice-president. Since coming to the House in 1983, I have served on the Committees of most industrial relations Bills. I hope to serve on the Committee of this Bill, so I shall leave detailed comments on its provisions until then. This evening I want to deal with the strategy behind the Bill.
  Much of the debate thus far has been a recitation of history and how we have arrived at our current position. If we put back the timescale far enough, I would be in broad consent with many of the points made by Opposition Members. If there is no alternative to collective bargaining for someone on the shop floor to enforce his rights, obviously that is the right way forward. I do not think that anyone who has been faced with the cases described in times past would deny that as a basic proposition. The difference between my view and that expressed by many Opposition Members is that I believe that there have been dramatic movements forward in recent years. The Opposition's rhetoric always goes deep into distant history, to the communal memories spawned by the 1930s and before; they then carry those forward to present—day circumstances, even though the reality is quite different.
  There has been a great sea change in industrial relations, which began not in 1979 but with the ill-fated Industrial Relations Act 1971. The one part of that Act which survived, and which has been of fundamental importance, was that relating to unfair dismissal. Anyone reviewing the industrial developments since 1945 must recognise that one of the great difficulties was that industrial action disrupted industrial production and that many of those industrial disputes related to dismissal. A consensus evolved during the late 1960s in favour of a statutory framework of law to deal with individual rights, and the relevant provision in the 1971 Act has stuck.
  I do not think that many Opposition Members appreciate the extent to which the introduction of really important individual rights would fuel the appetite of workers on the shop floor for more rights, or the growing competition that it created between the exercise of those individual rights and the concept of collective action. The unfair dismissal provisions, once they had been assimilated, had one immediate and dramatic impact: whereas dismissals leading to strikes had been commonplace, they became a relative rarity. They have had an even more important and profound impact in that they have shaped the way in which companies have developed their procedures for management. I clearly remember many employers in the 1970s talking of unfair dismissal and echoing almost to the letter the words used tonight by Opposition Members about the role of the law in dealing
  86
  with strikes. They said that it was impossible to bring the law into industrial relations, that it would not work, that it would be too complex, that it would be a benefit match for lawyers and that no discernible benefits would flow for industrial relations.
  I have always argued, and I see no reason to take a different view now, that unfair dismissal rights and the other individual rights that have followed have created an alternative to bringing out a work force on strike to protect an individual's position. It meant that companies, once they understood the regulations, could steer a route through what was previously an industrial relations minefield. The number of applications to industrial tribunals for unfair dismissal have fallen significantly, and the number of strikes caused by dismissal has completely fallen away. I accept that there was a time when the law was unclear, but once people addressed themselves to what the law required and to the route that they had to follow in disciplinary matters, the whole industrial relations scene improved significantly.
  The provisions in this and in previous Bills relating to strikes, the circumstances in which they can take place and the manner in which they can be conducted will have precisely the same effect in signposting a route for industrial action that means that it does not happen at the drop of a hat but is considered action that carries a great deal more weight because it is clear that it has the support of the shop floor.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The issue of unfair dismissal was not first highlighted in the Conservative legislation of 1971. During the 1966–70 Parliament, I introduced two Bills under the ten-minute rule to set up tribunals to deal with unfair dismissal.
  Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman should read Hansard tomorrow. I acknowledged that the development of unfair dismissal rights evolved from a consensus that was by no means confined to any one party. That probably explains why it was the one part of the 1971 Act that stuck and that had such a profound impact in the years to follow.
  Mr. Mike Watson rose—
  Mr. Batiste: I shall give way, but there will be less time for other hon. Members to speak.
  Mr. Watson: It is important that the record is set straight. The hon. Gentleman said that the number of unfair dismissal cases being taken to industrial tribunals had been significantly reduced. However, that is the result of the way that the legislation has changed. When the Conservative Government took office, claims could be made after six months. That was then lengthened to one year and then to two years. Fewer people now have the ability to make such claims, which is why the number has been significantly reduced.
  Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman should study the figures, as I have done. The main reason why the number of claims for unfair dismissal has fallen is that, when the legislation was new, many employers did not know what was expected of them, many decisions to dismiss were taken arbitrarily and many were procedurally incorrect. With the development of experience of what was

  87
  permissible within the law, the incidence of successful findings for unfair dismissal has diminished because of the dramatically improved procedures throughout industry.
  The development of the unfair dismissal legislation has signposted the way in which the rule of law within industrial relations can have a positive effect in showing routes that actually work, that minimise industrial disputes and that are of lasting industrial benefit. That will carry across, in exactly the same way, into clearer legal definitions of strike action and of the circumstances and the manner in which such strike action can take place.
  Even more important than the immediate results of that change has been the way that it has encouraged a new approach to industrial relations and the rights of individuals on the shop floor. One of the growing disputes between the Opposition and the Government has been the way in which the interaction between individual rights and collective action should function, when many aspects of individual protection that hitherto had no redress in law are now met by the law. That is a considerable problem for the Labour party because, inherently, it is about collective action, whereas protection of individual rights is very much associated with the Conservative party.
  It has been said several times during the debate that the Bill is a turning point in the step-by-step approach to industrial relations reform. I agree, but I hope that it is not an end to the programme. Most of the 1979 agenda that Conservative Trade Unionists presented to the Government has now been enacted. The closed shop will now end. However, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to recognise that there are closed shops that exist by law but that there are also closed shops that exist by intimidation by a number of employers.
  I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to address the situation in respect of certain local authorities where every conceivable step is taken to force people into joining a trade union. Those closed shops are just as much a fact of life as are legal closed shops, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not lose sight of that fact.
  It has been said that we have come to a turning point in the step-by-step approach. We must look to the future and recognise what has to be done to build upon the things that we have achieved. The step-by-step approach has been very successful in changing industrial relations attitudes. Indeed, it has changed the whole industrial relations environment. Our approach to legislation now is not just to look back at the 1979 agenda but to recognise that in 1990 things have changed. We have to look forward to the last decade of this century and the first decade of the next century and to reflect that approach in our attitudes to legislation on trade union reform and on industrial relations reform in general.
  How can the individual rights that I have described grow and gain even greater strength in the context of trade unions? I believe that in two important respects we have to go further—going with the grain of individual rights. I hope in Committee to table amendments dealing with both points, so I will refer to them only very briefly tonight. First, there is the question of trade union mergers. I am not sure that I agree with the comments that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). In the United Kingdom the current trend is
  88
  towards large general unions, to unions breaking away in cases of dispute, to considerable growth in non-TUC affiliated unions, and year by year to contraction of TUC-affiliated unions.
  If the individual industrial rights that have been created are to grow and prosper, we must create a competitive framework within the trade union world in which they can operate. I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that, thus far, the need in the United Kingdom has been for the merger of unions. Even now there is a need for further mergers, but all the evidence from around the world of the tendency of organisations to move towards monopolies suggests that, if the process continues without check, we will move towards a relatively small number of very large general unions that are relatively remote from their members. I question whether that is a healthy or sensible way to proceed. The necessary corollary of individual rights is that there should be choice against which people may exercise their judgment and that unions should be responsible and responsive to what their individual members say.
  At this stage, we ought to be considering whether some legislation comparable to the companies legislation on monopolies and mergers should be put in place. I make no recommendation as to what that should be. The use of the commissioner in this role may be the best way forward, but it would be better to look at this issue before the realities of the industrial relations world force it upon us. If people are to have real choice, they must be given real options.
  That leads me to the second area which my right hon. Friend should consider. I refer to the anti-poaching provisions of the Bridlington agreement. I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting the regulations—
  Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member addressing himself to the Bill? It seems to me that, in talking about the anti-poaching provisions of the Bridlington agreement, he is going into the question of some future Bill about which he is thinking.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill is very widely drawn, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is in order at the moment.
  Mr. Batiste: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Clause 1 refers to the right of people either to join or not to join trade unions. The point that I am making is quite simply that that choice is inadequate; people must have the option also to join the union of their choice. It is in that respect that I propose to table amendments for consideration at Committee stage.
  Let me refer to two examples that were widely quoted in the press last year. Airline cabin staff approached the British Airline Pilots Association with a view to joining because they disagreed with the attitude, philosophy and tendencies of the Transport and General Workers Union. The Bridlington agreement was invoked, and the cabin staff were barred by the Trades Union Congress from membership of BALPA, despite the fact that that union would have been quite happy to accept them.
  A similar case that achieved widespread publicity related to shop workes—members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—who disagreed fundamentally with the position that their union had taken on

  89
  Sunday trading and wanted to join GMB. USDAW approached the TUC and blocked the transfer of its members to GMB.
  If individual rights are to mean anything, it will be in circumstances in which individual members of a trade union in disagreement with their union over policy have the right to transfer to a union that more accurately reflects their hopes and aspirations. That is not an anti-union point. I believe profoundly that competition between unions for members is the most effective way of implementing change in a rapidly changing world.
  As we have seen all too often, the difficulty about unions is their very slow response to change. We have seen this in relation to flexibility in working practices, and we have seen it in relation to single union agreements. Dundee has been mentioned many times today. The essential way of speeding up that process of change would be to give to individual members of unions rights similar to those that exist for consumers of services of any other kind.
  The Bridlington principles would not be allowed to exist in respect of any other aspect of British industry, and I question whether they should be allowed to exist in the context of trade unions. However, I agree fully with the comment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the necessary corollary is that demarcation dispute strikes must be made unlawful.
  I have argued this evening for a way of enhancing the framework in which healthy competition for members is an engine for union change. That that change is needed is not in dispute. I believe that it is not disputed seriously even by members of the Opposition. Industrially, we are moving into an era of collaborative management because the successful companies will be the ones that handle their industrial relations well. Bad industrial relations will drive out incompetent companies—and quite properly so—but the corollary of collaborative management is skill and flexibility on the part of unions—skill and flexibility based upon the sure knowledge that they are carrying their members with them without coercion because those members agree with what their unions are doing and can see that it is individually to their interests to follow.
  It is therefore with considerable pleasure that I welcome this Bill and the substantial completion of the 1979 agenda. However, I urge upon my right hon. Friend the necessary corollary, which is to look forward and see how we can build upon the successful foundations that have now been laid.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the tradition of the 1980s is being carried into the 1990s: when I am called to speak in the House, it is usually because you are in the Chair.
  Other hon. Members on the Opposition side wish to speak, so I shall be brief. However, I reserve the right to deal in Committee with lots of matters that have been referred to today. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is not in his place, as I would have congratulated him on accepting voluntary redundancy from the Cabinet—though on more generous terms than are enjoyed by most people in industry.
  The reality of this piece of legislation is not so much the Secretary of State's argument about tyranny and about freedom. Indeed, it is rich, in the first place, that it should come from the Minister who introduced the poll tax
  90
  legislation—one of the most tyrannical and unfair pieces of legislation in this century. His speech was all about the freedom of employers to take action against trade unionists and unions—not so much a step-by-step approach as a bit-by-bit attack on trade unionists and their organisations.
  The Bill is really about undermining the ability of unions to secure excellent working conditions, proper training, the right to collective action, and the facility to work alongside union officials when taking official or unofficial action. The Bill is also aimed at prohibiting unions from operating in areas where trade unionism has hitherto not been strong.
  As a result of Britain's employment pattern in the late 1980s and in the 1990s, unions are looking to non-traditional areas for their membership. The Government are attempting to prohibit the extension of trade unionism in that way. The Bill is not so much about closed shop arrangements as about the ability of management to manipulate trade unions, by crippling their ability to organise in the workplace.
  In many debates over the past few years, the Government have often spoken of the principle of a level playing field. They used it in relation to private sector housing, the balance between public and private transport, deregulation of old people's homes—when they gave subsidies of about £1 billion to make it easier for people to open homes in the private sector—pensions provision, and even refuse collection. That principle of a level playing field has been introduced in every area except industrial relations, where it would give people the right to take action individually and collectively to protect themselves.
  The Government abolished the fair wages clause, and they have an abysmal record of vocational training. The Government also abolished wages councils so that young, unskilled and disabled workers can easily be exploited. The only bodies capable of preventing that were the wages councils, but the Government chose to destroy them.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No, I shall not do so—not least because the hon. Gentleman has not been present in the Chamber the whole evening. I prefer to allow other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to speak. On any other occasion I shall be happy to debate with the hon. Gentleman his unfair attitude towards trade unions and working people. We have heard it all before from him, and I do not intend to hear it all again this evening.
  The Government have also restricted worker representation at tribunals. Whereas they introduced measures allowing employers to take trade unions to court, unions wishing to take employers to court are severely restricted by Government legislation. Under the present Government, 10 million working days have been lost through industrial injury, yet the resources of the Health and Safety Executive have been reduced time and again. At the same time, no legislation exists to protect workers against unfair dismissal.
  The Government's training schemes are the biggest scandal of all. Young workers live in a twilight world of low wages, little or no training, exploitation, and virtually no health and safety provision. That is the Government's record of level playing fields in industrial relations.
  As to responsibility for unofficial action, I shall give three examples of workers legitimately taking action to

  91
  protect themselves and other workers that would be the subject of crippling penalties under the Bill, were they to be repeated in future. Twelve months ago in my own constituency, two workers at a factory collapsed with heart attacks caused by zinc poisoning. Attempts by the work force to persuade management to bring in the Health and Safety Executive and the alkali inspectorate to take action about the conditions in the factory were rejected. The workers walked out for their own safety. Within 30 minutes of taking that action, they were sacked. Under the Bill, workers taking similar action will find themselves hauled up before a court by their unscrupulous employer.
  So far this year, five workers have been killed on the Channel tunnel construction site. Despite efforts by the trade unions and the Health and Safety Executive, the employers have done little to improve safety. Under the Bill, Channel tunnel workers taking unofficial action will render their unions liable to unfair court penalties. On some sites it is necessary for workers to take action against sub-contractors for reasons of health and safety. Again, under the Bill, unions will be liable for any such action.
  I refer also to the National Union of Seamen members working for P and O Ferries who took action after the bow door incident because of the company's appalling safety record, and who were summarily dismissed. They were fighting not for increased wages but for their safety and that of their passengers on the Channel routes. The Government will also make such action illegal.
  A fortnight ago, the British Leyland Volvo manager jetted in to Manchester airport from Sweden and informed the work force that 400 of them would be down the road in 14 days. Later that day, union members took action in support of their right to negotiate their redundancy terms. I presume that under the Bill, those members individually and their union could be taken to court.
  I refer also to sexual harassment at work by unscrupulous employers and—unfortunately, on occasions—by other employees. A female who walks off the job to escape sexual harassment and to prevent some pervert from continuing to molest her could be taken to court along with her trade union if the very employer guilty of molesting her decides to take that action. Such cases are not isolated. I know of a young girl who was molested by her employer. Her mother came to me because the girl was too frightened to report the matter to the police or the Training Agency. She was too frightened to speak out because that job was her only hope of employment. Any union taking unofficial action over sexual harassment of its members will also be liable to court action.
  The Bill is a tacky piece of legislation and the latest in a long line of Government activities designed to undermine trade unionists and their unions. Intellectually, the Government find trade unionism incompatible with the type of society that they wish to create. They want to see in the 1990s a society in which young people are on training schemes or in low-paid work with no opportunity to organise themselves and to take collective action to improve their working conditions and health and safety at work.
  When the Minister winds up, it will be useful if he replies to the telling points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about blacklisting and
  92
  the Economic League. If the Government are serious about individual and trade union rights, the Minister will give a promise that the Government will introduce amendments to the Bill to outlaw the activities of organisations such as the Economic League.
  The Minister does not need to look far for evidence. Its blacklist includes myself and other right hon. and hon. Members. I was on the dole for three years because of that organisation's activities after I organised an attempt to secure trade union recognition. I could not find a job in the industry in which I had been working.
  Organisations such as the Economic League are a blot on our democratic society and should be outlawed. I hope that the Minister will reassure the thousands of workers who are unfairly blacklisted and who may consequently lose their right to work, not just for a few days or weeks but for year after year because of such eastern European, Stasi-type organisations. Their days should be numbered, and the Minister can ensure that they are by amending the Bill in Committee.
  There is much to be done in Committee, and if the Minister thinks that he will get off lightly, given the attitude of Conservative Back Benchers and Opposition Front Benchers, he has another think coming. We shall welcome the opportunity to use the Bill to test the Government's intentions in relation to individual trade unions rights, the European Community and the wider role of trade unionists throughout Britain. We shall table positive amendments to improve the Bill, and to test the Government: let us hope that the Minister is not found wanting.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) in his place. He is the storm trooper of the unions, and he and I have debated the issue once or twice in the past.
  I apologise for having been absent for about an hour and a half this evening; I had a long-standing arrangement to participate in a debate on the Broadcasting Bill in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs. At one stage, members of the audience were asked to raise their hands if they worked in broadcasting—in other words, if they had a vested interest. A number raised their hands, and several of those then spoke in favour of their industry.
  I could do the same here: I could ask Opposition Members to raise their hands if they were sponsored by a trade union. Some 50 per cent. of Labour Members are sponsored by unions, and it is therefore in their interests not to go against the arguments of those unions and not to allow their power to be diluted. I do not object to hon. Members having such vested interests; I make the point only to put into context Labour's opposition to any moves that the Government make on the trade union front.
  As we know, it was the last Labour Government who effectively enshrined the closed shop within employment law, and it was the abuse of that legal entity by over-mighty and over-powerful trade unions that—more than anything else—encouraged my interest in politics. Then, as now, I regarded the closed shop as a gross infringement of individual rights, and I welcome the Bill as another of the extensions of basic human freedom that have been behind so many of the Government's actions over the past 11 years.

  93
  I also welcome the Labour party's apparent conversion to the belief that people should be free to make up their own minds whether or not to belong to a trade union. I believe, however, that that conversion is only skin deep, and that it owes more to electoral considerations than to a genuine change of opinion. Just as the Polish people would be wise not to trust the new, as yet unnamed, successor to the Communist party that was proclaimed over the weekend—because the new players in the new party will no doubt prove to be the old players in the old party, with the same Communist beliefs—so the British people would be wise not to take at face value the supposed conversion of Labour to the primacy of individual rights over collectivist trade union action.
  At least a number of Opposition Members are honest enough not to go along with the sham propounded by their Front Benchers. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on making their beliefs entirely clear in an early-day motion. They believe that the closed shop should exist, and I have no doubt that the vast majority of Opposition Members feel the same: they help to remind us that a streak of authoritarian trade union collectivism is alive and well in the Labour party.
  The House may be amused to learn about the Morning Star's approach to the issue. I understand that Opposition Members occasionally read that organ, and even make occasional contributions to it. On 11 October last year, the paper described
  "the three-pronged attack on workers' rights".
  It continued:
  "The labour and trade union movement has to take up the challenge. The further attempt to screw down working people must be resisted all the way."
  It is interesting to contrast that with what the paper had said on 3 October, under the headline, "Soviet MPs legalise right to strike":
  "Soviet MPs passed a law yesterday legalising the right to strike except in key industries including power and rail.
  It is the first time in Soviet legislation",
  the Morning Star blandly reported,
  "that the right to strike has been enshrined.
  The exceptions—which include also civil aviation, city transport, communications, defence and law and order bodies—were clearly regarded by practically all deputies as necessary in the present grave economic situation…According to the new law, it will be up to the courts to decide whether a strike is legal or not after it has been declared.
  What on earth would be the reaction of the Morning Star if the British Government had, for instance, declared all transport or telecommunications strikes illegal? That is a clear demonstration of the hypocrisy of the political Left in this country.
  One wonders whether anything has really changed, and whether the Labour party is really no longer in the pockets of the trade unions. Labour would end the sequestration of trade union funds, thereby making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for courts to collect fines imposed on trade unions. It seems that Labour is still prepared to allow secondary picketing, and perhaps—who knows?—mass secondary picketing at that. We must remember that the party is financed largely by unions, and therefore cannot really afford not to do what it is told by them. I found the performance of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) extremely unconvincing, and I do not believe that he or his colleagues have experienced a conversion at all.
  I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to his new role; I hope,
  94
  however, that he will forgive me if I contradict his reported comment on his appointment, that this was likely to be the last Employment Bill. A number of significant improvements remain to be made to employment law. The Bill would not, in fact, make the closed shop illegal, although it would make it unenforceable.
  My local council, Kirklees metropolitan district council, currently has a union membership agreement—that is, a closed shop—with five trade unions. Nothing in the Bill would force Kirklees to tear up that agreement. While I would not expect it to try to enforce the agreement—I say that rather optimistically, but none the less in good faith—it would still be there for the trade unions to use when trying to persuade, cajole or mislead non-union employees to join the union. In such circumstances, many people tend to join just for a quiet life, and are not prepared to go to a tribunal, as the Bill would require.
  Mr. McCartney: Give an example.
  Mr. Riddick: I can give the hon. Gentleman an example. Constituents have approached me about the problem and have asked for my help and support. I was able to point out that Kirklees council is unable legally to enforce a closed shop agreement.
  Let me give the hon. Gentleman another example of people acquiescing in such circumstances. That is what happened after NALGO's strike last year.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that Kirklees Labour council members became involved with the unions above the heads of their employers to ensure that the union closed shop agreement was introduced ahead of Government legislation. Those poor workers were forced into unions, although the vast majority of them did not want to be union members.
  Mr. Riddick: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows a good deal about Kirklees council. He lived in Huddersfield. When Labour party members hammered out the agreement with the trade unions, they did not bother, even once, to talk to individual trade unionists and ask them whether it was what they wanted. They talked to the trade union leaders but not to the individual members.
  After last year's strike, individual NALGO shop stewards cajoled and threatened a significant number of NALGO members who did not strike in an effort to persuade them to leave the union. That directly contravened section 3 of the Employment Act 1988. A number of such cases have gone to industrial tribunals. Compensation has been awarded against NALGO. However, the majority of people, when so requested, have acquiesced.
  People find it difficult to put their heads above the parapet and take their case to a tribunal. They have never appeared before a tribunal. Even if they have a cast-iron case, they are reluctant to take it to a tribunal. They opt for a quiet life. We may have to tighten the closed shop legislation so that unscrupulous employers—in particular, some Labour-controlled local authorities and intimidatory trade unions—cannot exploit the loopholes that will certainly exist, even after the Bill becomes law.
  Those who feel that they have suffered discrimination at the hands of a closed shop employer should have the right to ask the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members to provide advice and assistance. I draw to the attention of the House a letter that I received today from

  95
  some people who are very concerned about the provision that employers should not discriminate against individual people because of union membership. Mr. Pollard and Mr. Bruce say in their letter:
  "Our lives centre around the Lords' Supper and the Scriptures which contain many references to Masters having direct relationships with their employees…a nd the need to be separate from other associations…Consequently we do not employ members of trade unions or professional associations, likewise we do not join employers associations, nor do we negotiate with these bodies…we would appeal for provision to be made so that we might be able to continue with a clear conscience in this way. If the Government were hesitant about providing a general conscience clause, perhaps a provision at tribunal stage could be considered".
  A few of my hon. Friends intervened during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He said that he would consider the point. It certainly deserves to be considered.
  One abuse is not tackled by the Bill, which I understand is still fairly widely practised. Union members in a number of industries, notably the docks, demand to see a lorry driver's union card before he is allowed to unload his cargo. I have received a number of complaints from the managers and employees of transport companies. They have complained bitterly that they have to belong to a union, usually the Transport and General Workers Union, if they are to obtain contracts as hauliers. I am not sure whether such a practice is covered by the existing employment law. If it is, the law needs to be strengthened and more clearly defined, since this gross abuse of trade union power continues.
  The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has an important part to play in industrial disputes, but its terms of reference have not changed since the Employment Protection Act 1975. That Act placed a duty on ACAS
  "of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining."
  That means the encouragement of trade union membership. The role of ACAS should be wholly neutral. The reference to encouraging the extension of collective bargaining should be struck out.
  The 1990s will see markets both in this country and worldwide becoming more open and competitive. It is vital, therefore, that all sectors of British industry should operate at maximum efficiency and with the minimum of restrictive practices. The public sector should no longer be sheltered, as it still is, by over-powerful unions and managers without the tools to tackle the problems. Britain's rigid labour market is characterised by central bargaining and traditional systems of pay negotiations that do not properly reward individual performance. That stifles new methods of working and attempts to improve productivity. The dispute in the ambulance service, together with last year's dispute on London Underground and on London buses and British Rail, are classic examples.
  Changes to the way in which these organisations are run will come about as a direct result of policy decisions and management implementation, but it is likely that such changes will not be brought about unless more liberalising reforms in the employment law are introduced in the years to come.
  The Bill is another important step in this Government's brilliantly successful step-by-step approach to reforming the industrial relations law. The changes have been brought about in the face of relentless and often venomous
  96
  opposition by the Labour party. The reforms have played a highly significant role in Britain's economic and industrial regeneration during the last 11 years. I fear that they will not be the last reforms that will be necessary if we are to be fully competitive with our industrial competitors. However, I am delighted to add my strong support for this Bill to that of my colleagues.
  8.57 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: I am not a supporter of mandatory closed shops and I am not a sponsored Member of Parliament. However, I come from a community which has always had a high trade union membership because its members believe in the principles of trade unionism. Compunction to join a trade union is always a poor second to the desire to belong to a trade union because of what it stands for.
  I am deeply concerned about and unhappy with certain clauses, especially clauses 6 and 7, which extend the liability of union members in tort of certain actions. Trade unions have a constructive role to play in society and they have played that role even in the most fractious of industries. Certainly in the past decade there has been no more fractious industry than the coal industry. Yet in my experience the management in the coal industry, like that in many other industries, prefers to deal with the representatives of a disciplined and organised work force than with a work force that displays anarchy and is willing to take action wherever and whenever it feels like it.
  Trade unions, from their national executives to individual shop stewards, frequently play a most constructive role in the production process. Unions are and always have been part of the disciplinary machinery of large sections of British industry. I am sure that some Conservative Members understand that role—I wish that more of them did. They will also understand that even the most disciplined trade unionist may find himself or herself carried along by the sheer force of events, whether inspired by a perceived injustice or by any one of a thousand combinations of circumstances. Clauses 6 and 7 seek to discover and punish scapegoats in those cases.
  The Minister knows that the right to strike is an individual and not a collective one. He knows that trade unions give the individual right to strike practical application. Trade unions were forced to allow combinations of individuals—free-born men and women—to band together to help redress the imbalance that dominated industrial relations.
  For most of this century, legislation by Governments of all political shades has recognised the role of those in trade unions who are chosen by their fellows to act as spokespersons and local organisers—a task which is frequently difficult and thankless and requires more than a little personal courage as well as ability. One of the most astute and courageous trade union leaders this century was the late Will Paynter, whose analyses of industrial relations in the late 1960s led him to be criticised as frequently by the so-called Left as by the self-proclaimed Right. He once told me in the midst of the most bitter and damaging post-war strikes in Britain that, while it can take some courage and ability to order men and women out on strike, it takes infinitely more courage to order them back to work when it looks as though the tactical worth of a strike has become exhausted or redundant.

  97
  Clauses 6 and 7 threaten to take away even the fragile protection of existing legislation from men and women who are local trade union officials. The clauses threaten to undermine one of the central pillars of responsible and valuable trade unionism. No one in his or her right mind will put himself forward for a trade union position if, as a result of unofficial industrial action which he may have opposed in the first place, he finds himself at the wrong end of the law.
  There may be those in the Government who rejoice at such a prospect, but I fear that theirs will prove an extremely limited prospective, for they will be undermining a central pillar of that often fragile platform on which industrial harmony is based. Ironically, I suspect that any sense of triumphalism which may be evident among the Government will be shared only by the nutters who occasionally surface in the trade union movement claiming that all strikes are good strikes. All strikes are not good strikes, but it makes no sense to use scattergun legislation to control irresponsibility. It will injure and destroy precisely those elements in the trade union movement that bring to the movement a sense of discipline and industrial perspective which all industries and services desire.
  Instead of encouraging and enhancing the spirit of democracy and responsibility, the clauses will promote demagogy and anarchy—qualities which have a nasty habit of surfacing within work forces in which a sense of order has been replaced by disillusionment and helplessness. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider again the likely long-term implications of the clauses becoming law.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am saddened when I listen to Labour Members dealing with industrial and employment matters. I well remember the days of strife when the Labour Government experienced great difficulty in the governance of the land because of problems with unofficial action and discord in industry. That was harmful not only to the Government and the people but to trade union members, who were often used as the tools of extremists. I well remember as a young industrial engineer that often young people who were brought out on strike by extremists were unsure why they were on strike and returned to work after about a week disillusioned about why their leadership had called the strike. I have always welcomed the sensible step-by-step approach of the Government in bringing industrial relations into the 1990s.
  I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—as one of his constituents I had the great honour of voting for him when he was first elected to this place—congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. I recall serving on the Committee which considered the Employment Bill of 1988. Many Conservative Members told my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that the closed shop legislation would not be sufficient to deal with the problem.
  I cannot understand any hon. Member saying that people should not be allowed to follow their calling because they do not have a trade union card. It is difficult to get into the acting profession or to work in the docks
  98
  without trade union sponsorship. No Labour Member, bearing in mind the fairness of treatment of individuals, could disagree with that.
  Mrs.Mahon rose—
  Mr. Bruce: I shall continue my speech. I am showing the hon. Lady the courtesy that she always shows me when I try to intervene in her speeches—I am ignoring her.
  The closed shop works against the rights of the individual. I was pleased to see the chink in the armour of Labour employment spokesmen when we were debating the social charter. They were willing to embrace not only the right of everyone to belong to the trade union of their choice—as an employer, I have always believed that people should have such a choice—but their right not to be a member of a trade union.
  I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will state the Labour party's policy more clearly than the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who hedged on the issue. People join a trade union for the extra benefits that membership offers and because it will fight for them. However, one must have the right to say, "I do not want the union to fight on my behalf," or, "I do not like the way that it is doing it." Such a right should be supported by all hon. Members.
  Clause 2, which deals with employment agencies, is interesting. I must admit that until I had read the Bill I had not realised that the Government were aware of the abuses that occur. Having spoken to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I still am not sure whether they fully understand those abuses. I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire, and I was extremely surprised to discover that one company—I shall not mention its name as my information may be two or three years out of date and it may have changed its methods—gave trade union membership forms to all those who filled in an application for temporary work. Applicants were clearly told that they could not be taken on by that company unless they became a member of a trade union.
  Perhaps that in itself was not so worrying, but there is another side to the story. I was asked by one company to set up an employment agency dealing with drivers. We were told that we would have the co-operation of the trade union involved, the Transport and General Workers Union, as long as we signed up not only every driver we sent to the company as a member of the TGWU—admittedly, that was not too difficult, because most of the drivers wanted to be members—but all our staff.
  Even that would not have been so harmful, were it not for the fact that the members whom we were signing up and from whom we were taking subscriptions were not getting any rights in exchange. Negotiations took place between the temporary driver controller and the trade union; there was no real negotiation between drivers and the management of the company. Once the trade union got the money—to my mind, protection money—Bos-Recruitment could send the drivers without harassment from the rest of the trade union.
  I submit that that was a harmful way for a trade union to use its rights. By all means let the union ask for rights to organise my temporary drivers if it was prepared to give those drivers their negotiating rights, but it was not interested in that. It was interested only in the money that it could take from our company in return for giving us an

  99
  Okay—the assurance that it would not cause us any problems provided that we signed up all our people. Clause 2 is an interesting and long overdue clause.
  Clauses 4 to 7 will help to prevent unofficial industrial action. People tend to say that the Bill is an employer's charter and helps only employers. But often it is the ordinary trade unionist whose life is ruined—the person on a low income who lives from one pay cheque to the next. He is the person likely to suffer most. Often companies involved in a dispute cannot help such workers. They find that some form of secondary action is taking place and they cannot get rid of it. Although the changes in this respect are marginal, they are to be welcomed. The provision that introduced a tribunal to look after trade union members' rights was also a fairly marginal proposal, but, clearly, if even one individual is not being supported by his trade union and needs to take action against it, we ought to support that person.
  Clause 12 is interesting, and I am surprised that the Government have not gone further with it. I hope that they will consider the matter carefully in Committee. To my mind, work experience represents an important way of showing schoolchildren what they are likely to encounter when they leave school. The technical and vocational education initiative has allowed schoolchildren to see what the working environment looks like. I see no reason why we should not have work experience for children from the age of five onwards. If there is any stop in law to allowing schools to set up work experience schemes appropriate to children's needs, it should be removed. To say that children may undertake work experience only from the last term of the first year of their GCSE course is to limit their opportunities to benefit from it.
  Two of my children are engaged in GCSE courses, one in the first year and the other in the second year. I am aware of the difficulties that face schools with the requirement to fit in all the aspects of the national curriculum and also find time for work experience. Properly supervised work experience at the behest of the school should be available to children at an early age, and I believe that the school and the governors are best able to judge those matters. Many children leave school at 16 or 18 years of age without experiencing a week of real work.
  The Bill is good and it follows on from other Conservative employment legislation which has primarily looked after the interests of workers. By doing that, Conservative employment legislation has been good for them and has ensured that there is peace for the employers and for the trade unions. Earnings and productivity have risen as a result of industrial peace. I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. John Evans: I want at the outset to declare that I am a skilled member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I am proud also to be a member of section 1 of the AEU and a sponsored Member of it. I am proud of that for a variety of reasons, but the main one is that it is the most democratic organisation in Great Britain. It sticks in one's gullet to be lectured on democracy by Conservative Members when the Conservative party does not have an ounce of democracy in its ranks.
  100
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said that the Labour party is dependent upon finances from the trade union movement. It will be a wonderful day when the Conservative party publishes its accounts so that the world can see where its finances come from. It will also be a wonderful day when members of the Conservative party vote to elect their party chairman, who is at present elected on the block vote of the Prime Minister.
  Because of the constraints on time, I, like my colleagues, will concentrate on clauses 6 and 7 which relate to unofficial action. I was a convenor and shop steward for most of my working life in the ship repair yards on Tyneside. We operated a pre-entry closed shop, but no problems arose from it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I found that most of the disputes in which I was involved were unofficial. The employers regularly sought to change the terms and conditions, wages and health and safety arrangements of employees. Our only recourse in response to the employers' action was to walk out of the yards.
  Clauses 6 and 7 are based on the Green Paper entitled "Unofficial Action and The Law". The clauses are based on prejudice, anecdotal evidence and, in some cases, sheer invention. Paragraphs 1.4 to 1.9 in the Green Paper seek to paint a horrific picture of Britain in turmoil as a result of unofficial strikes. The Green Paper refers to the coal industry, the motor manufacturing industry, the docks, shipbuilding, construction, the North sea oil platforms, British Rail, London Underground and the Post Office.The suggestion is that turmoil existed in those industries.
  Paragraph 1.6 states:
  "A broad categorisation of the stoppages covered by the Employment Department's industrial disputes statistics shows that three-quarters of those which could be classified were official."
  I tried to discover the truth and I tabled several written questions to the Department of Employment, to which I received answers in December. I asked how many unofficial strikes took place in each industry over a five year period to 1989 and how long those disputes lasted. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment replied:
  "The information is not available except at disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 21 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 449.]
  I tabled another couple of questions, and asked to be told
  "how many unofficial strikes took place in Great Britain in 1989…the total number of days lost through unofficial strikes in Great Britain in 1989; and what were the comparable figures for the five previous years."
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replied:
  "Separate statistics on unofficial strikes ceased to be published as a regular series in 1981."—[Official Report, 12 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 786.]
  In other words, the Department has no hard evidence about the extent of unofficial strikes in Great Britain.
  If the Bill is implemented, it will be the most draconian legislation ever put on the statute book. It will simply amount to a denial of the right to strike in any circumstances.
  Why is unofficial action taken in the first place? Some 95 per cent. of unofficial action is caused by employers who arbitrarily change the terms and conditions of employment, arbitrarily withdraw bonus payments, arbitrarily alter health and safety conditions or sack employees arbitrarily. The overwhelming majority of such strikes are settled within two or three working days and they are unknown to the respective union. Frequently, the first that

  101
  the union hears about such an unofficial strike is when the district officer is rung up by the employer, who asks him to get the lads and lasses back to work. They frequently return to work on the understanding that the status quo will be reintroduced.
  The Green Paper has said that unofficial strikes take place because the proper procedures are not followed. Frequently it is the employer who has not proceeded with the official disputes procedure. What do the Government propose to do in those circumstances? They seek to clobber not the employer but the employee who is seeking to defend himself and his terms and conditions.
  If the Bill goes through, clause 7 will be worse than anything that now applies in eastern Europe. The Bill will be condemned by the International Labour Organisation because it contravenes its statutes, but it will almost certainly be condemned by eastern European countries as they move towards greater democratisation.
  An employee who is sacked for taking unofficial action will have no right to go before an industrial tribunal. The Bill goes further, however, as the trade union or the work force will be denied the right to take any action to protect that sacked employee. A number of my hon. Friends have already said that that is tantamount to slavery.
  If an employer physically or verbally abuses one of his work force, that person and the rest of the work force might respond by walking out. If one of those workers is a shop steward, the employer could demand that the trade union should refuse to acknowledge that action. That power effectively denies workers the right to take such action, because, should they do so, the employer may take his employees to court. A worker who lost his job through the actions of his employer will have no right of recourse to an industrial tribunal, and his union will have no right to take action on his behalf. The union will have no right to protect that worker or his colleagues. Many of my hon. Friends have already said that, as a result of the Bill, our workers will have fewer rights than the workers in any other EEC country. Our work force will be entirely exposed to the actions of the employers.
  Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend has talked about fairness and about how workers are treated. Two of my constituents have just lost a case for unfair dismissal on the basis that they were casual employees. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would give them the dubious rights that he has just outlined? Does he further agree that such workers will be treated unfairly, having extra duties imposed on them on the one hand, while on the other hand they will not be able to go to an industrial tribunal and to win?
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The workers to whom she has referred will have no rights whatsoever.
  We shall pursue every element of the Bill in Committee. We shall test the Government's integrity, because we intend to seek to table many amendments to ensure once and for all that the Government will be seen by everyone to be an anti-trade union Government.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The debate has been like many of our previous debates on trade unions. Many of my hon. Friends' speeches have been based on their experience, whereas all that we have heard from
  102
  Conservative Members has been the usual massaging of prejudices and the lunatic fringe—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but we know full well that the Government were running short of Members willing to speak this evening. Indeed, those who spoke in the debate were, even by the Government's standards, those who urge the Secretary of State to go just that little bit further.
  We also know that the Bill has almost no role in terms of the industrial relations framework of Britain in the 1990s. Ironically, the former Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) virtually said as much. Having been the author of the Bill—I shall explain a little later why he was the author—he then sought to explain why he had handed to his right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State perhaps not a poisoned chalice but a slightly leaky chalice, which has little merit in terms of the realities.
  Tonight the former Secretary of State began to address some of the issues that he so signally failed to address when he was in government. I welcome him to the Back Benches because perhaps we can now begin to have the kind of meaningful debate with him that was not possible over the Dispatch Box. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to serve on the Committee, Opposition Members will certainly give him a great and sincere welcome.
  The Bill owes its existence to two factors. The first is the fact that the Prime Minister, ever spiteful, was faced with a massive deficit in the opinion polls and said to herself and to the former Secretary of State for Employment, "I'm in a hole, Secretary of State, can we not knock the unions once again? We have tried it before in the past 10 years. Can we rattle the same old skeleton once again?" The second factor was the summer of discontent and the belief that political gains could be made from the Government's promises to reform industrial relations, which had begun to come unstuck at the seams last year.
  It is interesting that even a magazine such as The Economist has advised the Government:
  "The government's achievement to date has probably captured most of the gains available through the courts."
  I must emphasise that I do not agree with that first sentence, which relates to industrial relations. The article then states:
  "Going further could be to sail close to the invisible line where the loss of individual freedom outweighs the good for the economy and society."
  I charge the Government on that latter point. Under the Bill, the individual freedoms of our citizens will be so undermined that the Bill cannot be regarded simply as an extension of the previous legislation. In its own right, it is a particularly obnoxious, nasty and vindictive piece of legislation which will do real damage.
  It was only when my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made it quite clear where Labour stood on this piece of legislation that the Government realised that they could not possibly justify being seen to penalise people at their place of work simply because they were members of a trade union. At that point, the Government were bounced into trying to bring in some form of equity. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that achievement. We have already won the first argument in the battle on the Bill.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that what he has just said is wholly untrue?
  Mr. Lloyd: In that case the right hon. Gentleman must tell the House why this was not in the Green Paper and why it was only after my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield had made his announcement that the then Secretary of State leapt to his feet, metaphorically speaking, to tell the world—he even advertised it in the Employment Gazette—that the Government were falling into line with the social charter.
  Sir Norman Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman reads my intervention on the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) he will see that the hon. Gentleman put himself on the hook of abolishing the closed shop. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has said something totally untrue. The House wants to know whether the Opposition are saying that they are opposed to the closed shop and will remain so.
  Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that we are saying that we shall live in conformity with the social charter—the Government are not prepared to do that. They are not prepared, for example, to live with a regime that guarantees people rights at work because they are trade unionists. The Secretary of State was repeatedly challenged in the debate to say whether he would take action against blacklists; he declined to do so. He knows that the ILO has condemned the Government for their unfair practices perpetrated on GCHQ.
  Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that allegation? The ILO has not condemned the Government. Indeed, the latest complaint that the TUC put to it has been withdrawn by the TUC. Does he not know that?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads the ILO's "Observation 1989" he will see that the organisation roundly condemns the Government's action on GCHQ, and on secondary action. I have no doubt that the ILO will also condemn this Bill, especially its provisions on secondary industrial action.
  The Bill is even-handed neither on the right to be a trade unionist nor in its treatment of employer and employee. I remind the Secretary of State that one of his predecessors, Lord Prior, made it clear that he thought it necessary to leave in the law what he described as a gateway to legality. If the freedom to strike was not to be rendered illusory, he said, trade union members should have the right to take strike action. Tonight, the Government are trying to close that gateway.
  I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's speech and I hope that the Minister of State will tell us what has changed. We have heard no justification—[Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State want to intervene? I thought I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman mutter a defence. I shall educate him a little in industrial relations law.
  The Bill is not necessary to achieve what the Secretary of State claimed it would achieve. The Government's previous legislation has already clarified the legality or otherwise of these provisions. This legislation is a fraud if the Minister claims that it has been brought in for these reasons.
  The nastiest part of the Bill concerns unofficial action, and we are entitled to ask why it was introduced. My hon. Friends have already pointed out that the Government referred in several ways to the great problem of unofficial action. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North
  104
  (Mr. Evans) has just told us that the Government's claims were bogus. The Green Paper suggested that unofficial action was a uniquely British practice, but neither the Secretary of State, nor his predecessor, nor the Minister of State will tell the House why unofficial action in this country is a different proposition: it is because we have a completely different legal framework. The German legal framework encourages official action, but in this country the legal framework increasingly makes official action more and more difficult. The Government were warned of that. If anything, the surprise is that unofficial action is not more widespread.
  The Government may claim that clause 1 gives an individual the right to be a trade union member. What will happen to a trade unionist, perhaps the only one at a place of work, when unofficial action takes place and he is sacked? Will he have any rights under clause 1 to maintain his place as an employee there? The Minister looks puzzled. I hope that he will address that question because we will return to it until we receive an adequate answer.
  In the Green Paper the Government argue:
  "The unofficial strike action earlier this year by steel erectors on construction sites in London was not only damaging in itself; it also threatened to undermine the industrial agreement in the engineering construction industry."
  Presumably that is the view of Ministers. I talked to the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which organises steel erectors, about the dispute. The union made it clear to me that on each and every occasion it had done exactly what the Government seek to provide in the Bill: the union made it clear to its members that the action was unofficial and not approved of by the union. Its members were under no illusions. The Government prayed in aid that dispute, but what difference will clause 6 make to such a dispute? The answer is none.
  During the dispute on London Underground earlier this year, the management said:
  "The management made more mistakes when the first unofficial one-day strikes began in April. Tunnicliffe announced there would be no attempt to punish the ringleaders because he did not want to create martyrs."
  Most sensible employers will recognise that the creation of martyrs is ridiculous, but that is far from a universal view.
  Mr. Brian Ward Lilley, director of the Institute of Personnel Management, warned the Government that some employers might misuse the legislation. He said:
  "I hate to say this, but there are some managers who could use this as a way of avoiding redundancies: by provoking a strike, dismissing some people then hiring back the ones they wanted, thus getting rid of the few too many."
  I challenge the Minister to tell us how the Bill will prevent such action by unscrupulous employers.
  I have already challenged the Secretary of State once on this next matter, but I do not think that he understood. I hope that he will reply this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised the important issue of health and safety. Under German legislation, for example, it is not necessary to take unofficial action when equipment is defective or unsafe, because regulations protect employees and allow them not to work until it has been inspected and declared safe or declared unsafe and corrected. In Britain there is no parallel right.
  I hope that Ministers understand that: if employees stopped working because equipment was unsafe, it would count as unofficial action. Under the Bill employers are likely to say to the instigators of such unofficial strike, "I

  105
  am sacking the troublemakers who brought their colleagues out on strike." Those workers would have no right of appeal.
  The Under-Secretary of State was challenged late last year during the construction safety campaign about the rights of employees working on unsafe construction sites. His advice was clear. He told construction workers that they had the right to walk off the job. He incited them to take unofficial action, and I applaud his decision. I challenge the Minister to say whether my interpretation is correct. If I am not correct, I shall withdraw my charge. However, if I am correct I expect the Minister to say that he will accept amendments that will take away that nasty, vindictive and spiteful part of the Bill that will do so much damage not only to individuals at their place of work but to the whole concept of health and safety in our society.
  The Bill is not simply a step beyond what has gone before. It has a number of nasty features that will damage industrial relations. Above all, it has nasty features that, in the final analysis, may kill people at the workplace.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): It has been an enjoyable and interesting debate, not least because of the separate debate on the Opposition Benches, not only between Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members, but between Back Bencher and Back Bencher. The speeches of the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) represented different attitudes to the whole question of industrial relations legislation. That added to the interest of the debate.
  I much enjoyed listening once again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will not take it amiss if I say that it was a pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend's dulcet tones. However, the highlight of the debate was the vintage voice of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). During a fascinating perambulation of a speech, he announced that he had been on official strike only once, and that any other industrial action, as a union official, was on the basis of something that we are now making illegal. I was not entirely sure whether he was recommending or opposing the Bill. But it was an interesting comment.
  The Bill is our latest stage in our reform of industrial relations legislation. It places the last nail in the coffin of the tyrannical closed shop practices that were actively promoted by the last Labour Government. It is a further reinforcement of the rights of the individual. The Bill will remove legal protection from all forms of secondary action, and so will protect jobs. It will bring unofficial action within the scope of the law, and so improve the climate of industrial relations.
  No one seriously doubts that, finally, there is a wide consensus to end the closed shop. As recently as 1984, Tony Dubbins, the general secretary of the National Graphical Association, said:
  "To us a closed shop is as natural as getting up in the morning and having breakfast."
  The reality is much less homely. In fact, the closed shop is a euphamism for a blatant and outrageous denial of individual rights. It is wholly indefensible in a free society.
  The Government have reduced the scope of the closed shop, through successive pieces of legislation. We have
  already made the post-entry closed shop unenforceable,
  106
  and now is the time to deny the closed shop any legal status. The Bill's provisions on the closed shop are entirely even-handed. Clause 1 makes it unlawful to deny someone a job because he is not a member of a trade union, and it represents a major step forward for civil liberties.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) adduced two reasons for his concern about clause 1. First, he said that it had a conclusive presumption. The fact is that conclusive presumptions can be made only in two particular sets of circumstances—they do not apply right across the board. Both sets of circumstances apply to the position of an employer. I must say that I welcome the hon. Gentleman's concern for the position of an employer. In both sets of circumstances, the remedy is in the employer's own hands.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield considered the sanctions in these two instances to be extreme—I think "extreme" is the word that he used. I do not deny for a moment that they are severe. They need to be severe, because we must bring an end to the most blatant and most extreme of the closed shop practices. That subsection refers to blatantly discriminatory advertisements and to union-controlled recruitment, such as that at Smithfield market. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that. If he is genuinely opposed to the closed shop, why is he not opposed to strong action being taken in those two sets of circumstances?
  Then the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred to the problem—they saw it as a problem—of the Economic League. The hon. Gentlemen know full well that the Economic League does not submit candidates for employment and that employers do not agree to employ only persons that the Economic League puts forward. The Economic League simply supplies information to employers on request from them. If, acting on that information, an employer were to turn an applicant down because of his union membership, the Bill would catch that employer.
  The claim that the Bill is not even-handed because it has no effect on the activities of the Economic League is therefore simply nonsense, and unsustainable. The hon. Gentleman's expression of concern about those two provisions is nothing more than a cop-out. He wants to find an excuse for not supporting clauses 1 to 3, despite the fact that he claims to support abolition of the closed shop.
  Mr. Blair: Let me repeat something that I said earlier: if the two points that I have made are so small and so feeble, let the Minister deal with them and we will support the provision. Now, will he deal with them?
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has simply not understood the provisions of the Bill, and has misconstrued the relevant clauses. I very much look forward to debating this matter with him in Committee. Undoubtedly I shall be able to explain to him in considerable detail why he is wrong.
  The Bill will close the last remaining loopholes that might permit secondary action. Of course, we know from the Leader of the Opposition—
  Mr. Heffer rose—
  Mr. Eggar: I am talking about the hon. Member's leader, so he ought to pay attention.

  107
  We know from the Leader of the Opposition that he believes that secondary picketing is "a right that should be enjoyed". The hon. Member for Sedgefield, and the Leader of the Opposition, should recall that there was precious little to enjoy in the 1970s, when secondary picketing prevented food deliveries, blocked hospital treatment, and left the dead unburied. Those were the effects of secondary picketing.
  There was precious little for the people of Dundee to enjoy when they lost 1,000 jobs and £40 million of investment because of threats from the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Labour party has never condemned the threat by Mr. Ron Todd. I am sure that it was an oversight on the part of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, who, of course, is sponsored by the TGWU, that he should fail to condemn that union for the disgraceful action that prevented jobs and investment from going to Dundee.
  Mr. Heffer: I return to my point concerning the Economic League and similar agencies. The Minister says that they supply names only if requested to do so by employers. If an employer decides not to appoint an applicant, giving a reason other than his trade union activities, but if that is the real reason for his non-appointment, how will the applicant ever know? Such agencies will stop people being employed, and that is not something that the Bill or any other measure can deal with.
  Mr. Eggar: I know that the hon. Member for Walton is totally opposed to the position of his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, and I understand his concerns about the Bill's provisions. The hon. Member for Walton opposes not only those subsections that worry the hon. Member for Sedgefield but clauses 1 to 3 overall, because he is in favour of keeping closed shops.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Eggar.
  Mr. Eggar: The third main plank of the Bill is the provision that brings unofficial strike action within the scope of the law. All too often, unofficial and unballoted industrial action causes damage and disruption to British employers. The Bill removes the anomaly whereby a union is protected by statutory immunities when a shop steward organises unofficial action even if no ballot has been held.
  The Bill will make unions responsible for industrial action caused by any of its officials down to and including shop stewards. No longer will union leaders be able to give tacit encouragement to unofficial strikes caused by any of their officials. The unions will be required to repudiate unofficial action effectively and speedily if they wish to retain their legal immunities. They will retain the option to ballot for an official and legally protected strike. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) that the Bill's provisions do not in any way prevent a union from adding words to the notice of official repudiation, provided that those words do not undermine the effect of the repudiation.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way now?
  Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have only a little time left and I must move on. He will have plenty of opportunity to make his points in Committee.
  Employers will be permitted selectively to dismiss anyone taking official action, and that will be an important and necessary deterrent—as the CBI has recognised.
  The Bill will mark a further major advance for industrial relations. The hon. Member for Sedgefield, with no little effrontery, suggested that the Bill shows that the Government are seeking to refight the battles of the past, but the opposite is true. The Bill is designed to ensure that this country never revisits the industrial battlefields of the 1960s and 1970s. Still less do we want to revisit the trade unionism and attitudes of the 1930s so well described by the hon. Member for Walton. It is clear that it is the Labour party that is stuck in a time warp, for it wants to take us straight back to the rampant trade union power, widespread strikes and industrial chaos of the late 1970s.
  When the hon. Member for Sedgefield reads his speech tomorrow morning, he should feel a little embarrassed, because it was all about making it easier to strike and to bring about the industrial disruption that has caused this country so much harm. The hon. Gentleman's message was clear. His message from Labour's Front Bench was, strike long and strike often. He was propounding a strikers' charter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to deny that, why did he not take up the challenge laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State? Why has he not clearly denied the statement made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—who has been conspicuous by his absence—who said that Labour would repeal all the Government's employment laws?
  The reason for the hon. Gentleman's silence is clear: he will not deny his hon. Friend's proposition, because he knows that what his hon. Friend says represents the true voice of the Labour party. If he does not believe me, let him look behind him at all the stern faces of the 35 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion in favour of the closed shop. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is clearly right: Labour would get rid of all the Government's employment legislation—it would "get rid of the lot".
  I sat patiently through the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, but he did not deny that Labour would repeal every last one of the union reforms of the past 10 years. Let me give him another opportunity. Will he now deny that the Labour party will repeal our legislation? Clearly he has not sorted out his little internal differences with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
  The fact is that Labour never condemns any strike, however much damage it does to the public. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Howells) had the courage to recognise that not all strikes are good strikes; I wish that the hon. Member for Sedgefield would show the same courage. Whatever a strike may put at risk—the rail network, export orders, energy supplies or even the Health Service—the Labour party will always endorse it, encourage it and wish it effective success.
  There has been one exception during the past 10 years: Labour's leaders have condemned one strike. You may be as surprised as I am by that information, Mr. Speaker, and I see Labour Front Benchers furrowing their brows, wondering what on earth that strike could be. They did condemn a strike, however; they even—let me whisper it

  109
  —supported a management that threatened to suspend striking staff without pay. Who was that ruthless employer? Yes, it was the Labour party at Walworth road, which engaged in a bitter dispute with its own staff from the National Union of Journalists only last August. According to the Labour party, only one employer in Britain should be allowed protection against industrial action: itself. That is the only occasion in the past 10 years when Labour Front Benchers have condemned a strike: what an appalling record.
  I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Sedgefield: he has sat through the debate with little company on the Opposition Front Bench. Where were his shadow Cabinet colleagues? 1 think that we have a right to know—or at least the hon. Gentleman has a right to know—which of those colleagues told Tribune that his policy was a "gross mistake" and "totally unnecessary". For the hon. Gentleman's sake, will the author of those remarks stand up and be counted? Was it the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East? Was it the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who seems reluctant to relinquish his old habits and responsibilities? Was it the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who looks thoroughly puzzled? Was it perhaps the Leader of the Opposition himself? Answer comes there none: no one is prepared to own up.
  According to the terms of its policy review, the Labour party has ducked the challenge and faked the change. The Opposition oppose the Bill because they do not want union leaders to be responsible for their members. To Labour, a trade union ballot is either an administrative inconvenience or a means of compelling employers to concede to union demands. To us the ballot is an essential democratic right to protect members against abuses of union power.
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order (Amendment on Second or Third Reading:
  The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 198.

  Division No. 53]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Amess, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amos, Alan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bright, Graham

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Ashby, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Burns, Simon

  Atkins, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butler, Chris

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cartwright, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Benyon, W.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Churchill, Mr

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Conway, Derek

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  110

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Robert B (Herb W)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N' thfield)

  Critchley, Julian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knapman, Roger

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knox, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Latham, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dover, Den

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Durant, Tony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclean, David

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  Madel, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  French, Douglas

  Mans, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Maples, John

  Gale, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Gardiner, George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (GedIbig)

  Gow, Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus,

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gregory, Conal

  Neale, Gerrard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Grylls, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hague, William

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Page, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Paice, James

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hannam, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Harris, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Riddick, Graham

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hayward, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarh')

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sims, Roger

  Irvine, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jack, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Janman, Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Steen, Anthony

  111

  Stern, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Watts, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Tracey, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trippier, David

  Mr. Tom Sackville and

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Walden. George

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Crowther, Stan

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Alton, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Battle, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Douglas, Dick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Eadie, Alexander

  Blair, Tony

  Eastham, Ken

  Blunkett, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bradley, Keith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foster, Derek

  Buchan, Norman

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  George, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clay, Bob

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Haynes, Frank

  Corbett, Robin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heller, Eric S.

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  112

  Hinchliffe, David

  Nellist, Dave

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  O'Brien, William

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Patchett, Terry

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Richardson, Jo

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leighton, Ron

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Short, Clare

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sillars, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  McFall, John

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

  McKelvey, William

  Snape, Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Soley, Clive

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Turner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walley, Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow. C)

  Martlew, Eric

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Maxton, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Meale, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Michael, Alun

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Worthington, Tony

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morley, Elliot

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Murphy. Paul

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second Time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 ( Committal of Bills).

  EMPLOYMENT BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Employment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Durant.]

  Milk
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Welfare Food Amendment Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 3), dated 3rd January 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th January, be annulled.
  By these regulations the Government have achieved a rare feat. Few measures have aroused with equal passion the wrath of both the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Farmers Union. This is a mean malicious measure that has been universally condemned, and the whole milk business speaks on it with one voice—producers' milk producers, milk processors, creameries, milkmen, milk women and milk drinkers. I am sure that, if the cows themselves could join in, they would, bellowing a chorus of derision and denunciation.
  More than 120 Members of the House signed an early-day motion, which condemned this inept and damaging decision to short-change the milk industry. It states:
  "this House condemns the decision to reduce the redemption value of welfare milk tokens; is convinced that this autocratic cut will put in jeopardy a beneficial nutritional service to handicapped children, vulnerable nursing and pregnant mothers and their children; believes that it unfairly slashes the precarious income of milkmen and the milk industry."
  The decision is based on the Government's failure to appreciate the value of the work of milkmen in collecting and redeeming the tokens.
  My normal practice is magnanimously to refer at first to any beneficial effects of legislation, but this time that is not possible because the regulations are damaging in every syllable, and every assumption that they make is wrong. They are friendless regulations, which can be justified only if one believes that the only function of Government is to reduce public spending, regardless of the social havoc that will be caused.
  To understand the thinking behind the regulations is not easy. I would ask my hon. Friends to try to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to get down to the primitive protozoan level of thinking at which the Government's corporate brain functions. It is not the brain of homo sapiens—of reasonable humankind; it is the regressive, crude, tunnel-thinking brain of homo Thatcherus. So single-minded has the Government's pursuit of price-cutting and penny-pinching become that they now bargain and cheat with the guile of a stallholder in the souk in Baghdad and with the morality of an Arthur Daley. The Government have decided that there is virtue to be gained by getting good value for money. That is a laudable aim and one that we would all applaud. Big-spending Governments need to be circumspect, especially when they are buying Trident missiles, battle tanks, and jet aircraft. Of course these should come cheaper by the dozen. However, the crude assumption is that all bulk buying must be rewarded with a discount.
  The Government certainly buy milk in bulk—£80 million worth. Therefore, they quite illogically deduce that there must be economies of scale. Of course, there would be economies if the milk was sold in bulk by tankers going round to the delivery points. However, that is meaningless in this case because welfare milk is delivered in pints very expensively and slowly on individual doorsteps. Not one drop of it is bulk delivered. There are no economies of scale and no price advantages from bulk purchase.
  114
  The regulations will cause a serious financial loss. The Associated Co-operative Creameries knows of some milkmen who deliver 200 welfare pints of milk a week. Under the regulations, that would represent a loss of £42 a week, or £2,184 a year. That could be a mortal blow for a small business.
  The Department of Social Security and the Department of Health claim that they are being scrupulously fair and claim that the grief of the cut in milkmen's incomes could be shared with other sectors of the industry through a process of horse trading. In that case, the milkmen would be negotiating from a position of weakness.
  The Government will save the not inconsiderable sum of £10 million, but that is a small sum in terms of DSS and Department of Health spending. At whose expense will that saving occur? The milkmen will suffer directly this week, out of their own pockets.
  A milkman from the Gaer in my constituency has written to me asking,
  "Why should I foot the bill for a welfare benefit? Why should I take a cut in my income in order to provide a service that the Government should provide? This is on top of the taxes that I pay already. What will happen next? Will the Government ask bus drivers to chip in to pay for free trips for pensioners? Will they ask nurses for a whip round to pay for operations?"
  The NFU, a friend of the Conservative party, states:
  "This is an unjustifiable attempt to force the dairy industry to pay for a national welfare scheme that is primarily in the interests of the nation."
  The milk industry suffers from low profit margins. If it cannot absorb the cuts, the loss must be repaid by the customers and the price of milk will rise. That is a familiar story of the Government cutting their costs by shifting the burden on to the milk buyers—the taxpayers.
  All hon. Members will be aware that it is impossible these days to have a conversation with small business people without their bringing up their great anxiety that their businesses will no longer shortly be viable because of high interest rates and inflation. Last year there was a record number of small business failures. For many milkmen, this theft of a small part of their legitimate income may be the final straw that wrecks their business.
  One of the Government's false claims that has greatly angered the trade is that they have negotiated with the industry on this matter. Negotiation is understood to be a process of bargaining and give and take at the end of which a consensus and agreement is struck. That is not what has happened in this case. The Government have obviously been reading the book entitled, "How to Strike a Bargain" by the late unlamented Nicolae Ceausescu. It is not a consensus so much as a Caeusensus. It is an autocratic act.
  The managing director of Associated Dairies in Leeds confirms that there was no agreement. He wrote angrily:
  "As recently as January 10th representatives of the dairy trade met with the Minister reponsible to advise her that the changes had been constructed on false assumptions. They were met with a simple refusal to reconsider the decision."
  "Change has been imposed", state the master dairymen of London. The Dairy Trade Federation, which represents all first-hand buyers of milk from the Milk Marketing Board, has refuted the claim that amendments came about through negotiations with the dairy industry. It insists that it consistently opposed any proposals regarding the discounts scheme. The Associated Co-operative

  115
  Creameries in Tyne and Wear state that there has been no agreement and states that the proposed changes are an imposition, not a negotiation.
  What will be the outcome of these damaging regulations? Some milkmen with a small number of welfare milk beneficiaries will abandon those deliveries as the continuing hassle of collecting the small number of milk tokens will not be worth their while because of diminishing returns. It is clear that the Government have foreseen that as regulation 9(1) will allow beneficiaries who cannot exchange their tokens for milk to redeem them for cash. That is proof that the Government have anticipated the actions of many milkmen.
  The Government's action is also sinister as it may be the start of a process to undermine the welfare scheme. The purpose of that scheme is to provide fine, nutritious food for those in greatest need. I believe that the Government may come back at a later stage to say that the scheme is not working.
  Other milkmen will have no choice but to continue with the scheme. I am told that in some areas it is not uncommon for welfare milk to account for between 25 and 50 per cent. of the total round. Such milkmen are in deep trouble as they will be unable to recover the cost from their claimant customers, or abandon that business without inviting swift bankruptcy. Inevitably they will be faced with a crippling new financial loss.
  Governments of all colours have long recognised that whole or homogenised milk should be a staple item in the diet of the under-fives and other vulnerable groups. There is a social obligation to ensure that such valuable food reaches pregnant mothers, nursing mothers, children in families whose income is uncertain and families where access to shops is restricted because the lone parent, usually the mother, is encumbered by pushchairs, shopping baskets or her pregnancy. Often such mothers are virtually imprisoned in their homes because of the demands of their young families. The daily delivery of a heavy, essential item of food is a godsend. Now it will be put at grave risk.
  The regulations also pose a threat to the daily pinta. The dairy industry has already made a strong case against milkmen being short changed. It believes that milkmen should receive extra money for handling the tokens, especially as it involves a great deal of extra work. The milkman must collect the tokens, collate them, parcel them up and send them off. If there is any loss the milkman must make up the difference. Once the tokens have been despatched, he must wait at least a fortnight to be repaid, and often that results in a cash flow problem. The process is lengthy and cumbersome. The NFU has confirmed that the new procedural arrangements set out in the regulations and the extra records required by the Department will increase the administrative burden at all stages of the process.
  Milkmen provide a splendid service by delivering the daily pinta—a service unique to Britain.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government stand to save about £7.5 million as a result of the regulations? My hon. Friend has given a comprehensive list of our reasons for opposing the new scheme as well as a full list of the organisations and individuals opposed to it. Why are the Government
  116
  seeking to introduce such a maladroit and vindictive scheme, which will save them a mere £7.5 million? In terms of the Department's total budget, that sum is infinitesimal. Given that my hon. Friend is trying to interpret the Minister's mind, what reasons does he believe lie behind the Government's decision?
  Mr. Flynn: It is not for me to delve into an area of psychology that has always been beyond me. I do not pretend to understand the mind of the homo Thatcherus. The Government have tunnel vision, which dictates that they must save money. They believe that that principle, having worked in some areas, must work in all. That is why they have fallen into the trap of believing that, if there is bulk purchase, they must receive a discount. That policy may work in the corner shop, but it should not be adopted by a Government who should have other responsibilities other than merely reducing public spending. The Government have blundered on this because their thinking is fixed on tramlines and they cannot get off them. Certainly there are many contracts in which money can be saved.
  All Governments have a duty to ensure that they get the best bargain and the best arrangement, but that is totally unjustified in a case such as this, where the casualties will be vulnerable people. In my experience, reaction to the provisions has been universally hostile. I do not know anyone, other than Government spokesmen, who have seen this as anything other than a calamity.
  We must consider the service provided to us by the milkmen. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that the total amount that has been spent on milk is £80 million and that the saving will be at least £8 million, but it could be as much as £10 million. Milkmen provide us with a marvellous service and are popular people in our society. They turn up in the most miserable weather, and at the most bleakly unsocial hours to deliver a heavy, awkward, essential food to our doorsteps.
  The daily pinta is already enjoying a fragile survival, trading on the good will of the milkmen who toil for poor financial rewards. Why do an ungrateful Government insult them and the value of their work by imposing this penny-pinching cut on their small earnings?
  Welfare milk tokens are lifesavers. They form a good-value scheme that provides a fine daily nutritional base for 500,000 families in greatest need. The Government are short-changing the milkmen. They are putting the pinta at risk and are sabotaging a welfare provision that has beneficially nurtured two generations. The regulations are miserly, inhuman and unjust.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Donald Thompson: This is a niggardly little piece of legislation. I shall not repeat all that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, but my hon. Friend the Minister has obviously been misled by inadequate, half-baked consultants and has been badly advised by whoever advises him on this matter.
  I can see the reasons for saying that there is a huge purchase of this milk and for the Government therefore thinking that there should be some discount, but to do it in this way is short-sighted. The Secretary of State will gain another "milk-snatcher" title if he proceeds with the regulations.

  117
  How can we talk about "remote areas" in the press release, but not understand that to be at the top of a high-rise block of flats, with a couple of kids and a husband who is out at work all day, is to be in a "remote area"? How can we say, "You can exchange these tokens for cash", because that is what will happen? People will trade in the milk tokens and buy and sell them. The supermarket will take, say, 15 box tops and six milk tokens and knock the value of them off the bill. The cashier will say, "Thank you, Mrs. Smith, that's £35·72 less £7·80, including the milk tokens", but there might not be any milk in the basket. The Government and my hon. Friend do not care about that; nobody cares except the milk industry. Under this system, we will drive people to swapping milk tokens for cash. We may as well have food stamps that can be sold for cash.
  The whole crux of this badly advised, badly constructed, half-baked, consultants' dream is regulation 5. How can we say that people can sell milk for any price that they like, but that a chap cannot charge for going to the top of a block of high-rise flats? How can we say that a milkman cannot say to Mrs. Jones, "I've got to charge you 3p for this", when she may say that she does not want to pay 21p or 42p per week, or whatever it is, and that she will go down to the supermarket instead?
  How can our party stop a deal like that? We are in business to do a deal. What if someone says, "I'm not going to pay you 3p for your milk"? It is true that the milkman will be able to charge a general charge of, say, 3p to everybody, but he will be able to say, "You lot don't pay—I'll only charge this lady with the milk."
  Are we to have another 50,000, 5,000 or even five civil servants conducting sweeps to determine whether people are charging 3p or 2p to deliver a bottle of milk? We are supposed to be getting rid of that sort of practice.
  I know no one in favour of these regulations. I also know no one who does not believe that a small charge for delivery would be reasonable. Regulations 5 and 7 could be amended or deleted to make the regulations more palatable, at the very least.
  Some months ago my hon. Friend the Minister and I were wise enough to weigh public opinion on green top milk. We did not receive much help from the Opposition, 1 may say. Anyway, my hon. Friend and I listened to what the consumer had to say, and we withdrew our regulations on green top milk because we had listened to public opinion. I advise my hon. Friend to do the same tonight.
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) comes from the part of the West Riding in which there are many small dairies and he understands the issue well. He has made many good points, adding to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
  I agree that the regulations should be withdrawn. For the greater part of my time of nearly 30 years in the House I have represented an inner city. Many people in it need welfare milk. This marks the beginning of finding an end to the scheme, which has been with us for 40 years. As a result of a redistribution of boundaries, my constituency now contains many small dairies on the borders of the constituencies of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and of my hon. Friend the Member for
  118
  Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I imagine that we have received similar letters. I want to raise one or two points from letters that I have received from some of the larger dairies.
  Associated Dairies, whose head office is in Kirkstall road, Leeds, has written to me to say that towards the end of last year a Minister
  "assured the House of Lords that 'There will be provision to enable this reduction to be shared between all sectors of the trade on a voluntary basis'."
  That has not been done; there is no such scheme. The letter
  went on:
  "It is now clear that the Department of Health has made no provision for this sharing"
  I hope that the Minister will explain that—
  "apart from a suggestion to welfare milk suppliers that the cost of the reduction which the Government have imposed, should be shared equally by the milk producer, the milk processor and the milk distributor. Indeed, I believe that the DOH/DSS officials acknowledge that they laid the Statutory Instrument before Parliament after having received advice from officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it would not be possible under the Milk Marketing Scheme, for the Milk Marketing Board to contribute on behalf of its producers."
  What is the point of making a suggestion if it cannot then be implemented? The letter effectively alleges that the Minister misled the other place. That only fuels concern about what has been done to the welfare milk scheme—
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about sharing, has he managed to perceive—I have not—how a producer-retailer can share the cost with anybody when he has no one with whom to share it?
  Mr. Rees: I imagine that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents know a great deal about dairy farming and will also suffer from this.
  The other letter came from the managing director, Mr. Blackburn, of a dairy at Wakefield which no doubt serves Batley and perhaps Bradford. He said that even in high-density welfare milk areas, which affect a relatively small number of rounds, the dairy men will be adversely affected. He raised the same point differently. He said:
  "Admittedly, the proposal allows the constituent parts of the industry, including the Milk Marketing Board, to negotiate a sharing of the grief. Such a negotiation would appear to us to be of the type generally frowned upon by the OFT."
  It has been alleged that the other place was misled and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could not substantiate the claim made by the Department. Now it appears that the Office of Fair Trading would be against the Government's sharing plans. I leave my case there.
  We all know the problems that the dairy industry will face, particularly the small dairy men in the West Riding. The best thing that the Government can do is to withdraw the regulations. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Calder Valley, recalled, "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher". Is that the Government's theme: that money can be saved on welfare milk? The scheme is misconceived and bad. All Members who feel strongly about it will vote against the Government.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: One puzzle about the scheme is why it has anything to do with the Department of Health. When the Department of Health and Social Security was dismantled I would have expected

  119
  the scheme to come under the Department of Social Security, because it exists to cater for deprived people for whose benefit the original scheme was proposed. This is not primarily for the Department of Health. My hon. Friend the Minister needs to explain why he is sitting on the Front Bench dealing with this matter, instead of a Minister from the Department of Social Security. Clearly, this is in the nature of a welfare benefit.
  That cat is well and truly out of the bag when people can cash the tokens in a social security office, not for milk, but for money, almost all of which in many cases will have gone to the bus company which brought them there, especially if they come from rural areas.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: Because of bus deregulation.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That would have been equally true without deregulation. If people have to get to a social security office miles away it will cost money.
  Villages do not have social security offices, nor do many towns. It may not have occurred to officials in London that some parts of Britain do not have social security offices. That is the reality in vast areas of Britain, particularly where there are producer-retailers. They are not to be found in the centres of London, Birmingham and Manchester. They are, by definition, in rural areas.
  This is one of the most ill-conceived schemes that I have seen. The sum of money, even gross, is negligible, let alone when net of the considerable administrative costs. It serves no obvious purpose that the benefit should be taken away. Wise Ministers withdraw ill-conceived statutory instruments when defects are pointed out. That is the fate which should overtake this one tonight.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: The broad issues of concern about and the objections to the scheme have been expressed to good effect by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall be brief and raise a specific regional point about the impact of the scheme. I hope that the Minister will pay attention and respond to my point at the end of the debate. One of my constituents, Mr. Robert Hosford, who is a retailer running a small village shop on the Isle of Skye, has written to me about the dreadful impact that the revised scheme will have on him. Apart from the additional weighting that has been given to London, the scheme does not adequately take account of the different purchasing costs of milk in different parts of the country. The Minister must appreciate that, for transport and other reasons, the costs and overheads in an area such as the Highlands and Islands are that much greater.
  If the scheme goes ahead, the token replacement value will be reduced to 27p per pint. The milk purchased wholesale by my constituent from the local milk board in Dingwall—which is a fair haul from Dunregan—costs 29p per pint. Therefore, small retailers such as my constituent will have to subsidise the Government to the tune of 2p per pint without any profit being made. That is hopelessly unrealistic and quite unworkable. My constituent wrote:
  "We were under the impression that these tokens were given to people who were receiving some sort of subsidy, ie either Social Security or Unemployment Benefit to supplement their low incomes. Although the Milk Marketing
  120
  Board are obliged to take the tokens, it has been left to the retailer's discretion whether he accepts them or not. We now find that if we do accept the tokens and do not supply 7 pints of milk, at a loss to ourselves, we are liable for a fine of £400."That is a pathetic position in which to place the small retailer. It is typical of what will happen in rural areas. The effect on the Orkneys, the Shetlands and the Western Isles will be even greater because they will have far greater overheads. No proper attention has been given to that matter.
  The alternatives that have been suggested by Ministers, for example, that the consumer could use a large store or supermarket, are quite unrealistic. For those living in Dunregan there is no point in looking for a supermarket, as that involves a round trip of 46 miles—quite a journey, and petrol costs would wipe out any benefits.
  Officials appear to have been wholly unaware of the diversity in the price of milk throughout the country. It would be wise to withdraw the scheme and think again. It is causing great social concern and direct practical economic concern both to those who are due to be the recipients of the scheme and to those small retailers in rural areas who have to administer it. I hope that the Government will have the good sense to take a step back from what is a quite unnecessary and avoidable brink.
  10.48 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I regret to inform my hon. Friend the Minister that I cannot support the regulations. They are ill-thought-out, damaging, and against the best interests of all concerned, especially those in most need of the benefit. It is a serious disadvantage to many milkmen—who are small business men, the very people whom we supposedly support.
  What is even more serious is that it is a long-term threat to the delivery of the doorstep pinta—the retention of which I have campaigned for over many years. The elderly, the disabled and those with small children living at the top of blocks of flats cannot walk to the supermarket or the corner shop to buy their milk. They are the very people whose nourishment we want to encourage. I agree, of course, that the Government should get the best value for money. Obviously, with bulk purchases they should receive a discount. But bulk purchases should mean bulk delivery as well. I expect the Government to look for good value in all its contracts. As I come from Yorkshire, no one would expect anything else from me. But I do not know any housewife who has a tankerload of milk delivered very often. To me, that—not a pint bottle—is bulk.
  Obviously the Government want to spend very wisely the £80 million that is involved. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to make sure that it is spent wisely. But I am afraid that this is not a means of saving money. The 3p discount that the Government propose is nonsense. As we have all been told, there is no agreement with producers and suppliers. Discussions have taken place, but they have been one-sided. Therefore, either the milkmen or the dairy companies will have to stand the discount. Large welfare milk rounds in inner city areas will suffer huge losses—£50 to £60 a week, it has been prophesied. The milkmen who came to my surgery on Saturday say that even in good areas they will lose £10 to £20 a week. It is outrageous to expect small business men to subsidise any Government scheme by such an amount.
  As the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, Baroness Hooper, in answer to a

  121
  parliamentary question in another place on 20 December, said that there would be provision. Where is that provision? At the moment it is not obvious to any of us. It has been suggested that Baroness Hooper misled the House in saying that there would be provision. No one can find it.
  Will welfare milk deliveries come to an end? The milkmen are saying that if they do not get a proper price they will have to think very carefully about whether to accept tokens. There is no onus on the retailers to take tokens. If they decide not to take them the whole scheme will be in danger. The idea that tokens could be exchanged for cash is outrageous. What guarantee is there that the money would not be spent on cigarettes or gin? That is not the purpose of subsidising a milk scheme. It is essential that the people in question get nourishing milk, and not other things. The exchange of tokens for cash is not something which the Government or the industry could police; the people receiving the cash could spend it as they pleased.
  We are led to believe that this matter was investigated by a consultant. I suggest that a consultant, once he has collected his fee and gone on to his next job, has no responsibility. Perhaps this consultant based his report on what may happen in areas of central London. But central London is quite different from the rest of the country. Milk is usually delivered direct in London by dairy companies. Those companies may be able to make special provision. Certainly in my part of the country the situation is quite different. There, milk is usually delivered by small business men—either people who run their own businesses or people with franchises from dairy companies. The loss to such people would be great.
  I am all for Governments spending taxpayers' money wisely and carefully, but this exercise will save only a very small amount and will cause a major upheaval in the very important service of the delivery of milk to our doorsteps. That is my main concern. I suggest that the Government look again at this matter—and do so urgently. Certainly I shall not support the regulations.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It is rather interesting that, so far, not a single hon. Member on either side of the House has been willing to say one word in favour of this measure, and I suggest that it is very unlikely that in the next half hour any hon. Member, except the Minister himself, will defend this decision by the Government. It is absolutely astounding.
  In all the literature and statements that they have put out, the Government have talked about negotiation. Negotiation implies agreement at the end of the day. One negotiates in order to reach agreement. But there has been no agreement with the milk processors or with the dairymen, and any suggestion that there has been is completely refuted by a document issued by the Dairy Trade Federation. The federation ends by saying:
  "Finally the Dairy Trade Federation would like to refute the statement, promoted by the DSS, that amendments to the scheme came about through negotiations with the dairy industry. The DTF has consistently opposed any proposals regarding the introduction of a discount system."
  Many of the people working in the dairy industry are small business men. The Government tell us—though I never believe them—that they are firmly on the side of the small business man. I have always argued that they are on
  122
  the side of the small business man's biggest enemy—big business. In my view, it is big business that the Government try to protect.
  In many areas, franchises are more and more the accepted way of retailing milk. The people who run franchises have to take out a second mortgage, repay bank loans at high interest rates, rent vans, and pay for relief roundsmen when they fall ill or take a holiday. They should be given proper consideration by any Government, let alone the present one.
  A probable consequence of the regulation is that some of those people will go out of business, and that will affect many households. An estimated 650,000 households currently receive tokens, accounting for 800,000 children, so the best part of 1 million children will be affected by the change. The Government may argue that they are not ending the scheme, only changing the way it operates, and that existing beneficiaries will continue to benefit. But will they?
  One of the regulation's consequences is that many dairies and roundsmen will, to save costs, be forced to cut their services. One franchise on Merseyside is talking of reducing its labour force by 25 per cent., causing more jobless in an area of existing high unemployment. The Co-operative movement in Skelmersdale may also be forced to make redundancies and to review its delivery services if the scheme goes through. The question of the additional costs burden also arises.
  In some cases, as much as 40 per cent. of weekly takings will be affected by the Government's proposals. Even those firms that do not go out of business will suffer heavy losses. Those worst affected on Merseyside will include a Bootle franchise that currently takes 260 tokens valued at £546, so that that small firm will lose £54·60 per week. A franchise in Huyton collecting 250 tokens valued at £525 will lose £52·50 weekly. Another in Toxteth, a poor area of Liverpool, takes 180 tokens valued at £378 per week, so it will lose £37·80.
  There can be no argument but that that loss will be shared by the Government, and the Milk Marketing Board has already stated that it does not wish to deviate from the selling price agreed with the federation. Perhaps the Minister has some influence with the Milk Marketing Board, but it appears that the full burden of the change will fall initially on the back of the retail milk trade.
  Ultimately, those of our constituents living in poorer areas will suffer, because many milk delivery services will end. It may be said that they can make their way to the supermarket, but many are old and disabled. Moreover, that would leave the scheme increasingly open to abuse. Milk, like bread, is used by supermarkets as a loss leader for other products, and there is nothing to stop them from using milk tokens for other supplies: indeed, that is probably happening already. The only way in which we can be certain that value for money is being obtained—that the tokens are being used for their intended purpose—is to ensure the continuation of a viable retail dairy facility.
  There is a further social aspect to doorstep deliveries. For many old or disabled people, they provide a point of contact with the outside world. I am aware that milkmen are not there to act as social workers, but I know of at least one case—and there have probably been many others—of an old or disabled person being found very ill. No one has visited for days and days; it is the milk roundsman who finds that Mrs. Jones is unwell. It is not, of course, the

  123
  Minister's responsibility to provide that social service, but it is there none the less, and many people will miss the contact that it provides.
  People who do not receive milk tokens will suffer as well. For one thing, the loss of a delivery service in a particular area will hit the general customer as well as the milk token customer: indeed, in some cases it will be the general customer who bears the cost. In many impoverished areas poor Peter will be paying poor Paul, subsidising a scheme that should properly be paid for by the Government.
  This is a penny-pinching regulation. When the Government talk of achieving better value for money, what do they mean? Do they mean better value for the customer? Certainly that cannot be so. Do they mean better value for the milk roundsman? That cannot he so either. Do they, perhaps, mean better value for the Government? I suggest that the real reason for the debate is that the Department—like all Government Departments—has been faced with a diktat from the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, "Here is the public expenditure survey: look at the high interest rates and the balance of payments, and tell me whether we can afford tax cuts this year. You had better do your share and come up with an idea that might save a little money here and there."
  I do not think that £8 million is worth it, and I think that the general public—the electorate in all our constituencies—will be up in arms as the regulation starts to take effect, as it apparently did yesterday. There is time for the Government to reconsider, though, and I hope that what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House will show the Minister that he must do so. If he has not the authority to deal with the matter tonight, I suggest that he promise a review of the scheme's impact in three to six months' time, and undertake to enter into proper negotiations that will produce an agreement with the trade unions and other interested parties.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: It appears that the result of tonight's debate is a foregone conclusion, as the regulations that we are discussing were introduced on Sunday 28 January. That opinion is shared by my milk-delivery constituents, who wrote to me on 26 October 1989 opposing the proposals. When I wrote on their behalf to the Department of Social Security asking for clarification, my letter was forwarded to the Department of Health, as that Department was now responsible; only today did I receive a reply. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that a wait of three months is unacceptable.
  Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend give those dates again, please?
  Mr. Stewart: I wrote to the Department of Social Security on 26 October. I have received a reply today.
  The welfare milk scheme, introduced in 1945, has benefited millions of children. Milk—nature's natural food—cannot be bettered. I welcome the Government's commitment that the scheme will continue. Milk roundspeople in my constituency feel that the proposed 10 per cent. reduction in the value of the tokens will come
  124
  solely from their business operations, yet the Department of Health stated that, following negotiations with milk producers' organisations, wholesalers and retailers, each would bear about one third of the total cost of the reduction. Why should milkmen complain if that were the case? They believe that the Department of Health is naive in thinking that milk wholesalers will be willing to buy milk tokens at a higher price than they would obtain if they surrendered them to the milk token surrender unit.
  There are further consequences to consider in my constituency if the regulations are implemented without a guarantee that the price reduction will be shared equally. My constituency is made up of small communities. Delivery costs, therefore, are high. As some dairymen receive 15 per cent. of their income from token sales in poorer areas, they may have no choice but to cease operations.
  If there is a reduction in the number of milk rounds that are willing or able to accept tokens, recipients of tokens will be forced to go to the shops where tokens are frequently accepted for goods other than milk. An increase in that practice would undermine the scheme and what it purports to achieve.
  The Department's argument, that procedural changes will make reimbursement simpler, is unsubstantiated. I am told that the additional records that would be required by the Department would increase the administrative burden on all processors. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that he will review the workings of the regulations in a few months to ensure that they are working as he suggests and that the price reduction for milk tokens will be shared equally and not exclusively by milk roundsmen.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have now heard enough from hon. Members on both sides of the House to convince me that the scheme is flawed. Would it not be helpful if we were now to hear the Minister's explanation of why the scheme—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That is not a point of order. When the Minister rises and seeks to catch my eye, that will be the appropriate time for me to consider whether he should be called.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen): I wholeheartedly endorse all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). The regulations will strike at the heart of a balanced system which, on the whole, has worked well and has been appreciated by those who have received the milk. The milk provided by the scheme for many of these people guarantees that they have some nutritious food. Anything that adversely affects the milk supplier must also affect the future viability of their involvement in the supply of welfare milk.
  I am sponsored by the Co-operative movement. I am well aware of the commercial impact that the regulations will have on Co-operative and other milk suppliers. The scheme costs £80 million per annum. The Government are trying to save £8 million. The Co-operative movement, reflecting the philosophy upon which it was founded, is also concerned about the commercial implications of the Government's proposals and the well-being of the users of

  125
  the scheme. We have not been told why the Government have decided to make an arbitrary 10 per cent. cut. They have given no rational or logical explanation for it.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) referred to what happens in Scotland. The difference between the cost in London and that in the rest of the country is due to higher costs in the London area. Surely the Minister must be aware that in Scotland, in Wales and in many rural parts of England costs must be higher because of distance and terrain.
  A letter from a civil servant to suppliers states that in certain circumstances, such as when a supplier has very high distribution costs, a higher reimbursement price will be paid. That seems to he the status quo. I join the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye in asking for some clarification from the Minister about whether that applies to Scotland and whether it will continue as nothing in the regulations makes that clear.
  The Government boast about the free market. Usually, Conservative Back Benchers do, too, but tonight it seems to be only the Government. They boast about the free market and then abuse their position by imposing the idea of a discount without any rational justification for reaching the level of that discount. Surely it is infantile to suggest that the Milk Marketing Board will volunteer to take a share of the cut. The Government know full well that the board will not offer to take a share.
  Mr. John Battle: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the view of the dairy associations that under the milk marketing scheme it could be illegal for them to implement the cut?
  Mr. McAvoy: Yes. A letter from one of the Co-operative organisations about sharing the grief makes it quite clear that if the Milk Marketing Board were invited to share the grief, it would certainly be a different sort of grief if Oftel were involved in those considerations. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
  There is no bulk delivery and no guaranteed continuity of supply. The Government quote a free market philosophy, but use their power to fix the market. That is despicable, particularly when it is used against small business men.
  Occasionally Conservative Members have accused Labour Members of being too closely associated with clause four of the Labour party constitution. I am quite sure that tonight's vote will demonstrate another clause which is continually the refuge of Conservative Members trying to dodge responsibility for their actions. It is the suitability clause—"never mind the principles, the policy or the people, just do what suits us". That is the clause that many Conservative Members will follow tonight when they troop through the Lobby to support the Government.
  The selling price of the milk must be a matter for individual dairy companies in open competition. The Dairy Trade Federation believes that the imposition by legislation of a fixed national discount will greately impede the viability of the welfare milk scheme.
  I believe that the measure is the start of the death by a thousand cuts of the welfare milk scheme. It is the Government's first step towards getting rid of the scheme. They can hardly find £2 million or £3 million here and there to cope with this, but I am sure that right hon. and
  126
  hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is the beginning of the end for the scheme, and that is disgraceful.
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I realise that time is short and I shall be very brief. I can save time by saying that I am sad that I cannot support the Government and I agree with the views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock).
  I have been asked by my constituents to put three short questions to the Minister. First, why should the small dairies in my constituency carry the cost of a national welfare benefit? Secondly, why give milk tokens at all if the benefit will not be spent on milk as the tokens will be cashed instead? Thirdly, where did we find the imbeciles who have recommended such a crazy scheme?
  So far everyone who has spoken has been against the measure and all outside bodies that made representations to me or to anyone else I have talked to also oppose the measure. If the Minister does not withdraw the measure tonight, despite the unanimous opposition, what does he think is the purpose of this Chamber?
  11.14 pm
  Mr. John Battle: It is clear that the scheme has been ill-thought out and shoddily proposed. As hon. Members have said, it was implemented yesterday, yet tonight we are debating the regulations for implementing it. That is completely the wrong way to legislate.
  The comment of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that the scheme has been shunted from the Department of Social Security to the Department of Health came as a surprise to me. I thought that the Department of Health was the big-spending Department and was not involved in pound pinching or cuts. The Under-Secretary of State for Health may say that he needs this money to settle a current industrial dispute, but I cannot believe that that is the reason. The Government have a budget surplus of £20 billion, so why do they need to save £7·5 million through this scheme?
  The scheme has been going for 40 years and is dependent on one-man businesses. I have received a letter from John Healy, a milkman in Wortley, which says:
  "I collect around 30 Tokens a week which is about £63. I am writing to object in the strongest manner to the way this issue has been handled without any consultations or consideration to its effect".
  That is precisely the point. The most vulnerable groups in society—single parents in receipt of family credit with children under five, the long-term unemployed and pregnant women—are provided with the benefit of the weekly token. The Government say:
  "The entitlement of beneficiaries to welfare milk is not affected by this change"—[Official Report, 24 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 714.]
  That was said in reply to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), so we are entitled to say, "Their entitlement may not be affected, but from where will they pick up their entitlement?"—because this will mean the end of the doorstep delivery.
  The dairies have said that there can be no economies of scale. Associated Dairies wrote to me saying:
  "Welfare milk is provided pint by pint to individual households and costs the same to distribute as other milk."

  127
  Milkmen will refuse to deliver welfare milk for tokens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) said, the cost of the change cannot be passed down the chain. Can the Milk Marketing Board legally pick up the tab for the change?
  We are debating a pound-pinching measure. We should be concerned to preserve one of the great British institutions—the doorstep pinta. Conservative Members resisted EC proposals to get rid of the doorstep pinta, yet this proposal will have the same effect if it is passed. I urge the Minister to give us a last-minute reprieve.
  11.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): Three major concerns have been expressed by Labour Members and by my hon. Friends, who spoke forcefully and with great authority in this brief debate. They were mentioned initially by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and were touched on by my hon. Friends the Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins). In the short time available, I shall seek to answer not only their concerns but the other points that were made.
  The first concern was whether the regulations would damage the welfare milk scheme. The Government do not intend to harm the beneficiaries of the scheme. We do not intend to add to the burdens or diminish the value of the scheme; there is no hidden agenda to remove or modify it.
  The second concern was that the regulations will place an unreasonable burden on the milkman. We do not seek to place a burden or inequitable share of the discount on the milkman.
  The third concern was that £8 million is an insignificant sum. That is equivalent to about £40,000 per district health authority, or three extra nurses. The money comes out of the Department of Health vote, and I do not think that it is an insignificant sum.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) for the unacceptably late reply. As a Minister, I accept responsibility for it, and I shall look into it. The fact that the Department of Health has to answer 30,000 letters from Members of Parliament each year is no excuse, and I apologise unreservedly for the delay.
  Let me deal with the welfare milk scheme. We have no intention to alter that and the proposals will have no effect on the right of beneficiaries under that scheme. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said, it benefits children under the age of five, pregnant mums in families drawing income support, and handicapped children aged from five to 16—some 800,000 beneficiaries in all. It is an important scheme and we have no intention of changing it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) asked why I was to reply to the debate rather than a Minister from the Department of Social Security. The answer is that the scheme is financed from my Department's vote. It costs £80 million for Great Britain, paid for by the various health Departments. It is an important programme, providing nutrition—that is its purpose—to families and children, and accounts for about 2·5 per cent. of all liquid milk produced on our farms.
  We are not basing our argument on the fact that we are a bulk purchaser. Unlike Sainsbury's, for example, we are
  128
  not a bulk purchaser because the milk is delivered in individual pints. But we argue—and we have sought the advice of our consultants, Handley Walker—that without the welfare milk scheme some extra sales, although not all the welfare milk scheme sales, would be lost. If the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton were pursued to its logical conclusion and the Department of Social Security made a cash payment to the appropriate families, not all that money would be spent on welfare milk. We estimate that about £20 million of contribution to overheads and profits can conservatively be attributed to the scheme. That is equivalent to about 0·3 per cent. of total milk turnover.
  Our proposals envisage a saving of about 10 per cent. on that £80 million cost—about £8 million—and that is less than half of our estimate of the additional contribution to profits and overheads that the whole of the milk industry makes from the operation of the scheme—through the Department of Health, as opposed to the Department of Social Security, vote. We therefore propose a 3p discount on the 30p pint delivered in most of the country and the 31p pint in London, with a resulting cost per pint of 28p in London. In reply to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), I can say that separate provisions are made for parts of the country where the regular cost of sale is significantly higher, and the discount would operate off that higher price. The 27p price that I have cited for most of England would not apply in those instances. The discount of 10 per cent. would be taken off the larger sum.
  The central point of Opposition Members' arguments turned on the question of who should bear the cost of the discount of £7·5 million to £8 million, which benefits patient care. At present the cost is being recycled in the Department of Health vote. In answer to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and others, the Department of Health strongly believes that the burden of the discount should be borne equitably among the producer, the processor and the distributor—I shall refer to each briefly—not the family beneficiaries through a specific delivery charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) is quite right to draw attention to regulation 5. Although we do not countenance a specific charge on the beneficiaries, a general delivery charge applied to all customers is a matter between the milkmen and their customers. That is not dealt with in the regulations.
  We believe that negotiations between the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation should commence promptly. A mechanism exists—through the statutory joint committee—for the very modest reduction in price that would be implied by the farmer—the producer-bearing an equitable proportion of the discount.
  The independent deliveryman would account for 40 per cent. of the total distribution element for milk. He should bear only an equitable part of the total discount. He should pass on the other part of the discount—which we argue that the farmer and the processor should bear—either by getting his milk cheaper or by the processor—the bottler—paying a premium on the redemption of the tokens.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does not my hon. Friend believe that the Government have a responsibility to sort out who pays for the scheme before they ask the House to approve the regulations?
  Mr. Freeman: I will give the assurance asked for by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Sherwood and others. The regulations come before the House regularly because they must be amended. Unless there is evidence of the principle that I have outlined tonight—an equitable sharing of distribution of that modest burden between the producer, the bottler and the deliveryman—I give an undertaking that we will review the regulations.
  Mr. Max Madden: The Minister seems to be struggling to defend the indefensible and the assurance that he has just given is not good enough. Will he give a clear assurance that if the burden is not shared fairly between the three sectors to which he has referred, and if we show within three months that dairymen are losing up to £40 or £50 a week, will he agree to scrap the regulations and reintroduce the status quo with which everyone is satisfied? No one can understand why the Minister is fiddling about with the regulations in this way.
  Mr. Freeman: I repeat the assurance that I gave to my hon. Friends who pressed me on that point. If the burden is not being shared in the equitable fashion that I have outlined, we will review the regulations and doubtless the issue will be debated again in the House.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. His comments show that debates in the House sometimes achieve something.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Flynn: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the Minister. I believe that we will find that the Milk Marketing Board cannot take on this burden.
  A few days ago I had the great privilege of discussing our Parliament with the aspiring members of the new Government in Bucharest and I spoke with pride to the people who expect to be running the country in a few months. I spoke to them in the same way that I have spoken to people in Budapest. I cannot send the Hansard report of tonight's debate to such newly democratised countries with any pride.
  In this debate hon. Members from all parties have denounced the regulations. Conservative Members described them as damaging, ill-conceived, flawed and even crazy.
  The regulations will be a disgrace to our statute book and a dishonour to democracy. They will cause damage, downgrading and cheating. Even at this late hour and in the event of the regulations being passed, I beg the Government to review them at the earliest possible date.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I shall try to be helpful to the Minister in the final minute of the debate.
  Will the Minister consider using some of the money that will be robbed from milkmen as a result of the regulations to promote the scheme—it operates within the welfare milk regulations—which enables every state nursery with
  130
  under-fives to claim free milk for them? The Minister is refusing to promote that scheme—he is making local county councils apply individually. Although those authorities that care about their under-fives make such an application, many others are unaware of the scheme. Given the benefits of milk to young children, why does he not promote it?
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 ( Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)):—
  The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 149.

  Division No. 54]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Allen, Graham

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Alton, David

  Kennedy, Charles

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Lamond, James

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ashton, Joe

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Barron, Kevin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Battle, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  McFall, John

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Bradley, Keith

  McWilliam, John

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Madden, Max

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Caborn, Richard

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Maxton, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Meale, Alan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Michael, Alun

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Clay, Bob

  Morley, Elliot

  Clelland, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Nellist, Dave

  Cohen, Harry

  O'Brien, William

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Patchett, Terry

  Cousins, Jim

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Crowther, Stan

  Pendry, Tom

  Cryer, Bob

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cummings, John

  Prescott, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dalyell, Tam

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

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

  Reid, Dr John

  Dixon, Don

  Rogers, Allan

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

  Soley, Clive

  Flynn, Paul

  Straw, Jack

  Foster, Derek

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Foulkes, George

  Turner, Dennis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Vaz, Keith

  Galloway, George

  Wareing, Robert N.

  George, Bruce

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm then)

  Henderson, Doug

  Winnick, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hoyle, Doug

  Worthington, Tony

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Illsley, Eric

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  ngram, Adam

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  131

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Amess, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Amos, Alan

  Franks, Cecil

  Arbuthnot, James

  Freeman, Roger

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gale, Roger

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Ashby, David

  Glyn, Sir Alan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Atkins, Robert

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gorst, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gow, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowis, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bright, Graham

  Hague, William

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

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Burns, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butler, Chris

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jack, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Janman, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Colvin, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Couchman, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knox, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Latham, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Devlin, Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Durant, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  132

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maclean, David

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Madel, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maples, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trippier, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Neale, Gerrard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Watts, John

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wilshire, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No.101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Special Agencies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.—[Mr.Dorrell.]
  Question agreed to.

  Paternal Support
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell]
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to have this debate to adjourn the House on the issue of paternal support for single mothers. However, before I put my main points, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you and the House will allow me to make a couple of introductory remarks.
  This issue has gained considerable public coverage recently, largely because of the Prime Minister's comments. Opposition Members know full well that when the crew opposite are unhappy with the captain, they do not make criticisms directly; they talk about the message not being put across to the country effectively. I shall use similarly coded language to begin the debate, and will ask the Minister if she will pass on to the Prime Minister the question that I and my hon. Friends would like answered: where have the Prime Minister's officials been for the past 10 years?
  The issue of non-payment of maintenance has arisen largely during this decade. Far from being able to blame the swinging 60s, the real issue of concern for most of us has been the significant increase in the number of young single mothers, and that is not an issue of the 60s; it is very much a product of the decade dominated by the Prime Minister.
  Although I shall suggest a number of reforms on this issue, I do so tentatively and with a fair amount of humility. One of the characteristics of Government is that they can be very clumsy with people's lives. Although I am anxious to hear what the Government have to say on this issue, I am aware that we can make the wrong decisions. However, I do not want the danger of making wrong decisions to be a case for not doing anything. There is a balance to be held in this, and I am anxious to understand the Government's balance.
  The main theme of my speech—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) wishes to speak as well—will be to consider the extent to which the Government are facing up to the hard issues involved. So far, the Prime Minister has made great political capital out of dealing with generalities and the practical side of the issue of paternal support for single-parent families. However, I maintain that at least five other issues need some answers also, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's.
  First, to what extent can we expect single mothers to name the fathers of their children? The rules are such that, if a mother says there is a threat of violence or of potential violence if the father is named, the local office will ask no further questions. I come from an area in which the potential for violence in such cases is very real. I do not want to play down the anxiety that it causes mothers and the officials concerned. If, however, fewer people were on means-tested benefits—the Government have done nothing but shove millions more people on to them—and if we paid our civil servants more suitably, we should now have many experienced officers in the services who could tackle this delicate problem.
  If the problem of the fathers were linked with a series of reforms, single mothers would perceive a risk, but many of them would be prepared to take that risk. All we hear
  134
  from the Prime Minister is a scheme for mothers on benefit. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not tell us that the Government are contemplating a scheme only for those on benefit; all single mothers should be included in it.
  If I understand her thinking aright, the Prime Minister wants a scheme in which mothers on benefit will be able to make over the collection of their maintenance orders to the state. If the scheme is to be successful, it must apply to all single parents. If not, I ask the Government to consider the penalties for mothers moving from benefits to work. They will have to leave the certainty of an income, if only a low one, and move to a wage that may or may not come in each week. Their maintenance orders will have been paid because the state will collect the money and pay it to them, but if they find a job they will have to take on that responsibility themselves.
  Unless, therefore, we extend the scheme to all parents, it will not get off the ground for most mothers; nor will a majority of them consider the option to work—
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that maintenance is not a way of getting women off benefit and back into paid employment. However low their benefit, women at least know that it is guaranteed and regular, so they can plan.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend made an important point about violence. Many women escaping from violent, intimidatory relationships need to make the break emotionally, economically and socially in order to reconstruct their lives and their families' lives.
  Thirdly, men may think that payment of maintenance gives them certain rights over their former families. That poses a problem.
  Finally, there is no evidence that making a father pay maintenance will result in his becoming more committed to his family.
  Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend for those pertinent points. Before I deal with the point about access, I want to talk about disregards, which follow logically from what I was saying.
  Even Opposition Members have said that the scheme that the Government have tentatively suggested should benefit the mother. But I maintain that it would create new forms of unfairness. I would not support this scheme. What about mothers whose former husbands have died? Why should they be put at a disadvantage? What about mothers who, because of violence, cannot name the fathers? They should not be disadvantaged. We know that large numbers of people are prepared to work the system, so there will be trendies who will use the system to put their families in an advantageous position.
  Many of those mothers in my constituency look forward to being able to afford to go back to work. If they have the maintenance order paid over to the state, they should have a right to some of the money, not as weekly cash but to be paid into personalised training accounts. In that way, when training opportunities arise while they are on benefit, they will have the right to choose their training scheme as consumers, with the money to pay, rather than have to accept some of the Government's schemes. I hope that the Minister will comment on that proposal when she replies.
  I have been reprimanded by a man in Somerset who objects to how I talk about single-parent families, He is

  135
  divorced, pays his maintenance, has a good relationship with his ex-wife and says that his family should not be regarded as a one-parent family. He says that where parents, like him, are divorced, the children are not bereaved:
  "Indeed my three children aged 10, eight and six are still nurtured, loved and cared for by two loving parents. Albeit mother and father live apart."
  I applaud that. Nevertheless, we think about access, as there are real problems of violence in some families. There should be no question of access if violence has taken place or is threatened.
  Mothers have told me that they regard the father of their child as a jerk and do not want him in their lives. They make it difficult for their child to meet the father in satisfactory circumstances, so social workers take note of that. I understand why many women do not want the father to have access to them, but access to their children is different. I hope that those with no record of violence who want to play a part will be considered sympathetically.
  While we think of immediate changes, we should also think of long-term changes. We need to give a moment's thought to what is happening in our schools. I applaud the Bartonhill group which visits schools and has the support of one-parent families. Young mothers tell pupils that it is a wonderful joy to have a child but that it is not necessary to have the child at 15 or 16. It can come later in life. I hope that we can match that by teaching young male pupils about the cost of fathering a child. The most conservative estimate puts the total cost at about £15,000. We should make an issue of telling young men the cost of fatherhood.
  I have raised five hard issues. To what extent should fathers be named? Will we cover all single mothers or only those on benefit? What will happen to the disregard? What are the rights of access? What will we do in our schools?
  11.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to him for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss this important issue. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for her intervention.
  The hon. Gentleman made a number of interesting points and asked some specific questions to which I shall return. I am aware that he is an expert in this and many other social security policy areas, and does not need reminding of the figures, but much has been said about lone parents in recent debates and I think it would be helpful to set out some background. The number of lone-parent families in Great Britain has increased rapidly during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1971, there were estimated to be some 570,000 lone-parent families. By 1979, that figure had grown to 840,000, and by 1986, the latest date for which figures are available, it has grown to slightly more than a million.
  I must remind the House that the term "lone parent" covers a variety of situations—from the young unmarried mother with a very small child to a divorced mother in her thirties with teenage children. The hon. Gentleman touched on that point. I say "mothers", because some 90 per cent. of all lone parents are women. While the rate of
  136
  increase for unmarried mothers is faster than for other groups, as the hon. Gentleman said, marriage breakdown accounts for by for the largest proportion. Some 60 per cent. of all lone-parent families are headed by separate or divorced women, while 23 per cent. are headed by lone mothers who have never been married. It would be difficult to apportion the blame for the breakdown of marriage or the numbers of lone parents to any Government, although the hon. Gentleman attempted to do so.
  Even more striking than the increase in lone parent numbers has been the increase in dependency of lone-parent families on supplementary benefit and its successor, income support. In 1979, about 40 per cent. of all lone-parent families were dependent on supplementary benefit, but by 1988 the number had risen to about two thirds. Part of the reason for that is the maintenance situation.
  Of course, there are a number of reasons for that. For instance, the absent father may not be able to pay maintenance for a period if he is sick, unemployed or on low earnings with a second family. It may not be possible to trace him, or we may not have his name. Obtaining or enforcing a court order may take time, especially when the absent father is being unco-operative. Whatever the reasons, the position is totally unsatisfactory.
  Taxpayers are currently shouldering an enormous burden of more than £1·5 billion a year because absent fathers are not doing enough to provide for their families. Those facts are important, and not just because of the cost to the taxpayer. It is quite wrong that absent fathers who can contribute towards the cost of bringing up children fail so do so. Most people accept that absent fathers should meet their responsibilities, in so far as they can, for the sake of their children, their families and, indeed, themselves.
  The benefit system gives considerable help to lone-parent families. The Government are concerned that social security benefits should contain some recognition of the additional needs of lone-parent families and they are structured so that, while not requiring lone parents with children up to the age of 16 to be available for work, they are nevertheless not unduly discouraged from working if they wish to do so. Many do want to work, and help is provided in a variety of ways.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned disregards. For those who work part time, there is an earnings disregard of £15 a week within income support, which is higher than the disregard for single people and couples. For those who work full time, the same adult credit is given for lone parents as for couples in family credit, one-parent benefit being completely ignored when family credit is calculated. We have recently announced an increase in the housing benefit earnings disregard from £15 to £25, which, with the lone-parent premium and together with the community charge benefit, is expected to help some 95,000 lone-parent families.
  That is what the benefit system currently does, and regular payments of maintenance from the absent father, as well as being right, would also be a great help, as that would provide a useful basis of income to lone parents wanting to start or to continue in work. The benefit system should help families in difficulties, but that does not diminish the absent father's responsibility. The benefit system does a great deal to help families with children in difficulties, but, when all is said and done, it is

  137
  unacceptable that the state should shoulder a burden that is properly the responsibility of the absent father, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, something must be done.
  As the hon. Member will know, the Department has already commissioned some independent research on the situation of lone-parent families. This has involved interviewing about 2,000 lone parents, drawn from a sample of local DSS offices, about their circumstances and perceptions, and we shall look very carefully at the results, which should be available later this year. But because maintenance is ultimately a matter for the courts, as well as for the DSS, we need to look not just at how DSS arrangements are working but at the whole system and at possible alternatives. We have been working on this with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Scottish Office. As the problem of increasing numbers of lone parents dependent on benefit and diminishing maintenance payments is faced by many countries, it is worth looking at what is done elsewhere, particularly where there are systems that appear to work well, and we have already begun to do this.
  I should like to take a moment to describe what happens in Australia—one example that is being studied. There, reforms were introduced in two stages. The first stage established a child support agency as part of the tax office responsible for the collection of maintenance. Wherever possible, child maintenance is collected by the automatic withholding of income at source. In the second stage, which was introduced last October, Australia implemented the more radical component, which also transferred the responsibility of assessing maintenance awards from the courts to the child support agency. Maintenance is assessed by applying a formula that takes account of both parents' incomes and circumstances and the number of children for whom the absent parent is responsible. The first results look very promising. Stage I alone doubled the number of families receiving regular payment.
  However, Australia is not alone. In the United States, federal legislation has also been considerably tightened to ensure that all states are doing the maximum to make certain that maintenance is paid. All states must introduce strict guidelines on the level of maintenance awarded; some, like Wisconsin, have introduced a formula—as in Australia—for this. In addition, all states must introduce the means of automatic withholding from earnings by November this year. In New Zealand, a formula is applied to calculate maintenance for lone parents on benefit, while in France maintenance is collected through the tax system. There is a lot to be learned over the coming months from the experiences of these countries and many others.
  But we need better information about how existing arrangements here work, so the Department, together with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate's Department, has commissioned a survey of information from a sample of courts and DSS local offices. The survey will obtain information on amounts of maintenance awarded and collected by the courts and on amounts of maintenance paid for those on benefit. The scope will therefore be very wide. That answers, in part, one of the questions put by the hon. Gentleman. The two sources will produce information that we need to enable us to determine what maintenance we can reasonably expect from a different system. We expect results in the summer, and we shall look very carefully at them.
  138
  One of the hon. Gentleman's questions related to the education system and what can be done in schools. He will appreciate that that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. However, I can say that those of us who have studied what is going on in some of the schools in Bristol have been very interested in the experiment that he has described.
  The hon. Member asked a number of other specific questions, including one about the requirement that a mother who has not been married should name the father of her child as a condition of receiving benefit. In the real world, it would be very difficult to insist that a mother name the father of her child. She may genuinely not know his name. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South pointed out, she may have very good reasons—such as the fear of violence—for not naming the father.
  In any case, the birth certificates of 70 per cent. of children born outside marriage bear the names of both parents, so the problem is not quite as great as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. He is right to say that it is very important that the staff who do this work be aware of the difficult and sensitive issues involved. We aim at discussing the entire situation carefully with the single mother who has never been married and at ensuring that the staff concerned are as experienced as possible. Schemes such as those operated in New Zealand and in the United States impose such a requirement, but I understand that in practice it is not strictly applied.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Department could collect maintenance payments when the mother is not receiving benefit. That is an interesting idea. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate as well as anyone that such an arrangement has enormous implications—not least for the Department, in terms of additional work load. The study is aimed at studying the collection methods used in other countries to establish which would work most effectively in Britain.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked also about access. The Government have already made clear their view that absent fathers should do more to support their children, but access is a separate issue. We believe that there should be one set of procedures for determining access issues and another set for determining maintenance issues. Clearly the child's welfare must be the main consideration in both cases.
  I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bristol, South understand that one is dealing with an extremely sensitive area and that the possibility arises of straying into relationships into which many people would feel that the state should not intrude. In any case, the Government's view is that maintenance and access are separate issues.
  Mr. Field: But the state already intervenes. It intervenes through the courts.
  Mrs. Shephard: The courts are another matter. The hon. Gentleman sought, in a sense, a reward from the state benefit system in return for access being allowed. I hope that I have not misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but that is what his remarks implied.
  Mr. Field: I was agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) that the issue was very delicate, but that if a person paid up and if there

  139
  was no record of violence, and so on, then if the matter went to court, that is something that the court should consider—and would not automatically ignore.
  Mrs. Shephard: We all agree that it is a delicate matter and that there is widespread support for the line that the current situation is unacceptable. In the interests both of children and their parents, effective action must be taken.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked many detailed questions, and the answers to many of them depend on the outcome of the study. We aim at an efficient system that
  140
  will strike a fair balance between giving lone-parent families the financial support that they need, and which is their due, and taxpayers who are currently shouldering an enormous burden because absent parents—absent fathers—are not doing enough to provide for their families. That is a considerable task and the issues are complex. That is why we need sound, up-to-date information on what is going wrong, what we need to do about it, and what we can learn from other countries. We are compiling that information as a matter of urgency.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring the January 1987 service requirement for a Government data network that is currently in the Library up to date with current development.

  Mr. Ryder
  The service requirement for the Government data network was produced for procurement purposes and it would not be appropriate to update it as a record of development. I have placed a copy of the annual report of the GDN central support staff for 1988–89 in the Library. Since that report was prepared, 10 more Government users, Her Majesty's Treasury, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Department of Energy, General Register Office (Scotland), the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, Department of Trade and Industry, Welsh Office, Department of Transport and Ordnance Survey, have signed access agreements to use the network.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Ryder
  Her Majesty's Treasury is a member of the "Look After Your Heart" scheme, and, in that context, is reviewing its workplace policies, including that on smoking, which will contribute to the prevention of heart disease. I will write to my hon. Friend when that review has been completed.

  Inflation
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the year on year rate of inflation at April of each year for 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  In the 12 months to April 1979, the all-items retail prices index rose by 10·1 per cent., and the corresponding rate for April 1989 was 8·0 per cent. For the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, the equivalent inflation rates were 9·1 per cent. and 5·9 per cent. in April 1979 and April 1989 respectively.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with respect to the European Commission's 1992 value added tax approximation proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: In May 1989, the Commission put forward revised VAT
  2
  proposals, the main changes being the suggestion of an (unspecified) minimum standard rate of VAT and an acknowledgement that some existing zero-rating could be continued. Subsequent discussions in successive Economic and Finance Ministers Councils agreed that the Council should decide on the tax approximation issue by the end of 1991. For further details of discussion at December ECOFIN, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 20 December at column 244.

  The United Kingdom view remains that centrally fixed approximation of VAT rates is neither necessary nor appropriate to achieve the single market. While the Government have welcomed the Commission's acceptance of the need to continue zero-rating, they have continued to make clear that they could not accept any proposals which would restrict their ability to apply zero rates.

  Useful progress has, however, been made on technical arrangements for removing fiscal frontiers. The decisions taken largely reflected the United Kingdom approach and should ensure reduced compliance costs for businesses, while maintaining adequate controls against fraud.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in relation to amelioration in the value added tax treatment of charities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: My right hon. Friend has received various representations from charitable bodies and individuals. The concerns expressed are being carefully considered, but any changes in taxation would be a matter for my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list by location, where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Luce
  The Civil Service college at Sunningdale is planning to open a workplace nursery later this year for which users will make payment, and staff have access to a holiday playscheme financed by both parental and departmental contributions. My Department is considering the need for and feasibility of providing creche facilities.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if there are any proposals to change the 1988–89 cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  No, but subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) will be increased by £728,000 from £35,189,000 to £35,917,000 for 1989–90. The increase will be charged to the reserve.

  The increase is required to cover the additional cost of making physical security improvements; increased expenditure on fees, etc; additional administrative support

  3
  for the Government Whips; promoting and implementing the "next steps" initiative; administering a revised discretionary pay system for the Civil Service senior open structure; and increased recruitment advertising by the Civil Service Commission.

  The foregoing increases in provision are partially offset by decreases resulting from a reassessment of capital provision, the grant in aid to the European Institute of Public Administration, and from savings in staff costs.

  Some of the foregoing changes in provision have a consequent effect on the Department's running costs limit, which will be increased by £791,000 from £31,248,000 to £32,039,000.

  In addition, the following amounts will be transferred to the Departments and agencies shown to meet part of the cost of increased management development training under the challenge funding scheme initiated by my Department. This will be met from existing but unallocated public expenditure provision.

  £'000

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  34

  Central Statistical Office

  5

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  98

  Ministry of Defence

  34

  Department of Education and Science

  19

  Department of Employment

  365

  Department of Health

  26

  Home Office

  9

  Inland Revenue

  200

  Her Majesty's Land Registry

  1

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  31

  Ordnance Survey

  2

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys

  1

  Property Services Agency

  1

  Department of Social Security

  25

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  13

  Welsh Office

  8

  Office of Arts and Libraries

  1

  Total

  873

THE ARTS

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give details of any proposed changes to the cash limits of his Department's votes in 1989–90.

  Mr. Luce
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates as appropriate, the cash limits of the following votes will be changed as indicated:

  Class and Vote

  Current Cash Limit£

  Change£

  Revised Cash Limit£

  XIII, 1

  157,599,000

  -61,000

  157,538,000

  XIII, 2

  178,466,000

  +2,800,000

  181,266,000

  XIII, 4

  1,561,000

  +61,000

  1,622,000

  Additional provision of £2,800,000 is being sought in a spring Supplementary Estimate on class XIII, vote 2, to augment the main estimate provision for assets accepted in lieu of tax. The increase of £2,800,000 will be charged to the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Additional provision of £61,000 is being sought on class XIII, vote 4. The Office of Arts and Libraries running costs
  4
  provision is to be increased by £75,000 to meet additional staff costs. That increase is partially offset by economies on capital expenditures of £10,000 and an increase in appropriations in aid of £4,000. The net increase of £61,000 will be offset by savings on research, surveys and other services on class XIII, vote 1, so there will be no addition to the planned total of public expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of recent political changes in eastern Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  We welcome the recent political changes in eastern Europe. NATO's policy of pursuing dialogue with the East whilst maintaining sufficient defences to preserve security has played a major part in promoting these changes. The Alliance is a force for stability in Europe at a time of great uncertainty, and our commitment to it is undiminished.

  Tourism
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on the promotion of tourism.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations on the promotion of tourism, both from members of the public and from the industry itself.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to international co-operation against terrorism.

  The Prime Minister
  We contribute actively to international co-operation against terrorism in every way we can. Our starting point is to seek the widest possible agreement to our own policy, based on no substantive concessions to terrorists' demands. We also exchange effective, practical measures to prevent and counter terrorism.

  We are prominent in the Trevi Group in Europe, where we are currently strengthening procedures for communicating information about terrorist activities, and examining the scope for action against the funds that sustain terrorism. Elsewhere, we are contributing to the International Civil Aviation Organisation's work on devising an international regime for marking explosives for detection.

  We provide advice, assistance and training in counter-terrorism to many overseas Governments and agencies; and our police forces are in daily contact with their counterparts in the common effort to prevent terrorist acts and to bring terrorists to justice.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister how she co-ordinates the work of Government Departments in health promotion.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, together with my right
  5
  hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland ensure that these matters are effectively co-ordinated within Government.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister whether creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in her Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Warwick University
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last visited the advanced technology centre at Warwick university; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I officially opened the advanced technology centre at Warwick university during my visit on 8 January. I was much impressed by the excellent facilities and the commitment of the staff. The centre is an outstanding example of what can be achieved through co-operation between higher education and industry.

  EC (Responsibilities)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment she has made of the level of transfer of direct responsibility to the European Community since the passage of the Single European Act; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Single European Act's main objectives, in particular the programme to complete the single market, are being fulfilled, but the SEA did not fundamentally affect the institutional balance in the Community. The final word remains with member states in the Council of Ministers, who remain accountable to their national Parliaments.

  British Intelligence (History)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the current position in relation to Professor Sir Michael Howard's commissioned history of British Intelligence.

  The Prime Minister
  "Strategic Deception" by Professor Sir Michael Howard is being prepared for publication as volume V of the series entitled "British Intelligence in the Second World War". The current position is that the text has now been returned to Her Majesty's Stationery Office for printing and binding. Publication is expected to take place in the summer.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, further to his reply of 13 December 1989,Official Report, column 702, relating to the appointment of an inspector, what was (a) the name of the inspector and his firm, (b) the company he investigated, (c) the investigations being simultaneously undertaken and (d) the date on which his Department became aware that one of its inspectors was being investigated.
  6
  Mr. Redwood
  As indicated in my reply of 13 December, inspectors are appointed to investigate the affairs or membership of companies, not individuals.

  The answers to the hon. Member's questions are:

  (a) Mr. P. L. Ainger FCA of Messrs. Price Waterhouse.

  (b) Gilgate Holdings Limited.

  Raybourne Group Limited.

  Calomefern Limited.

  Desadean Properties Limited.

  (c) Those at (b) and Ramor Investments Limited.

  (d) I cannot say.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on appointing inspectors from accountancy firms found wanting by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is usual to appoint inspectors from firms of accountants who have not been the subject of recent criticism.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any individual from Thornton Baker, now Grant Thornton, has been appointed a Department of Trade and Industry inspector since September 1981.

  Mr. Redwood
  Three individuals from Grant Thornton have been appointed inspectors since September 1981.

  Children's Bicycles
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the brake systems of children's bicycles with a saddle height of less than 25 in.; what representations he is making to the EEC Commissioner on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Representations have been made by the cycle industry about the level of safety and appropriateness of the European harmonised standard EN71 in respect of the braking performance tests specifically in relation to cycles with saddle heights between 435 mm and 635 mm. I am concerned by the suggestions that the tests may not provide the level of safety required by the essential requirements of the European directive on the safety of toys. The United Kingdom delegation to the European Committee for Standardisation sought to have the braking test specified in the International Standard Organisation standard 8098 incorporated into the harmonised standards, but there was insufficient support for this from other CEN delegates.

  The matter is being urgently considered. If the Department concludes that any harmonised standard does not meet the essential requirements the procedure is for the Government to refer the matter to the standing committee set up under the directive for re-consideration. If appropriate, we will proceed accordingly. In the meantime, my officials have told the manufacturers that, when toys do not conform in whole or in part to harmonised standards, type approval may be obtained from an approved body. The approved body is concerned to establish that the model submitted for approval meets the essential requirements, and in so doing may, if the harmonised standard is inappropriate, have regard to other appropriate tests.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give full publicity to the arrangements offered by supervisory bodies seeking recognition under the Companies Act 1989; and if he will give the public an opportunity to comment on the acceptability of such arrangements.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend can give no undertakings to publicise the details of any application he receives, since this would rule out the possibility of a body including information supplied in confidence in its application. He will, however, carry out such consultation as he thinks necessary to enable him to reach a view on an application. He will take into account any comments he receives.

  Rechem International
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to instigate an inquiry under the Companies Acts of alleged insider dealing in the shares of Rechem International.

  Mr. Redwood
  The power to appoint inspectors to investigate possible insider dealing offences is in section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986.

  The surveillance division of the stock exchange looks at cases of price movements before price-sensitive announcements, and where appropriate it passes information to my Department for consideration of whether further investigation, in particular by the appointment of inspectors, is desirable. Such appointments are not normally announced.

  Newspaper Acquisitions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been made for newspaper acquisitions under the terms of the Fair Trading Act 1973 since 19 December 1980; and how many of these were refused.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 19 December 1980, decisions have been taken on 66 applications. Sixty-two consents have been given, of which two were given conditionally.

  A number of applications have also been received which have been withdrawn before any final decision has been taken.

  Carbon Technology
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the Government's policy on the export to eastern European countries of carbon technology with regard to filtration systems for emissions from industrial processes.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 24 January 1990]: The Government's policy is to encourage export of goods and technology which do not give rise to strategic or other concerns. Applications for export licences are considered case by case on their merits.

  BOM Holdings plc
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement about BOM Holdings plc and the extent to which his Department is monitoring the company under the Companies Acts;

  (2) what representations he has received about proposed land sale transactions and other activities by BOM Holdings plc in the past three months; and if he intends any action in respect of this company.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: BOM Holdings plc has not filed its first accounts by the due date, 31 August 1989, nor has it filed an annual return due on 1 November 1989. The Registrar of Companies is taking appropriate action.

  My Department has received a number of representations about the company's recent activities including a contract for the sale of an area of land which is a major asset. We are considering urgently whether action is appropriate, but I cannot indicate whether any action will be taken.

  Somalia
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what commodities the British Government trade with Somalia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: The British Government do not trade with Somalia. Trade by United Kingdom companies with Somalia is published in the "Overseas Trade Statistics" book held in the House of Commons Library.

WALES

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the most recent figure for the number of pupils and students with statements of special educational needs in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  At January 1989, there were 11,742 pupils in Wales with statements of special educational needs under the Education Act 1981.

  Felinheli Bypass
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales following his recent announcement of his intentions to upgrade land communications in north Wales, what is the latest estimate for the commencement date for work on the Felinheli bypass; and what is the target date for this road to be open.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The A487 Felinheli bypass is programmed to start early in the period April 1991-March 1994. Construction is expected to take about two years.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.
  9
  Mr. Grist
  The Department operates a "no smoking" policy which aims to provide a smoke-free environment for the health and comfort of all staff. Smoking is mainly restricted to special designated areas where those who wish to smoke are free to do so. The policy is working well.

  Wintech
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will raise the future status, staffing and funding of Wintech.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I meet regularly with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss matters concerning the whole range of its activities, including the work of its technology development arm, which is now known as Welsh Development Technology.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to his Department's cash limits in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 2, regional and industrial development Wales, is being reduced by £3 million from £89,448,000 to £86,448,000 in order to take account of lower than expected demand in the current financial year for regional enterprise grant. At the same time gross expenditure by the Welsh Development Agency is being increased by a similar amount to allow it to retain an additional £3 million of grant in aid receipts.

  The cash limit for class XVII, vote 8, hospital and community health services, etc., Wales, is being reduced by £600,000 from £835,510,00 to £834,910,000. This will meet the Welsh share of the additional assistance to be paid from class XIV, vote 3, to haemophiliacs infected with HIV, as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 23 November 1989 at columns 11–12.

  Finally, a token Supplementary Estimate will shortly be presented for class XVII, vote 13. A parliamentary answer giving full details of the cost of water privatisation will be given soon.

  NHS
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of staging the one-day conference, "Strategic Intent and Direction for the National Health Service in Wales", held on 17 November 1989 at the Angel hotel, Cardiff.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: The total cost of preparing for and staging this major conference of 260 delegates was £21,000, with a further £4,600 spent on the production of materials which are continuing to be used. Of the total cost, £3,000 was met from the Department's NHS budget, and the balance from the Department's publicity budget.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Archaeological Site, Ballycarry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the significance of the archaeological site at Bridgend road, Ballycarry, Co. Antrim.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The site is regarded as of great archaeological importance. It is a circular enclosure, recognised from aerial photography and interpreted as an ecclesiastical settlement of the early Christian period (5th to 12th centuries AD). Such enclosures are not common in Northern Ireland.

  Early 19th century records of human remains and stone-lined graves confirm the presence of an early graveyard within the enclosure.

  A medieval parish church was recorded on the site in 1306 AD. The ruins of a later church, built in 1622 AD, still stand within the enclosure and have been scheduled for protection under the Historic Monuments Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to excavate the archaeological site at Templecorran, Bridgend road, Ballycarry, Co. Antrim.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no such plans.

  Archaeological Excavations
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Department of the Environment (historic buildings and ancient monuments branch) receives as an annual budget for archaeological excavations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the 1989–1990 financial year, the Department of the Environment's historic monuments and buildings branch budget for archaeological excavations and related work was £103,400.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cash and running cost limits for the Northern Ireland departmental services and the Northern Ireland Office in 1989–90.

  Mr. Cope
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary associated Supplementary Estimates, it is proposed that the cash limit for the Northern Ireland Office (NIO1) will be increased by £12,660,000 from £625,649,000 to £638,309,000. This increase reflects a transfer of £12,240,000 from the cash limit for Northern Ireland Departments (NID1) and an increase of £420,000 for capital carryover from 1988–89 under end-year flexibility arrrangements.

  The cash limit for NI departmental services (NID1) for 1989–90 will be decreased by £0·8 million from £2707·1 million to £2706·3 million. This change reflects the transfer to NIO1, and a reduction of £0·2 million to cover NI's contribution to the Macfarlane Trust in respect of haemophiliacs who have become infected with HIV, as announced on 23 November 1989 at column 11–12, offset by increases of £7·7 million for Health Service pay, £2·1 million for capital carryover from 1988–89 under the

  11
  end-year flexibility arrangements, £2·1 million for the beef special premium scheme (offset by a reduction in the cash limit for the Intervention Board of Agricultural Produce—class IV, vote 2—as announced on 23 May 1989 at column 473) and £0·7 million transferred from the Department of Social Security for administration costs relating to social security operations undertaken on an agency basis in NI (offset by a reduction of the same amount in the cash limit for DSS class XV vote 7).

  The net increase resulting from these changes will be charged to the reserve.

  The running cost limit for NIO and NI Departments will be decreased by £3,730,000 from £543,030,000 to £539,300,000 reflecting efficiency savings emerging, notably in the prisons sector, and other easements resulting from variations in estimated demand.

  Enrolment (January)

  PrimarySchool

  1989

  1980

  1975

  Date of Opening/Closure (where applicable)

  1.Controlled

  Londonderry Model

  336

  266

  310

  —

  —

  Ebrington

  553

  525

  520

  —

  —

  Groarty

  41

  63

  70

  —

  —

  Culmore

  52

  63

  47

  —

  —

  Ballougry

  39

  22

  32

  —

  —

  Kilaloo-Cumber

  97

  94

  74

  —

  —

  Drumahoe

  230

  260

  297

  —

  —

  Maydown

  96

  97

  128

  —

  —

  Eglinton

  225

  181

  211

  —

  —

  Newbuildings

  319

  345

  378

  —

  —

  Straidarran

  67

  67

  74

  —

  —

  Strathfoyle

  70

  205

  277

  —

  —

  Greenlaw

  240

  213

  192

  Opened

  4 October 1971

  FortJames

  226

  233

  210

  Opened

  4 September 1973

  Lisnagelvin

  563

  510

  —

  Opened

  4 January 1978

  Lisdillon

  —

  —

  —

  Closed

  31 August 1973

  Killymallaght

  —

  —

  —

  Closed

  31 August 1973

  2.Maintained

  St.Eugene's Convent Senior

  332

  285

  308

  —

  —

  St.Eugene's Convent Infants

  226

  226

  291

  —

  —

  The Cathedral

  25

  40

  54

  —

  —

  Carlisle Road

  62

  62

  62

  —

  —

  Rosemount

  441

  466

  750

  —

  —

  First Derry

  52

  57

  48

  —

  —

  Nazareth House Convent

  413

  402

  369

  —

  —

  Holy Child

  476

  506

  596

  —

  —

  Hollybush

  184

  143

  158

  —

  —

  Glendermott

  167

  200

  201

  —

  —

  Cumber Upper

  28

  44

  42

  —

  —

  St.Patrick's Boys

  319

  368

  506

  —

  —

  St.Patrick's Girls

  307

  337

  473

  —

  —

  St.Patrick's Infants

  416

  426

  585

  —

  —

  Craigbrack

  83

  69

  59

  —

  —

  Broadbridge

  171

  144

  139

  —

  —

  St.Mary's

  120

  124

  169

  —

  —

  Listress

  38

  42

  49

  —

  —

  Mullabuoy

  164

  248

  264

  —

  —

  St.John's

  675

  657

  902

  Opened

  1 September 1971

  St.Anne's

  743

  686

  497

  Opened

  1 May 1972

  Central Claudy

  326

  371

  417

  Opened

  1 September 1972

  Steelstown

  706

  921

  1,060

  Opened

  10 April 1972

  Carnhill

  537

  812

  309

  Opened

  2 September 1974

  St.Oliver Plunkett

  206

  252

  295

  Opened

  7 January 1975

  Slievemore

  722

  696

  —

  Opened

  1 September 1977

  St.Columba's

  102

  164

  —

  Opened

  1 September 1977

  Trench Road

  405

  493

  —

  Opened

  1 April 1979

  Dungiven Road

  423

  —

  —

  Opened

  18 March 1980

  Lenamore

  478

  —

  —

  Opened

  1 September 1983

  Chapel Road

  187

  —

  —

  Opened

  18 March 1980

  Holy Family

  656

  —

  —

  Opened

  1 September 1987

  Longtower

  559

  —

  —

  Opened

  1 September 1988

  Waterside Girls

  —

  n/a

  568

  Closed

  31 March 1980

  Christchurch

  —

  —

  88

  Closed

  31 August 1975

  Primary Schools, Londonderry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each primary school in the Londonderry council area for the latest available year (a) the number of children, (b) whether the school is controlled, or maintained or voluntary, indicating what the figures were for each school in 1980, 1975 and 1970; which schools have closed and the date of closure since 1970; and which schools were first opened with the date of opening since 1970.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: Information on enrolments in 1970 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The other information requested is as follows:
  13

  Enrolment (January)

  PrimarySchool

  1989

  1980

  1975

  Date of Opening/Closure (where applicable)

  Rossdowney

  —

  —

  226

  Closed

  31 December 1977

  Clooney

  —

  —

  300

  Closed

  21 December 1977

  Brow-of-the-Hill

  —

  —

  201

  Closed

  31 August 1976

  Waterside boys

  —

  n/a

  655

  Closed

  31 August 1980

  Aghakillymaude

  —

  —

  25

  Closed

  31 August 1976

  Rossnagallagh

  —

  —

  121

  Closed

  31 August 1977

  Enagh

  —

  —

  —

  Closed

  31 August 1974

  3. Voluntary 1

  St. Joseph's Convent

  —

  —

  129

  Closed

  31 August 1975

  St. Columb's Convent Infants

  —

  58

  130

  Closed

  31 August 1985

  1 There are no voluntary primary schools in the area at present.

  n/a = Not available.

  Brandywell Stadium
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums of public money have been spent on the Brandywell stadium in Londonderry; and for what purposes in each of the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: In the 1988–89 and 1989–90 financial years, grant of £50,000 and £100,000 respectively was paid to Derry city council by the Department of Education towards costs incurred on construction works associated with terracing and stand facilities for spectators, floodlighting and related health and safety works.

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to impose card membership of football supporters in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: I have no such plans.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Soviet Foreign Minister
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Soviet Foreign Minister; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Shevardnadze on 19 December and they discussed bilateral relations, human rights and the full range of East-West issues.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of the potential of exploiting hydrocarbons around the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Seismic surveys were carried out in the waters around the Falkland Islands in the 1970s. The results were commercially confidential and thus do not allow us to make any assessment of the potential for the exploitation of hydrocarbons.

  Nepal
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in 1989 the Government approached the King of Nepal concerning violations of human rights in that land.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have several times raised British concerns with Nepalese Ministers and officials. These matters are not however, normally discussed at the level of Heads of State.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Nepal concerning conditions in Nepalese prisons and detention centres and the continued use of torture and ill-treatment of Christians.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. The Nepalese Government are well aware of our concern about cases involving Christians, about which we have approached them many times.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nepalese authorities concerning the detainees held without trial in Nepal for up to three years under the Public Security Act.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Nepalese Government are well aware of our concerns about human rights issues. We note that recent legislation has reduced the maximum period for detention without trial to 18 months.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government have done to bring to the attention of the United Nations the continued violation of human rights in Nepal.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We express British concerns as and when necessary to the Nepalese Government.

  Postage Stamps (Cyprus)
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take, including representations to the Turkish Government, with respect to the issuing by the authorities in Turkish-occupied Cyprus of postage stamps which depict the royal family.

  Mr. Maude
  We are drawing the attention of the Turkish Cypriot authorities to the unauthorised use of the royal image on a recent stamp issue.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since early 1989 a smoking policy has been in force in all FCO and ODA premises which prohibits smoking at meetings, in shared offices (except with the consent of all occupants) and in most common areas. The aim of the policy is to provide smoke-free working conditions for all staff who want them.

  Arms Control and Disarmament
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to invite a representative from(a) the Verification Technology Information Centre, (b) the British-American Security Information Council, (c) the Defence Fax Organisation and (d) the European Proliferation Information Centre to participate in the next meeting of his ad hoc Advisory Panel on Arms Control and Disarmament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Verification Technology Information Centre and the European Proliferation Information Centre receive invitations to attend the Minister of State's bi-annual meetings with nongovernmental organisations interested in arms control and disarmament issues. These meetings have superseded for NGOs the Advisory Panel on Arms Control and Disarmament, which has been in abeyance since 1987. There has been no recent contact with the British-American Security Information Council and none with the Defence Fax Organisation.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his ad hoc Advisory Panel on Arms Control and Disarmament last met; what subjects were discussed; and which individuals and organisations participated.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Minister of State's Advisory Panel on Arms Control and Disarmament last met on 30 April 1987. The subjects discussed were as follows: the public presentation of the Government's arms control and defence policies, the prospects for an INF agreement, United Kingdom arms sales, the East-West balance in conventional and chemical forces, nuclear deterrence and arms control, prospects for a chemical weapons convention, and public perceptions of the various areas of arms control. Those participating included academics, religious leaders, journalists, and members of NGOs involved with arms control and disarmament issues.

  Since then, a series of briefing and discussion meetings for non-governmental organisations interested in arms control has been held at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which I have chaired.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to include discussion of policy developments in regard to the 16
  forthcoming fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during meetings with his counterparts from foreign ministries abroad in the period leading up to the review conference in August.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is already our policy to take every appropriate opportunity to discuss this issue at suitable levels in our contacts with other foreign ministries.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to place the forthcoming fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the development of United Kingdom policies for this conference on the agenda for the next meeting of his ad hoc Advisory Panel on Arms Control and Disarmament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The question of United Kingdom policy at the forthcoming review conference of the non-proliferation treaty is one that is discussed at the regular bi-annual meetings between the Minister of State and a wide range of non-governmental organisations interested in arms control and disarmament. These meetings superseded for the NGOs the Advisory Panel on Arms Control and Disarmament, which has been in abeyance since 1987.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present total of states that are recognised by the United Kingdom which have both signed and ratified the 1968 Nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and how many additional states not recognised by the United Kingdom have(a) signed and (b) ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are 139 states recognised by Her Majesty's Government which have signed and ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), or which have acceded to the Treaty since it came into force. In addition, Taiwan and North Korea, which are not recognised as states by Her Majesty's Government, are parties to the treaty. There are no states which have signed but not ratified the treaty.

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

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The cash limit for class II, vote 1 (overseas representation) will be increased by £24,327,000 from £453,770,000 to £478,097,000. In addition, the running costs limit on vote 1 will be increased by £14,146,000 from £434,521,000 to £448,667,000. These changes reflect increased costs due to the introduction of new visa regimes in Turkey and the Mahgreb, and the adverse effect of overseas price movements.

  The cash limit for class I, vote 2 (other external relations) will increase by £3,573,000 from £171,499,000 to £175,072,000. This takes account of increased costs on ONUCA, Mozambique military training and higher than forecast expenditure on our contributions to international organisations due to the adverse effect of overseas price movements.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 4 (the British Council) will increase by £285,000 from £64,111,000 to £64,396,000 to take account of the adverse effect of overseas price movements.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has compiled a list of all known sea and land-based disposal sites for surplus and redundant chemical weapon stocks; and what proportions, by total volume of chemical agents, have been disposed of at current or former Ministry of Defence sites.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on 25 January 1989 at column 653.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Betting Offices
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to allow amusement with prizes machines in licensed betting offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no such plans at present.

  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the law to allow evening opening of licensed betting offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 17 January to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) at column 272.

  Drugs
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the estimated value of illegally imported drugs into the United Kingdom in 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  The clandestine nature of the illicit traffic in controlled drugs has made it impossible to obtain a reliable estimate of the amount imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment of the progress being made in the United Kingdom to combat drug abuse and dealing.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government give the highest priority to tackling both the demand for and the supply of drugs. The ministerial group on the misuse of drugs, which I chair, co-ordinates and monitors regularly progress in implementing our strategy for combating the misuse of and traffic in drugs.

  Recent developments have included: introducing provisions in the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Bill to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the new United Nations convention against illicit drug trafficking; organising, in association with the United Nations, a world ministerial summit to reduce the demand for drugs and to combat the cocaine threat, to be held in London next April; increasing, from £2 million a year to £3 million in 1990–91, the Home Office programme of overseas drug-related law enforcement assistance to producer and transit countries and providing an emergency package of drug-related assistance to Colombia; providing £1 million for a central fund to meet
  18
  some of the additional costs of overseas drugs investigations by the police and rewards to major informants; tightening domestic controls with the addition of buprenorphine and pemoline to the list of drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; deterring drug traffickers by the confiscation of assets—so far, some £16 million has been ordered to be confiscated from convicted drug traffickers; requiring, under the science part of the national curriculum, all primary and secondary schools to provide education about the harmful effects of drugs, and in addition making available continued grant support for local education authority drugs education co-ordinators and in-service teacher training on drugs; increasing to over £18 million earmarked funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation services.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the progress made by the team reviewing the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Mellor
  The committee has made substantial progress since last summer when the Data Protection Registrar reported on the outcome of his consultations about the operation of the Act. I expect it to report to my right hon. and learned Friend in the next few months.

  Oil Trading Frauds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many oil trading frauds are being investigated by the fraud divisions of(a) the Metropolitan police and (b) the City of London police; and whether any other police forces are involved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Commissioner of Police for the City of London that the figures are(a) nine and (b) none. No other police forces are known to be involved in any of the cases under investigation.

  Prison Sanitation
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prison cells will be without sanitation on completion of the current integral sanitation programme;

  (2) what effect the provision of integral sanitation in prisons has had on the number of cells available;

  (3) what effect the provision of integral sanitation will have on future prison cell accommodation;

  (4) whether he has any plans to provide integral sanitation for those prison cells not included in the current integral sanitation programme.

  Mr. Waddington
  It is not possible to answer these questions with precision. All new prisons built or planned since 1979 have integral sanitation. Major refurbishments under way or planned for existing establishments will reduce the number of cells without access to sanitation by over 7,000. The effect of this on the number of cells ultimately available will depend on whether the refurbishment involves the addition of sanitary annexes or the installation of toilets and hand basins in individual cells; this has not yet been decided in many cases.

  In addition, there is an on-going programme to instal toilets and hand basins in individual cells where major

  19
  refurbishment is not planned. When this on-going programme was announced in February 1989, 6,500 cells had been identified as suitable for this type of conversion. This programme is kept under continuous review, and the number of cells identified has now risen to over 8,000. The effect on availability of cells will be very temporary and will involve small numbers at any one time, because the conversions are fitted into each establishment's normal works programme.

  Completion of the programme described will reduce the number of cells without access to sanitation to fewer than 7,000 by the end of the century. This number may be further reduced by closure of some establishments if the prison population remains stable.

  Green Goddess Fleet
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many qualified mechanics are employed in servicing the green goddess fire appliance fleet based at Bruntingthorpe aerodrome;

  (2) what inspection system his Department has introduced to check the quality of maintenance of work carried out on the green goddess fire appliance fleet by private contractors;

  (3) what steps are taken to ensure that the green goddess fire appliance fleet, based at Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, is being properly serviced.

  Mr. John Patten
  Under interim arrangements, five qualified mechanics, supported by two labourers, are employed in servicing the appliances currently based at Bruntingthorpe, and the work is overseen by a Home

  Number of seizures (and weight in grams) of "crack" in 1989 by police region in which seized and month of analysis

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Police region

  Seizures

  Weight

  Seizures

  Weight

  Seizures

  Weight

  Seizures

  Weight

  Seizures

  Weight

  1.Greater Manchester Merseyside Lancashire North Wales

  3

  (3·21)

  1

  (0·79)

  4

  (1·64)

  4

  (1·41)

  —

  —

  2. North East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3. Nottinghamshire South Yorkshire West Yorkshire

  3

  (25·21)

  —

  —

  1

  (trace)

  4

  (5·45)

  2

  (0·65)

  4. West Midlands

  4

  (3·39)

  2

  (0·07)

  —

  —

  1

  (2·03)

  —

  —

  5. Essex

  2

  (0·11)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (0·35)

  6. Surrey

  —

  —

  1

  (trace)

  1

  (trace)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7. Avon and Somerset Dorset

  6

  (1·07)

  4

  (8·71)

  1

  (0·33)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8. South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9. Metropolitan Police

  16

  (11·84)

  —

  —

  15

  (9·57)

  14

  (12·69)

  110

  (1·40)

  10. Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11. Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Includes one seizure of 0·2 gram by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise analysed by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. Crack is not generally imported but produced in the United Kingdom from cocaine.

  Forensic Pathology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to implement the recommendation in paragraph 3·32 of the Gordon
  20
  Office official on site. It is planned to support inspection procedures by the appointment of permanent quality assurance officers.

  Bruntingthorpe Aerodrome
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve arrangements for emergency procedures in the event of a fire at Bruntingthorpe aerodrome in respect of departmental equipment.

  Mr. John Patten
  Due consideration has been given to arrangements for fire safety in the temporary accommodation at Bruntingthorpe, and relevant advice has been sought from the Leicestershire fire brigade.

  Crack
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state(a) the street value, (b) the amount and (c) the city or town of seizure of crack seized in Britain for each month in 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not available in the form requested by the hon. Member. In 1989, a provisional total of 139 seizures of crack, amounting to approximately 243g and with an estimated street value of £24,380, were reported to the national drugs intelligence unit.

  Provisional forensic science service figures for the number and weight of seizures, by police region and month of analysis, are set out below. This breakdown is not available for earlier months than August 1989.

  Wasserman report on forensic pathology that he should fund a number of lectureships in forensic pathology and forensic medicine; and if he will make a statement.
  21
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office has only recently received the last of the replies from organisations which were invited to comment on the report of the working party on forensic pathology. We shall be considering all the working party's recommendations, including that contained in paragraph 3.32, shortly.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Department's policy is to discourage smoking in its premises and wherever possible

  Young Offender Institutions

  Establishments

  1987–88 Total student hours

  Average weekly student hours 1987–88

  1988–89 Total student hours

  Average weekly student hours 1988–89

  1989–90 Total student hours

  Average weekly student hours 1989–901

  Midland Region

  Aylesbury

  27,914

  536·8

  44,164

  849·3

  27,729

  924·3

  Glen Parva

  107,582

  2,068·8

  127,606

  2,453·9

  76,098

  2,536·6

  Onley

  54,214

  1,042·5

  54,582

  1,049·6

  29,919

  997·3

  Swinfen Hall

  34,371

  660·9

  32,169

  618·6

  21,772

  725·7

  Wellingborough

  49,907

  959·7

  55,949

  1,075·9

  32,776

  1,092·5

  Whatton

  —

  —

  74,460

  1,431·9

  28,824

  960·8

  Hewell Grange

  34,131

  656·3

  31,409

  604·0

  21,977

  732·5

  Lowdham Grange

  69,031

  1,327·5

  69,178

  1,330·3

  30,111

  1,003·7

  South East Region

  Bullwood Hall

  18,902

  363·5

  19,890

  382·5

  12,375

  412·5

  Dover

  44,263

  851·2

  29,799

  573·0

  14,648

  488·2

  Feltham

  54,381

  1,045·7

  56,854

  1,093·0

  26,439

  881·3

  Hollesley Bay

  67,856

  1,304·9

  57,141

  1,098·8

  29,860

  995·3

  Huntercomber/Fin Wood

  61,723

  1,1869

  84,703

  1,628·9

  47,950

  1,598·3

  Mount

  —

  —

  50,023

  961·9

  34,184

  1,139·4

  Rochester

  25,584

  492·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West Region

  Campsfield House

  5,773

  111·0

  14,675

  282·2

  13,900

  463·3

  Erlestoke

  20,750

  399·0

  35,373

  680·0

  28,256

  941·8

  Portland

  52,496

  1,009·5

  66,949

  1,287·4

  42,458

  1,415·2

  Eastwood Park

  —

  —

  42,214

  811·8

  20,238

  674·6

  Haslar

  —

  —

  19,551

  375·9

  11,088

  369·6

  Usk

  —

  —

  49,915

  959·9

  26,487

  882·9

  Guys Marsh

  26,626

  512·0

  21,927

  421·6

  9,800

  326·6

  North Region

  Castington

  58,251

  1,120·2

  48,060

  924·2

  36,450

  1,215·0

  Deerbolt

  97,726

  1,879·3

  83,983

  1,615·0

  53,889

  1,796·3

  Everthorpe

  106,636

  2,050·6

  88,661

  1,705·0

  54,104

  1,803·4

  Northallerton

  54,046

  1,039·3

  45,558

  876·1

  38,241

  1,274·7

  Stoke Heath

  90,033

  1,731·4

  75,070

  1,443·6

  44,133

  1,471·1

  Werrington

  40,207

  773·2

  34,760

  668·4

  19,904

  663·4

  Wetherby

  53,690

  1,032·5

  41,591

  799·8

  29,516

  983·8

  Buckley Hall

  58,550

  1,125·9

  48,365

  930·0

  30,419

  1,013·9

  Kirklevington

  42,884

  824·6

  32,618

  652·3

  11,468

  382·2

  Hatfield

  47,414

  911·8

  40,594

  780·6

  25,695

  856·5

  Thorn Cross

  75,007

  1,442·4

  66,058

  1,270·3

  38,590

  1,286·3

  1 To date.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of prisoner-hours of education per week in each remand centre in 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and to date in 1989–90.
  22
  to establish a non-smoking environment; in particular, smoking is prohibited in conference rooms, lifts and toilets. Consideration is being given to what further measures might be taken to reinforce this policy.

  Prisoners (Education)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of prisoner-hours of education per week in each young offender institution in 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and to date in 1989–90.

  Mr. Waddington
  The figures requested are shown in the following table for 1987–88 onwards. Statistics for the period 1986–87 are not readily available in the same form as those quoted for later years.

  Mr. Waddington
  The figures requested are shown on the schedule for 1987–88 onwards. Statistics for the period 1986–87 are not readily available in the same form as those quoted for later years.
  23

  Remand Centres

  Establishments

  1987–88 total student hours

  Average weekly student hours 1987–88

  1988–89 total student hours

  Average weekly student hours 1988–89

  1989–90 total student hours

  Average weekly student hours 1989–901

  South West Region

  Pucklechurch

  36,845

  708·5

  30,646

  589·3

  14,862

  495·4

  North Region

  Low Newton

  104,656

  2,012·6

  84,509

  1,625·1

  66,269

  2,208·9

  Hindley

  72,187

  1,388·2

  57,692

  1,109·4

  51,423

  1,714·1

  Risky

  34,804

  669·3

  27,960

  537·6

  19,973

  665·7

  Midland Region

  Brockhill

  24,923

  479·2

  29,423

  565·8

  20,320

  677·3

  South East Region

  Ashford

  11,752

  225·4

  9,340

  179·6

  34,185

  1,139·5

  Brixton

  15,616

  300·3

  35,892

  690·2

  32,164

  1,072·1

  Latchmere House

  36,496

  701·8

  40,452

  777·9

  18,868

  628·9

  1 To date.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure on prison education in the most recent available year and the three years previously; how much of the increase is attributable to inflation; and to what extent the increase is accounted for by educational provision at new prisons.

  Mr. Waddington
  Total expenditure on education in prison establishments for the most recent year available and the previous three years was as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  25·2

  1987–88

  21·4

  1986–87

  18·9

  1985–86

  21·4

  Between 1985–86 and 1988–89, the effect of inflation was £3·5 million: during the same period, £1·1 million was spent on providing education facilities at new prisons.

  Horses (Tethering)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to make the tethering of horses a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Horses are already protected against cruelty generally by the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and against cruel tethering, in particular, by the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988. We have no plans to introduce legislation to make all tethering unlawful.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is given to police forces on mutual aid rates charged between neighbouring forces for seconded manpower; and what is the average mutual aid rate in England.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Home Office circular 38/89 entitled "Financial arrangements for mutual aid" was issued to all clerks to police authorities and chief officers of police in England and Wales on 28 April 1989. I have arranged for a copy of the circular to be placed in the Library.

  Information on mutual aid payments between police authorities is not held centrally, and it is not possible to say
  24
  what the average mutual aid rate is for England. This would vary according to the type of aid given and whether the police authorities concerned followed the circular or agreed other arrangements.

  Game Licences
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the estimated cost to public funds of administering the sale of game licences in each of the years from 1981–82 to 1988–89, inclusive.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: Until 1988, the cost of administering the sale of both game licences and dog licences fell as a single item to the Department of the Environment, so no separate figure for game licences is available. For the years 1988–89 and 1989–90, during which the Home Office has been responsible for administering the sale of game licences, the costs were £162,809 and £172,406.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on exports from the United Kingdom of chemicals used in the production of(a) cocaine and (b) other illegal drugs; and what licences are required for the export of such chemicals.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1971, trade in selected chemicals has been monitored under arrangements made between the Home Office, the law enforcement authorities and industry. Exports, imports and transhipments of chemicals destined for illicit processing of drugs in the amphetamine group have been detected; but more recently a number of consignments for possible use in the illicit production of cocaine have been identified.

  Although licences are not required for the export of such chemicals, which have wide, legitimate industrial use, the Government's plans for placing the monitoring arrangements on a statutory footing, contained in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill published on 30 November 1989, will strengthen the attack on the illicit manufacture of drugs.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  I meet frequently with the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters of departmental interest.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases he has referred to the Court of Appeal for review of overlenient sentences; how many of these have resulted in increases in the sentence; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

  County Courts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to improve the administration of cases in the county court.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has embarked upon a wide-ranging series of reforms which will improve the administration of cases in the county court. He has already announced his intention to increase the number of staff in the court service by around 350 during the next financial year, and subsequently by up to around a further 100 during the transitional period while the new initiatives are being introduced. In addition, a computerised summons production centre, which will improve service to plaintiffs, began operations last week. By the end of 1990, the centre expects to have issued 800,000 summonses. This initiative, when fully operational, together with the curtailment of the county court banking function which takes place in about eight weeks' time, will release staff time savings equivalent to around 350 posts. This injection of resources and release of staff time will take place during 1990–91 and will put the courts in a strong position to implement, from 1991 onwards, the proposals flowing from the civil justice review, which include greater openness between parties and speedier case progression, and the provisions of the Children Act 1989.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people received legal aid(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The information at present available is as follows: 190,677 civil legal aid certificates (including those relating to summary jurisdiction) were issued in 1979–80. A total of 247,117 civil legal aid certificates were issued in 1988–89.

  In 1980–81 assistance by way of representation substantially replaced summary jurisdiction certificates. In 1988–89, 69,503 ABWOR applications were granted.

  In 1979 387,581 applications for criminal legal aid were granted (excluding the House of Lords). In 1988, the comparable figure was 616,366.
  26
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General what is(a) the highest and (b) the lowest sum paid to an individual receiving legal aid in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Legal aid is paid to lawyers rather than their clients. The highest sums paid in respect of a single defendant in a criminal case in the Crown court during the last 12 months were £82,897·72 for a solicitor and £47,788·25 for counsel. Similar figures for civil legal aid and magistrates courts proceedings are not kept in the form requested.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office on the inspectors' report on the takeover of the House of Fraser.

  The Attorney-General: The investigation has been concluded save for certain inquiries outside our own jurisdiction. I hope that a conclusion will be reached shortly.

  City Fraud
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding City fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Matters relating to City fraud are usually dealt with by the director of the Serious Fraud Office. I meet him frequently to discuss issues of departmental interest, and expect to do so shortly.

  Stuart William Ross
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will reconsider his decision not to seek a longer sentence of imprisonment upon Stuart William Ross who was convicted of killing unlawfully and with premeditation Miss Emma Worthington at Woolacombe in June 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  I have considered the case again, but I am satisfied that my decision is correct.

  Tribunals and Inquiries (Costs)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask The Attorney-General if he will give favourable consideration to the proposal that the legal costs of determining issues of general public importance in tribunals and public inquiries should be paid for out of public funds.

  The Attorney-General
  Tribunals and public inquiries can be set up in a variety of ways. So far as ad hoc tribunals and inquiries are concerned (for example, into major accidents) the Government already pay the administrative costs. So far as the costs of legal representation of parties to any inquiry are concerned, where the Government have a discretion they always take careful account of the recommendations on costs of the tribunal or inquiry concerned. In general, the Government accept the need to pay out of public funds the reasonable costs of any necessary party to the inquiry who would be prejudiced in seeking representation were he in any doubt about funds becoming available. The Government do not accept that the costs of substantial bodies should be met from public funds unless there are special circumstances.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask The Attorney-General what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  The Attorney-General
  No specific provision is made, in the offices and other places of the Departments for which I am responsible, for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers. However, arrangements are made to ensure that, as far as is practicable, a smoking member of any of the Departments concerned (legal secretariat to the Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department, Crown prosecution service and Serious Fraud Office) does not share office accommodation with a non-smoker, and so that those who smoke may do so without harm or irritation to others. Smoking in common areas is generally discouraged.

  Children's Ombudsman
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask The Attorney-General if he will make a statement about Government plans to appoint a children's ombudsman to deal with cases of parental custody and kidnapping.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have no such plans.

  Conciliation Services
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask The Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the future of the conciliation services.

  The Attorney-General
  It is premature to reach a view on the future of the conciliation services until it is clear what appropriate role conciliation might play in any possible new divorce process. The Law Commission is presently reviewing the law on divorce and is expected to present its report later this year. Meanwhile, the Law Commission's discussion paper "Facing the Future", and the report published by Newcastle university in April 1989 on the cost and effectiveness of conciliation, are under detailed consideration.

  Paul Malone
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask The Attorney-General if, pursuant to the reply in the Official Report, column 431, on 19 January, document DHH/1 is included in the five reports already processed by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if this document can be released to Paul Malone's legal representative so that further forensic tests can be done on this original document.

  The Attorney-General
  As I indicated to the hon. Member in my answer of 19 January at column 431, the DPP is still considering all six reports. It would therefore not be appropriate to release the document DHH/1 to Paul Malone's legal representative.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask The Attorney-General whether any changes have been made to the class XX, vote 11, cash limit and running costs limit for the Public Record Office.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the 28
  cash limit for class XX, vote 11 will be increased by £238,000 from £16,332,000 to £16,570,000. This increase will be charged to the reserve. The increase arises as a result of additional costs incurred in respect of retirement and dismissal compensation, audit costs and a VAT surcharge.

  The running costs limit for the Public Record Office will as a result also be increased by £238,000 from £14,610,000 to £14,848,000.

  Lord Chancellor's Department
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask The Attorney-General whether any changes will be made to the Lord Chancellor's Department's cash limit and running costs for 1989–90.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Lord Chancellor's Department, class XI, vote 5, will be increased by £11,798,000 from £248,480,000 to £260,278,000. This reflects mainly an increase of £11,000,000 to maintain progress on the court building programme and £1,500,000 to meet previously unexpected VAT on rents. The overall increase is partly offset by an increase in net recoveries from fees of £1,500,000. This net increase will be charged to the reserve.

  The Supplementary Estimate also gives effect to the transfer of £50,000 from the Home Office (class XI, vote 3) for the purchase of recording equipment to be used in the Crown court; a reorganisation of expenditure within the sub-heads; a grant in aid of £163,000 to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers; and the recovery of £50,000 from the Public Record Office (class XX vote 11) in respect of audit costs.

  The running costs limit for the Department will be increased by £165,000 from £238,334,000 to £238,499,000. This reflects the increase of £1,500,000 in respect of increased VAT on rents, partly offset by a reduction of £1,335,000 to compensate for an overspend in 1988–89.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Standards, EC
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has commissioned any research studies into education standards in the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has not commissioned any such studies and has no present plans to do so.

  Private Educational Establishments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by name the private educational establishments in England and Wales, stating the amount of public assistance, financial or otherwise, which each one receives.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information about assistance from local education authorities to individual independent educational institutions is not collated centrally. Grants paid by the Department to independent educational institutions in England in the financial year 1988–89 were as set out below. In addition to these sums, fee remission and incidental expenses totalling £50·9 million were paid by the Department in support of 27,083 pupils holding
  29
  assisted places at 226 independent schools in England; and fee remission and incidental expenses totalling £3·7 million were paid in support of 509 pupils holding aided places under the music and ballet scheme at five independent specialist schools in England.

  Expenditure in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  DES Financial Assistance to Independent Educational Institutions, Financial Year 1988–89

  Expenditure £

  1. Capital Grants to Independent Colleges of Further Education Catering for Handicapped Students

  Queen Alexandra College, Birmingham Royal Institute for the Blind

  30,000

  2. Direct Grant Establishments

  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook

  6,104

  Edith Cadbury. Nursery School

  5,488

  Selly Oak Nursery School

  3,193

  3. Capital Grant paid under the Education (Grants) (Royal Ballet School) Regulations 1988

  Royal Ballet School

  250,000

  4. Capital Grants to Non-maintained Special Schools

  Birkdale

  787

  Burton Hill House

  9,969

  David Lewis

  3,141

  Dawn House

  60,739

  Lingfield Hospital

  28,310

  Mary Hare

  10,006

  Muntham House

  7,506

  St. Elizabeths

  72,550

  St. Francis

  48,682

  West of England

  7,820

  Student Maintenance
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of student maintenance costs are borne by parental contributions currently; and what was the comparable proportion for 1979–80.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available in the precise form requested.

  In 1987–88, the latest year for which figures are available, assessed contributions from parents, spouses and students themselves accounted for 40·4 per cent. of students' total assessed requirements under the mandatory awards arrangements. In 1979–80 the comparable figure was 20·5 per cent.

  How much in practice is contributed by parents and spouses is not known.

  Governing Bodies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will identify by name and by size of governing body in each case only those colleges and polytechnics in the PCFC sector for which he has agreed revised instruments of government under the Education Reform Act 1988 where the size of the governing body is in excess of 21 persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  For those institutions in the PCFC sector re-established as higher education corporations (HECs) under sections 121 and 122 of the Education Reform Act 1988, the size of the governing body is governed by the 30
  provisions of schedule 7 to the ERA within which the size of each governing body is decided by the institution itself. Those HECs with governing bodies in excess of 21 persons are as follows:

  Number

  Buckinghamshire College of Higher Education

  25

  Polytechnic of East London

  25

  Humberside College of Higher Education

  25

  Lancashire Polytechnic

  25

  The London Institute

  25

  Luton College of Higher Education

  23

  Newcastle Polytechnic

  25

  Salford College of Technology

  25

  Sheffield Polytechnic

  25

  Teesside Polytechnic

  24

  Thames Valley College of Higher Education

  23

  Assisted institutions which were designated under section 129(2) of the ERA were asked to bring their intruments in line with those of the HECs, and these were subsequently agreed by my right hon. Friend. Those with governing bodies in excess of 21 persons are as follows:

  Number

  City of London Polytechnic

  25

  Polytechnic of North London

  25

  Thames Polytechnic

  25

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  25

  Derbyshire College of Higher Education

  25

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will identify by name and by size of governing body in each case only those further education and higher education colleges in the maintained sector for which he has agreed revised instruments of government under the ERA 1988 where the size of the governing body is in excess of 21 persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  To date my right hon. Friend has approved for the following institutions instruments of government which provide in each case for a governing body in excess of 21 members:

  Members

  Blackburn College

  22

  Bradford and Ilkley Community College

  22

  Croydon College

  23

  Newcastle College

  22

  Preston College

  22

  Sandwell College of Further and Higher Education

  22

  Solihull College of Technology

  22

  South Tyneside College

  22

  Suffolk College of Higher and Further Education

  22

  In addition, my right hon. Friend has indicated that he would be prepared to approve an instrument of government for Central Manchester college of technology providing for a governing body of 22 members.

  School Buses
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to require a no smoking sign to be displayed in all school buses.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for local education authorities to decide whether such signs should be displayed. My right
  31
  hon. Friend does, however, fully support the campaign launched recently by the Health Education Authority to encourage schools to eliminate smoking from educational establishments and out-of-school activities involving pupils in the four to 19 age range.

  Education Regulations
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the Education (School Curriculum and Related Information) Regulations 1989.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In the light of representations I have decided to bring forward amendments to those provisions of the Education (School Curriculum and Related Information) Regulations 1989 which cover the submission of statistical information (the annual curriculum return). I gave details of my intentions in my speech to the Society of Education Officers on 25 January, copies of which have been placed in the Library. My proposals will represent a substantial reduction in the burden on primary schools, from which the main anxieties about the annual curriculum return have come.

  I intend to bring forward these amendments in time for them to come into effect for completion of the first returns by schools this summer term. I shall be consulting shortly about the details of what I propose, as required by section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Smoking is prohibited in lifts and toilets but the Department's policy generally is to encourage staff who wish to smoke to have regard to the convenience and comfort of non-smokers. It is customary not to smoke in conference rooms or in shared offices unless a majority of the staff sharing the office agree to allow it.

  GCSE
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning reforms of the operation of the GCSE examination system.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a substantial amount of correspondence from parents, teachers and other interested parties. The vast majority have been supportive of the principles behind the new examination.

  Geography Working Group
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in respect of the interim curriculum report from the geography working group.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum geography working group has received just over 700 letters from schools, organisations and individuals commenting on its interim report, which was published on 20 November last.
  32
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive the working group's final report on the geography curricula.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The terms of reference given to the geography working group on its establishment in May last year require it to submit a final report by 30 April 1990.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters he has received from head teachers expressing concern about conditions and morale in their school, for each education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. My right hon. Friend frequently receives correspondence from head teachers about various aspects of education provision.

  Gaelic and Welsh
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any recent representations concerning the position of the Gaelic and Welsh languages in the European Community's Mercator programme of information and documentation networks on minority languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has received no representations. Schools are free to provide any language they wish after they have met the requirement of the national curriculum.

  Playing Fields, Bexley
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to grant his consent to the request from the Inner London education authority for the disposal of the playing fields at Camdale road, Welling in the borough of Bexley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is considering the Inner London education authority's application for consent and will inform the authority of his decision as soon as possible.

  Universities Funding Council
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the criteria used by the Universities Funding Council for determining guide prices for the public funding of university students.

  Mr. Jackson
  Details of these matters, which are for the Universities Funding Council, were given in the council's circular letter 39/89, "Funding and Planning: 1991–92 to 1994–95", in particular the recently issued annex D, a copy of which is being placed in the Library.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what statistics he collects relating to the allocation of discretionary grants made by local authorities for full-time vocational training; and what information he has on the effect of such grants on full-time vocational training;
  33
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he collects statistics relating to the allocation of discretionary grants made by local education authorities for full-time vocational training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply to the first question.

  Departmental statistics do not routinely distinguish vocational training. However, in 1987–88 about 138,000 awards were made by local education authorities in England and Wales under section 2 of the Education Act 1962 to students undertaking full-time and sandwich further education (FE) courses of all types. These awards cover maintenance grants, and fees where applicable. Overall, there were 354,000 full-time and sandwich students on FE courses of all types at colleges in England in 1987–88 and 367,000 in 1988–89.

  Portage Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to continue funding support for portage schemes; what assessment he has made of current schemes; and what assessment he has made of the consequences of ending Government financial support for the schemes.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department will continue to fund those portage schemes to which it has committed expenditure up to 1990–91 through the education support grant (ESG). The ESG funds provided from 1986–87, and amounting to more than £8 million, were made available for pump-priming purposes. LEAs are free to continue funding portage schemes after the Department's three-year commitment ends, and to develop others from within their own resources, if they wish to do so. Many are doing just that. An HMI survey on portage projects funded by ESGs will be published on 9 February. I shall be placing a copy in the Library in the normal way.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Student Loans
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money he anticipates will be saved in housing benefit in Scotland by the introduction of student loans in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Estimates of housing benefit expenditure are made on a Great Britain basis, and no disaggregation for individual countries is possible. I regret that it is therefore not possible to provide information in the form requested.

  Equal Treatment Directive
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the laws, regulations and administrative provisions, whose texts have been communicated to the European Commission under article 8 of the Equal Treatment Directive.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the report on the application of directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the 34
  principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (COM(88)769) presented by the European Commission, a copy of which is in the Library. The report specifies the changes made by each member state to implement the requirements of the directive and notified to the Commission in accordance with article 8 of the directive.

  Industrial Disease Benefits
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what date he will commence recovering the full amount of any benefits paid to victims of industrial disease who have been awarded compensation either by a court or agreed by an out-of-court settlement; and how long this procedure will take in individual cases.

  Mr. Scott
  The scheme under which amounts equivalent to benefit are recovered from compensation payments starts on 3 September 1990. Any compensation payment over £2,500 made on or after that date will be subject to recovery. It will apply to industrial diseases if the first claim for benefit naming the disease for which compensation is sought was on or after 1 January 1989.

  Before a court award is made or a settlement offered, the compensator will seek a certificate showing how much is to be deducted and paid to the Department. On receipt of a properly completed application, legislation requires the Department to supply the information to the compensator within four weeks.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A smoking policy has been introduced which prohibits smoking in areas where there is a statutory ban, where there is a fire risk and in public reception and interview areas. The policy also directs that all offices should move as quickly as possible to provide additional extensive smoke-free working areas. Local discussions on those areas are now taking place between management and unions.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for travelling expenses were granted from the social fund for claimants to visit relatives in hospital; and how many refused during the months of May 1989 and November 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not collected.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether demand on the social fund has led to some community care grants being only partially met by grants and partially by loans.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not available. However, in the period April to December 1989, 25,000 loan applications which were refused resulted in a community care grant being awarded instead.
  35
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what plans he has for the social fund loans budget to become self-financing; and by what date.

  Mr. Scott
  None.

  Loans
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants on income support each month since January 1989 were repaying a budgeting or crisis loan and how many were(a) one-parent families, (b) sick and disabled claimants, (c) pensioners and (d) unemployed claimants.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 22 January 1990 at col.575–78.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the total amount of budgeting or crisis loans out on loan to claimants on income support for each month since January 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon on 22 January 1990 at column 577.

  Concessionary Coal
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the extent to which a local housing authority may disregard cash in lieu of concessionary coal paid by British Coal in the calculation of housing benefit claims and taking into account any recent decision on this subject taken by a local Department of Health and Social Security tribunal.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the income-related benefits, the normal rule is for all forms of income to be taken into account. Regulations provide for certain types of income to be disregarded, in part or fully. Cash in lieu of concessionary coal paid to a retired mineworker or to a mineworker's widow is not specified as disregardable income, and therefore has to be taken fully into account in the calculation of housing benefit and the other income-related benefits. Local authorities do not have any discretion in this matter.

  Appeals (Listing)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been received following the letter issued by the chairman of the north-eastern region of the social security appeal tribunals changing the arrangements for listing cases; and if he will arrange for this letter to be withdrawn and for the previous arrangements for listing cases to continue.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The administration of social security appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals, His Honour Judge Holden, and the hon. Member may care to contact him direct.

  Remote Benefit Assessment
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has and what research he is conducting on the numbers of staff or the percentage of their time released by remote benefit assessment.
  36
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Up to now, estimates of staff time released by computerisation of social security benefits have been based on a comparison between existing clerical processes and the theoretical timings of the computerised systems. These currently indicate savings of 12,250 by 1995. The timings will be confirmed through the normal review programme which assesses staff resources and which will include particular reference to the impact of remote benefit assessment in all work areas.

  Research can be undertaken only when the systems are fully operational in sufficient offices to ensure a statistically acceptable sample.

  Local Offices (Area)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the minimum, the average and the maximum geographical area serviced by his Department's local offices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that this information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Communications (Study)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the status and purpose of the study in communications commissioned within his Department; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Scott
  The communications and the operational strategy study is a pilot exercise being conducted in the London south region over the next three months. Its purpose is to help local office management draw up local communications plans; collect views on the adequacy of the centrally produced material on training, manuals and briefings; and to test new ideas on guidance for users of information technology. A communication focus group has been set up in the region to monitor the exercise. Good ideas that emerge will be spread to other regions. It is too early to say when the results will be made available and in what form.

  "Service in the 90s" Initiative
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the authority for the expenditure of approximately £400,000 before April 1990 under the "service in the 90s" initiative; when the decision was made; how the money will be allocated between the offices; what is the purpose of the expenditure; who will oversee the expenditure and to whom they are accountable; whether any new expenditure is involved; and to which section of his Department's budget the cost will be charged.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The eight local offices involved in the "service in the 90s" initiative were allocated provision of up to £50,000 each, to be spent by the end of the 1989–90 financial year, to meet costs incurred in experimenting with improvements to current working practices. This decision was taken in December 1989. The expenditure will be met from within the Department's resources, and normal financial control procedures will apply.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of claimants paying the share fishermen's rates of national insurance contributions claiming(a) income support and (b) family support in the latest available year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that this information is not readily available and could be obtained only al disproportionate cost.

  Retirement Income
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average income of all retired married couples.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The average net weekly income of all married couples over state pension age in 1986 was £123·77. (Source: Family Expenditure survey.)

  Young Persons
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Oldham, West on benefit changes affecting young people following his holding answer of 15 December 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I shall let the hon. Member have the details shortly.

  Total expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS) at 1988–89 prices

  Revenue expenditure

  Percentage increase| (decrease) on prior year

  Capital expenditure

  Percentage increase| (decrease) on prior year

  Total expenditure

  Percentage expenditure| (decrease) on prior year

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Trent region1

  1978–79

  811,883

  —

  110,994

  —

  922,877

  —

  1979–80

  846,014

  4·2

  84,826

  (23·6)

  930,840

  0·9

  1980–81

  931,369

  10·0

  85,888

  1·3

  1,017,257

  9·3

  1981–82

  937,494

  0·7

  100,303

  16·8

  1,037,797

  2·0

  1982–83

  941,674

  0·5

  89,015

  (11·3)

  1,030,689

  (0·7)

  1983–84

  958,657

  1·8

  89,614

  0·7

  1,048,271

  1·7

  1984–85

  978,272

  2·0

  89,379

  (0·3)

  1,067,651

  1·9

  1985–86

  984,300

  0·6

  90,697

  1·5

  1,074,997

  0·7

  1986–87

  1,032,768

  4·9

  87,499

  (3·5)

  1,120,267

  4·2

  1987–88

  1,082,574

  4·8

  81,290

  (7·1)

  1,163,864

  3·9

  1988–89

  1,121,344

  3·6

  93,186

  14·6

  1,214,530

  4·4

  Doncaster health authority2

  1978–79

  40,486

  —

  2,656

  —

  43,142

  —

  1979–80

  42,072

  3·9

  1,256

  (52·7)

  43,328

  0·4

  1980–81

  46,265

  10·0

  1,698

  35·2

  47,963

  10·7

  1981–82

  47,117

  1·8

  2,246

  32·2

  49,363

  2·9

  1982–83

  51,850

  10·0

  2,958

  31·8

  54,808

  11·0

  1983–84

  52,798

  1·8

  1,960

  (33·7)

  54,758

  (0·1)

  1984–85

  53,040

  0·5

  2,052

  4·7

  55,092

  0·6

  1985–86

  52,957

  (0·2)

  4,062

  98·0

  57,019

  3·5

  1986–87

  56,812

  7·3

  3,630

  (10·6)

  60,442

  6·0

  1987–88

  59,348

  4·5

  5,213

  43·6

  64,561

  6·8

  1988–89

  62,620

  5·5

  6,050

  16·1

  68,670

  6·4

  1 Annual accounts of the Trent Regional Health Authority (RHA) and the district (formerly area) health authorities comprising the Trent region—including Doncaster.

  2 Annual accounts of the Doncaster district (formerly area) health authority.

  Notes

  1. The figures for the earlier years have been expressed at 1988–89 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflator. The figures for the financial year 1988–89 are provisional in that they are as yet subject to audit.

  2. Hospital and community health services (HCHS) includes hospital, community health, patient transport (ie ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  3. Expenditure on family practitioner services (FPS) is excluded. Such expenditure is accounted for by family practitioner committees (FPCs)

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest estimate of the cost to local authorities of operating the poll tax rebate system for 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest estimate of the cost of administering community charge rebates is £10·7 million.

HEALTH

  Expenditure (Trent)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the total spending allocated to Doncaster health authority for each year for the last 10 years to date, adjusted for inflation; and if he will also show in his answer, by year, the percentage increase;

  (2) if he will list the total spending in the Trent regional health authority for each year for the last 10 years to date, adjusted for inflation; and if he will also show in his answer, by year, the percentage increase.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department is shown in the table:
  39
  and cannot strictly be attributed to particular regions or districts. However, prior to 1 April 1985 the Doncaster and other authorities within the Trent region each had an associated FPC and their expenditure figures included small elements in respect of the administrative expenses of FPCs which are not separately identifiable.

  4.Capital expenditure in particular regions and districts tends to fluctuate year on year mainly reflecting changes in the pattern of capital investment throughout the country.

  5.The expenditure figures for the Doncaster authority include sums in respect of capital schemes within the district recorded as capital expenditure in the annual accounts of the Trent RHA but exclude revenue and capital expenditure incurred by the RHA for the region as a whole.

  6.Prior to 1 April 1982 the Doncaster health authority's predecessor health district operated as a single-district area health authority and was broadly comparable to the present district health authority.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairmen of regional health authorities; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairmen of regional health authorities on 17 January, when the main topics discussed were implementation of "Working for Patients" and "Caring for People", and the ambulance dispute.

  Laboratory reports to CDSC England, Wales and Ireland 1984–88 Outbreaks formally reported to CDSC

  Year

  Outbreaks

  Suspected source

  Total

  Family

  Nursery

  Other

  Contact with farm animals

  Raw milk(+/-)contact with farm animals

  Abroad

  Not known

  1984

  6

  4

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  4

  1985

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  1986

  6

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  1987

  9

  5

  3

  11

  —

  —

  —

  9

  1988

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  31989

  11

  7

  2

  22

  1

  0

  2

  8

  1 Campsite.

  2 School party hotel abroad.

  3 Provisional.

  There are no data on the number of outbreaks in Scotland.

  Dental Health
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the decayed, missing and filled levels for each district health authority; what is the national average; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not collected centrally by the Department.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government action is being taken to deal with dental health promotion and dental health education(a) nationally and (b) in north Staffordshire; what are the costs of such programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has commissioned two dental health education projects which are currently being piloted. The first, in the north-western region, is being run by the Health Education Authority, which has received financial support of £450,000 for the project in the last two years. The other, organised by the community dental health unit of Birmingham university and centred on the Dudley family practitioner committee area, has received £500,000 over the same period. Decisions on how to follow up these projects will depend on their evaluation.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list outbreaks of cryptosporidium in the United Kingdom since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  Laboratory notification of cryptosporidium outbreaks to the communicable disease surveillance centre did not commence until 1983. Full-year data are available only from 1984 onwards, and are as follows:

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the methods used to terminate an unborn baby during selective reduction of pregnancy; and if he will give the gestational age at which such procedures are normally performed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The method and gestational age at which a legal abortion is performed are matters for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department requires doctors performing selective reduction of pregnancies to require a certificate stating the grounds for termination of unborn babies under the Abortion Act 1967; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) if terminations of unborn babies by performing selective reductions of pregnancies are included in the abortion statistics issued by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Abortion Regulations 1968 SI No. 390, as amended, require a certificate of opinion and notice of termination to be given in respect of every abortion performed. The published statistics are derived from the notifications received.

  The regulations do not require a certifying doctor specifically to mention cases of selective reduction of pregnancy.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give priority to his reassessment of the part played by joint finance under his community care proposals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The part played by joint finance is being reassessed in the light of the policies contained in the White Paper "Caring for People". However, there are no immediate plans for changes to existing arrangements.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he considered the training needs of service providers under his community care proposals; whether voluntary organisations with experience in this area were involved in his discussions on the issue; and whether he will issue guidance on this to local authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The training needs of service providers, whether in the statutory or independent sector were considered in formulating our proposals announced in the White Paper "Caring for People". The Department is in regular consultation with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and individual voluntary organisations. Training is an integral part of implementing our proposals. There are no immediate plans to issue formal guidance to local authorities specifically on training.

  Adoption and Fostering
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to issue further guidance in connection with the adoption and fostering of children from minority ethnic groups.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The chief inspector of the social services inspectorate has written to all directors of social services, setting out within a legal and professional framework the principles which should inform family placement work in relation to issues of race and culture. His letter also goes to voluntary child agencies and approved adoption societies so that they too may benefit from it. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The letter emphasises and reinforces existing guidance on the importance of providing a fostering and adoption service which can meet the needs of children from all ethnic groups. Racial origin, cultural background and religion are important factors in choosing new families for children who can no longer remain with their own families. These matters are the subject of a document shortly to be issued by the Council for Racial Equality, entitled "Adoption and Fostering of Ethnic Minority Children:The Race Dimension."

  In the great majority of cases, placement with a family of similar ethnic origin and religion is most likely to meet a child's needs as fully as possible and best safeguard his or her welfare. Authorities and other agencies need to persuade people from all ethnic groups in the community to come forward as foster parents and adopters. In some circumstances placement with a family of different ethnic origin may be the best choice for a particular child. Full consideration of a child's welfare requires that all relevant factors be properly identified and weighed.

  I am confident that the chief inspector's letter will remove any grounds for the misunderstandings which may have existed about the requirements of legislation, guidance and good professional practice in this area.
  42
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has completed his consideration of issues highlighted by an Appeal Court decision on the placement for adoption of a child of mixed ethnic origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department's social services inspectorate has made a thorough investigation of the case in question, with the full co-operation of the director of social services and his staff.

  I am satisfied from the inspectorate's inquiries that, in reaching its decision to remove the child from his foster mother and place him with another family for adoption, the authority gave first consideration to his welfare, as it was required by law to do. The child's ethnic origins were, rightly, a factor in its considerations, but this was considered alongside other factors and was neither the only nor even the principal reason for the decision.

  However, the inspectorate did find, and the authority agrees, that the child and his foster mother received no visits or any other support from social services for 10 weeks after he was placed with her. The authority was thus in breach of the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955 which were then in force and specified minimum visiting requirements. The authority also allowed the wardship to lapse. However, the inspectorate did find that, after the first 10 weeks, the authority handled the case carefully and professionally.

  Clearly the failures identified were serious. I am glad that the authority has already taken steps to ensure that there is no repetition in future. The inspectorate has made a number of important recommendations for further improvement, and I am confident that the authority wi.11 respond to these positively.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made in the cash limits and running costs limit of his Department for 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 1, hospital and community health and other services, England, will be reduced by £2,357,000 (front £11,909,826,000 to £11,907,469,000) to offset £1,600,000 of the cash limit increase on class XIV, vote 3 and to take account of an agreed control adjustment of £757,000 in respect of the use of conventional finance.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for class XIV, vote 3, Department of Health, administration, miscel laneous health services and personal social services, England, will be increased by £20,246,000 (from £677,061,000 to £697,307,000) reflecting the following changes: an additional £24,000,000 for the cost of a grant to a voluntary organisation in respect of financial support to certain haemophiliacs who have become infected with HIV, partly offset by savings elsewhere in the vote; an extra £1,600,000 to meet the cost of updating family practitioner service computer data, fully offset by savings on class XIV, vote 1; £26,000 transferred from the Cabinet Office: Office of the Minister for the Civil Service, for expenditure on departmental administration in connection with senior management development training; and £20,000 transferred from class VII, vote 2, Department of Employment: employment programmes and central services, for expenditure on the Alcohol Concern

  43
  workplace advisory service. As a result of the changes on this vote, the Department's running costs limit is reduced by £1,897,000 from £246,156,000 to £244,259,000.

  The net effect of these changes will be charged to the reserve.

  AIDS
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will approve the AIDS Care Education and Training application for a grant under section 64 for the current financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has already awarded AIDS Care Education and Training a section 64 grant of £50,000 for the current financial year. Its application for section 64 funding for 1990–91 is under consideration.

  Alternative Medicines
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy about the impact of European Community laws on the availability of alternative medicines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The European Community is committed to directives on homoeopathic medicines and conditions of supply of medicines to the public, but specific proposals have yet to be submitted to the Council of Ministers. When European Community proposals are published, we shall consider them carefully for compatibility with United Kingdom traditions and communicate with interested parties as to the United Kingdom input to negotiations.

  Viable Births
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest medical evidence available to him as to(a) the earliest gestational age at which a child is capable of being born alive, (b) the earliest gestational age at which a child is capable of being born alive and surviving and (c) the earliest gestational age at which a child is capable of being born alive and surviving without disabilities and what statistics are available to him about numbers and rates in the above categories; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The 22nd gestational week is considered by doctors to be the earliest time that there is the slightest possibility of a foetus being born alive since before then the lungs are not mature enough to function even if ventilated. Between the 22nd and 24th weeks of gestation, the chance of being born alive and the chance of surviving afterwards increase, but up to 24 weeks, both are rare. Whether or not any particular foetus is capable of being born alive must therefore be a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned, in the full knowledge of the circumstances of the particular case.

  Babies who are born premature are at high risk of disability. The statistics requested about numbers and rates are not available, as information on gestation is not collected for live birth registrations.

  Abortions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will place in the Library a copy of the information contained in his reply to the hon. Member for 44
  Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) referred to in his answer of 16 November 1989, Official Report, columns 424-25, on the number of abortions in 1988 on girls aged 15 and under, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 years, by grounds and category of premises and by grounds and marital status.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is the Department's policy to move as quickly as possible, after local discussion and agreement, to provide a smoke-free environment for those staff who wish it at all workplaces and other areas within its offices not covered by a mandatory ban on smoking. The mandatory ban covers places such as stationery stores, computer rooms, first aid rooms, food preparation areas and confined spaces with limited ventilation. Many individual offices are already smoke-free by the agreement of the occupants.

  Capital Trusts (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will set out the costs in consultancy fees in(a) the Yorkshire regional health authority, (b) Leeds Western health authority and (c) Leeds Eastern health authority in relation to the establishment of capital trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairmen of the health authorities concerned.

  Botulism
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work is being carried out involving botulism toxins; for what purpose; and whether such work has commercial applications or export potential.

  Mr. Freeman
  A number of establishments are known to be involved in research on botulinum toxins including the PHLS Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down. In the first instance, fundamental research is in progress on the structure and function of the several botulinum toxin molecules. The knowledge generated from this work is being applied in a number of areas: in the development of botulinum toxin for human therapeutic use; the CAMR is developing bolutinum toxoid vaccines for human use and is developing sensitive rapid in vitro assays for the detection of botulinum toxins. These areas could have commercial and export potential.

  The Agricultural and Food Research Council's Institute of Food Research also has a programme of research in relation to clostridium botulinum and food safety, and is carrying out work with this organism under a number of different conditions relevant to food preservation. This work is part of a programme funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on modelling microbiological growth. The institute will shortly begin work on the genetic relationships of the different botulinum toxins. This is part of a noncommercial major food safety programme.

  Perinatal Aid
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many perinatal and neo-natal deaths were recorded for each health authority in England and Wales for 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  FPCs (Expenditure)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for England and Wales for each year since 1979 the total family practitioner committee expenditure(a) under the ancillary staff scheme and (b) for the cost of providing premises under the rent and rate scheme; and if he will give an indication of the costs adjusted for general price inflation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested for England is given in the following table. Information in relation to family practitioner services in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Expenditure ( England)Total of direct reimbursements to GPsfor ancillary staff costs

  Cash1

  Real terms at 1988–89 prices

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  1979–80

  50,927

  95,886

  1980–81

  66,307

  105,495

  1981–82

  78,769

  114,145

  1982–83

  89,480

  120,933

  1983–84

  102,721

  132,633

  1984–85

  114,632

  141,008

  1985–86

  134,028

  156,464

  1986–87

  143,838

  162,436

  1987–88

  166,798

  178,891

  1988–89

  200,508

  200,508

  1 Based on FPC annual accounts prepared on an income andexpenditure basis.

  2 Real terms prices have been calculated using the gross domestic product deflator.

  Total of direct reimbursements to GPs for rents and rates costs1

  Cash2

  Real terms at1988–89 prices3

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  1979–80

  19,555

  36,818

  1980–81

  25,385

  40,388

  1981–82

  30,717

  44,511

  1982–83

  37,327

  50,447

  1983–84

  45,267

  58,449

  1984–85

  51,309

  63,115

  1985–86

  63,093

  73,655

  1986–87

  71,203

  80,409

  1987–88

  79,855

  85,645

  1988–89

  92,570

  92,570

  1 Comprises reimbursements for rents, rates, notional rent, costrents and local authority economic rents.

  2 Based on FPC annual accounts prepared on an income and expenditure basis.

  3 Real terms prices have been calculated using the gross domestic product deflator.

  General Practice Cost Rent Scheme
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each of the last five years and for England and Wales the total amount outstanding under the general practice cost rent scheme.
  46
  Mr. Freeman
  The cost rent scheme gives a general medical practitioner an enhanced annual rental reimbursement which reflects the value of the capital investment he or she has made in acquiring or developing purpose-built surgery premises or their equivalent. The cost rent remains in payment until it is more advantageous for a GP to opt for rent reimbursement based on an assessment of the current market rental value of his or her surgery premises. As this can vary with local circumstances, it is not possible to identify the long-term total expenditure commitment represented by cost rents in payment at any one time.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Southern Africa
    Mr. Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom will contribute to the forthcoming southern African development co-ordination conference; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Chalker
    I shall represent Her Majesty's Government. I shall announce a new pledge of £10 million to add to the ?60 million we have committed over the last 10 years.

    Mr. Hayward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will participate in the southern African development co-ordination conference with a view to co-ordinating aid from different sources.

    Mrs. Chalker
    Membership of the southern African development co-ordination conference is limited to countries in the region. I shall attend their annual consultation meeting with donors in Lusaka on 1 and 2 February.

    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister of his Department will represent Her Majesty's Government at the southern African development co-ordination conference.

    Mrs. Chalker
    I shall represent Her Majesty's Government.

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Kenya.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I last visited Kenya in my previous capacity in January 1989 and am planning a further visit early in the spring.

  My predecessor as Minister for Overseas Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), visited Kenya in March 1987 and the then Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), visited in September 1988.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give details of the projects to be assisted in Brazil to preserve the tropical rain forest, sannounced following the
  47
  visit there by the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten); and whether similar assistance is being planned for Colombia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are developing possible projects in Brazil related to sustainable forest management and the effects of deforestation on climate, as well as research into the genetic resources of the rain forest. Similar assistance to Colombia may be considered in the future, but for the time being we are using our resources to establish the Brazilian programme.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking as a result of the mission to Brazil of Mr. Tim Synott of his Department, in relation both to rain forest and savannah grassland problems.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the two replies I gave him on 22 January at columns 506 and 507. Savannah grassland problems were not included by the Brazilian Government among the initial priority areas for United Kingdom assistance. However, we would consider assistance in this field if, in our continuing contacts with the Brazilians, it emerged as a priority concern.

  Eastern Europe (Free Markets)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Government assistance towards creating free markets in the emerging eastern European democracies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have little to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay by the Prime Minister on 9 January in response to her question on assistance to Poland and Hungary. We will extend the know-how funds to the other countries in eastern Europe once they are fully committed to reform.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government now have any plans to make overseas aid available to Vietnam.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to provide aid for Vietnam.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave on 16 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).

  Namibia
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for increasing aid to Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last year that we would provide aid to an independent Namibia. We are planning several exploratory missions to Namibia to identify areas in which we may be able to assist. A team arrived at Namibia yesterday to assess the need for police training.

  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals the Government have to reduce the debt burden of developing nations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom has played a prominent part in the measures agreed over the last few years to assist heavily indebted countries pursuing economic reforms. The priority for these countries now is to continue with the implementation of reforms to lay the basis for long-term growth. The United Kingdom will continue to play a constructive part in discussions of the debt strategy in the relevant international forums.

  Know-how Funds
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sums have been paid to date from the know-how funds to political movements in Poland and Hungary.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No sums from the know-how funds have been paid directly to political movements in Poland and Hungary, but funds are being used to finance political projects, broadly defined. We are supporting seminars for Polish Members of Parliament training in media techniques, and training directly relevant to the local government elections to be held in Poland this year.

  By the end of the financial year, we expect to have spent a total of £150,000 on such projects.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will be reviewing their policy on aid to EI Salvador in the light of recent developments in that country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have no plans to do so. We have a very small programme, the principal focus of which is the provision of training in Britain. We are also ready to provide emergency or humanitarian assistance in the appropriate circumstances.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British Government's aid and trade relations with Sri Lanka in the light of increasing political violence and disregard for human rights.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made our concern about human rights abuses clearly known to the Sri Lankan Government, although we recognise the main threat to the democratic process and human rights remains terrorism and intimidation by extremist groups.

  We have as yet made no link between human rights and our aid programme on trade relations. Much of our bilateral aid in Sri Lanka is directed towards helping the poorest people and reconstructing facilities damaged in the course of the conflict, including in the northern and eastern parts of the country.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the development aid needed by Somalia and the contribution that can be made by the United Kingdom towards meeting those requirements; and what conditions regarding human rights, democratic processes and the rule of law he attaches to aid to Somalia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Somalia has in general a need for a significant volume of development assistance. Britain participated with others in the provision of such help until October 1988 when concern about human rights violations led to the suspension of new British aid. More recently, deteriorating security conditions have caused a reduction in the scale of existing activity. We remain ready to consider requests from international and British voluntary agencies for humanitarian assistance for victims of the civil conflict in the north, but current conditions make it very difficult for such agencies to operate.

  Aid Budgets
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any changes have been made in the last six months to the Government's projected aid budgets to eastern Europe, Africa and Asia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In the Autumn Statement, the Government announced increases in the overseas aid programme of £75 million in 1990–91 and £105 million in 1991–92. Even allowing for new multilateral commitments, these increases mean that our aid to Asia and Africa over the period 1990–91 to 1991–92 will be higher than previously planned.

  Within the last six months, the Government have also increased their assistance for eastern Europe. They have doubled their know-how fund for Poland from £25 million to £50 million, contributed ․100 million to the Polish stabilisation fund, are identifying a Polish agricultural project worth up to £15 million and have introduced a £25 million know-how fund for Hungary to start from 1 April this year. This substantial package of assistance for eastern Europe is additional to and separate from the overseas aid programme for developing countries.

  Furthermore, as I informed the House on 22 January at column 601, the know-how fund will be extended to cover other countries of eastern Europe once they are firmly committed to reform, and substantial additional resources will be made available to the fund for this purpose.

  Cash limits
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in 1989–90 cash limits for expenditure by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit on the overseas aid vote (class II, vote 5) will be increased by £62,710,000 from £1,365,579,000 to £1,428,289,000. The increase includes a contribution to the currency stabilisation fund for Poland (20 December 1989, column 266), and a contribution to the UNHCR for refugees from Vietnam. Pending approval of the Supplementary 50
  Estimate, the payment to the stabilisation fund has been financed by a repayable advance of £61,710,000 from the contingencies fund. This amount is additional to and separate from the resources for overseas aid. The net effect of these changes will be charged to the reserve.

SCOTLAND

  Poisoned Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, 13 December 1989,Official Report, column 671, on which estates or properties in the Tayside region the illegally poisoned birds were found; and whether any prosecutions resulted.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The properties or locations where illegally poisoned birds were found in Tayside region are as follows. No prosecutions have resulted.

  Where found

  1987

  Crows

  Eradynate estate

  Rook

  Monzie estate

  Gulls

  Monzie estate

  Buzzard

  Ballyorkan, near Pitlochry

  1988

  Rooks

  Dron wood, Longforgan parish, near Dundee

  Buzzard

  Poloskie Scraloch, near Blairgowrie

  Buzzard

  Monzie estate

  Gulls

  Strathallan castle estate

  Eagle

  Caenlochan national nature reserve

  1989

  Crow

  Scone estate

  Crow

  Glen Isla estate

  Crow

  Strathmore estate

  Buzzard

  Monzie estate

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to increase electoral registration in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The preparation of electoral registers is the statutory duty of electoral registration officers. The Scottish Home and Health Department supports them each year with publicity campaigns.

  Remand Prisons
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many remand prisoners there were in Scottish prisons at a convenient date in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Average daily remand population in Scottish penal establishments 1980–89

  Numbers

  1980

  705

  1981

  746

  1982

  844

  1983

  863

  51

  Numbers

  1984

  942

  1985

  1,092

  1986

  1,017

  1987

  938

  1988

  844

  11989

  768

  1Provisional.

  Student Allowances
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether extra allowances under the SED student allowances scheme to students with dependants will continue to be paid and uprated annually should a student loans scheme be introduced.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 23 January to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) at column 626.

  Scottish Heart Health Study
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the letter of Professor Hugh Tunstall Pedoe, director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit in the university of Dundee, of 15 December 1989, on the Scottish heart health study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A copy of the reply to Professor Hugh Tunstall Pedoe's letter of 15 December has been placed in the Library I expect to announce shortly the Government's conclusions on the review of health education in Scotland undertaken by Touche Ross management consultants and on a report by the Scottish health service advisory council's working group on the prevention of coronary heart disease. The latter report and the results of the Scottish heart health study will inform the Government's strategy on coronary heart disease prevention in Scotland.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Rifkind
  After a full survey of staff views and extensive consultations, and with the support of staff interests my Department will in April this year introduce a policy restricting smoking in offices and other working areas. For a period of about six months thereafter, smoking will be permitted only in specially designated areas in staff restaurants and during specified periods in working rooms. Thereafter, restrictions will be further extended and smoking will be permitted only in areas specially designated for smoking. The need to allow smokers time to adjust to this policy has been recognised, and special counselling services will be arranged if there is sufficient demand for them.

  Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967 (Charges)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the judgment delivered by Sheriff Risk at Aberdeen sheriff court on 19 January 52
  dismissing charges under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967 against Mr. Ian Sutherland and 11 others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 25 January.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will place in the Library a copy of Sheriff Risk's judgment in the case of the procurator fiscal at Aberdeen against Mr. Ian Sutherland and 11 other skippers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes, arrangements are being made to place a copy in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why, and under what provisions, over 3,000 objections to the east London river crossing proposal have been invalidated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the reason for the requirement that objections already registered to the redesigned bridge and other related changes to the east London river crossing must be repeated in writing by 22 February if they are to be considered.

  Mr. Atkins
  Draft orders to authorise a revised design for the east London crossing bridge and to modify the arrangements for cyclists and pedestrians were published on 17 August 1989. These attracted over 3,000 objections. Further changes to the junctions on either side of the bridge were subsequently proposed. The draft orders already published were withdrawn and new draft orders giving effect to all the changes were published on 11 January.

  The Department wrote to all the objectors to the original draft orders inviting them to say if they wanted their previous objection amended or supplemented as necessary to stand in relation to the new orders.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list those projects in the Darlington borough council area awarded transport supplementary grants since 1983; and whether he will estimate the proportion this represents of transport supplementary grants awarded to Durham county council area as a whole.

  Mr. Atkins
  No major road scheme (costing over £1 million) in Darlington borough council's area has been accepted for transport supplementary grant since the present system was introduced in 1985–86. Transport supplementary grant for minor works is not given for specified schemes but in a single block. We do not know how much Durham county council has spent on minor works in Darlington borough council's area. Before 1985£86 transport supplementary grant was paid as a single block for capital and current expenditure on roads and public transport.

  Road Surfacing (Whitehall)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions took place between his Department and Westminister city council before the road surfacing work now taking place in Whitehall was commenced: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No discussions took place. Westminster city council, which is the highway authority for Whitehall, was under no obligation to notify my right hon. Friend before the resurfacing work started.

  Sound of Seil (Fire)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the fire on board the ferry Sound of Seil in January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch is conducting an investigation into this incident to establish the cause of the fire. The investigation is not yet completed.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department's policy for its offices is to create a non-smoking environment, with facilities for those who wish to smoke. We will arrange for non-smokers and smokers to occupy separate offices where other management considerations permit. Where all the occupants of any office agree, staff may display "no smoking" signs in that office. It is open to local management and staff to agree further measures to apply locally, on a voluntary basis.

  In addition, since November 1989, a general "no smoking" policy has been applied in the waiting rooms of driving test centres throughout the country.

  Driving Licence Holders (Names)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what bodies, persons, groups, companies or other organisations the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea has given names and addresses of licence holders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre is required under regulation 15 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971 to release the names and addresses of vehicle keepers, who will in most cases be motor vehicle licence holders, free of charge to the police. Local authorities are given these details free for any purpose connected with the investigation of an offence. This regulation also requires the same information to be released to any person who can show reasonable cause for having it, and on payment of the prescribed fee—currently £3·50. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in law but is generally taken to mean an inquiry related to an incident involving the use of a vehicle.

  Scrapped Vehicles
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has regarding the number of vehicles in the United Kingdom scrapped during the last full year for which figures are available; and what was the number reported to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea.

  Mr. Atkins
  The only information available is that reported to DVLC. In 1989 there were 310,439 vehicles in Great Britain reported as being either scrapped or exported. To extract from this total the number of vehicles scrapped could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  River Craft (Culverts)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that any road works for which he is responsible which pass over a navigable waterway will include a culvert to allow river craft to pass without obstruction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is my right hon. Friend's general policy to design and construct bridges over navigable waterways so as to enable river craft to pass without obstruction so far as is reasonable. When designing new bridges, our practice is to consult the navigation authority. It is sometimes reasonable not to provide for the unfettered continuation of use, for example where a navigation is little used by craft of larger sizes. Restrictions to navigation may then be imposed, either permanently or during the course of the construction. Such restrictions may range from minor restrictions on draught up to more major interference. Powers relating to the construction of bridges over navigable waters and powers relating to diversions of navigable and non-navigable water courses are contained in part VI of the Highways Act 1980.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, at his next meeting with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, he will discuss the proposals put forward by British Midland Airways for increasing the efficiency of London's Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department has frequent contacts with the CAA, and is already in touch with the authority about British Midland Airways' proposals. The chairman and I will discuss them as necessary.

  East Anglia (Links with Europe)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to improve East Anglia's road, rail and air links with Europe after 1993.

  Mr. Portillo
  Our latest plans to improve the motorway and trunk road network in East Anglia are set out in our White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", which recognises the challenges presented by the single European market in 1992 and the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993. In the East Anglian counties of Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire schemes worth over £500 million have been added to the existing programme which will result in comprehensive improvement of the A1, A11, A12 and A47 trunk roads.
  55
  It is for British Rail to plan the pattern of rail services in the United Kingdom including services through the Channel tunnel. BR's section 40 plan proposes a daily service through the Channel tunnel to Brussels and Paris on the newly electrified east coast main line. Connections to and from Ely and Norwich will be made at Peterborough. New rolling stock and locomotives capable of 140 mph speeds are currently being delivered to the line. Firm proposals in respect of freight movement by rail from East Anglia are still being developed. Journey times from stations between Cambridge and King's Lynn to London will be improved by electrification. We are negotiating hard to liberalise the provision of air services within the Community including those involving regional airports. Stansted, Cambridge, Ipswich and Norwich airports should benefit from these expanding opportunities. A new rail link to Stansted is under construction.

  Escalators (St. John's Wood)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the chairman of London Underground Ltd. as to the safety implications of the prolonged closure of one escalator and the intermittent closure of the other escalator at St. John's Wood station; what was the cost of the repairs undertaken on these escalators over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that the escalator, which has been undergoing major repair, will be back in service this week. The cost of the repairs is a matter for London Underground Ltd.

  London Underground Ltd.
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve the level of management competence at London Underground Ltd.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend's direct responsibilities in this area are limited to the appointment of members of the board of London Regional Transport. Mr. Wilfred Newton and his senior management team enjoy the full support of the Government in the initiatives they are taking to tackle the many serious problems confronting London Underground Ltd. We also welcome the new emphasis being given by London Underground Ltd. to management training and career development.

  Storm (25 January)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the cancellation of ferries to and from the Isle of Wight during the storm of 25 January.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I understand that all the operators decided to suspend services, at least during the middle of

  Total number of new claims taken during 1989

  Doncaster 'A'

  Doncaster 'B'

  Doncaster 'C'

  Mexborough

  January

  832

  532

  712

  384

  February

  501

  413

  516

  452

  March

  404

  349

  409

  290

  April

  488

  376

  449

  342

  May

  517

  477

  561

  303

  June

  499

  527

  494

  311

  July

  775

  708

  770

  403

  56
  the day. In addition, the Queen's harbour master closed Portsmouth harbour from 11.30 am until 2.30 pm. I understand that Sealink restarted from Fishbourne just after 3 pm, and thereafter ran a two-hourly (rather than the normal one-hourly) service to Portsmouth. All other services to the Isle of Wight remained suspended for the rest of the day.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the effectiveness of maritime services, marine rescue radio services etc., during the storm of 25 January.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Despite the extreme conditions and a number of power supply interruptions, the maritime rescue services coped with all requests for assistance. The marine rescue radio services, Her Majesty's Coastguard and British Telecom international coast radio stations, maintained a distress watch throughout.

  A3 Litter
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what authority is responsible for clearing litter from the verges of the A3 in Surrey; and what steps he takes to ensure that this is done on a regular basis.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 the district councils are responsible for cleaning for purposes of public health and amenity. My Department is responsible for cleaning for maintenance and safety purposes only. Surrey county council acts as the Department's agents, operating under our code of practice. The code prescribes the frequency of litter clearance, which can be varied to meet local circumstances.

  The Environmental Protection Bill proposes that district councils become wholly responsible for litter clearance on all roads other than motorways.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new claimants signed on each week of 1989 at(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough unemployment benefit offices; what delays there were in interviewing them; what requests have been received for additional staff; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information about the number of new claimants who registered as unemployed at these offices each week during 1989 is not available. Details of the number of people who made new claims during 1989 were collected on a monthly basis and these figures are given in the table:
  57

  Doncaster 'A'

  Doncaster 'B'

  Doncaster 'C'

  Mexhorough

  August

  563

  688

  553

  382

  September

  568

  509

  587

  418

  October

  639

  546

  611

  392

  November

  520

  419

  480

  317

  December

  346

  334

  388

  358

  Notes.—Figures represent local count total number of claims taken during the month shown.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by location, where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At the present time the Employment Department group does not provide any day nursery facilities (creches) for its staff. However, we are actively considering or planning for nurseries in a number of locations, often in conjunction with other Government Departments or other employers. It is expected that staff who wish to take advantage of these facilities will be required to contribute towards the running costs.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The policy of the Employment Department group is to discourage non-smokers from taking up smoking, positively to encourage smokers to give it up or to cut down and to create a no-smoking environment, with facilities for those who wish to smoke, rather than the other way round.

  The implementation of smoking policies rests with line management who are encouraged to review the practices in their offices and to consider setting up no-smoking schemes either in individual offices or in larger areas, such as regions. Significant progress is being made and no-smoking schemes already exist, or are in preparation, in a number of locations across the group.

  European Social Fund
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the total amount of European social fund moneys which have been allocated in each of the past five years to training projects run by voluntary organisations; and if he will show these moneys as a percentage of the total of European social fund moneys granted to Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows European social fund allocations to projects run by voluntary organisations in Great Britain for years 1987 to 1989 inclusive, and these amounts expressed as a percentage of the total allocation to Great Britain.

  £ million

  Percentage

  1987

  15·5

  4·11

  1988

  20·4

  5·76

  1989

  22·8

  6·11

  58
  The figures for earlier years can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level of funding he anticipates his Department granting from the European social fund to voluntary organisations for training projects in the next financial year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Commission's allocation of European social fund money to the United Kingdom for 1990 is likely to be lower than in 1989. Against that background and the priorities of the Community support frameworks approved recently by the European Commission, I am considering all eligible applications for ESF support including those of voluntary bodies. I cannot yet say what the allocations to voluntary organisations for training will be.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1989–90.

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 1 (training programmes) will be reduced by £19,694,000 from £2,619,336,000 to £2,599,642,000. This is the net effect of a token £1,000 estimate; a decrease of £18,886,000 to offset the increase sought on class VII, vote 2, to repay the European Commission for European social fund overpayments in respect of 1987 and 1988, and a decrease of £809,000 to fully offset the increase sought on class VII, vote 5 for the main sale expenses of the Skills Training Agency (STA).

  There is also some switching of provision within the vote, the most notable being a transfer of £38,410,000 from employment training (section B1) to the Skills Training Agency (section G); £19,183,000 of this transfer is to cover excess expenditure on running costs and £19,227,000 is because income is expected to be lower than in the original estimate.

  As a result of these changes, there will be an increase of £20,210,000 in the DE training programmes running costs limit from £211,627,000 to £231,837,000. This increase is net of the £2,267,000 reduction to compensate for a breach of the same amount in the 1988–89 Training Agency class VII, vote 2 running costs limit.

  The cash limit on class VII, vote 2, will be increased by £16,719,000 from £641,009,000 to £657,728,000. The increase is more than offset by a £19,694,000 reduction in the cash limit on class VII, vote 1. The increase is the net result of an increase of £20,089,000 to repay the European Commission for European social fund overpayments In respect of 1987–88 offset by a reduction in provision in

  59
  class VII vote 1; the transfer of £365,000 from the Cabinet Office: Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) in respect of the challenge funding scheme for senior management development training; the transfer to class VII, vote 1 of £2,000,000 to cover increased cost of the introduction of training and enterprise councils; the net transfer of £1,471,000 to class VII, vote 1, as final adjustment of the provisional split of provision between the Department of Employment and the Training Agency following the transfer of some small firms and enterprise functions to the Training Agency with effect from 1 July 1989; increased appropriations in aid of £244,000 from the Department of Social Security (class XV, vote 7) as a result of provision transferred to the employment service in the revised estimate; and the transfer of £20,000 to the Department of Health (class XIV, vote 3) to fund the Alcohol Concern workplace advisory service.

  There is also some switching of provision within the vote, the most notable of which is the transfer of provision between the employment service and other Department of Employment administration of £14,796,000 in preparation for the employment service becoming an agency.

  As a result of these changes, there will be a decrease of £2,863,000 in the running costs limit for employment programmes and central services from £645,129,000 to £642,266,000.

  The cash limit on class VII, vote 5, (sale of Skills Training Agency) will be increased by £809,000 from a token £1,000 to £810,000. This is required to fund the main sale expenses of the Skills Training Agency, which are mainly advisers' fees and is more than offset by the reduction on class VII, vote 1.

DEFENCE

  Warheads
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 12 January, column 779, if he will make it his policy to arrange for a study to be conducted of the arrangements for the safeguarding of fissile material from warheads dismantled as part of arms reduction agreements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No, since to date British nuclear weapons have not been the subject of any arms control agreement.

  Boxer System
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority was given to the need to provide a secure communication link following the privatisation of British Telecommunications in the decision to proceed with the Boxer system and the application to build a 300 ft mast at Brizlee Wood, near Alnwick.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The proposed radio mast at Brizlee Wood will establish the east coast Boxer 2 route to defence units in the northern United Kingdom, and will thus be an essential link in the national and NATO communications network. Brizlee Wood was selected as the preferred location for this mast because it is already an important defence installation. The need for the Boxer 2 communications bearer system is based on the requirement to provide a nationwide secure and survivable 60
  communications system. The system will be introduced into service progressively during the early 1990s. The need for such a system was recognised many years before the privatisation of the British Telecom national network.

  Tornado Jets
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West on 14 December,Official Report, column 818, if he will estimate the amount and type of toxic emissions (a) per mile and (b) per minute of a Tornado jet (i) with use of afterburner, (ii) without use of afterburner, and (iii) at various power settings of the engine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The amount and mixture of emissions from the Tornado's jet engines without use of afterburner are broadly similar to those of modern civil jet aircraft. When the afterburner is in operation the exhaust may contain a rather higher proportion of unburnt fuel, but the main constituents of the emissions remain the same.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what verification research is being conducted by his Department and consultants on the assessment of canisters which do not need intrusive assay to evaluate the chemical contents of chemical weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of the United Kingdom's active and practical support for the negotiations in Geneva for a comprehensive, global and verification chemical weapons convention, the Ministry of Defence, together with other Departments concerned, is undertaking work on various aspects of the verification technology which will be needed to underpin the convention. This includes the evaluation of non-intrusive techniques such as X-ray, ultrasonics or neutron activation analysis.

  Service School Teachers
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last review of the pay and conditions of service of locally employed teachers in service schools was completed; what review is taking place at the present time; and when that review will be completed.

  Mr. Neubert
  The pay and conditions of service of teachers who are employed on a locally entered basis by the MOD overseas are dealt with in the context of the arrangements applicable to locally entered civilian (LEC) staff generally. The most recent LEC pay reviews carried out by the commands in Germany, Gibraltar and Hong Kong were implemented from 1 April 1989. The last general pay review date for staff in Cyprus was 1 October 1987, but there is a separate system of interim cost of living allowances. The arrangements for LECs who are dependants of service and United Kingdom-based personnel serving overseas are normally reviewed in the wake of general LEC awards. Account is taken, however, of any differences in their position in relation to taxation and access to other facilities. Such other factors as recruitment and retention and affordability may also have to be taken into consideration. A special review of the terms and conditions applied to dependant LECs is being carried out in Germany. It is too early to say what the implications might be for any particular group.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Neubert
  Smoking is discouraged throughout the Department and is prohibited in lifts and other enclosed spaces. A number of no-smoking areas have been established in offices, recreational areas, staff restaurants and other communal rest areas. No-smoking areas will be developed and extended in response to the wishes of staff.

  "Ways Out of the Arms Race"
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain a copy of the book "Ways Out of the Arms Race", edited by J. Hassard, T. Kibble and P. Lewis, published by World Scientific. December 1989, for his departmental library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A copy has been ordered by the Ministry of Defence library.

  ECR-90 Radar
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, during the recent discussions with the Minister of Defence for West Germany about the ECR-90 radar, there was any discussion of collateral arrangements for the United Kingdom to acquire German-produced armoured vehicles.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the contract for the ECR-90 radar with Ferranti, there is a provision for recourse to Ferranti for any cost overruns on sales to West Germany.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 23 January 1990 at columns 869–72.

  Military Detention
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average term of military detention imposed on service men found guilty of being absent without leave over the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information could not be produced without disproportionate effort. Each case is considered individually. The length of detention varies from a few days to two years, depends on a number of factors, including the length of absence, whether or not the absentee surrendered or was arrested, and whether or not he had a record of any previous convictions.

  Consideration is also given to any mitigating circumstances of a compassionate nature and to the length of time the accused may have spent in custody awaiting trial.

  Radiation Leakages
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what radiation leakages there have been aboard nuclear submarines in or near Scottish docks in this year.
  62
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the past 12 months there have been no radiological incidents aboard Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines in or near Scottish ports which have resulted in a hazard to naval personnel or members of the public, or any measurable contamination of the environment.

  Ferranti
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he was informed of GEC's intention to bid for Ferranti Defence Systems Ltd.; whether he or any of his Ministers or officials met the boards of either or both companies before the talks with the West German Defence Minister on 22 January; whether he was consulted by either of the companies involved in the takeover before the announcement of 23 January and in what respects he assessed the bid by GEC for Ferranti differently from those made by the same company for Plessey in 1986 and 1989.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend and 1, and Ministry of Defence officials, maintain contact with the management of all major defence contractors, including Ferranti and GEC; the details of our discussions are always confidential. However, I can say that the two companies informed the Ministry of Defence that discussions were taking place between them. The proposed acquisition will be assessed in the normal way by the Director General of Fair Trading under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any information as to the numbers of RAF apprentices and officer trainee pilots who are on full pay and have been classified as students for community charge purposes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that 411 RAF apprentices and technicians have been classified as students for community charge purposes. I am not aware that any RAF officer trainees have been so classified.

  HMS Conqueror
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 120, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will declassify the captain's narrative of HMS Conqueror's Falklands deployment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

ENVIRONMENT

  Parliament (Stonework Cleaning)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current detailed timetable for the cleaning and restoration of the stonework of the inner courtyards of the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  The repair, restoration and cleaning of the stonework of the Palace of Westminster is being carried out in a number of phases. The next phase will cover the Victoria Tower and south elevation, overlooking the Victoria Tower gardens. This is due to start in April 1990 and will take about four years to complete.
  63
  The final stage of the programme covering the inner courtyards will be tackled after that, but it is too early to say yet precisely when the work will start, or how long it will take.

  Fire Services (Cumbria)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much extra money would be needed by Cumbria county council above its standard spending assessment for fire services to comply with the standards recommended by the Home Office inspectorate of fire services.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The standard spending assessment for fire and civil defence services is the Government's estimate of an appropriate level of expenditure consistent with the efficient provision of a standard level of service. It takes into account the characteristics of Cumbria as specified in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) and is consistent with the figure for total standard spending by all local authorities announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 19 July 1989. However, budgetary decisions for these services remain the responsibility of Cumbria county council. The Home Office inspectorate of fire services closely monitors the performance of brigades against the nationally recommended standards of fire cover.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals for legislation to prohibit public footpaths crossing waste landfill sites.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The consideration of the diversion of any footpath would be a matter for the planning authority at the time of consideration of the planning application.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any meetings with the chairman or officers of the National Association of Waste Disposal

  Total expenditure £ million

  Increase Per cent.

  Rate support grant £

  Increase Per cent.

  GDP Deflator Per cent.

  Exeter

  1987–88

  7·036

  60·7

  4,621,206

  -16·4

  5·3

  1988–89

  6·139

  -12·7

  4,902,078

  6·1

  7·25

  1989–90

  6·840

  11·4

  5,169,351

  5·5

  7·00

  Devon

  1987–88

  390·072

  8·3

  162,988,858

  7·5

  5·3

  1988–89

  396·869

  1·7

  166,253,251

  2·0

  7·25

  1989–90

  456·617

  15·1

  162,550,732

  -2·2

  7·00

  Notes:

  1. For the years 1987–88 to 1989–90 the rate support grant for Devon consists of block grant only whereas Exeter received both block grant and domestic rate relief grant.

  2. Under the new local government finance system, which comes into force on 1 April, there are no target figures.

  3. In 1990 –91 Exeter will receive £12·4 million of revenue support grant.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give(a) the figures of business rate contribution to Exeter city council for the following years: 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90, (b) the expected business
  64
  Contractors since 22 November 1989; and whether he has made any assessment of the effects on Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate of the code of self-regulation.

  Mr. Trippier
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) met the chairman and representatives of the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors on 17 January. During the course of wide-ranging discussions the association's code of self-regulation was not specifically discussed. But the Department is aware of the code which we see as a positive step in promoting the necessary high standards that should prevail throughout waste management. Adoption of the code will not affect the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in regard to its responsibilities for waste as these rest primarily in monitoring the performance of the waste disposal authorities and in setting a framework of national standards for waste management practice.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the fees paid to each of the accountancy firms connected with the water privatisation; and how much money has been paid to firms criticised by the Department of Trade and Industry or the disciplinary committees of the accountancy profession.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is not our policy to comment on individual contracts. The full costs of privatisation will be reported to Parliament in due course in the normal way.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures for Exeter city council and Devon county council authorities(a) expenditure, (b) Government grant support, (c) percentage increase on previous years and (d) inflation percentage for the following years: 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 together with the target figures for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures requested are as follows:

  rate contribution to the uniform business rate in 1990–91 and (c) the allocation of uniform business rate to Exeter city council in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  The available information is as follows:
  65

  Non-domestic rate yield in Exeter net of rebates:

  £ million

  1987–88

  16·1

  1988–89

  19·3

  1989–90

  21·1

  Allocation of uniform business rate:

  1990–91

  21·5

  The business rate contribution to the uniform business rate in 1990–91 is not yet known.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show in the Official Report the numbers and grades of his staff engaged on GRE or SSA development in (a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c) planned for 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]The number of staff in my Department engaged on GRE or SSA development and calculation are shown in the table for 1988 and 1989. Future figures are not yet known.

  The figures include professional economists and statisticians plus support staff who have been engaged on GRE or SSA development and calculation in the period. Not all of these staff have been engaged wholly on GRE or SSA development.

  1988

  1989

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  Grade 6

  1

  3

  Grade 7

  3

  3

  SEO

  1

  1

  HEO and professional equivalent

  1

  1

  EO and professional equivalent

  2

  2

  AO

  1

  1

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether people living in communities run by(a) the Moonies, (b) Hare Krishna, (c) the Children of God, (d) the Scientologists and (e) other religious cults will be exempt from the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Individuals who are members of religious communities, the principal occupation of which is prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering or education; who have no income or capital of their own; and who are dependent upon the community concerned for their material needs, are exempt from the community charge. It is for community charges registration officers to decide in each case whether a person falls within the terms of the exemption.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what relief from the community charge will be available to those who currently receive relief on their rates because they are disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Disabled persons' rate relief ensures that disabled people do not have to pay higher rate bills where an adaptation of their home made necessary by their disability would raise its rateable value. There is no question of a disabled person having to pay more community charge because of his disability, so equivalent provision is not necessary. Rebates of up to 80 per cent. of the community charge are available to people, including 66
  disabled people, with little or no income who qualify for community charge benefit. Income support, for those receiving it, contains an amount to help pay the remaining 20 per cent. Disabled people may qualify for rebates at higher levels of income than other claimants because of the disability premium.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) by what percentage the rate imposed by Chelmsford borough council increased in each year from 1979 to date;

  (2) by what percentage the rate imposed by Essex county council increased in each year from 1979 to date; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Chelmsford borough council borough rate per cent.

  Essex county council precept per cent.

  1979–80

  -36·8

  +25·3

  1980–81

  +4·4

  +18·7

  1981–82

  +59·6

  +10·8

  1982–83

  -39·2

  +14·9

  1983–84

  +9·6

  +4·7

  1984–85

  +38·8

  +7·0

  1985–86

  + 26·1

  +7·4

  1986–87

  +7·1

  +18·8

  1987–88

  -13·3

  +10·8

  1988–89

  +38·5

  +17·8

  1989–90

  + 19·4

  +5·1

  Borough rate is the rate charged by the borough; precept is the rate levied by the county council.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether university students sponsored by firms are eligible for the full community charge rebate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The eligibility criteria defining full-time courses for the purposes of student relief make no reference to the source of a student's funds. Every person whose course fulfils these criteria will be liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the maximum level of community charge for Northampton at which no couple will be required to pay £3 per week extra as protected by the transitional relief; and how this divides between Northampton and Northamptonshire.

  Mr. Chope
  For the purposes of the transitional relief scheme, the assumed community charge for the area of Northampton borough council will be £294·13. The way in which this figure is derived does not permit a meaningful apportionment to be made between district and county; but the community charge bills which people receive will show separately how much of the actual community charge is due to county and district spending, and will show, for comparison, the cost of providing a standard level of service.

  Cleaning Contractors, House of Commons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what supervision is given and by whom as to the standard of work by the cleaning contractors now employed in the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Parliamentary Works Office and the Department of the Serjeant at Arms staff work together on the inspection of cleaning work undertaken by the contractor.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to update and expand his schedule of ancient monuments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment includes a monument in the schedule that he maintains under section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, he consults English Heritage. English Heritage's major programme of re-survey work, known as the monuments protection programme, is now under way. It is expected to run for some 10 years or so and could lead to an increase in the number of scheduled monuments in England from 13,000 to approximately 60,000. The object of the programme is to identify further or redefine monuments of national importance which should be protected by statutory controls; and to collect up-to-date information to assist in their future use and management.

  My right hon. Friend is now considering the first batch of 200 monuments recommended for scheduling by English Heritage. These cover monuments in the Salisbury Plain training area. To qualify for scheduling, monuments must be of national importance. Each case is considered on its merits. Because the characteristics which make a monument of national importance and worthy of scheduling are not always readily visible, its identification, and the subsequent decision whether or not to include it in the schedule, are matters for informed judgment in the light of professional advice given by English Heritage. The criteria on which the judgment is formed were first announced on 22 November 1983 and I now restate them:

  (i)Period: all types of monuments that characterise a category or period should be considered for preservation.

  (ii)Rarity: there are some monument categories which in certain periods are so scarce that all surviving examples which still retain some archaelogical potential, should be preserved. In general, however, a selection must be made which portrays the typical and commonplace as well as the rare. This process should take account of all aspects of the distribution of a particular class of monument, both in a national and a regional context.

  (iii)Documentation: the significance of a monument may be enhanced by the existence of records of previous investigation or, in the case of more recent monuments, by the supporting evidence of contemporary written records.

  (iv)Group Value: the value of a single monument (such as a field system) may be greatly enhanced by its association with related contemporary monuments (such as a settlement and cemetery) or with monuments of different periods. In some cases, it is preferable to protect the complete group of monuments, including associated and adjacent land, rather than to protect isolated monuments within the group.

  (v)Survival/Condition: the survival of a monument's archaeological potential both above and below ground
  68
  is a particularly important consideration and should be reassessed in relation to its present condition and surviving features.

  (vi)Fragility/Vulnerability: highly important archaeological evidence from some field monuments can be destroyed by a single ploughing or unsympathetic treatment; vulnerable monuments of this nature would particularly benefit from the statutory protection which scheduling confers. There are also standing structures of particular form or complexity whose value can again be severely reduced by neglect or careless treatment and which are similarly well suited to protection by scheduled monument legislation, even if these structures are already listed historic buildings.

  (vii)Diversity: some monuments may be selected for scheduling because they possess a combination of high quality features, others because of a single important attribute.

  (viii)Potential: on occasion, the nature of the evidence cannot be specified precisely, but it may still be possible to document reasons anticipating its existence and importance and so to demonstrate the justification for scheduling. This is usually confined to sites rather than upstanding monuments.

  CITES Conference
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to a habitat tax, as suggested at the CITES conference at Lucerne.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. This matter was not formally discussed at the CITES conference. I shall, however, be interested in the outcome of any discussions on this issue between the International Council for Bird Preservation, which proposed it, and the pet trade.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the check list scheme contained in the resolution on the shipment of live animals passed at the seventh CITES conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  We support in principle efforts to improve transport conditions for live animals, and in the light of CITES conference resolution 7.13, are considering what further steps may be necessary to supplement the existing substantial safeguards which already operate in the United Kingdom.

  Commons Registration Act
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the working of the Commons Registration Act 1965; and when he expects to bring forward proposals to amend it.

  Mr. Trippier
  We recognise, as did the Common Land Forum, that there are deficiencies in the Commons Registration Act 1965. For our legislative intentions, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 27 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr),(Official Report, Vol. 162, column 89).

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the resident population of the borough of Eastbourne for the purpose of calculating its standard spending assessment; how he arrived at the size of the resident population; to what extent and at what date the figure for the size of the resident population is accurate; whether he and the Eastbourne borough council
  69
  agree on the size of the resident population; and what representations he has received on this subject from the borough council.

  Mr. Chope
  The resident population of the borough of Eastbourne used for the purpose of calculating its standard spending assessment is 80,353. This figure is arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) and is the estimate of the registrar general for England and Wales of the resident population at 30 June 1988. I believe that this is the best information available for this purpose, being compiled on a consistent and impartial basis and providing the necessary breakdown between age groups. The community charges registration officer for Eastbourne has reported a figure of 67,903 as being the number of persons registered as subject to pay the personal community charge, with an adjustment for students, and estimated to pay collective community charge contributions at 1 December 1989. Eastbourne borough council has made representations that the figures from its community charges register should be used for the purpose of calculating its standard spending assessment in place of the registrar general's estimate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered these representations before he made the distribution report but decided not to make the change suggested.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures exist for altering the standard spending assessment of a borough council for the year ending 31 March 1991 where it is discovered that the figure taken as the size of the resident population turns out to be misleading.

  Mr. Chope
  The standard spending assessment for each borough council, as for other councils, has been calculated in accordance with the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). The use of resident population figures calculated on a different basis from that specified in that report would require the making of an amendment report. If representations were made to that effect, my right hon. Friend would take them into account in considering whether to make an amendment report.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limit on the Property Services Agency civil vote in 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XX vote 18 will be increased by £11,725,000 from token provision of £1,000 to £11,726,000. A reduction of £3,960,000 was made in the main Estimate from provision of £791,436,000 to compensate for the cash limit breach on this vote in 1988–89, which resulted in an excess vote of £9,200,000. Against this, increases are needed to finance the acquisition of freehold and long leasehold office accommodation and increased rents payments, to offset a shortfall in capital receipts, and to finance additional expenditure on the parliamentary and the royal parks and palaces works programmes. The increase will be charged to the reserve.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those county authorities which have requested assistance from his Department following the storm of 25 January; and if he will list the SSA for each authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No local authority has yet made a formal request for assistance, but in view of the obviously serious nature of the storm, the Government announced on 25 January that special financial assistance would be made available.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the isolation of a county from its neighbours in extreme weather conditions is a factor which was considered in calculating SSAs.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This was not a factor considered. Although the Isle of Wight councils provided a paper which argued their case for recognition of extra costs that they claimed by virtue of separation from the mainland, isolation in extreme weather conditions was not a factor which entered the case that they put forward.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement authorising those counties affected by the storm of 25 January to repair the damage under the Bellwin rules.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Special financial arrangements to help local authorities in emergencies—known as the Bellwin scheme—have been announced and will be available for the areas covered by the storm.

  Construction Products Directive
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in giving accreditation to third party certification bodies dealing with product conformity under the construction products directive; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope

  [holding answer 24 January 1990]The British Board of Agrement was designated on 22 November 1989 to issue European technical approvals. It will also act as the spokesman for the United Kingdom in the European organisation of technical approval bodies to be set up under the construction products directive.

  My Department is discussing with representatives of the construction industry, the European Commission and other member states, the appropriate arrangements for accreditation under the directive. We are also exploring with the National Measurement Accreditation Service and the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies how they might assist my Department in designating testing laboratories and certification bodies.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the relevant population of the borough of Eastbourne for the purpose of calculating entitlement to revenue support grant; and how he arrived at the figure for the relevant population

  (2) what representations he has received from; the Eastbourne borough council about the size of the relevant population of the borough of Eastbourne for the purpose

  71
  of calculating revenue support grant for the year ending 31 March 1991; and whether he is satisfied that the figure for the size of the relevant population is as accurate as possible.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]The relevant population for the borough of Eastbourne for 1990–91 is 67,903. This figure has been calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Population Report (England) approved by the House on 18 January. For Eastbourne, the calculation is based on data provided and certified by the community charges registration officer for the borough, and I have no reason to believe that the figure is not accurate. I have received no representations about the size of the relevant population. The treasurer did, however, make representations about the estimates of population used in calculating standard spending assessments, which are derived from a different source. These representations were considered before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England).

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures exist for altering the distribution of revenue support grant for a district council for the year ending 31 March 1991 where it is discovered that an error has been made in assessing the size of the relevant population.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]The relevant population for each district council for 1990–91 has been calculated in accordance with the Population Report (England). I am not aware of any errors having been made in this calculation. If any errors were discovered, my right hon. Friend would consider what action was necessary, depending on the circumstances of the case.

  Local Government Finance, Eastbourne
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the level of the community charge in the borough of Eastbourne and in the district of Wealden on the basis of figures published by him on 11 January; and what is his estimate of overspending by Eastbourne and by Wealden for adults for the current year.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]On the basis of the assumptions used for the revenue support grant settlement, the community charge for 1990–91 would be £298 in Eastbourne and £270 in Wealden. In 1989–90 Eastbourne's reported budgeted total expenditure is £919,000 more than its grant-related expenditure assessment, and Wealden's expenditure is £727,000 more than its GRE. Expressed as amounts per adult using the relevant population for 1990£91, these figures are £14 and £7 respectively.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list all grant offers and section 3A repair grant offers made by English Heritage for each year from 1984–85 to 1989–90, broken down by recipient organisation;

  (2) if he will list total grant offers made by English Heritage from 1984–85 to 1989–90, broken down by
  72
  category of grant, further subdividing section 3A repair grants between church and secular grants and showing each category as a proportion of the annual total;

  (3)what is English Heritage's salary bill for 1984–85 to 1990–91 in real terms and for each year, as a proportion of grant in aid;

  (4)what is the total staff complement of English Heritage for 1984–85 to 1989–90 and the estimates to 1992–93;

  (5)what proportion of grant in aid was (a) offered and (b) paid by English Heritage in grants from 1984–85 to 1990–91;

  (6)what was the Government's grant in aid to English Heritage in real terms from 1984–85 to 1992–93;

  (7)what were English Heritage's operating costs from 1984–85 to 1990–91, broken down by category and showing each category as a proportion of the annual total.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]The detailed breakdown of expenditure on building repair grants, salaries and operating costs, and information on staff complement are matters for English Heritage. I have asked the chairman, Lord Montagu, to write to the hon. Member. Government grant in aid to English Heritage is as follows:

  Cash

  Real terms at 1990–91 prices

  1984–85

  49·9

  68·9

  1985–86

  52·2

  68·5

  1986–87

  60·1

  76·3

  1987–88

  65·3

  78·7

  1988–89

  66·2

  74·4

  1989–90

  72·4

  76·0

  1990–91

  78·0

  78·0

  Grant in aid for 1991–92 and subsequent years is allocated provisionally and is subject to revision during the appropriate year's public expenditure survey.

  Start-up Grant
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in the past year have applied for a start-up grant, following advice from the Bradford enterprise centre; when applications were submitted to him; when he is going to take decisions on those applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]I have been asked to reply.

  The Bradford enterprise centre provides a range of assistance and support for new and expanding businesses including start-up grants, which are available from a number of sources. No details are available on the numbers of people who may have applied for start-up assistance following advice from the centre, or of the outcome.

  As part of Bradford metropolitan district council's inner area programme, the Government do, however, fund a business development scheme, which offers start-up grants of up to £2,000 to applicants who meet agreed criteria. For this particular start-up scheme, there have been 47 applications in the current financial year. Thirty applications were received on 10 July 1989 and decisions on 28 of these were issued by the Department on 21 July. One was subsequently withdrawn and the remaining

  73
  application was determined in September on receipt of further information. Following the satisfactory conclusion on 8 January of discussions about the detailed operation of the scheme, the Department is now able to consider the 17 further applications received in November. Decisions can be expected shortly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the incidence of sheep scab in each county of England and Wales for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1987

  England

  Cheshire

  2

  Cornwall

  2

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Greater Manchester

  1

  Lancashire

  8

  North Yorkshire

  3

  Shropshire

  2

  Somerset

  1

  West Yorkshire

  3

  Total

  23

  Wales

  Clywd

  6

  Gwent

  1

  Gwynedd

  5

  Powys

  2

  Total

  14

  1988

  England

  Cheshire

  4

  Cornwall

  2

  Derbyshire

  2

  Devon

  3

  Dorset

  3

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  Lincolnshire

  2

  Shropshire

  3

  Somerset

  4

  Warwickshire

  1

  Total

  26

  Wales

  Clwyd

  1

  Gwent

  1

  Gwynedd

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  Powys

  1

  Total

  9

  1989

  England

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Essex

  1

  Avon

  1

  Cornwall

  15

  Devon

  15

  Dorset

  4

  Somerset

  10

  74

  Number

  Wiltshire

  3

  Cheshire

  1

  Derbyshire

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  3

  Shropshire

  2

  Staffordshire

  3

  Total

  60

  Wales

  Clwyd

  2

  Dyfed

  1

  Gwynedd

  1

  Powys

  1

  Total

  5

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,
  4Fisheries and Food when he received a document from the Soil Association entitled "20 per cent. of Britain Organic by the Year 2000"; what steps he has taken. or
  plans to take to assess the practicality of the proposals it
  contains; and what reply he has sent to the Soil Association.

  Mr. Curry
  I have not received from the Soil
  Association a copy of the document to which the hon. Member refers, although I am aware of it. In my reply on 16 January to a question from the hon. Member for Truro
  (Mr. Taylor) I referred to the steps being taken by the Government to encourage organic farming(Official Report columns 215-16).

  Mince
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,
  Fisheries and Food if he intends introducing regulations governing the lean to fat ratios in mince; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Not for the present. I need to await
  developments in the European Community concerning
  proposals for the quantitative declaration of characterising ingredients of foodstuffs and the possible extension of the existing directive on minced meat to domestic
  production, both of which issues are likely to be discussed in the next few months.

  Food Colouring
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances the inclusion in food of colouring matter is deemed to be necessary.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Advisory Committee (FAC),in its review of the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations 1973, discussed the need for colours to be added to food. It concluded that the responsible use of colours continues to have a role in providing consumers with a choice of attractively presented foods. It also, however, recommended stricter controls on their use including an extension to the list of foods which currently must not contain added colours. I announced in the House on 29 November last year the Government's acceptance of the FAC's recommendations. I therefore refer the hon. Member to
  75
  the committee's final report on the review and its response to comments received on its final report, copies of which have already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sheep Offal
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there is any evidence of danger to animals that are fed food containing sheep offal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Sheep offal is subject to the prohibition on the use of ruminant-derived protein in ruminant feedstuffs as these species may be susceptible to the scrapie agent. There is no evidence to suggest that it poses a risk to non-ruminant species such as pigs and poultry.

  Captive Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 20 December 1989,Official Report, column 300, what further steps he has taken to ensure that the requirements relating to the import of captive birds are being fulfilled.

  Mr. Maclean
  The review of post-import quarantine arrangements is continuing. Visits by veterinary staff to major exporting countries and meetings with representatives of the bird trade and conservation organisations are being arranged. I have written to the airlines emphasising the need for proper care in transporting birds.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Curry
  Restrictions on smoking already apply at certain buildings. The Department's aim is to establish a non-smoking regime at each of its buildings but with facilities for smokers. We are progressively moving towards this position.

  Animal Feed (Contamination)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) cattle and (b) sheep are restricted, as a result of lead-contaminated animal feed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies),Official Report, 24 January, columns 769-70. Details of numbers of individual animals under restriction are not held centrally.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the countries in which restrictions are still imposed as a result of lead-contaminated animal feed; and, in each country, how many farms are under restriction.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are 1,512 farms still under restriction in England and a further 156 in Wales. The only other country known to have been affected was the Netherlands where I understand that one farm is still subject to restrictions.

  Hill Livestock Allowances
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to increase hill livestock compensatory allowances by at least £3 per head; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 23 January 1990, at column 641.

  Cattle Offal
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ban the use of cattle offal from calves under six months old for human consumption.

  Mr. Maclean
  Offal from calves under six months of age do not present any risk. Such action would not, therefore, be justified.

  Live Cattle Exports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the economic impact of the European Economic Community restrictions on live cattle exports in the British beef and dairy industries.

  Mr. Curry
  The restrictions that the Commission is expected to adopt would, if in force in 1988, still have allowed the export of 249,000 (94 per cent.) of the 266,000 live cattle and calves exported in that year. The most important effect of the restrictions is likely to be on exports of breeding animals which were some 7,000 head and worth about £5 million in 1988.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the legal basis for the decision of the European Economic Community to ban the import of live cattle(a) born prior to June 1988 and (b) over six months of age.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commission's proposal refers to the treaty of Rome and article 9D of directive 64/432.

  Bovine Offal
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of restrictions imposed on the human consumption of bovine offal by the EEC member states other than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware that any other European Community member state has imposed restrictions on the consumption of offal.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions are imposed on the import of bovine offal currently banned from human consumption in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 25 January at column 821.

  Non-price Support Measures
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of the new non-price support measures proposed by the Commission which he questioned at the Council of Ministers' meetings on 22 and 23 January.
  77
  Mr. Curry
  The principal non-price elements proposed
  by the Commission as part of its price proposals are:An aid for small arable producers, defined as producers with not more than 20 hectares of land who derive the main part of their income from cereals, oilseeds and pulses;
  An aid to encourage the production of millet, canary seed and buckwheat ;
  The extension of suckler cow premium to suckler cows owned by small milk producers, who are defined as producers with a quota of not more than 60,000 kg a year;
  The introduction of a Community financed scheme for the purchase of milk quota from producers undertaking to cease milk production altogether. The quota obtained would be reallocated by the member state concerned to producers in less favoured and mountainous areas, to bring their quotas up to no more than 60,000 or 100,000 kg a year respectively;
  An increase of 4 ecu in the rate of annual ewe premium in less-favoured areas.

  Meat and Bone meal Exports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what certificates are currently required by France, West Germany and Israel to accompany meat and bone meal exports from the United Kingdom; and if he will list those other countries which have made representations to him concerning the quality of such exports;

  (2) what representations he has received from other countries regarding the quality of meat and bone meal being exported from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The certification currently required is as
  follows:France—that the meat and bone meal is destined for use other than as food for ruminants:
  West Germany—application must be made to the appropriate Land authority for an import permit. This will state the particular certification which is required in each case. The Ministry is unaware that any application has been made and is not aware of any conditions which individual Laender may stipulate; and
  Israel—that the meal is derived from poultry.

  I have received no representations about the quality of United Kingdom exports.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assess the risk of transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy through pet food.

  Mr. Maclean
  Infectivity and other studies of tissues
  from BSE-affected cattle are currently being funded by MAFF at the neuropathogenesis unit and the central veterinary laboratory.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimate of the Southwood committee for the likely weekly maximum of new reported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and at what weekly level new cases are currently being reported.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report of the Southwood working party estimated that 350 to 400 new cases of BSE might occur per month. In recent months around 800 cases have been confirmed. This is consistent with the single source epidemic described by Southwood.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet determined what 78
  processes are necessary to deactivate the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in meat and bone meal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Research is in hand to try and establish the processes which might inactivate the agent of BSE.

ENERGY

  Fiddler's Ferry Power Station
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to visit Fiddler's Ferry power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  1 have no present plans to do so.

  Nottingham Coalfield
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the Nottingham coalfield.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry, including the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the rate of increase in the price of electricity to domestic customers for the year from 1 April.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the percentage increase in domestic electricity prices in April for the following 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is for the area boards to set their own domestic tariffs from 1 April this year following their contract negotiations with generators. Ministers have said that they will approve the initial contracts to ensure that the terms are reasonable.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much domestic electricity prices rose in the periods 1984 to 1989 and 1974 to 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the period December 1984 to December 1989 domestic electricity prices decreased in real terms by 8 per cent.

  In the period May 1974 to May 1979 (the last five years of the last Labour Government) domestic electricity prices increased in real terms by 9 per cent.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many people are employed in the United Kingdom's offshore oil and gas installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Provisional figures indicate that 31,000 people were employed offshore on oil and gas installations in 1989, which is some 6 per cent. higher than in 1988.

  British Coal
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
  79
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he can now announce the terms and conditions of employment of the staff of the nuclear corporation.

  Mr. Baldry
  This will be a matter for Nuclear Electric. The company will need to offer salaries and benefits sufficient to retain and recruit the skilled staff it needs to run its nuclear stations safely and efficiently.

  Deep-mined Coal
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has made any estimate of the likely production of deep-mined coal from Scottish pits in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. Business projections are a matter for British Coal.

  Energy Efficiency
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the improvement in energy efficiency in the United Kingdom since 1979; and what information he has for the rest of the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Energy consumption is virtually unchanged, but GDP has risen by 20 per cent. Between 1982 and 1986, the latest period for which European Community figures are available, our rate of improvement was twice the Community average.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed pit closures with the chairman of British Coal.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Insulation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the costs and benefits of the neighbourhood energy action community insulation programmes.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Community insulation projects have played a valuable role in combining implementation of basic insulation measures in low-income households with training for the unemployed. The Social Security Bill, which received its Second Reading on 22 January, will give my right hon. Friend powers to introduce a new scheme of grant not dependent on the availability of trainees. The costs and benefits of this scheme will be monitored and evaluated in the normal way.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any further plans to encourage home insulation.
  80
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to encourage home insulation measures.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Existing programmes by the Energy Efficiency Office to encourage and promote energy efficiency in housing include publication of relevant information and advice under the best practice programme; support for community insulation projects; marketing and publicity initiatives, targeted on low-income households and on those moving house or undertaking improvements; and liaison arrangements with professional bodies in the building sector to encourage building professionals to give greater consideration to energy efficiency in the design of buildings.

  The Social Security Bill, which received its Second Reading on 22 January, will enable my right hon. Friend to build on the arrangements to promote energy efficiency in low-income households through the introduction of a new scheme of grants.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will restore the level of investment and employment in community insulation projects to that obtaining in 1988.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The principal purpose of community insulation projects is to help those on low incomes to be more efficient in their use of energy. The Social Security Bill, which received its Second Reading on 22 January, will give my right hon. Friend powers to introduce a new scheme of grants towards the costs of insulation measures in low-income households. I expect the new scheme to increase significantly the rate at which such measures are implemented.

  Oil Production
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the prospects for oil production during 1990.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the prospects for oil production during 1990.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Prospects for the oil production industry are extremely encouraging. I expect continued recovery of oil output in 1990. Output could be up to 10 million tonnes higher than the 1989 level of 91 million tonnes.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his latest estimates of North sea oil production for each year in the 1990s.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimates of North sea oil production for each year in the 1990s.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department is currently reviewing its forecast ranges for oil production for the next five years. This will be presented to Parliament when it is available.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the prospective increase in greenhouse gases emission from all energy sources in the United Kingdom by the year 2005.
  81
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Estimates of such emissions under a wide range of scenarios for economic growth and energy prices were included in a study, carried out last year by my Department, entitled, "An evaluation of Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Measures to Ameliorate Them". This was part of the United Kingdom's input to the work of the energy and industry subgroup to the response strategies working group of the UNEP/WMO intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). A copy of the study was placed in the Library of the House on 30 November 1989; and it is to be published this week as Energy Paper 58.

  Independent Electricity Generators
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the prospects for the establishment of independent generators after the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the prospects for the establishment of independent generators after the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  The encouragement of competition in generation has always been one of the fundamental aims of our privatisation proposals. My Department is aware of around 20 major private generation projects in prospect, totalling some 7GW of capacity. The first of the new independent generating companies to take advantage of the opportunities offered as a result of our proposals is Lakeland Power, which last October signed a contract with the North Western electricity board.

  Fabrication Sector
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current and projected levels of activity in the United Kingdom fabrication sector.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  New capital expenditure in oil and gas development is estimated to reach £3·7 billion in 1990 —an increase of 75 per cent. compared with £2·1 billion in 1988—which clearly will improve the prospects for the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry, including the fabrication sector, in 1990 and beyond. Current level of fabrication activity is 229,000 tonnes.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much domestic gas prices have increased since the privatisation of the gas industry.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much domestic gas prices have increased since the privatisation of the gas industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Domestic gas prices have increased by less than 5 per cent. in current terms since privatisation. This represents a decrease of 13 per cent. in real terms.

  Energy Sources
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of his Department's research budget was spent on alternative energy sources in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In 1988–89 8·9 per cent. of my Department's research and development budget was spent on renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made with the alternative energy projects currently funded or planned by his Department in Cornwall.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are three major renewable energy research and development projects in Cornwall.

  My Department contributed to the cost of the Cornwall energy project conducted by the Cornwall county council. Proposals for specific pieces of work arising from the first study are expected.

  The geothermal hot dry rocks project operated by the Camborne School of Mines is progressing to schedule. A review of progress of the programme and future possibilities with the school is under way.

  The Central Electricity Generating Board is progressing plans for an 8MW wind farm at Cold Northcott. My Department expects to contribute up to one third of the cost.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the additional cost of the non-fossil fuel obligation subsequent to vesting d ay in the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  Customers currently pay for nuclear power in their electricity bills. The introduction of the non-fossil fuel obligation will not change this. The additional cost of meeting the obligation compared with the cost of generating the same electricity from fossil sources will be shown in the fossil fuel levy. It is too early to say what the initial size of the levy will be.

  British Gas (Disconnections)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many British Gas customers had their gas supply disconnected for debt in 1989; and what are the comparable figures for previous years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart).

  British Coal (Scottish Contracts)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with British Coal about the future of the industry in Scotland and the recent Court of Session judgments over the validity of contracts between British Coal and the South of Scotland electricity board.

  Mr. Baldry
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry. The Court of Session judgments over the validity of contracts between British Coal and the SSEB are a matter for the parties concerned.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on his policy on combined heat and power schemes.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 18 December,Official Report, column 8. I have nothing further to add.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the expenditure to date on Sizewell B nuclear power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the CEGB.

  Tidal Power
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to encourage development of tidal power projects.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department is supporting a wide-ranging programme of studies on potential tidal energy sites in the United Kingdom. The aim of the current work is to reduce the uncertainty on costs, performance and regional and environmental issues to the point where it will be possible to take decisions on whether to plan for construction.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the most up-to-date figures or estimates available to him of the tonnage of coal imports into(a) Scotland and (b) Great Britain as a whole for 1989, 1990, 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on coal imports is available for the period January to November 1989 as shown in the table. We do not produce estimates for future years.

  Million tonnes

  Scotland

  1·5

  Great Britain

  10·9

  Source Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (port of entry basis)

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his most up-to-date figures for coal imports into the United Kingdom for 1989 and his latest estimate for 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) earlier today.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of the United Kingdom coal-burn in 1989 was imported.

  Mr. Baldry
  Twelve per cent. of coal burned in the United Kingdom during the period January to November 1989—the latest period for which information is available—was imported.

  Pipelines (Shutdown Valves)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many oil and gas pipelines on the United Kingdom continental shelf have had sub-sea emergency shutdown valves fitted.
  84
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A total of 26 oil and gas pipelines to fixed offshore installations are fitted with sub-sea isolation systems. In addition, all oil and gas pipeline risers to the six floating production platforms on the United Kingdom continental shelf are fitted with these systems.

  Miners
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the number of miners on British Coal's books on 1 January 1989, 1 January 1990 and 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the level of colliery manpower on the books of British Coal by 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  For the week ended 31 December 1988 there were 85,883 men on British Coal's colliery books. The equivalent figure for the week ended 30 December 1989 was 66,059. The Government do not make estimates of future manning levels in British Coal. Such levels depend on a number of factors, including the corporation's continued ability to raise its competitiveness.

  Coal Burning
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps his Department is taking to encourage the coal mining industry to develop new methods of burning coal.

  Mr. Baldry
  British Coal has an international reputation for research and development into new methods of burning coal and an impressive record of introducing new ideas commercially in association with plant manufacturers. Government support for pre-commercial research and development on new combustion technologies is made available from time to time as appropriate, such as at British Coal's Grimethorpe facility, where £ 17 million was provided for pressurised fluidised bed combustion over the period 1976 to 1984, and up to a further £8 million offered last year for a three-year programme on British Coal's topping cycle concept.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the level of investment in energy conservation by the(a) domestic, (b) industrial and (c) public sectors over the next five years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Investment in energy efficiency measures is a matter for individual consumers and the information requested is not available; where the Government are directly responsible, we have begun a campaign which is expected to lead to Government Departments increasing their investment in energy efficiency by up to 10 per cent. of their annual expenditure on energy.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the national nuclear company; and what matters he proposes to discuss.
  85
  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend and I intend to meet the chairman of Nuclear Electric whenever necessary to discuss matters of concern to Nuclear Electric.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what future plans his Department has for the development of the nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 18 December 1989, column 6.

  Non-smokers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The only premises for which my Department has prime responsibility are its headquarters at I Palace street, SW1. The policy there is that staff are asked to refrain from smoking in offices where there is a non-smoker; and that smoking is not allowed in most common areas of the building. The operation of these arrangements will be kept under review in consultation with staff.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make it his policy that the prospectuses for the sale of shares in National Power and PowerGen include the commitment to instal flue gas desulphurisation in 12,000 MW of generating capacity to achieve the EC target of 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that Britain's electricity-generating industry pursues the EC programme of installing flue gas desulphurisation in 12,000 MW of generating capacity to achieve the 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions by 2003;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to ensure that National Power and PowerGen complete the EC programme of flue gas desulphurisation to cut sulphur dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by the year 2003;

  (4) what consultation he (a) has had and (b) expects to have regarding the British electricity-generating industry's programme to instal flue gas desulphurisation in 12,000 MW of capacity to achieve the EC target of 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions by the year 2003.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are determined to implement in full the EC large combustion plants directive. This directive commits the United Kingdom to reduce its emissions of sulphur dioxide (and nitrogen oxides) from existing plants, such as fossil-fuelled power stations, but does not specify the means by which this should be done. Retrofitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment will play 86
  a major part in this, but the burning of low sulphur fuels, including gas, may also contribute. The prospectuses for the sale of National Power and PowerGen will explain how they plan to achieve the reductions required of them. The Government invited public comment last August on their plans to implement the directive. Further consultation will take place before a plan for reductions of emissions from existing plants is issued.

  Imported Electricity (France)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if supplies of French nuclear-generated electricity imported via the cross-Channel interconnector will be included within the non-fossil fuel quota of electricity supplied to the grid in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what steps he will be taking to ensure that there is no subsidisation of nuclear-generated electricity purchased from Electricité de France under the arrangements for the non-fossil fuel quota.

  Mr. Baldry
  The cross-Channel link was built to be used for electricity trading in both directions and mutual assistance. Recent trading has been in both directions. Negotiations are taking place with Electricité de France for these arrangements to continue in future. Given the interruptible nature of these arrangements, imports through the link will not qualify for inclusion in the non-fossil fuel obligation. Electricity sales through the link will be on a fully commercial basis, without subsidy.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total in(a) GWh, and (b) cost, of electricity imported from France via the cross-Channel interconnector in 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  Figures for the whole year are not yet available. For the first 11 months of 1989, imports totalled 13,210 GWh with a value of £285·3 million1.

  I understand that figures for December will show the United Kingdom was a net exporter of electricity to France.

  1 Source: Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Director General of Electricity Supply
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the cost to the public purse for the office of the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Mr. Baldry
  The costs of the Office of Electricity Regulation will be recovered through fees to be paid by the electricity industry.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the total cost of establishing the office of the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 26 January 1990, at column 904.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Tate Gallery Collection
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many pictures are on display in the Tate Gallery, how many are in store, and how many are on loan to official and public buildings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I understand from the Tate Gallery that, as a result of the new hanging, which aims to put on display many works previously in store, there are currently about 660 pictures on display. Approximately 4,000 pictures are in store and some 250 are on loan. The new hanging is a comprehensive and impressive re-ordering and re-presentation of the gallery's collection and was opened last week by the Prime Minister. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has been pleased to add £100,000 in 1990–91 to the generous sponsorship of British Petroleum PLC.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those interesting figures. Is he aware that under legislation for which I was responsible about 30 years ago, the Tate Gallery has full authority to lend pictures to bodies in official and public buildings? Does the Minister not agree that it would be better that more pictures should be on display in such buildings where some people can see them rather than to have them stored where nobody can?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are aware of my noble friend's innovative and creative concept as it was originally expounded, and
2
I am sure that great public buildings should take advantage of that possibility. I also point out to your Lordships that in 1979 the gallery space was increased by about 50 per cent., with the addition of the Clore Gallery, which contributed 15 per cent., together with phase one of the Tate Gallery at Liverpool, which contributed 35 per cent. That is a very substantial increase in a mere decade.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not a fact that when the Prime Minister opened the reorganised Tate Gallery last week, she said that the Government had the task of trying to keep the great galleries open with the help of the taxpayers? It is quite right that paintings should be loaned to regional and other museums; but does the Minister not agree that that entails additional cost, which makes matters very difficult for the museums and galleries and particularly difficult for the Tate? Does the Minister not agree that, unless the Government assist by giving extra public money, it is very hard to get private sponsors to contribute?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that in the past decade the financial commitment of this Government has increased by about 40 per cent. in real terms. The initiative announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Arts only a few months ago of the provision of about a further £200 million is a sure sign of the commitment of this Government to the matters which she has just raised.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as regards the 4,000 pictures which do not see the light of day, is it not possible for two or three of them to be spared to brighten up the Barry Room? Can the Minister say whether, of those 4,000 pictures, there are some that will probably never be on display? In that case, does the Minister not agree that it would be in the public interest, from several points of view, if they were put on the market?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope that I can supply good news to my noble friend. It is a fact that I

3
observed the chairman of the refreshment committee in deep and important conversation with the director of the Tate Gallery. I believe that the Barry Room is gratefully going to be in receipt —if I can speak on behalf of those simple walls as they stand —of about five pictures from the Tate in the not too distant future.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that entirely on its own initiative the Tate Gallery has increased its hanging space quite enormously? That has been achieved by, first, building a magnificent new gallery on Millbank; and, secondly, by creating a gallery in Liverpool twice as large which was visited by over 1 million people in the first year of opening. Does the Minister not agree that that is a matter for rejoicing and praise rather than for crabbing criticism? Regarding selling pictures, does the Minister not further agree that it would be a disaster for the trustees, who look after paintings and works of art for the nation, to sell pictures when the particular taste of the time created an atmosphere which was for disliking one type of painting rather than another? Will the Minister inform the noble Lord who asked this Question that one of the functions of the Tate Gallery, as a national museum of modern art, is to acquire what is best and most significant in each decade —
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington:—works which then become part of the heritage of this country, and that that is their overwhelming duty?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have never made any carping criticism of the Tate Gallery. In my Answer today, I went out of my way to give praise. Concerning the policy of the Tate Gallery, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, would be the first to stand up in protest if I were to insinuate that the Office of Arts and Libraries was in any way to interfere with that policy.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I ask my noble friend the Minister to use his best endeavours and influence—perhaps with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota —to see that J. S. Copley's painting of the Great Siege of Gibraltar, on loan to the convent from the Tate Gallery, remains in Gibraltar, where it should rightly reside.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly take my noble friend's remarks to heart and draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can consideration be given to showing more pictures from the Chantry Bequest, especially as taste has now changed and these paintings are much more appreciated than they were some years ago? They are hardly ever seen; and many have never been shown.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think it would be probably more than fair if I were to give a commitment to the House to draw the Hansard
4
report of this Question to the attention of the director of the Tate Gallery so that he can make his own decisions with regard to it.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is it not quite incredible that 4,000 paintings are stored in the vaults of one gallery? How long are they destined to stay there? Why cannot more of them be circulated through the regional galleries?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are enjoyable problems and there are disagreeable ones. It is an enjoyable problem that this country has a treasure house unequalled anywhere in the world.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that the director has already said that he intends to rotate the paintings so that for six months some paintings will be on display and then for the next six months another set will be on display? That is one of the ways in which the 4,000 paintings said to be in storage will be seen. They are not really in storage; they are being rotated.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. I have gone to some trouble this afternoon not to prejudge decisions made by the director and the trustees of the gallery.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what proposals the trustees themselves have for this large quantity of pictures that are never seen? Do they hold out any hope that they will ever be seen? How many public buildings can be expected to take on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? What is proposed for this huge sunken galleon of pictures which lies apparently in the vaults of the Tate?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, all noble Lords will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for the point that he made earlier. We do not have a sunken galleon; we have a great reserve which is rotated.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not also a fact that the director has stated that anyone is entitled to see the paintings in storage, though not perhaps under such advantageous circumstances as obtain in the National Gallery, where the paintings in storage are hung very well? Nevertheless, they can be seen by anyone who wishes to do so.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that is correct.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that however frequently the pictures are rotated it still means that 4,000 are at any one time not visible except under the special arrangements to which the noble Lord referred? Will he encourage the directors of the Tate Gallery to be a little quicker and a little more willing in the lending of pictures to official buildings where there is of course no question of the expense that is involved in respect of provincial galleries?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my right honourable

5
friend. I remind my noble friend that for there to be a lender, there also has to be a happy borrower.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, in America recently I was offered for the Tate Gallery the portrait of the wife of Sir Henry Tate, the benefactor who founded the gallery. However, the owners of the portrait say that they will be happy to give it to the Tate Gallery if the gallery will hang it. It is the companion portrait to that of Sir Henry Tate which has at last been hung in the gallery. Does the Minister realise that the fame of the gallery in the sense of having too many pictures stored away has crossed the Atlantic and is not confined to this country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, again I have to point out that it is not the Government's policy to interfere with the picture hanging policy of the director and the trustees of the gallery.

National Insurance Fund: Estimates
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present deficit on the National Insurance Fund and how much of it is due to incentives paid to individuals opting for personal pensions instead of remaining in the state earnings-related pension scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the fund's overall balance remains in surplus. The Government Actuary estimates this as £9·4 billion; that is 34 per cent. of annual expenditure on benefits and twice his recommended minimum. There is though a declining balance in the fund. Incentives paid to individuals to encourage take up of personal pensions amount to approximately 1·7 per cent. of fund income.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that according to a report in the Financial Times of 19th January a large deficit of £1·7 billion is forecast by the Government actuary for the coming financial year? Moreover, it would appear that the Government are expected to pay out £804 million this year and £615 million next year to persons opting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. Does he not agree that there is something rather immoral about the Government using public funds in this way to encourage people to take out personal pensions which may not meet their proper expectations and may result in their having to opt back into SERPS at some time in the future?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take it from the noble Baroness's remarks that she does not accept the fact that our personal pensions initiative has been a huge success. On this side of the House we are delighted that so many people are taking the opportunity of making alternative provision for their retirement. In the longer term that will dramatically reduce the cost of SERPS.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the National Insurance Fund is now in surplus to the extent of £9·4 billion, is it not time that state retirement pensions were granted a substantial increase in order to make up the leeway which people have lost over the past 10 years through not having their pensions related to average earnings?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, the fund is in surplus at present. However, as I have said, that surplus is declining and will shortly —that is, by about 1991–92—fall below the recommended minimum of 16 per cent. which the Government Actuary sets.
Lord Jay: My Lords, if there is a declining balance and an expected deficit in the fund, why have the Government abolished altogether the Treasury contribution to the fund which has been a fundamental support for the system ever since it was set up?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Treasury supplement was abolished in line with the principle that contributory benefits should be funded from contribution income and not general taxation. That is the case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister kindly answer the question put by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden? Where does the money come from to persuade people to contract out of SERPS? Is it from the Consolidated Fund or is it from the National Insurance Fund?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, there is a 2 per cent. incentive which is derived from the National Insurance Fund. Indeed, it has been coming from there since 1987 and will continue until 1993.

Chemistry: Teacher Training Bursary
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the extension of the bursary scheme for teacher training to chemistry has proved successful.
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, we believe it has. In 1987 there were 376 recruits to postgraduate chemistry courses. In 1988 there were 334. In 1989, the first year of the chemistry bursary, the numbers increased to 383.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. I received a letter this morning from the Royal Society of Chemistry which stated that it has long pressed the Government as regards the introduction of this bursary scheme for chemistry and that it welcomes the Government's decision, taken a year ago, to do so. The society believes that the bursary

7
scheme has had a beneficial effect and states that last year the highest figure in enrolments for six years was reached. I am personally especially interested in the teaching of sciences and chemistry.
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend to comment upon the general teaching supply situation because, although we want children to be scientifically educated, we also wish them to be broadly educated in the humanities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the statement from the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is always most useful at this point in a scheme to have some feedback. As regards teachers generally, over the country as a whole there are sufficient primary school teachers and a few problems with shortages. Nevertheless, there are problems in some areas, especially inner London. Recruitment to primary initial teacher training continues to be buoyant and there should be sufficient teachers overall to meet demand in the future.
However, I think it is well known, by virtue of a Question which I answered last week, that there are some difficulties in secondary schools as regards particular specialist subjects.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to inform the House how many of the people taking up these bursaries are women? I ask that because, as the noble Baroness will know, there is a shortage of science teachers in girls' schools and this leads to a difficult situation in producing sufficient women graduates in the subject.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to give a specific answer to that question. However, I should like to think that following the introduction of the national curriculum —that is, treating all boys and girls equally —we shall see no differential between the two sexes.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the DES forecast a shortfall of 2,000 chemistry teachers by 1995? Further, has this prediction been updated? Moreover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, mentioned the Royal Society of Chemistry, is she also aware that the society is still not satisfied with the position and that it is hoping that the DES will fund certain in-service training initiatives involving the Open University? Can the Minister tell us whether such training will be introduced?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not aware of the specific information to which the noble Baroness referred. However, I can confirm that there were difficulties with this particular subject. That is why the Government introduced the bursary scheme in the first place. There are encouraging signs that the bursary scheme is working and I hope that it will continue to do so. It is worth repeating that, as the implementation of the national curriculum settles
8
down in our schools, a better flow of chemists will result.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the DES has reviewed the effectiveness of the bursary scheme? I ask that question because initially a number of students changed over to the scheme in order to receive the £1,300 tax free allowance and thereafter the intake dropped slightly. Further, is there any proposal for review, as there are other shortage subjects?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point out the difficulty as to whether the scheme is working. The Government are constantly reviewing the situation. Indeed, it was as a result of the review that chemistry was brought into the bursary scheme and it is likely that other shortage subjects will be included. Therefore, I can promise her that review is a continuing process.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, reverting to the question of general subjects, can the Minister give us any idea of what proportion of teachers in inner London are deterred from remaining in the area because they cannot afford to live there?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, I cannot answer the specific question. However, I know that accommodation is a particular issue in inner London. The cost of housing is a problem but the hope is that as the housing market settles down it will become much easier for teachers to make that decision. However, I also know that the Government are addressing the problem, together with local education authorities.

Ferranti plc: Defence Interests Sale
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they were aware of the proposed sale by Ferranti plc of their defence interests to GEC plc while they were negotiating with the West German Government over the award of the radar system contract for the European fighter aircraft.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the companies informed the Ministry of Defence that discussions were taking place in advance of the announcement of the proposed acquisition on 23rd January.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. However, is he aware that, despite that fact, there are still some unpleasant and disturbing aspects in the whole affair? Can he confirm absolutely that the Germans were aware of the negotiations well in time? Further, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the creation of such a massive monopoly would be quite contrary to their philosophy of competition?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did have useful and constructive discussions on many issues with his German counterpart, when he was here last week. These naturally included the European fighter aircraft. Both gentleman agreed that the EFA is the best solution to meet the requirements of their airforces in the second half of the 1990s and beyond. There was also a useful exchange of views on the EFA radar upon which, contrary to speculation, no decisions were made.
As regards the noble Lord's point about competition, I must tell the House that it is entirely the responsibility of the supply company to determine the appointment of its workforce; in other words, it is a commercial judgment at the end of the day. Obviously, it would be most satisfactory if the decision or the prize were given to this country rather than to Germany. However, the decision has yet to be made.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House, now that this exercise has effectively created a monopoly, what proposals the Government have in mind to ensure and guarantee that the taxpayer will have the benefit of reasonable and realistic pricing?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord, Lord Dean, on that point. It is not a monopoly situation; indeed, the decision has not yet been decided. The competition implications will be examined by the Director General of Fair Trading and considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The important point I wish to make is that no decision has as yet been made. Moreover, if the matter is referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the decision will be made at that time.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister deal with the main thrust of the Question? Were the Germans made aware of the possibility of the arrangements that became known later at the time the European fighter project was being considered? Will he also tell the House what steps the Government have taken to ensure the protection of the maximum number of jobs? Are the Government concerned that in any such arrangements whereby there are new alignments of management it is inevitable that some job fall-out will take place? What have they done to ensure that that is kept to the minimum?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have just given an answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question. I repeat again, as regards the workforce, it is a commercial judgment as to where the supply contractor deploys his workforce in the event of the prize being given. That is all that I can say on that point.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that far from the German authorities not being aware of the proposed bid, GEC is to be congratulated on making the bid, without which it is almost
10
inconceivable that the United Kingdom would have obtained the order?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in the cirumstances it seems a sensible decision.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House which view the Ministry of Defence will express to the Director General of Fair Trading via the Merger Panel? As he is aware and has said, the Director General of Fair Trading has to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State is advised by the Merger Panel upon which the Ministry of Defence is represented. What advice will the Ministry give? Will it give the advice that it gave in respect of the Plessey takeover in 1986 where it said that defence should not be a monopoly situation? Will it give the advice in respect of the GEC takeover of Plessey in 1988 where it advised that it did not matter whether it was a monopoly situation? Which of the two positions will the Minister take?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a long question which is based on speculation. I am not at the Dispatch Box to answer speculative questions on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is hoped that jobs will be created not just in Edinburgh but throughout the country? If the apprehensions felt by the management, professional bodies and trade unions materialise, will the Government then seek to discuss those matters with the bodies that I have mentioned?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again that question is based on speculation. If the outcome is successful, it will be for the commercial judgment of the supply contractor who wins the prize, as I have said, to decide, obviously in conjunction with its trade unions, where its workforce will go.
Lord Annan: My Lords, are we not moving into another ball game in which we have to ask ourselves not merely whether there is a monopoly in this country but whether there is a monopoly in the European Community? Our firms must be able to compete satisfactorily with other firms in Europe even if they form a monopoly in this country.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a reasonable point. Of course at the end of the day it is for the commercial decision of the supply contractors, and indeed of the Government, as to where they obtain their procurement.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Hillsborough stadium disaster.

11
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment a Motion to withdraw the code of practice on the implementation of the Mental Health Act 1983 will be taken.

Capital Allowances Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a pure consolidation of enactments all relating to capital allowances and is the first consolidation on that subject since 1968. It is the first consolidation Bill in this Session for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is particularly appropriate that once again on this occasion I should offer my thanks and I am sure those of the House to the draftsmen for continuing their important work on consolidation. If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 24 [Rights of audience]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 139ZG
Page 18, line 37, leave out ("only").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 139ZH. The two amendments seek merely to correct the grammar in the drafting of the clause, which is capable of improvement and which may give rise to misunderstanding. The amendments clarify the fact that a person shall have a right of audience before a court in relation to any proceedings only in the cases listed in subsection (2) and not,
"a person shall only have a right of audience before a court",
as opposed to having a right to conduct litigation or in any other relations in respect of that court in the cases listed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 139ZH:
Page 18, line 38, after ("proceedings") insert ("only").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No 139ZJ:
Page 18, line 40, leave out ("is granted a") and insert ("has a subsisting").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 139ZK. Now that the two previous amendments have been wisely moved by my noble and learned friend, subsection (2) will read as follows if my two amendments are also accepted:
"A person shall have a right of audience before a court in relation to any proceedings only in the following cases: (a) where he has a subsisting right of audience before that court in relation to those proceedings granted by the appropriate authorised body".
The clause then gives another circumstance in which there would be a right of audience.
The drafting of paragraph (a)(i) of subsection (2) would read better if my amendments were made; but the fundamental reason I am putting them forward is that, if a person ceases to be entitled to exercise a right of audience because of a disciplinary step that has been taken in relation to him resulting in expulsion or suspension by the relevant authorised body, clearly the statutory right granted by Clause 24 should lapse. I should have thought that that was a simple proposition which should be reflected in the drafting. If my amendments make that point clear, I hope that they will commend themselves to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. As a matter of precaution it is clearly right that the word "subsisting" should be incorporated, although it may not be strictly necessary.
The Lord Chancellor: There is nothing between my noble friend and I on the policy of this matter; it is just a question of how it is effected. It is intended that the authorities' disciplinary powers should be preserved. If my noble friend will allow me, I shall consider how best this should be done. I am grateful to him for putting these amendments down.
Lord Renton: I am so glad to find myself in agreement with my noble and learned friend. I am grateful to him for his further offer of consideration and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 139ZK not moved.]
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 139A:
Page 19, line 11, at end insert —
("(2A) Subsection (2)(e) shall not extend to appearances as, or on behalf of, a Crown Prosecutor in relation to any application relating to bail in criminal proceedings,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to rectify what I suggest is a quite unjustifiable provision in the Bill. Clause 24 makes it clear that

13
a person may only have a right of audience in relation to any proceedings if granted such a right by an authorised body which must be designated in accordance with the complex provisions of Clause 26 and Schedule 4.
Tucked away in Clause 77 —and no doubt this clause will be reached at some time in the middle of the night —one sees that bail applications are dealt with. It is proposed to give the Director of Public Prosecutions a privileged exception to the clause. That is, a power to designate non-qualified clerks or officials employed in the prosecution service to have rights of audience when bail applications are made to a judge in the Supreme Court, whether in the High Court or in the Crown Courts. That is, applications for bail or for the varying of bail conditions.
In due course, I shall oppose the Question that Clause 77 stand part of the Bill. But even if the Committee were to agree that that immediate exception is unwarranted, Clause 24(2)(e) appears to allow the same thing to occur, as it were, through the back door. If Clause 77 is to go, then this door should also be closed. It is for that reason that I suggest that this is the time for the Committtee to debate the principle which is involved.
The Act that created the Crown Prosecution Service —the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 —made it clear that the conduct of all proceedings in criminal matters was to be in the hands of qualified lawyers. However, because of underfunding and the continuing difficulty of obtaining sufficient qualified staff, the DPP began using more and more unqualified clerks to carry out work that should have been done by professionally qualified staff. Eventually, in 1988, he was taken to court. The Divisional Court held that what he was doing in his office was ultra vires and unlawful.
In this Bill the Government seek to override that decision of the Divisional Court. They seek to override the terms of the Prosecution of Offences Act, and to override this clause and Schedule 4. They are giving the DPP the right to grant rights of audience to any member of his staff in a crucial area of public interest: the granting or refusing of bail.
Decisions on bail raise acute questions of personal liberty on the one hand and the public interest on the other. With current delays, a refusal of bail may mean the equivalent of a sentence of imprisonment of one month, six months, nine months or 12 months, even up to two years, for a person who has not even been tried. Equally, a grant of bail to the wrong person may result in the commission of serious offences against the public before a trial is reached.
The most recent figures for 1988 show that 48,000 people were remanded in custody awaiting trial. Of those, 19,000 were ultimately acquitted or given non-custodial sentences. That is, 40 per cent. of those persons who had been remanded in custody. In that year, 19,000 people served periods of imprisonment, none of whom was sentenced by a court of law; and, as the inspector of prisons has repeatedly pointed out, they served their time in the worst conditions of overcrowding in the whole prison service.
This is a shocking state of affairs. It shows that something is radically wrong with our procedures relating to applications for bail. In themselves, those figures indicate that it would be absolutely the wrong moment for the Divisional Court and the statute to be overriden in this way. The handling of these applications is of paramount importance. At this early stage in the process, the onus rests pre-eminently on the prosecution to provide the court with all the relevant and accurate information on which to base its considered opinion.
Surely presentation calls for a professional advocate. It involves, among other things, a full knowledge of the case; the seriousness of the charges; the likelihood of conviction; the likelihood of a custodial sentence; a detached assessment of the police evidence; what reliance is to be placed on the confessions which are alleged, and so on; the likelihood of witnesses being interfered with; the legal aspects of the case; the sufficiency of evidence; and points of law on which the whole case may founder in the end. The advocate at that stage must be ready to cross-examine defence witnesses who are called, and to test and to reply to submissions made on behalf of the applicant, often by a defence advocate of great experience.
Competence, experience and knowledge are all essential. The applications are made in chambers where no transcript is kept and of course the public are not present. It is important therefore that in such proceedings, where the liberty of the subject is an issue, the applications should be scrupulously and professionally handled.
Paragraph 3.18 of the White Paper says that this work has hitherto been entirely satisfactory. I do not know what "hitherto" means; it must mean before the creation of the CPS. I do not know where the noble and learned Lord finds the evidence that such work was entirely satisfactory. From my own experience, and what I have heard, it is precisely the opposite.
No doubt the provision appears in the Bill at the behest of the DPP. We all know that the CPS is hopelessly understaffed and overworked, and that using unqualified clerks and other staff would no doubt lighten the load. However, the White Paper says that to use clerks in this way,
"is an efficient use of resources".
That is surely a chilling phrase and I am afraid that it is indicative of much of the thinking behind the Bill. What the phrase really means is that because of chronic underfunding, the Crown Prosecution Service cannot fulfil its statutory duties. So the right to use unqualified staff is sought at the expense of the public and the proper administration. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to support the amendment for every reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. It is difficult to make a good bail application. It is almost as difficult as making a good plea in mitigation. It affects the liberty of the subject. I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to keep an open mind, as he always does, on the merits of this problem. I wish to advert

15
briefly to the problem —this is a purely personal problem —which arises as regards Clause 24(3). I simply do not know what the words,
"for reasons which apply to him as an individual",
mean. I do not know what they could mean or how they could be interpreted.
It appears that we are to equate the most experienced Silk at the Bar with some kind of clerk employed by an authorised body. If such be the new egalitarian approach so be it, but the following questions arise. What do the words,
"for reasons which apply to him as an individual",
mean? Is it right that in anything which concerns the liberty of the subject there should not be some safeguard for proper, efficient, informed and totally expert representation?
Lord Mishcon: In rising to support the amendment I do not intend to repeat all the good reasons that were advanced so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I merely add another reason for submission to the Committee, which is that one of the main reasons for setting up the Crown Prosecution Service, with which everyone in this Chamber agreed, was that there should be an effective service independent of the police which would make judgments on a professional basis. We thought that such judgments would therefore be seen to be fair as well as, we hoped, actually being fair. It requires a great deal of courage, even if a clerk had the necessary experience, to go against the view of the police that bail should be opposed. It needs a professional man with professional experience and knowledge to make that important decision. I add that as another reason to the many cogent reasons which were advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Renton: It is a tradition of the Bar that when prosecuting we should never be persecutors. That tradition has been followed, generation after generation, as a result of the training and upbringing of members of the Bar. I am not saying that those who have not had that training are incapable of learning, but if we want to be sure that justice is maintained and that the wise practices which have prevailed in the past are continued, we must step very warily. I wish to support this amendment for that reason.
I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, on spotting the fact that unless his amendment to Clause 24 were made, difficulties would arise when we came to leave out Clause 77 which he proposes that we should do. In order that we may keep an open mind on Clause 77 we need to have this amendment here now. The other point I wish to emphasise —this point has already been made —is that surely disappointing experience has shown that the Crown Prosecution Service already has more than enough to do preparing cases without adding to those who have that responsibility the burden of appearing in court. I think that my noble and learned friend would be very wise to accept this amendment or something like it.
Lord Wigoder: I wish to add one brief observation in support of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson. It is quite right and natural that emphasis should be placed upon the fact that great hardship can be caused to a defendant if his application for bail is wrongly refused. Equally, as my noble friend has mentioned, there is a matter of great significance to the community involved here because there have been cases, many of which will occur to the minds of Members of the Committee, where defendants who have applied for bail have been released on bail and have committed serious offences while on bail. The only inference I draw from those two facts is that the judge who is trying the issue is entitled to all the help he can get from both sides. That means in this case the help of professionally qualified people to assist him in coming to what is often a difficult conclusion.
Lord Coleraine: I also wish to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I believe that the experience of all solicitors who practise in the criminal courts, as I do not, leads firmly to the conclusion that it is absolutely vital that those who make decisions whether or not to oppose bail and those who present the case to the court against bail should be suitably qualified people and not the kind of people envisaged by this clause.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I also wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I feel strongly that in this particular case of bail, after having for many years tried to solve the problem myself, it is vital for the man or woman concerned that he or she should have legally qualified representatives, especially in the case of the judge in chambers where, as the noble Lord has said, no members of the public are admitted and very few notes are kept. Those two factors together make it vitally important that this amendment should be added to the Bill.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has throughout our discussions rightly impressed on us the fact that one of the central purposes of the Bill is to improve the service to what he and I prefer to describe as the client but which many people refer to as the consumer. I should have thought that in this context the anxieties that some clients or consumers may feel that their case may be put in a second rate way should be a cogent thought in all our minds. From the point of view of the chap who has to try and get bail, he is entitled to the best counsel going. He would have little confidence in persons whom the Bill proposes to allow to conduct cases.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand the matters that have been raised as regards Clause 77. Some Members of the Committee may be under the apprehension that I am proposing in Clause 77 to allow a defendant to be represented in this way. Clause 77 allows the Director of Public Prosecutions to designate certain officials employed by the Crown Prosecution Service who are not legally qualified to make representations in bail applications if acting on the instructions of a Crown Prosecutor. In other words, the Crown Prosecutor would be in charge

17
of the situation but the person designated by the Director of Public Prosecutions would be able to present the application, even if he were not qualified. That is the purpose of Clause 77.
Clause 24 is certainly not appropriate to cover that matter. Clause 24(2)(e) is intended to deal with a solicitor's clerk —that is, a clerk employed by a solicitor —
"or corresponding employee of a recognised body".
The latter refers to a solicitor's incorporated practice. I submit to the Committee that that clause could not cover a person employed as part of the Crown Prosecution Service. Such a person would not come under the definition of a solicitor's clerk.
The rights of audience preserved under Clause 24(2)(e) are rights of audience for solicitors' clerks in chambers in the High Court in circumstances which have existed for very many years and which were confirmed as long ago as in the case of Vimbos Ltd v. Meadowcroft in 1901. There is no intention whatever of Clause 24(2)(e) applying to that. The idea is that the matter should be dealt with in an appropriate substantive clause, such as Clause 77. I have heard what has been said on the matter covered by Clause 77. I should certainly like an opportunity of conferring further upon it.
As to this particular clause, in my submission the person who is described in Clause 77 is not a person who would come under the category of a solicitor's clerk or corresponding employee of an incorporated practice within the meaning of the clause.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: Would the noble and learned Lord agree that whereas an "authorised body" is defined in the Bill, that is not true of a "recognised body?" I may be wrong about that, and if so I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. Even if it is so defined, is he quite sure that a recognised body would not cover the Crown Prosecution Service?
The Lord Chancellor: The definition of "recognised body" is contained in Clause 81, which reads:
"'recognised body' means a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated practices)".
I intend to modify the definition for another reason. However that is the definition which applies for the purposes of the clause and it is intended to cover incorporated practices. I do not believe that that could possibly cover the Crown Prosecution Service. Naturally I shall make certain in view of what has been said.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My noble and learned friend did not answer the question which I asked. To save time I shall not ask him to answer now. I asked what was meant by:
"for reasons which apply to him as an individual".
I merely ask that he takes the matter on board with a view to excising it from the clause at some future stage.
The Lord Chancellor: I apologise. I dealt with the main point and I should, of course, have answered
18
my noble friend. The circumstances that I have in mind are unruliness or similar behaviour. One can envisage circumstances in which a person who has rights of audience may not be in sufficiently good health at the time or may be in an unruly mood on the day in question. The intention is to preserve the judge's power of control in his own court. The right of audience should not be regarded as in any sense overriding that. That is the purpose of the provision and I am happy to improve the way in which it is described. The Committee will appreciate that the subsection may have to describe a variety of different circumstances.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may mention a matter which is relevant to that point, although perhaps neither that nor what I have to say is relevant to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked what was meant by
"for reasons which apply to him as an individual".
The most obvious and serious example, albeit not a common one, is where someone seeks to address the court on behalf of another but has himself been made subject to an order under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 as a vexatious litigant. Under the 1981 Act it was never contemplated that somebody who was a vexatious litigant so found could be employed to appear in the superior courts on behalf of others. Accordingly that section is restricted to appearing as a litigant in person.
It seems to me that a judge would be fully entitled, when faced with a litigant in person seeking to exercise rights of advocacy before a tribunal, for example, quite apart from a court, to say that under subsection (3) he would not hear the litigant for reasons which applied to him as an individual and giving reasons under subsection (4). I mention the matter because, as I have already told my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I should hope that there could be an express statutory provision dealing with the matter to avoid the judge having to labour the matter and give those special reasons.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the interpretation of paragraph (e). Yet again —and it will not be the last time in the Bill —one has been misled as to the possible interpretation of the meaning of the words used. However, having regard to what the noble and learned Lord has said and the clear interpretation he has given to those words, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his observations about Clause 77. It may be that the discussion we have had today will shorten the discussion when we come to Clause 77. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): In order that we may take the Statement, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hillsborough Disaster: Inquiry Report
3.36 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place about the final report of Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the tragedy at the Hillsborough stadium on 15th April 1989, which is published today.
"Some months have passed since that terrible event but not long enough, I know, to dull the pain suffered by the bereaved, and I wish to place on record my sympathy for them and for those who sustained injury. I am most grateful to Lord Justice Taylor for the report which sets out clearly why we have had so many major tragedies at football grounds over the years and why we have had disorder and hooliganism. As the House familiarises itself with the report, it will become clear that it is addressed as much to the football industry as it is to the Government. Lord Justice Taylor explains how in his interim report he concentrated on overcrowding because that was the cause of the Hillsborough disaster, but now he goes on to talk of a game, the image of which has become much tarnished, and of a blight over the game due to old grounds, poor facilities, hooliganism, excessive drinking and poor leadership.
"Lord Justice Taylor does not spare those who run the industry. He says indeed that the provision they make for their customers is often not merely basic but squalid, and he says that squalid conditions can have an impact on safety and that in his view they also lead to lower standards of behaviour.
"Lord Justice Taylor says that the Football Association and the Football League have not seen it as any part of their duty to offer guidance to clubs on safety matters, and he questions whether the directors of many clubs are genuinely interested in the welfare of their own supporters or their good behaviour. Players too are criticised, with Lord Justice Taylor pointing out that incitement from the pitch or bad behaviour by players, which is not confined to soccer, has a major influence on the crowd. I acknowledge that some clubs have made an effort to improve standards, but Lord Justice Taylor's clear conclusion was that the majority had not and that the game only has a future if the directors and the players can change their own priorities and give a leadership which is plainly lacking at present.
"He agrees with the Government that there must be a move towards all-seater stadia and points out that Section 11 of the Football Spectators Act specifically provides the machinery for this. The change will improve safety and will improve behaviour, and we intend to bring it about. Lord Justice Taylor makes clear that the bulk of the finances for ground improvements will have to be raised by the clubs themselves. He says there are many ways of raising the money if the clubs' management is enterprising and resourceful
20
add he points to the opportunities presented by sponsorship. He also points to the revenue that flows to the football authorities for television rights and says that the football authorities should ensure that this valuable source of revenue is directed towards improving stadia. He canvasses the possibility of a levy on transfer fees which he says have reached a level which many regard as grotesque.
"There are a whole series of detailed recommendations set out in chapters 3, 4 and 5 on matters relating to spectator safety such as gates and gangways. Indeed, of the 76 recommendations, 43 in substance appeared in the interim report. The Government accept these proposals, some of which can be implemented immediately. Some will need further work. For convenience I have placed in the Vote Office a schedule setting out the Government's response to each.
"Honourable Members will recall that Section 13 of the Football Spectators Act provides for the Football Licensing Authority to supervise the safety responsibilities of local authorities in respect of designated football grounds. We intend to implement that provision. Lord Justice Taylor welcomes the establishment of the Football Licensing Authority but would like us to go further and extend its remit to cover other than football grounds. This would require primary legislation and we will have to consider whether it is justified.
"Part III of the report contains a number of proposals relating to crowd control and hooliganism. It acknowledges the crucial role of the police in crowd control. Lord Justice Taylor rightly reminds us that, without the work of the police, many sporting events would be chaotic and could not be permitted to take place. Something like 5,000 police officers are engaged on football duties each Saturday during the season, largely at the expense of the taxpayer and ratepayer. He pays tribute to them for their service. I want to add my thanks to the police for the way they carry out the difficult, thankless and often unthanked tasks which are thrust upon them.
"The report recognises the advances made in the last couple of years in the effectiveness of the policing of football, particularly inside grounds, and to the major impact of closed circuit television on the hooligan problem. It also mentions other measures taken by the Government such as the restriction on the sale of alcohol and the power given to the courts to make orders excluding convicted hooligans from grounds.
"Lord Justice Taylor also recognises the great potential value of the police national football intelligence unit in dealing with football-related crime and with hooligans travelling to matches abroad.
"As I have said, Lord Justice Taylor takes the view that better facilities and better treatment of fans will bring better behaviour. Beyond that, the report recommends the creation of three new specific offences to apply at designated sports grounds: throwing a missile; chanting obscene or

21
racialist abuse; and going on to the pitch without a reasonable excuse: and it also asks for consideration to be given to extending the courts' powers to impose attendance centre orders and for the use of electronic tagging in the case of offenders convicted of football-related offences. The specific new offences suggested do to some extent seem to duplicate offences which are already available in the Public Order Act. But I shall look carefully and quickly at all these suggestions.
"I now come to the proposed football membership scheme. Lord Justice Taylor examined the invitation to tender for a scheme which was issued by the consultants employed by the football authorities. He came to the conclusion that he could not support a scheme of that kind because he did not believe the technology would work well enough to avoid the danger of congestion and disorder. He was also concerned about the call on police resources. Instead he proposes the measures to which I have referred.
"In the light of this advice, the Government have decided not to proceed with the establishment of a football membership authority, but Part I of the Act will remain on the statute book. Work will continue to see how the shortcomings identified by Lord Justice Taylor could be overcome in case we have to return to the matter again, should the problem of hooliganism not be defeated by the alternative strategy proposed in the report.
"Let no one imagine that this means there will be any let-up in the fight against hooliganism. Those who, unlike Government, have for so long shrugged off their responsibilities will now have to face up to them. The Government intend to proceed as quickly as possible to the establishment of a Football Licensing Authority and, subject to consultation, Section 11 of the Football Spectators Act will be used to direct the licensing authority to require all-seater stadia —with standing being reduced by stages and entirely eliminated in First and Second Division grounds by August 1994 and in all designated Football League grounds by 1999. The necessary steps will be taken to ensure improved arrangements for crowd control and better training for police and stewards. There will be urgent consideration of the case for new offences and for new powers to deal with those excluded from grounds by the courts.
"The clubs will be compelled to get rid of the terraces. But Lord Justice Taylor indicates how much more they can do to create a better atmosphere by improving the now often squalid conditions to which they subject their supporters —squalid conditions which can encourage squalid behaviour. Those clubs which have not faced up to their responsibility now have a final opportunity to do so and if they do not now act, the public will not forgive them."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his courtesy in repeating the
22
Statement and to congratulate him on his ability not to stutter and stammer with shame when he came to deal with Lord Justice Taylor's finding on the football membership scheme.
As noble Lords have heard, this is a long Statement. It consists of some eight pages and the reference to the scheme, which forms Part I —and a very important part —of the Bill fills up one paragraph of those eight pages. What a waste of public funds, football club funds and parliamentary time, all caused by sheer, blind obstinacy.
I must remind the House, if it needs any reminding, of what happened on the Second Reading of the Bill not just on the Benches from which I speak, but on opposition party Benches and on the Benches occupied by those members of the government party who also wanted to tell the Government that the scheme would cause more violence, not less, and that technically it carried with it goodness knows how many disadvantages. The Government did not listen.
At Committee stage we went one stage further to save parliamentary time and to prevent the Government from walking into an absolute mess and muddle. We, on these Benches, proposed at least a phasing in of the scheme so that there might be an experiment which we knew would show what Lord Justice Taylor found. What did the Government do? They called in the hordes to vote on that amendment. Many of those whom they called in carried with them identity cards. They were not football identity cards; they were House of Lords identity cards just in case, as happened, the attendants in the House did not recognise them as Members of the House.
It is a sorry state of affairs that through sheer inability to listen the Government have placed themselves in this position and do not have the grace to say, "We were wrong". The Statement is made by way of excuse for all the time and money wasted. Part I will remain on the statute book just in case one day in the future, if everything else fails, it must be used.
I turn now to what is in the Statement. Your Lordships are in the same position that I am. We have not had an opportunity in any way to read the Taylor Report and study it. However, the Statement highlights a few of the recommendations that have been made.
I do not suppose that anyone in this House will disagree that the condition of football grounds in many cases in the First, Second and Third Divisions is pretty deplorable. Safety and other standards have to be improved. I doubt whether it is right or even practicable to leave the funding for all that to the football clubs alone. There will have to be some co-operation between the football clubs, the football pools organisations and the Government. It may be that one way of funding is to allow some revenue advantages to the football pools which may enable them to subscribe more generously to this very important cause.
I shall not say anything more about the new criminal offences to which reference was made in the Taylor Report and in the Statement which the noble Earl repeated. When repeating the Statement,

23
he said that it was most likely that those matters were covered by the existing law. Regarding one of the matters mentioned, which unfortunately is a sorry feature of quite a few grounds and has happened on quite a few occasions, namely, the chorusing of racial and obscene abuse, I have been told that at the moment the police find it extremely difficult to bring a charge under the Public Order Act. I know that the noble Earl, together with other Members of the Government, will be looking at the possibility of clearly strengthening that power. I should have thought that the same would apply to the throwing of missiles.
When it comes to getting on to the pitch unreasonably, I suppose that one had better exercise a little caution before making that a crime. It is not that anyone would want to encourage rushing on to a pitch in order to cause a riot or behave in a way that may occasion some kind of civil unrest on the ground. However, as I said, I feel that possibly the noble Earl will agree with me that one would have to word that criminal charge with the greatest of care.
I end by repeating that the Government have caused themselves considerable embarrassment. I can only hope that it will be a lesson to them, and when the Opposition say something so sensible, as they often do, in the future will they please listen?
3.54 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Earl for having repeated the Statement. I do not believe that any junior Minister has had a more extraordinary Statement to make to this House since I have been a Member of it. The only regret that I would express is that there was no indication whatever of any expression of regret on the part of the Government that such large sums of money held by many not particularly well-to-do football clubs had to be expended in a campaign to bring sense into this matter.
First of all, before coming to the Taylor Report itself, I should like to ask one question. I understand that the report was submitted by Lord Justice Taylor to Ministers last Friday week —10 days ago. Since then, versions of this report have been produced in one newspaper after another. The leaks could only have come from government departments because only Ministers had that report. It seems to me extraordinary that the Government have behaved in such a manner.
They have subjected Lord Justice Taylor to a series of quite deplorable attacks. Some of them have come from the members of the noble Earl's own party in the House of Commons. There have been editorials in newspapers such as The Times, all of which were written by journalists who were basing their judgment on leaked reports from Ministers. It seems to me that that has been an act of gross discourtesy to Lord Justice Taylor. I hope that we shall have no repetition of such deplorable behaviour in the future.
I turn now to some of the less controversial recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor. It would
24
be unwise to come to any settled view about some of his more important recommendations until one has had the opportunity to read his report. Speaking for myself, I certainly think that there is a great deal to be said for all-seater stadia. On the other hand, although First and Second Division clubs can no doubt look after themselves, it is almost impossible to believe that Fourth Division clubs will be able to raise the amounts of money necessary in order to build those stadia. I very much hope that we shall not have a doctrinaire approach by the Government on this matter.
Concerning the three new criminal offences which are suggested by Lord Justice Taylor, again I believe that it would be ill-judged to come to a quick decision. Certainly in the past we have seen far too much throwing of missiles, chanting of racial abuse and running on to football pitches. It may well be necessary to amend the criminal law so far as those actions are concerned.
Lord Justice Taylor rightly drew attention to the poor conditions that exist at many football grounds. It is quite right that urgent priority should be given to improving conditions. Just as squalid streets and squalid housing conditions increase the level of violence in our society, so do squalid conditions at football clubs.
Of course the unusual language in this Statement, directed at the football authorities, is being used to disguise one of the most important recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's report. The Government have been obliged to retreat on the central issue of the Football Spectators Act —what it was all about in the first place —namely, the foolish, ill considered proposal for a statutory football membership scheme. That was the Prime Minister's own proposal, supported loyally by a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment, Mr. Moynihan. It was introduced by that department and not by the Home Office, which is responsible for public order legislation.
The scheme never had the wholehearted support of the police, as the noble Earl is quite well aware, and some of his colleagues admitted as much while the Bill was going through this House. I believe that one of them said that the police were neutral on the question. I have never known the police to be neutral on any question involving public order legislation. Experienced police officers knew that there were risks involved in the introduction of this scheme and they said so.
The fact of the matter is that they were ignored, as were Members of all parties in this House when they spoke on this matter. At Second Reading, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, there was overwhelming opposition from Members on all sides of the House. Again the Government chose not to listen to any of that criticism. Now it is clear that Lord Justice Taylor has come to the same conclusion in scuppering this silly, ill thought out proposal. We all owe an enormous debt to Lord Justice Taylor.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful, I suppose, for what the noble Lords have said. This is a matter

25
of great importance. I am bound to say that I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, employed so much of his speech making, if I may say so, political points and haranguing the Government for what they had —
Noble Lords: Oh, oh!
Earl Ferrers: It is all very fine, my Lords, for noble Lords to say, "Oh, oh!" I did not say that when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he said that the Government had been showing sheer blind obstinacy and referred to their inability to listen.
Let us reflect a little on what happened. The fact was that football was being subjected to the most intolerable hooliganism and the football authorities were advised to try do something to put their sport in better order. They did not do so and the Government decided that they could not see such hooliganism going on without taking some measures. Therefore the Government brought in the Football Spectators Bill.
Of course it was controversial. No one denied that. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris, believes that it is easy for any government to introduce a controversial measure, I can assure him that that is not so. However, the Government did so because they were determined to try to make football a better and cleaner sport. The noble Lord said that since becoming a Member of this House he has never heard a junior Minister make such a disagreeable Statement. If he had been a Member for as long as I have he might have found that other equally disagreeable Statements have had to be made. The Government introduced the Bill and the scheme in order to try to prevent hooliganism.
After the disaster we asked Lord Justice Taylor to look at all the circumstances of Hillsborough. However, he felt that he could not support the invitation to tender under the scheme if it was made on the proposed basis. Therefore, the Government decided to accept the Taylor Report in full. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, now turns round and blames the Government for that. If before the Taylor Report the Government had determined to go ahead with the scheme because they felt it to be right, the noble Lord could rightly have castigated them. However, we decided to accept the Taylor Report and all the recommendations with the qualifications that I have made.
Many of the other recommendations relate to the football clubs. At paragraph 26 of his report, Lord Justice Taylor states:
"The picture revealed is of a general malaise or blight over the game due to a number of factors. Principally they are: old grounds, poor facilities, hooliganism, excessive drinking and poor leadership".
It is important to note that at paragraph 53 he refers to the clubs, upon which he puts a great onus of responsibility. He states:
"Boardroom struggles for power, wheeler-dealing in the buying and selling of shares and indeed of whole clubs sometimes suggest that those involved are more interested in the personal financial benefits or social status of being director than of directing the club in the interests of its supporter customers".
26
They are fairly tough words. If Part I of the Football Spectators Act is not introduced, reliance is placed on the remainder of Lord Justice Taylor's report to ensure that football is successful. For that, much depends upon the football clubs.
The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris, could not fail to refer to that. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the funding should not be left to football but that we should give revenue advantages for the football pools. We must accept the fact that the football business is part of the leisure industry. Football clubs invite people onto their grounds and it is up to them to make sure that they are as safe as they should be, in the same way as a cinema or theatre would be expected to be a safe place for people to visit.
It is considerably stretching a point when the noble Lord says that, in order to obtain conditions which have not been right heretofore, it, is up to the Governnment to provide funds in the form of tax relief or whatever. Of course such matters will be considered but I am bound to tell the noble Lord that we believe it to be the duty of the football authorities to put their house in order.
4 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I listened with interest to the Minister's Statement. I have spent a long time as a Member of your Lordships' House and of the other place debating a succession of Bills dealing with football. I was surprised that the Minister showed chagrin when my noble friend on the Front Bench levied criticism at the Government for the way in which they delivered the Statement.
I recall amendments which were moved in this House which may well have got the Government off the hook and which anyone in their right mind would have thought reasonable. During the various stages of the Bill through this House we attempted to exclude old-age pensioners from the ID system. Unfortunately, the Government thought it logical to class every old-age pensioner who wanted to watch a football match as a potential mugger or hooligan.
We tabled another amendment to exclude all women but that was not accepted. The Government believe that all women who wish to go to football matches must be of the Amazon type. We also wished to exclude season-ticket holders. I pointed out that it is almost impossible to obtain a season ticket for the top clubs. It is almost like waiting for dead men's shoes. Of course the Minister said that the proposal was nonsense because potential hooligans would be queueing up for the season tickets. I said that I could see no situation in which someone would queue up to pay £250 for a season ticket in order to become a football hooligan.
Many reasonable approaches were made from all sides of your Lordships' House—no particular party or group of Members had a monopoly —but they were thrown out and completely disregarded. It has clearly been shown that the Bill was brought forward totally on the initiative of the Prime Minister and that no one else wanted it. During Question Time in another place last week she made points which the Minister was almost parrot-like in repeating in his Statement.

27
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out that as regards all-seated stadia few clubs outside the Second Division and some within could survive if the criteria repeated by the Minister are carried out to the letter. Most of the big clubs have all-seated stadia and are not overly worried. Clubs such as those in Manchester, Liverpool and London are already near to that target.
However, the Minister reflected on the way in which that could be financed. Recently in another place Mr. Joe Ashton pointed out the fact that the Government receive more than £200 million a year in taxation from football clubs. I recently tabled a written Question when the noble Lord, Lord Young, was on the Front Bench. I received the most appalling Answer: the figure was not known and had not been identified.
If the Government are concerned about keeping our national sport and making it safer —and I do not say that the clubs are blameless because some of the transfer fees paid are nonsense —then in looking at the financing of all-seated stadia they must consider returning some of the taxes that they gather from football in order that the clubs can get on with the job.
I hope that the House will have an opportunity of debating the report because I do not agree with everything said by Lord Justice Taylor—
Lord Renton: My Lords, we have a great deal of other business to get through today. I understand that questions may be asked about a Statement but that speeches may not be made.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): Before my noble friend Lord Ferrers replies to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, we must not make a Statement an occasion for a debate. I know that there are deeply held feelings on this matter but your Lordships' Procedure Committee, with the agreement of the House, has ruled that we should take 20 minutes for a Statement. Discussion has now taken 24 minutes. It is a matter for the House to decide. Perhaps I may suggest that noble Lords who wish to weigh in —and I am sure that there are some —do so briefly in the form of questions for the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the points that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, made. He found it difficult to resist the temptation to rehearse some of the arguments that we used during the passage of the Football Spectators Bill. I do not wish to become involved in that. Obviously the question of a debate is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, will my noble friend accept our gratitude for giving us the Statement about which we have been hearing a great deal. Some of us look forward to reading the report from cover to cover, as we were advised by our right honourable friend the Prime Minister. We might learn from it if we do so. Let us not forget that 95 human beings died at the match at Hillsborough. That is the core of the Statement this afternoon. If the final report of Lord Justice Taylor is anything like his interim report, I
28
believe that all of the football industry—spectators and everyone connected with it —will have cause to thank Lord Justice Taylor.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend three questions. First, he has mentioned transfer fees. The figure mentioned in another place last week was £70 million. How much does my noble friend consider that a levy would contribute to the enormous bill that will be incurred by the implementation of the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor? Does he accept that a fee not far removed from £900,000 was paid by one club last week to a Scottish club? It would quite easily have been an English club. That Scottish club proposes to spend more than 90 per cent. of that alleged fee on an all-purpose stadium for itself as well as for the use of the local community. Where would the funds for that come from if they do not come from transfer fees?
Secondly, my noble friend referred to a proposed offence of chanting racist abuse. Does that also cover religious abuse or other unattractive forms of abuse? How far shall we be able to go?
Thirdly, will my noble friend consider the slogan that has been adopted by the city of Glasgow, "Glasgow smiles better"? I believe that the tenor of much that has been said this afternoon is a replay of one aspect of the Football Spectators Bill. I believe —and I hope that my noble friend will accept it —that the work done by Lord Justice Taylor merits a smile upon the face of football as well as of government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that. I hope that football will be able to smile better, as he puts it, as a result. I agree with him that the report should be read in its entirety and not one particular part of it.
The figure of £75 million for transfer fees is what it is anticipated will be spent during the year 1988–89. For the year before that the figure was £36.7 million. My noble friend asked what the levy would be. It has first to be decided whether there should be a levy; and Lord Justice Taylor's suggestions have to be considered on that basis. That is not the only method of funding. It is therefore impossible to say what any such levy would be.
On racial abuse, the Government have to consider whether or not it is already covered under the Public Order Act.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether he can give us his guidance on one aspect of the Government's handling of this matter that is troubling my mind. We hear a great deal from the Government these days about the need to defend the sovereignty of Parliament against depredations from outside. Is it not also the case that the football membership scheme had almost no friends either in your Lordships' House or in another place but that the Government were impervious to that and drove the provision through by whipped majorities? We then had a chance —and chance it was —in that a Lord Justice of Appeal was sitting because of the accident of a terrible tragedy. The Government's attitude is totally torpedoed by a Lord Justice of Appeal,

29
whereas they have completely ignored the feeling in both Houses of Parliament. How does that square with talk about the sovereignty of Parliament?
4.14 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it squares perfectly well. The Government produced a Bill because they were concerned about the state of public order and the conduct of football matches where people were being subjected to the most terrifying things including death. They brought the Bill into Parliament and the Bill was passed. Parliament then had two other opportunities to discuss what was going to be produced when the scheme, as it was, was introduced. Parliament then had the right to give its views on that. When a disaster occurred my right honourable friend asked Lord Justice Taylor to consider everything. Lord Justice Taylor stated that he could not support this part. The Government accept that.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if my noble friend takes notice of the Lord Justice will he take more notice of the Lords of Appeal on the courts Bill? It might be interesting to see the difference in attitude on the advice given.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I regard that as a frivolous interjection and nothing to do with the Statement.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, Aberdeen has an all-seats stadium. My friends and family who attend that stadium say that it has made a tremendous difference. The time that the Government are giving football clubs to provide all-seats stadia is too long. The Minister should pay attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said about the Government helping through taxation. The Minister said that it is a leisure issue and should receive no help. However, other leisure areas such as tourism receive help. The Government should not shut their eyes to that aspect.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for at least saying that the Government are being too generous in their treatment of the football situation. I shall bear in mind what he said. When I gave my reply about taxation, I implied that it was a matter for my right honourable friend. Of course the suggestions of Lord Justice Taylor will be considered. I gave the overall view of the Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have not had an opportunity to read the report. However, on the Statement made by the noble Earl, I agree with him and with Lord Justice Taylor on the strictures about the conduct of many football clubs in this country and the gross transfer fees that have been bandied about. But that is part of the socio-economic system that the Government support. I also agree with the strictures on the actions of some players. I was glad that the noble Earl said —and I believe I heard him correctly —that it was not just soccer players who were to be condemned for giving a bad example on the field of play.
30
Having said that, I should like to take further the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I do that in a personal capacity. On 20th February last year, at cols. 412 and 413 of Hansard, I warned the Government against the increased dangers of the use of identity cards, dangers which had been pointed out by the police, the clubs and supporters. Unfortunately, six weeks later at Hillsborough that warning was borne out in tragic practice.
That point was made on all sides of this Chamber. It was not just those noble Lords in Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, moved an amendment partly dealing with that very point. Lord Justice Taylor has now confirmed the warnings which we then gave to the Government. I repeat what my noble friend Lord Mishcon said at the beginning: how is it that the Government have no apology to make to this House for the amount of parliamentary time and public money which have been wasted because they would not listen at that time to reasoned arguments from those of us who had some experience of football grounds? How is it that the will of one woman was allowed to prevail—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: —against the criticisms of her own supporters as well as those of us who are politically opposed to her?
This was not a political issue but an issue of experience and common sense. We warned the Government at that time of the dangers of their ID scheme. Lord Justice Taylor has now borne out that warning. The Government listen to Lord Justice Taylor but do not listen to Parliament. Apparently they are not prepared to come and say, "We were wrong. We regret the time and public money which were wasted. We shall not put into effect the scheme which took so much time in this House and in another place and which took so much money, much of which came from the clubs themselves".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, seems to be momentarily unaware of the parliamentary processes. A Bill only reaches the statute book with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. This Bill had that approval.
He asks why the Government have not apologised. The simple answer is that the Government asked the football authorities to do something about the game because of the disasters which had occurred. The authorities did not do that and the Government brought in a Bill to try to meet that criticism. That is why that Bill was brought in. Therefore, there is no reason to apologise for bringing in a Bill which is aimed at trying to combat hooliganism. The noble Lord keeps trying to interrupt from a sedentary position. He has asked me a question and I am endeavouring to answer. Of course the Bill was controversial. Lord Justice Taylor has now looked at the matter and has advised that that part of the Bill should not be brought into effect, and we accept that advice. However, let us be clear that this Bill passed both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are we to have a debate on the report?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a matter for the usual channels. I am sure that if the noble Lord wishes to pursue that he will do so.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
4.24 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 24.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 139 AZA:
Page 19, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) No person shall have a right of audience as a barrister by virtue of subsection (2)(a) above unless he has been called to the Bar by one of the Inns of Court and has not been disbarred or temporarily suspended from practice by order of an Inn of Court.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment adds a new subsection (2A). It is supported by four noble Lords who have been treasurers of each of the four Inns of Court. Those Inns of Court have not so far been mentioned in the Bill. I was treasurer of Lincoln's Inn; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was treasurer of Middle Temple; the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was treasurer of Gray's Inn; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, was treasurer of Inner Temple.
Our amendment follows paragraph 3.10 of the White Paper. The purpose of it and the need for it, which is very considerable, are twofold. The first arises because the word "barrister" is not defined in the Bill, so it should be made clear, we suggest, that in England and Wales the only way in which a person can become a barrister is by being called to the Bar by one of the Inns of Court. That has been so since the 15th century.
The second reason for the amendment is that it is surely necessary in the public interest that the Bill should make clear that no barrister should retain the right of audience after being disbarred or while temporarily suspended from practice. I suggest that this is clearly a necessary amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, which is anxious to get on. I assume that this is non-contentious. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can indicate that now. If he can, I shall weary the Committee no further.
Lord Hooson: I was going to say something very similar. Looking at paragraph 3.10 of the White Paper, it seems to me that it is probably an oversight that this provision was left out of the Bill. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can indicate his view on this.
The Lord Chancellor: I welcome the principle of this amendment and wish to give effect to it. If my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble and learned friends Lord Ackner and Lord Bridge of Harwich are agreeable,
32
I wish to take the advice of parliamentary counsel as to the precise way in which this should be done.
I personally had in mind that something of this sort was required but I felt that it was primarily a matter for the General Council of the Bar to resolve with the Inns. I am told that that is agreed. Therefore, I am happy to give effect to the amendment, particularly as I happen to be an honorary bencher of the Inner Temple.
Lord Renton: I too have been told that this amendment has the blessing of, at any rate, the officers of the General Council of the Bar. I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for saying that he will have this amendment looked at by parliamentary counsel. It would be surprising but very exciting indeed if parliamentary counsel found that our wording was acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 139B:
Page 19, line 11, at end insert—
("(2B) Nothing in this section shall permit an employee of a prosecuting authority to have a right of audience to conduct trials on indictment.")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I cannot be as brief as the movers of the last amendment because I suggest that it raises a matter of principle of great importance. This is a principle which has been considered in depth by two Royal Commissions and by the Marre Committee.
The question at issue is:is it in the public interest that prosecutions should be conducted in the Crown Courts by employed lawyers, either on the staff of the prosecution service or as civil servants in various government departments? A second question is raised. Under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1981 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has the power to direct that solicitors may have rights of audience in the Crown Court. He has similar powers under the Prosecution of Offences Act in relation to employees of the Crown Prosecution Service. Although Clause 24(1) states in terms that the rights of audience shall be determined solely in accordance with Part II of the Bill and although the powers of the judges to regulate rights of audience have been swept away, it appears that the powers of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will continue.
A careful examination of the repealing Schedule 13 shows no sign of repeal of either section of the Acts of Parliament I have mentioned. Although there was no reference to the point in the speech of the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading, it would appear that there is a back-door possibility of all prosecutions in the Crown Court being conducted by employees of a state prosecution service and of the procedures under Schedule 4 of this Bill being entirely bypassed. Therefore, I suggest that this matter of principle should be discussed by the Committee. It was put very clearly by the Benson Royal Commission at paragraph 18.43. In moving

33
this amendment I can do no better than quote the report where it says
"In one significant aspect the present arrangements serve what many regard, we think rightly, as an important public purpose, by ensuring that in the Crown Court the case for the prosecution is put by an advocate who is independent both of the police and of the prosecuting authority. Whatever the outcome (of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure) we think that the effect of the present arrangement on prosecution work should not be disturbed. It provides in every case an advocate … who is seen by the court, the accused and the public at large to be independent of the police and of the prosecuting authority; one who, by the nature of his training and daily practice, is more likely to be able to bring the essential qualities of detachment and balance to bear on the problem in individual cases. These are considerations which we regard as crucial not only to the actual conduct of a jury trial but also to the proper administration of justice in general, including the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings, the acceptance of proposed pleas of guilty and the proper handling of evidential problems".
This amendment seeks to maintain that principle. The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure stressed the importance of public confidence in the prosecution process. It recommended that the new service should brief independent advocates in all cases tried on indictment in the Crown Court and that there should be a clear separation of responsibility for the conduct of a prosecution from the investigation process. The noble and learned Lord's Green Paper re-emphasised this point at paragraph 4.15:
"Advocates who provide representation in the more serious cases which are tried in the Crown Court should not, in any given case, have been involved also in the investigation of the evidence".
The Marre Committee stated that the prosecutor's independence is one of the constitutional safeguards provided against the risk of wrongful convictions.
The reasons behind this amendment are manifold and go to the very heart of the way in which justice is administered in England and Wales. The prosecution advocate must act and be seen to act as a minister of justice. He must be seen to be independent of the police and the prosecution authority. His duties are far wider that those of the advocate in a civil court. He has a greater independence from those instructing him. He must not press a case beyond what the evidence permits. He must not invite conviction by a jury on evidence which, in his judgment, no longer sustains the charge. He must not put forward a witness as a witness of truth if, in his opinion, that witness no longer enjoys credibility. He must disclose any information in his possession which might go to establish his innocence of the accused. In other words, his duties to the court must override any duty which he owes to his employer, any government department, Minister or to the police.
The Royal Commission condemned the polarisation which existed in some magistrates' courts between those appearing invariably on the side of the authorities and those invariably in opposition. Following an extensive study of other jurisdictions, in particular that of Scotland, the Royal Commission stated at paragraph 18.45:
"Experience outside the United Kingdom suggests that this would be a retrograde step to take, and would not contribute to demonstrably just and fair results".
It would be a disaster if certain prosecutors came to be known, as they inevitably would, as the district
34
prosecutor in a particular area —the district attorney of the United States system.
Polarisation inevitably leads to the concept of a public defender. All the evidence indicates that within a prosecution service efficiency and promotion are measured by the rate of convictions secured. Relations with the police and involvement with the preparation of cases inevitably get too close. Eighty-eight per cent. of all prosecutions are now within the control of a single national prosecution service. Its influence and power as a consumer of advocacy talents is now immense. If this monopoly takes over prosecutions in the Crown Court, the day of the independent advocate, prosecuting and defending, free from the pressures of employers and police, administration and investigation will be over.
The principle of independence upheld by both Royal Commissions was endorsed publicly by this Government in 1984, 1985 and March 1987. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, described it as "an assured safeguard of individual freedom". The Attorney-General stated that the public interest requires such presentation.
I should like to conclude by referring to government departments. Officers of Customs and Excise have powers of entry, search and detention which far exceed those of the police. Such powers are exercisable in most cases, without the need of a judicial warrant. The officers control an informers' fund from which they make substantial payments. They have a duty to maximise the collection of revenue and have powers therefore of compounding and mitigating penalties as alternatives to prosecution. Does individual freedom not cry out for protection in this regard? The use of informants, the discontinuance of prosecutions and the whole problem of the agent provocateurs require a ruggedly independent assessment to retain the confidence of the courts and the public.
As regards the Inland Revenue, the Judicial Committee of this House has recently made a number of reported comments about the undesirability of the incompetent presentation of tax cases before the commissioners. The only support for this idea comes from the Andrew report on government legal services which was concerned with the problem of recruitment of lawyers of sufficiently high calibre. The report says to give a right of audience would be,
"to give a much needed fillip to the morale of the service and make the work more attractive to the higher quality recruits which are so badly needed".
Yet again an essential principle is discarded in order to repair a penny-pinching policy which condemns a governmental service to second and third rate standards. The creation of this huge nationalised monopoly, protected from the forces of the market place, surely does not sit happily with the Government's philosophy supposedly underlying this Bill. I suggest that it is for Parliament to introduce a state prosecution advocacy service if that is what is required. I beg to move.
Lord Havers: When I was Attorney-General I became increasingly dissatisfied with the system that operated at the Central Criminal Court as regards

35
Treasury Counsel. There were two teams of Treasury Counsel who did nothing but prosecute. It was a rare exception to find a QC there. They were mostly called legal aid QCs because that was the only way in which they could be made to appear. Against quite a great deal of opposition I insisted that there should be at least 20 cases with a duration of a minimum of 14 days in which QCs should prosecute on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I did that for all the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has so ably put forward.
I do not like the idea of having staff prosecutors. It tends to lead —and it did so at the Central Criminal Court —to what is suggested as perhaps rather too cosy an atmosphere between prosecuting counsel and the judges. That is a risk which would occur frequently in the courts if this amendment is not passed. For these reasons I support it.
Lord Boardman: I understand that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is not based on the incapacity of an individual who has been given a right of audience but on the fact that he is employed by the Crown Prosecution Service. I understand that and I also understand what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in his report. What worries me is, if it is said that one cannot get independence from police and prosecuting authorities by the employment of counsel for prosecutions in the Crown Court, how do we obtain sufficient independence in the lower courts?
In the magistrates' courts it is normal for the prosecution to be conducted by a member of the Crown Prosecution Service. If the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is right in saying that this can and is likely to lead to injustice, are we satisfied that regarding similar prosecutions in the magistrates' courts, where inevitably the link between the police, the prosecuting authorities and the advocate prosecuting is very close indeed, we are obtaining justice? It is the difference between the apparent two standards of justice that concerns me very much as regards this amendment.
Baroness Phillips: I neither agree nor disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. For many years I sat as a magistrate in the magistrates' court, which conducts most of the business in the course of justice. I was always full of admiration for the prosecution. Though it was usually the same person, because he was often given the case by the police, there was a dispassionate prosecution of the case which always engaged my admiration. I believe the prosecutions were presented with great fairness and simplicity. That could not always be said for defending counsel, who often took a very emotional stance.
I would not wish this occasion to pass without making a comment. It appeared to me that there was a slight slur on the quality of the people involved. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, did not mean that. Having sat as a magistrate I could not fail to be impressed by the quality of the people who carried out the prosecuting service and often, I suspect, for a very poor salary. While I do not enter
36
into the merits of the case, I want it on the record that these people carried out a service with great impartiality.
Lord Renton: This amendment refers only to trials on indictment and not to the magistrates' court at all. For the reasons so fully given by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, in his powerful argument, I too support this amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: Is not the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that one simply cannot provide for everything in this world? It is important in every case that the prosecutor should be a person of independent mind. It is even more important in cases tried on indictment because they are of even more importance to the community as a whole.
In supporting every single word uttered by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson, I produce one concrete illustration of the position which he was putting forward. Within the past couple of weeks there has been a trial of a gentleman whose name I cannot remember and who was an acquaintance of Mr. Stalker whose name I can remember. That trial came to an end half-way through because prosecuting counsel, who was a very distinguished QC with a lifetime of experience of both presecution and defence work, took the view that it was not appropriate to continue with the case. He said so to the judge and that ended the case. Whether he was right I do not know because I do not know enough about the facts of the case to determine that point.
I ask the Committee to consider the situation if he had not been there and the Crown had been represented by a full-time employee in the Crown Prosecution Service. Would that individual have felt as free as counsel did to come to that same conclusion, bearing in mind that he would have to go back to the office at the end of the day, work with his superiors who had been running the case and no doubt investigating it for very many months? That individual would depend on his colleagues for his prospects of promotion in years to come. Is it not wholly unrealistic to expect a person in that situation to be as fearless as the Queen's Counsel who was conducting the case to which I referred? Is not that a simple example of, first, the importance of coming to the right conclusion in trials on indictment and, secondly, of ensuring that they are not conducted by full-time employees of the prosecuting authority?
Lord Mishcon: I rise because of the implication that appears to be part of this case; namely, that if you are an employee-lawyer you lose your judgment, integrity and independence. If I were a doctor I would resent it if it were assumed that, because I was an employee-doctor, I had less independence as regards the advice that I gave or the ability with which I behaved as a doctor. We must be very careful before we go down that road.
The important consideration is the question of standards. I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, make, as always, a very sensitive contribution. Possibly it was ultra-sensitive in one thing that he said. He said that during his eminent

37
period as Attorney-General he saw to it that there was not so frequent a presentation of the case on behalf of the prosecution by particular counsel for, among other reasons, the fact that he might be in too cosy a relationship with a judge. That belittles the standard of the judge and it belittles the standard of prosecuting counsel. I should have thought that everything depends on the standard we want of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Everything depends on the management at the top of that service saying that it wants its employees to behave in the same way as counsel. They are qualified lawyers. If in the middle of a case —I believe that the name of the party in the case to which the noble Lord referred is Taylor —counsel, whether he be an employee counsel, an employee solicitor who has rights of audience, counsel or an independent solicitor, finds that his professional duty is to discontinue a case, he should discontinue it. That is the standard we want of our Crown Prosecution Service.
Of course there will be occasions when because of the complexity or delicacy of a case independent counsel should be instructed. But are we to say —this is what appears to the reasoning behind the amendment —that those who are employed carry out their duty with presumably promotion or keeping their jobs in mind, or is it the integrity of the profession that they joined, whether they be employees or independent? For that reason, I am against the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I would not have intervened in the debate but for what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said. Being an advocate is not quite like being a doctor. I have practised at the Bar on and off—sometimes because I was in the army and sometimes because I was in office —since 1932. If one appears only for the prosecution or only for defendants, although one may be the most honourable man in the world, one gets a certain cast of mind. Looking at my own conscience and casting aspersions at no one, I found that it was of immense benefit to me in my profession that I prosecuted as much as I defended and that I defended as often as I prosecuted. I am sure that that is the truth about advocacy. I have only one point to add. We must never forget that our Bench —our judicial Bench —is recruited from successful practitioners. It is vital that they should have experience of more roles than one.
Lord Ackner: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said last Thursday that he avoided the word "consumer" and used the word "client". Of course we cannot use the word "client" very conveniently in this context; we should use the word "consumer". The consumers of advocacy talents are the judges who try the cases. It is therefore perhaps helpful to hear what the council of Her Majesty's circuit judges said in their response to the Green Paper. Those judges are at present recruited from both barristers and solicitors, and thank heavens nobody else. They say:
"If rights of audience were granted to the CPS we envisage an unhealthy divide whereby the CPS would monopolise the presentation of prosecutions, whilst barristers and solicitors
38
would be left with defence work. Thus the vital experience of appearing on both sides and developing a balanced view, an essential factor in the proper training for judicial office, would disappear.
"Apart from cases which can be presented in a very short time (generally in the magistrates' courts) we consider that a lawyer employed by the CPS would never be able properly to devote himself to a case which took over a day to present. The pressure of disposing of pending office work and his workload, and transferring work to a colleague because the instant trial could not be concluded as early as expected, would provide harmful distraction".
That is a practical reaction to what has been erected by my noble friend Lord Mishcon into some attack on employed lawyers.
It is no attack at all. It was the reason why the Royal Commission emphasised the importance of the practising advocate, the barrister, who was seen by the court, the accused and the public at large to be independent of the police and the prosecuting authority and who because of the nature of his training and his daily practice could bring an air of detachment to the proceedings. This in overclogged trials is of vital importance. A person who is detached as a prosecutor can reach a decision through his independence that a case should not be proceeded with, that a plead to a lesser offence subject to the judge approving it might be appropriate and could be accepted and that certain evidence could be dealt with as common ground. It was no doubt for this reason that in 1983 the Government in their White Paper approved the very recommendation of the Benson Commission that the present situation should continue.
It seems odd that a government who are wedded to the policy of privatising virtually everything in sight should wish in fact to turn the prosecution service into the very reverse, a nationalised part of the legal industry so to speak on the lines of the American system of the District Attorney, and should not allow the situation to continue as it has for many years in the hands of those who specialise in this particularly difficult task.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like briefly to deal with the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Havers which was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, was wholly misunderstood. It is an important point. Were it not I would not detain the Committee for one moment in this long debate.
My noble and learned friend Lord Havers said that as Attorney-General he introduced a new regime into the Old Bailey and he went on to explain it in detail. That regime had the most beneficial results. I speak as one who does not spend his life at the Old Bailey although I go there two or three times a year. I shall be there next month. I know roughly what is going on. I assure the noble Lord that from my experience of talking to others at the Old Bailey the cosy relationship that was beginning to grow between the Crown prosecutors and the judges was not a figment of my noble and learned friend's imagination. It was a reality which was openly talked about in the Bar mess. That is one of the reasons why at Second Reading I took only four exceptions to the Bill. Three of them were met on Clause 14 by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Mishcon: Is the noble Lord telling the Committee, which, thank heavens, consists of members of professions and callings other than lawyers, that the fact that a judge happened to see counsel very often and that therefore I suppose a friendship might ensue would in the slightest degree affect the mind of the judge in the way that he summed up to a jury? If that is what he believes, all I can say is that it is not my picture of a judge.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord must realise that that is not what I said, and not what I am saying; I am saying that how it appears is exactly how my noble and learned friend, Lord Havers, and I, sought to describe. It is a reality of appearance. It is something which is most undesirable. Moreover, it moves one very near to the state prosecutor system to which I objected as a matter of principle and conscience on Second Reading. It is for that reason that I rise to support the intervention of my noble and learned friend.
As regards the other matter mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boardman, I dealt with that issue on a previous occasion. Indeed, what I said is already reported in Hansard. I entirely endorse the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, dealt with the matter. There is no object in any further repetition. Serious crime on indictment is not comparable with crime tried in a magistrates' court. There is absolutely no warrant for cavilling the distinction which has been made.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may intervene. I think that his argument is increased by the fact that on indictment there is a jury to be considered but that is not the position in the magistrates' court.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Boardman: In saying that he believed that trials on indictment are very different, will the noble Lord say whether he accepts the following. If independence of the prosecution is essential for trials on indictment, why is it not essential for prosecutions in the lower court? Alternatively, does he believe that a lower standard of justice can be accepted in the lower courts than that for trials on indictment?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: One has to be realistic: in theory, there are budgets and means which must be considered. I accept that the standard of justice in a lower court is not as high as the standard of justice in a higher court. Indeed, I do not see how it can be. It is a different system but basically justice is done. However, I cannot see that there is any form of objection to pointing out the difference between trial on indictment where serious crime is tried and where you have an independent prosecutor and a trial in a magistrates' court.
Baroness Phillips: It seems to me that the noble Lord has forgotten some of the text books which
40
he read as a young man. Surely crimes which are indictable are also often heard in the lower courts. As I recall, in the case of theft the defendant is given the option by way of a form of words whereby he is told that he has the right to be tried in a higher court. Therefore, there is no difference between certain crimes; indeed, many people elect to be tried in the lower courts.
The language which has been used is most unfortunate. The quality of justice in 80 per cent. of our small courts is as good as that which is to be found in the hallowed portals of the High Court to which he noble Lord referred.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am not seeking to denigrate —although, it may seem so —the quality of justice in the magistrates' court; I am trying to draw a distinction between trial on indictment where there is a jury and where there is one standard, and trial in a magistrates' court where there is clearly a different standard. Surely that is obvious to everyone.
Lord Gifford: I am sorry that my absence abroad has meant that I have not been able to attend the proceedings of the Committee on this important Bill before now. As regards this amendment, and some other parts of the Bill, I feel that my colleagues at the Bar, and certain noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches, are guilty of a degree of rigidity in seeking to put into the Bill hard and fast rules about who should, and who should not, appear in particular courts. That policy could operate very much against the public interest.
Of course there are cases where the Director of Public Prosecutions should, and no doubt will, brief the best Queen's Counsels in the land to prosecute. Indeed, there is no provision in the Bill to prevent him from so doing. However, I am opposed to a clause, by way of amendment, which requires him and the Crown Prosecution Service to brief counsel in every case of a trial on indictment whether or not the demands of the public interest or that of the public purse —or, indeed, a comparison of the qualities of the advocates in each case —would suggest that that was the right course.
Frankly, the quality is uneven on both sides. For example, I have certainly known members of the Bar who have taken the detached and independent view which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, described. However, there are also members of the Bar who prosecute as if their future careers depended upon maintaining that prosecution. Moreover, there are barristers who have had to be restrained by the Bench from continuing with a case which in the opinion of the Bench should not proceed. Further, there are cases which should never have been proceeded with by independent prosecutors.
Equally, there is the question of the level of advocacy of the Crown Prosecution Service. When briefed in magistrates' courts recently, there have been times when I have been astonished at the mastery of the law and the skills which those opposing me from the CPS have displayed. They have told me that the trouble is that there is no real pinnacle at which they can aim because advocacy at

41
certain levels is debarred from their careers. That depresses both the quality of the person who is attracted to join the CPS and the standards of advocacy which he or she is encouraged to display and to learn.
One difference between the employed barristers and their performance and the independent barristers is if—and this will happen —a prosecutor is seen to develop a narrow and state-minded view by prosecuting and maintaining prosecutions when the evidence or cause of humanity should not require it, there is at least someone to whom we can complain. There is a sytem of accountability. There is the director who has the oversight of the Crown Prosecution Service to whom one can complain. However, as I mentioned, when members of the Bar have wrongly pursued prosecutions, there has been no recourse because they are independent.
Let us maintain a degree of flexibility in the matter. If this flexibility was available, it would mean that the choice was open to those responsible for prosecutions, both in the interests of economy because there are times when many pleas must be taken in one court and one wishes a single officer to undertake them; and also in the interests of standards because there are times when the in-house lawyers will undertake this better. Morever, it would be in the interests of the quality of service given to the public.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not doubt for a minute that the last observations made by the noble Lord are right. Whatever system eventually comes into being by virtue of this Bill, there will be good and bad, and almost good and almost bad whichever consideration you apply.
I presume to intervene in the debate because I believe that this is more of a psychological decision rather than the legal one which has been presented. I was most impressed by the point made on the issue by my noble learned friend Lord Hailsham. Regarding my legal approach, I should tell the Committee that I am the longest serving student member of the Middle Temple. Unfortunately, I never got beyond that particular point. However, I have sat as a magistrate for 40 years and therefore I have had that kind of experience at that sort of level.
I have also owned and run businesses. One was a group of hotels, where I was responsible, as the owner, when a barman watered the whisky and the gin. After the matter was tested the case had to be brought to court. It was the owner who was accused of having carried out that misdemeanour, although it was nothing to do with the owner, and the man who had been responsible was quickly dismissed, even before the case went to court.
We employed a retired clerk to the licensing justices to advise us on our defence. When the amount of dilution, and how it had been done, was looked into it was clear that we had been just as much the victims of the misdemeanour as the customers who had been defrauded. I remember that retired licensing justices' clerk helping us with our defence. There was no doubt that the drinks had been watered, but after we had carried out experiments to
42
work out our defence and mitigate our responsibility, the lawyer said, "I have sat as the clerk to the licensing magistrates for a number of years. I never appreciated the defence point of view in a case such as this. I am certain that if I had been responsible for prosecuting my outlook would have been different from what it is after having had to examine the matter from the employer's point of view".
I hope that that is the point that my noble friend had in mind. Advocates who have to establish guilt or innocence should have had experience of prosecuting and defending. If a person's sole experience has been that of a professional prosecutor, psychologically he is not as likely to use independent judgment, even halfway through a case. I was impressed, as one always is, by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he defended the integrity of prosecutors whether full or part-time. That is the difference that I see. He is correct: it would not make all that much difference when they were considering where their duty lay. If they have been in the rut of being a prosecutor, they are not as likely to be open minded when they deal with a case as they would be if, as my noble friend said, they had had experience on both sides.
Lord Mishcon: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will forgive me if I say at once that I wish that he had continued his studies at the Bar, because he would have adorned the profession had he been called. Had he gone on with his studies and read a little about licensing law, he would have known —I say this with deep deference —that the job of the licensing justices has nothing to do with criminal offences or the trial of them. The question is merely whether licences should be granted. In such cases one has experience on both sides of saying to the magistrates "I think that the licence should be granted" or "I think that the licence should not be granted". That has nothing to do with prosecuting or defending.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I had hoped that I had made that point clear, but it is obvious that I had not made it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with licensing law. I was trying to make the point that the lawyer—in the same profession as the noble Lord —who has sat for many years in the courts, mainly on the prosecuting side, may not have appreciated the defence point of view. I agree with what the noble Lord said. It is nothing to do with licensing. The psychological point made by my noble friend should be taken rather more into account than the rigid legal points that the professional lawyers have made in the many speeches that I have heard.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The attempt is being made in the Bill to establish a framework in which and under which matters relating to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation should be considered and determined. An important aspect of the proposals is that the rules of conduct and rules of qualification of anyone enjoying those rights of

43
audience will require the approval not just of the Lord Chancellor but of the four heads of division, including the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor.
If we are to have a proper framework, we should be able to consider the issues that may affect the conduct of those who have those rights. If the Committee were to accept the amendment, which I fervently hope it will not, it would be saying that if a barrister who has had 20 years' experience of defending with great success passes into the service of the Crown Prosecution Service he would immediately thereafter be debarred from conducting a prosecution. I do not know whether the amendment is intended to deal with the position of the Directors of Public Prosecutions. I should regard it as a gross insult to a person of the standing of the Director of Public Prosecutions to say that merely because he holds an office or is employed he could not exhibit independence of mind.
I understand that when one sees a system operating one sees its advantages and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Havers has pointed out, even under the existing system one could have an arrangement whereby someone prosecuted for too long. That was the situation that existed in the Old Bailey, with private practitioners prosecuting, which he found and corrected with, as he put it, a certain degree of tribulation from various quarters. I happened to be a colleague of his at the time and I recollect the position to some extent. Changes of that kind, even when well intentioned, are not always popular with all those affected by them.
The idea that merely because someone is employed he cannot be independent is absolute nonsense. If that were a sound principle I would share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Boardman, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and others, as to whether it would be right to have employed people prosecuting in the magistrates' courts. It is true that circumstances may differ from one court to another. The framework is intended to take account of that position. It depends upon the court and the proceedings as to what the rule should be. To establish at this stage, and to lay down as if it were an incontrovertible proposition, that someone who is employed cannot be independent strikes me as absurd.
I should like to leave the matter open and consider it in relation to the machinery which we are seeking to set up. One possible effect might be greatly to improve the tradition of the employed service. As the Committee is aware, I had the opportunity of being responsible for some five years for a state prosecution service when a great many jury trials were conducted in the sheriff court by those who were in the full-time service of the state. The traditions of the procurator fiscal service in Scotland greatly encouraged the idea of independence. There are faults and human failings in all systems, but one thing those in the service were good at was detecting difficulties in the evidence put before them by the police.
44
The idea that merely because somebody is employed he cannot be independent strikes me as indefensible. On the other hand, I entirely accept the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, as well as the psychological point which my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls made. There may well be much to be said for having arrangements under which people do not always work on one side or the other. For example, there might be much to be said for the idea that if those who are employed by the Crown Prosecution Service had spent some time in defence work at the Bar before they were taken into the service, they would be the kind of people who might be thought appropriate.
There might also be the possibility of short-term contracts. I do not see that it needs to be a lifetime service. My right honourable friend the Attorney-General will have responsibility for supervising that matter. If it were ever to be decided under the machinery that we seek to set up that this should happen, the contracts could be quite short-term. There are a variety of possibilities for securing these aims.
One other point on employment is that these days a certain degree of security of employment exists. A person cannot be turned out of his employment just because he took a decision to discontinue a case. He would have a very good case under which to defend himself if that happened. Alternatively, if those instructing a barrister took the view that he gave up a case too readily, they could cease to instruct him from then on without any right of appeal to anyone or any security behind him on which he could challenge that decision.
I know that my right honourable friend the Attorney-General has taken steps to deal with that matter; it requires action. We are dealing with facts. The mere fact that someone is employed does not seem to me to demonstrate beyond peradventure that he cannot be independent. Therefore I implore the noble Lord —although I quite understand that he puts this forward on the basis of the highest possible desire to achieve excellence —to allow the matter to be dealt with as part of the overall consideration of this legislation. The advisory committee and the profession will have responsibility for it and the designated judges will have responsibility under it. I sincerely hope that the matter will be left that way.
I believe that these proposals require to be explored under a framework which might well produce benefits not only for trials on indictment but also for those, the vast majority of which take place in magistrates' courts, where surely it is just as important that justice should prevail. It is just as important that fairness and independence should be exhibited by the prosecutor. I quite see that the more important the case, the higher the consequences. But many of the cases in the magistrates' court are also of great importance. It is surely essential that the principle of independence should run there.
If the amendment were to be passed, the impression would go out from this Committee that we could not expect independence from employed prosecutors in the Crown Prosecution Service in the

45
magistrates' court. I do not believe that to be right: independence is something which we should strongly aim for. I hope that the noble Lord will feel minded to take the course that I have suggested.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I am sorry but I find the reply of the noble and learned Lord completely unconvincing. If I may say so, with the greatest possible respect, the reply comes from someone who has operated under the system in Scotland which was examined in depth by the Royal Commission. As the noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well, it was dealt with in the report.
The noble and learned Lord kept saying over and over again that he would think it insulting to suggest that the Director of Public Prosecutions could not exhibit independence; that members of the CPS could not be independent. This goes to the whole essence of the Bill. Restrictions on advocates are placed there not because the advocate cannot be honest; or because the advocate cannot be disinterested; or because the advocate cannot help owing a loyalty to his employer and so on. These restrictions are put upon advocates in order to make it clear to the public and to persons concerned with legal services that the advocate is honest and independent; not that he is incapable of being so.
The restrictions applying to the advocate's occupation —such as not being in direct contact with witnesses before they are called; not handling clients' money; and not being involved in the preparation of a case which the advocate will put forward —do not mean that otherwise he would be dishonest. Those rules assist the advocate to uphold the highest possible traditions of honesty. It is far easier to be honest if an advocate is not in direct contact in the high street with a criminal. It is much easier if the advocate only sees the criminal in the company of a third party. It is much easier not to be dishonest if he never handles clients' money. It does not mean that the advocate would be dishonest if the rules did not exist.
Surely the noble Lords, Lord Gifford and Lord Mishcon, have again entirely missed the point. The point is one of balance. They know perfectly well—everyone who has spent any time in court knows —that a person who spends his whole time doing one type of work (prosecuting, for example) cannot, even if he is the most honest advocate in the world, show the balance which comes from a varied practice. Everyone can see that; it is patently obvious. It was a major point made by all the members of the Royal Commissions and the inquiries which I have quoted.
We have only to look at the matter and to ask ourselves honestly, "Would it be appropriate for judges to be appointed from those who have only prosecuted in their careers as advocates?" Would my noble friend Lord Gifford say, "Oh yes, absolutely appropriate?" If we cannot say that it would be appropriate, we have to ask ourselves why. The only reason is that such a person would not have the appropriate balance which is required on the Bench. It is not because he would be dishonest or hopelessly prejudiced. He would not have the appropriate balance to sit in judgment on the Bench.
46
That is the point of the amendment. It is not casting a slur on anyone. Every time a former barrister puts forward an amendment, it is suggested —as it was suggested this morning in the Guardian—that it is on behalf of one's own profession, on behalf of one's own interests. It never occurs to such commentators that sometimes one puts forward amendments because one believes that there is something called justice and that the best way of administering justice is in the way one is suggesting. There is no suggestion here of slurs on solicitors or slurs on members of an honourable organisation such as the Crown Prosecution Service. When the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, talks about flexibility that is, if I may say so, pie in the sky or perhaps I should say water in the whisky as regards the Crown Prosecution Service. As I said, I found the reply of the noble and learned Lord unsatisfactory. I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division at this stage. However, I shall read what has been said, give the matter thought and possibly raise it at a later stage because I am convinced that this is a most important principle. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 19, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 140 is grouped with Amendment No. 141. However, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 and 147; namely to eight amendments. I hope that that will relieve my noble and learned friend and encourage the Whips. I wish to speak to all those amendments at the same time because they have the same effect. They are all designed so that in this part of the Bill there should be retained the separate roles and duties of the separate branches of the profession. In my view the changes proposed in Clause 24 do not constitute a reform which in the public mind is an improvement. I think that they constitute an error which in the long term will harm the administration of justice and the efficiency of the courts and increase the expense of the litigant.
Like my noble friend Lord Hutchinson, I can say that my amendments are tabled in alliance with no one and in consultation with no one. They may be poor things but they are my own. I wish to make it perfectly clear that they are my own amendments. As my noble friend Lord Hutchinson said so effectively just now, the amendments are not put on behalf of anyone else. I have tabled the amendments because I believe in them.
I repeat also what my noble friend had to say about interest. I have absolutely no interest in the future shape of the profession in which I served for 40 years. I have no interest in how lawyers will perform, what they will do, whether judges will be successful or whether counsel are skilful. If I go to my solicitor in future, I shall not seek any kind of interest from the services of the law. It is therefore only because I believe in what I am saying and

47
because I believe that my experience may be of some value to some who may be listening that I have tabled these amendments.
My belief that it is better to have separate branches of the profession stems from my knowledge of the profession which I practised for 40 years. I also have some knowledge of other systems where there is a unified profession. Therefore, I can see what the proposal we are discussing will lead to. My views are strengthened by the comments of great lawyers in those jurisdictions who have warned against abandoning the British tradition of the separate branches of the profession.
I believe the profession should be divided into advocates and advisers. I cannot think of a better word for the latter. I believe that those two branches are of equal importance. However, the adviser's role as regards service to the consumer or the client is far more important. It is far more widespread and it touches and reaches many more people. It is the most distinguished and honourable service that can be given.
If there are separate branches then there must be separate disciplines. Those who are advocates must have one discipline imposed by one disciplinary body. By this clause and by others the Government have concocted an elaborate, complicated and in my view unwieldy edifice, dominated, as we discussed last week, by a lay majority which is ignorant of its tasks and the difficulties involved in them. I believe that in practice such a system will not last long and that in a few years a Minister will be back in Parliament to replace it with a straightforward, uncomplicated proposal in which all qualified lawyers will have rights of audience. That is what will happen and that is what the Government's proposal, if adopted, will lead to. The proposal, as the Cabinet desires, will lead to the establishment of the American system where everyone sues everyone else and lawyers are very rich.
Despite having heard the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at the Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon recounting a strange change in government policy, I have no illusions that the noble and learned Lord will change his mind. He cannot because the will of the Cabinet will prevail. This legislation could only have been prevented if he and the Law Officers had stopped it right at the beginning. I would say to my noble friend Lord Boardman who is not in his place that I move these amendments not because I do not admire and respect the solicitors' branch of the profession. I have worked with solicitors for 40 years and I had a great grandfather who was one of the earliest presidents of the Law Society. I regret the appearance of a sour release in which I figure from the Law Society as a newsflash earlier today. It was unfortunate, sour and unpleasant.
It is not because I do not believe that some solicitors would make excellent advocates, better than many others, that I object to the provision but because I believe that the present system is an effective and well disciplined system which has stood the test of time and which is on balance superior to those systems in other jurisdictions that I have experienced. The amendments to which I am
48
speaking seek to make the sole authorised body the General Council of the Bar and to eliminate the others which the Bill seeks to introduce.
I fear the alternative will lead to a more awkward, ineffective and ungainly service which will limit choice. We talked of that last week when the duty of an advocate not to pick or choose cases was rejected. I believe that that provision will increase the cost to the client. The proposals in the Bill are not a reform but an abandonment of a distinctive and traditional British system which in comparison with others had long led the world. If I move the amendments without hope I shall do so certainly with a certain degree of pride as they seek to rectify the proposals of the legislation. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I entirely respect the point of view from which my noble and learned friend speaks. I have no wish to introduce into these proceedings any note of bitterness or anything of that kind. I understand his point of view and what he thinks I should have done. However, I had to take what I believed was the right course in the circumstances and make these proposals to my colleagues.
The purpose of the legislation is to enable these matters which have agitated the two branches of this honourable profession for a long time to be resolved. It is probable that they will not be resolved for all time at the first step. I believe that this is a system for evolutionary change which would help to overcome the difficulties that have arisen over past years.
I respect entirely the point of view that my noble and learned friend has put forward. As I said earlier, my noble and learned friend has been very distinguished in putting forward reforms for the internal arrangements of the Inns of Court and the Bar. He saw that they required change. I seek to build on the existing foundations of the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society, primarily in order to see whether changes are required and, if they are required, to provide machinery for carrying them out.
I do not believe that any purpose would be served by my going into the matter at any length. I explained the position at Second Reading. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to take up a theme which was adumbrated on earlier amendments. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has just referred to it again. It is the long-standing dispute over rights of audience and preferment to the High Court Bench which has been running —and I think is still running—between the Bar and solicitors. I do so from two points of view. The first is that—apart from the immediate future —I cannot see that what my noble and learned friend proposes will do otherwise than defeat his own purpose. The second is to tell the Committee that I believe that the problem was within an ace of solution at one time and that a solution is still available.

49
I have always found that dispute particularly distressing because I have a feeling that it had social roots stretching a long way back which are entirely anachronistic. They stretch back to the days when the Bar was recruited from the sons of gentry and attorneys from the middle classes. That was a different world, but wounding things have been said in that connection, not least by Dr. Johnson, which have remained.
The solution proposed by my noble and learned friend will on the face of it, by giving equal rights of audience, immediately provide a greater availability of legal services to those who seek them. However, that is only the first step. The next step is perfectly cognisable. Lord Gardiner used to ask (and I never heard an answer): if one provides to solicitors the same satisfactions and rewards as are at the moment available to barristers, why should anybody come to the Bar? Why should anybody suffer those early difficult years, however much they have been splendidly mitigated in recent years by the reforms with which we should particularly associate the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, although his predecessor had a good deal to do with them? Those early years at the Bar can be very difficult.
In contrast, the solicitors' profession also made a number of improvements in the position of articled clerks. The early years in the solicitors' profession do not involve anything like the burdens that face the young barrister. If one offers equal rewards and equal satisfaction, as Lord Gardiner used to say, why should anybody become a barrister? It is not just a question of the early years. There are constant dangers in the career of a barrister. He has no partners. He is dependent entirely on the preservation of his health. When he comes to take silk, that can be a pretty risky step. That again is a hazard from which a solicitor with partners can be preserved. So why, it was asked —and I have not heard an answer—should anyone become a barrister?
If the answer is that they will not, we shall see a gradual decline of the barristers' profession. That will not happen immediately because things do not happen immediately in this country. However, I venture to prognosticate that within five years one will find a substantial falling off in numbers recruited to the Bar. If the Bar falls away, leaving only a few specialist pockets, one will have not more competition and a wider choice of legal services but considerably narrower competition and considerably fewer choices available to the client.
However, it does not rest there. What will happen if the work is done, as I believe it will, by the solicitors' profession? It will not be cheaper. Solicitors' overheads are substantially higher than those of members of the Bar. Therefore, not only will one restrict choice but one will make legal services more expensive.
So, although the immediate step is populist and attractive, if one looks beyond the immediate future one will see that the measures will defeat themselves. I only wish that my noble and learned friend, with his great gifts, had shown a little more patience and sought counsel a little more widely because, as I said, the problem was within an ace of solution.
50
In the 1960s the late Lord Diplock and I were both on the Bench but we continued on the Council of Legal Education. We were convinced that it was within the purview of education and training that the long-running dispute could be amicably and sensibly solved. The background was that there were a number of solicitors who had come to the Bar, been very successful and served on the Bench. At that time there was Lord Justice Ormerod, who had been a solicitor, and a colleague of mine, Mr. Justice Payne. A little earlier there had been Mr. Justice Finnemore.
We took a small committee of the Council of Legal Education and sought a similar committee from the Law Society. It was headed by an immediate past-president of the Law Society, Sir Henry Lawson, a most distinguished solicitor and most distinguished president. We discussed the matter and argued it out. At the end we came to a solution.
We concluded that we should have a common education. After three years those barristers who felt that their vocation really lay as solicitors and those solicitors who felt that their real vocation lay as barristers should be enabled to change with minimum training and examination requirements, mainly in such specialist subjects as bookkeeping on the one side and advocacy on the other. The committee of the Law Society accepted that, but unfortunately the Secretary General of the Law Society —a man of commanding personality —had obviously kept his ear close to what was going on. I shall not mention him by name, although I am prepared to do so. He came in and rounded on the solicitors, headed by Sir Henry Lawson, as if they were naughty schoolboys. He said that the Law Society had a principle and a policy on that. That was fusion at the time. The whole thing then fell to pieces, but in my mind it was always ready to be picked up.
If my noble and learned friend had sought counsel more widely, that solution might have been picked up and might have solved the long-running quarrel far more sensibly and amicably than is done. I venture to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson that the Bar is being handed over bound hand and foot to the solicitors' profession. I am sure that within a decade or so there will be a few pockets of the Bar, but no flourishing barristers' profession and that large firms of solicitors with their own in-house advocates will be provided extensively. They will not give wider choice either because, although the solicitor will be asked to advise initially, when the matter comes to litigation he will obviously tend to send the client down the corridor to his partner —the litigation partner.
Although I shall not support the amendments in a Division, I thought that noble Lords should know what is the second step —not the immediate step —and the further consequence by way of choice and expense.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: Before my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson replies, perhaps I may intervene briefly, first, in regard to the suggestion that, when the Bill was introduced, there

51
was any dispute between the two branches of the profession as to whether solicitors should be eligible for the High Court Bench.
Some years ago the Bar and the Law Society set up a joint committee under the chairmanship of a distinguished independent layman, Lady Marre, to consider various questions of dissent between the two branches of the profession. The membership of that committee comprised a number of solicitors, a number of barristers and a number of independent members who numerically exceeded the number of either barristers or solicitors but were not in a majority. It was recommended in the committee's unanimous report that solicitors should be eligible for appointment to the High Court Bench. That recommendation was made with the consent of all barrister and solicitor members. My noble and learned friend will perhaps acknowledge that that degree of harmony existed before the introduction of the Bill.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may make one other point. I say with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon that I understand his anxieties. They are legitimate anxieties, but, in the course of the progress that has so far been made on the Bill, a good deal has been done to meet them. Last week my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor accepted the principle of an amendment, which he enshrined in his own amendment, intended to secure that the full interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice should be taken into account. In moving that amendment, one of the considerations mentioned was that the advisory committee, the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor should have in mind the importance of the preservation of an independent Bar in deciding how rights of audience should be determined. If the House and Parliament as a whole are consistent with that principle, it should be possible to fashion the development of rights of audience in such a way as to preserve an independent Bar.
However, it is crucial to that progress that the criterion is accepted, as I understand it has been. The involvement of the designated judges and of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the way we make progress is in turn crucial to that process. If we are able to do that —and only if—I hope that the fears expressed by my noble and learned friend will be unfounded.
In that new situation the Bar as a whole is determined to demonstrate by its merits that its services continue to be of value to society.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may say with great respect that the Committee stage of the Bill is hardly likely to progress if speeches repeating arguments advanced on Second Reading continue. I have previously referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in terms of the respect and affection in which he is held, but his speech was a Second Reading Speech. Because he made it, because the Committee listened and because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, mentioned, papers like the Guardian have in an editorial speculated whether
52
debates on this matter should be limited to members of the legal profession and whether the consumer or client is being properly considered, I must remind the Committee that the rights of the Bar and of solicitors have been mentioned in speeches so far, but that no one has said whether the reforms mentioned will be to the benefit of the public.
I therefore remind the Committee, if it requires that reminder, that those reforms are being instituted as the Government said —this is either right or wrong—for the benefit of the public and to increase legal services and make them more economical. It is the right of every member of the Committee to take the view that the Government do not achieve their aim. However, we give a wrong impression if we limit our speeches to whether matters seem to be of benefit to the Bar and encourage people to go to the Bar or are to the benefit of the solicitors' profession.
Having regard to a remark made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alexander, I must briefly mention a little history. He was correct in saying that at a meeting that was held, and in view of recommendations from an authoritative source, it was felt that solicitors should be admitted to the Bench if they were sufficiently qualified. Perhaps I may remind him that I moved an amendment on those lines in a Bill which was in the command of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who was then Lord Chancellor. No one defers in the Committee more than I do to the work done by the noble and learned Lord during his distinguished Lord Chancellorship.
However, perhaps I may remind the Committee and the noble and learned Lord of his answer to that amendment. He said that in his view the only people who could go to the High Court Bench were those who had exercised the rights of advocacy in the High Court. He said that if they had not done so and had not had that experience, in his view they were not fit to be High Court judges. That looks extremely like a vicious circle. If there is an agreement that solicitors can go to the High Court Bench but they are not fit to do so unless they have been advocates in the High Court, one finds oneself in something of a quandary, wondering who then can go to the High Court Bench.
So we have this Bill before us. As I said most respectfully, it has passed its Second Reading. In my respectful submission, if we were to concentrate on what is good for the public, who are our real customers and clients, and not give the impression that solicitors are fighting for the rights of solicitors and barristers fighting for barristers, not only shall we get on much more speedily with the various stages of this Bill but this House will give a better impression of itself generally to the public.
6 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should not perhaps have entered into this discussion but for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a reference to me and what he said. I beg him to remember, even at the cost of repeating something

53
that I may have said at earlier stages of the Bill, that when one is dealing with contested litigation there is no one public interest other than justice.
There are two divided classes of litigant: one asking for something and the other trying to refuse it. They are marxian classes with exactly the opposite interests involved. There are husband and wife in matrimonial cases; employer and employed in personal injury cases; creditor and debtor in contract cases; and so on. The fact of the matter is that we have evolved a system of justice which recognises that the business of contested litigation is based on an evil and not on a good. It is not like electricity or gas which everybody needs at a cheap price and in sufficient quantity —even when the lines break down owing to a hurricane.
It is a fact that we want a justice that is independent and gives due weight to both the defendant who has a reasonable defence and the plaintiff who may be producing a vexatious, frivolous or even perjured claim. It may or may not be the case that one side is right and one side is wrong. We want to evolve a system which does justice between contested cases in the light of the fact that every civilised society needs a quasi-monopoly force and is therefore bound to stop people taking the law into their own hands, as is said.
It so happens that human institutions are of two kinds: the traditional and the contrived. The American Constitution is an example of the contrived; our own system is largely a matter of tradition. I know what the public think. I have given up the Guardian for the Independent. I have done so precisely because of the former's sour and offensive attitude toward those who believe in a traditional system, as I happen to do. If I may use an absurd mixture of metaphors, we are not just fat cats seeking to feather our own nests. We are trying to achieve justice between man and man when they cannot settle their own disputes amicably.
It just so happens that the test of what makes a traditional system good is whether it works. Obviously a contrived system has to be intellectually defensible according to the best intellectual systems of the time, bearing in mind that in 20 years' time there are bound to be quite different philosophies which are popular then.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Alexander that there is nothing more disreputable than a battle between solicitors and counsel. They ought to get on with one another because the real truth is that one is trying to produce a system which gives honesty, integrity, independence and the right result in the end. We have a profession that has an interface in which each branch has a different function and different economics and in which each monitors the performance of the other.
I only want to add that during the war I had the peculiar experience of having at one time to do a solicitor's job because I was the only counsel of any standing east of the Suez Canal who was not employed by either the Provost-Marshal's Department or the Judge Advocate's Department. Against my expressed will, I was constantly being recruited to act as prisoner's friend. I tried to do the
54
solicitor's job when I was prisoner's friend and I did it very badly because I did not know how to do it. But I did the advocate's job quite well. I even got a man off who was accused of stealing tyres in Damascus in the street called strait.
I believe that our system is a good one. I say to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack only that I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson does not take this matter to a Division for the reason that he gave. I believe that the end product of what my noble and learned friend is doing in Part II of the Bill will be to undermine the integrity of the system of justice that we have developed over the years. That is why I make no apology for occasionally giving Second Reading speeches in Committee.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits own, may I take it that the fact that he has not commented on the reply that he gave to my amendment as to solicitors being High Court judges is admitted by him to be a correct paraphrase of what he said?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I never accuse the noble Lord of misinterpreting what I say either deliberately or inadvertently. However, by way of a footnote to what he said I have to say that what I was then arguing was that there should be a greater interchangeability between the branches of the profession. I myself was the pupil master to a pupil who discovered that his gift was not advocacy and straightaway became a very distinguished solicitor.
A number of persons with whom I worked began their careers as solicitors —like the late Lord Widgery, who was Lord Chief Justice —and found that their true function was that of a barrister and changed over. Greater interchangeability, I argued then, was the right answer to the promotion of solicitors to the High Court Bench. In fact I was the Lord Chancellor who introduced solicitor judges to the Crown Court. They were a great success. The only trouble was that very few solicitors wanted to be circuit judges because they found that they could make more money by remaining as solicitors. The trickle, therefore, although of admirable quality, was totally insufficient in point of quantity. If it had not been for the fact that by the time they become judges they are a bit on the old side and long in the tooth, I would have suggested that after a year or two on the Circuit Bench they might have been promoted to the High Court. But that is an argument which is now over.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who asked me to say just a word before I sat down, has now provoked me into making another speech.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Despite that speech, nowadays I disagree reluctantly with my noble and learned friend, Lord Hailsham. That was less so, as he may recall, in the old days on the south-eastern circuit when sometimes I had the privilege of appearing against him and once or twice was successful.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Not the time that I remember.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That was a very characteristic observation; my noble and learned friend never remembers his defeats. This is a case in point. However, I do differ from him. If I may say so, I very much prefer the very helpful attitude adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, who seemed to me to approach this matter in a balanced and helpful way.
I support the giving of rights of audience to solicitors, not because of any particular partiality for that profession but because I believe that, as the Government intend with the Bill, it is in the interests of the public. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham referred to the interests of justice. I agree with everything that he said on that. But it is perhaps significant that neither he nor any of the noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment referred to the other aspect of the interest to the public —the cost of litigation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I dealt precisely with that on the basis that the overheads of solicitors are much higher than those of the Bar.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Will my noble friend also forgive me for intervening. I dealt with that matter at very great length at the last sitting of the Committee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am certainly not exciting the noble and learned Lord to do so again. I was about to refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he intervened. He undoubtedly said —it seemed to me very dogmatically —that the change that will be introduced by the Bill would not be economical but more expensive. I was about to deal precisely with that issue. However, the point that I was making before he leapt up to intervene was that he did not seem to be particularly concerned with the cost to the public. I am glad to say that by this Bill the Government are so concerned.
I take up the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the admission of solicitors to the right of audience would be more expensive. Let us analyse it. The noble and learned Lord trotted out the argument mentioned previously that solicitors have higher overheads than barristers. That is perfectly true; but it does not answer the point. The noble and learned Lord knows as well as anyone that if one employs counsel in the higher courts one also has to employ solicitors. One has the cost of a solicitor and all his overheads. One has him sitting beside learned counsel; therefore, one is not saving anything with a solicitor although one is paying an additional amount for the member of the Bar. If the noble and learned Lord really believes that it is cheaper to employ two men than one I can only say that I am lost in admiration of his credulity. It is the fact that one has to employ both a solicitor and a barrister in these cases. It seems to me very difficult to argue that that would be more economical.
56
However, I put this to the noble and learned Lord. If he is right —and until the new system is operating no one can be 100 per cent. certain whether he is right or wrong —the public will undoubtedly choose the cheaper alternative. If the noble and learned Lord is right, he need not fear the introduction of this measure because the system that he advocates will be cheaper and therefore more fully employed by the public. But if he is wrong, then it may well be that some of his apprehensions are justified. I do not believe the noble and learned Lord's argument that if one allows solicitors a right of audience the Bar would disappear in a matter of years. I am perfectly certain that great companies and very rich men will employ distinguished counsel when they have high-grade litigation and will go on doing so for years. But it may well be that those who are less well off, who do not have the means to pay for expensive litigation, may decide solely to employ a solicitor. All that the Bill does is to give people who take that view the opportunity so to do.
I very much agree with what was said earlier in the discussion. The Committee should not mainly be concerned about the interests of the Bar, nor the interests of the Law Society and of solicitors. It should be concerned mainly with the interests of the public. It is because the Government are seeking in this way to serve the interests of the public that we have the Bill in its present shape and form. However, there is consolation for those who, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, are apprehensive, that if their gloomy prophecies are right, then in the nature of things, matters will not develop in the way that they fear. The system will continue very much as at present. But if the Government are right —as I believe that they are —then solicitors will be employed in advocacy in higher courts.
Lord Renton: And charge a fee for doing so, as they do.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, speaks from a sedentary position.
Lord Renton: I shall stand up and make the point again. The solicitor advocate, in addition to charging a fee for the preparation of the case in the usual way, will also charge an advocate's fee. At present that would go to a barrister. But the solicitor's advocate's fee might be higher because the solicitor's overheads will be higher than those of the barrister.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If my noble friend is right, why does he think that anyone would employ a solicitor? That is the fallacy of his argument. If one leaves it to members of the public to decide whom they employ —as this Bill does —they will undoubtedly in general employ the most economical. If my noble and learned friend is right, then he has absolutely nothing to fear. But if he is wrong, he may well have certain apprehensions.
I welcome this proposal as I welcome most of the Bill. I believe that the Government have shown commendable courage in facing the opposition

57
which they must have known they would encounter from a profession whose capacity lies in advocacy. It is an exceedingly brave and courageous thing to have done. I applaud it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will stand absolutely firm on the matter and that we shall see a change that I believe is in the interests above all of the British public.
The Earl of Onslow: As a member of the public who is not a silver tongued advocate, even though he might wish to be, I give my noble friend on the Front Bench the views as expressed by a Surrey or Guildford solicitor to whom I go with regard to my small private affairs of business. I could not afford to go to Linklaters or Travers Smith, or whoever it may be, because they are very expensive. In desperation I might try to afford to go to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because I am certain that he would do a seriously good job. But that is neither hither nor yon.
Small town solicitors are frightened that the big solicitors will get hold of the advocates and restrict the practice of those advocates to the client. Let us take the example of such large solicitor firms as Linklaters or Travers Smith. The public person who has not much money but is outside legal aid will not be able to have access to the Bar. He will not be able to have access to the silver tongued advocates of this world such as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. If I go to him via Messrs Sue, Grabbit & Run of Tolpuddle-under-the-Marsh (or whatever the name of the solicitor is), at least I know that I shall have a cheap fee on the one hand and an expensive fee on the other. But if I go to Linklaters I shall have an expensive fee with Linklaters and an expensive fee with my noble friend Lord Alexander. The problem that we are creating is that if solicitors grab too large a hold over the advocacy skills, the amount of choice available to the public will be reduced and not increased.
Lord Gifford: I wish to intervene only briefly and not make the speech that I could not make on Second Reading. I wish to urge the Committee to resist the amendment and to applaud the basic thrust of the Government's desire to open up advocacy to a wider range of people and to bring a wider range of services to the client.
For several summers I have worked as a lecturer in the state of Victoria, Australia. In that state the reform for which the noble and learned Lord is pushing was introduced in 1891. There remains a flourishing Bar in Victoria because the market exists for precisely the reasons indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. There are people who need and want independent advocates to take their cases. However, no one has a cosy monopoly.
If a solicitor has the ability and wishes to provide an advocacy service he does so. There are a small minority of solicitors who do that very well. The Government will have cause to remember Mr. Turnbull from New South Wales who came from the solicitors' profession. He carried out a job which caused them much discomfort.
58
That is the essence of the proposals put forward by the noble and learned Lord, provided that the machinery works and that the standard of the advocates and their training are adequate. In that sense it is better than the Australian system because there will be specific advocacy training—
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Will the noble Lord indicate to the Committee to which amendment he is directing his observations?
Lord Gifford: Yes, the amendment which the Committee is discussing. It proposes that the Bar's monopoly on all rights of audience should be retained. I believe that to be a retrograde amendment and I am explaining why.
The standard of service given by the Bar is uneven; at times it is good and at times it is bad. There are times when the public would welcome the opportunity to have a wider choice as between solicitors and barristers in order to decide who should take the case.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I do not believe that the Bill will provide better, quicker or cheaper justice. I must say that over and over again even if it is a repetition of a Second Reading speech. However, I am brought to my feet by the speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He has suggested that Members who have spoken in this and other debates have not been concerned with cost. As I understood the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, he referred specifically to cost.
I share entirely the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Onslow as regards the effect of the Bill on the small high street solicitor. I believe that it will be most damaging and that will not be helpful to the consumer or the client, however one cares to describe the user of the services. Of course in London there are many large firms of solicitors which also make the point. I have in my hands a submission made by a large firm of solicitors in London. It states:
"We do not understand that the enactment of the proposals will reduce the cost of litigation. The process of litigation is the same whether carried out by solicitor, barrister or certificated advocate. There is no particular reason why people doing the same work should not receive the same pay. The danger is that it will reduce the number of people doing the work, whether solicitors or barristers, and the fees will tend to rise".
I wish to draw the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to one further point. I have received representations from several quarters noting that certain existing rights of audience currently enjoyed by legal executives, trainee solicitors and others acting on behalf of a solicitor will be withdrawn. Can he assure the Committee that no such existing rights will be withdrawn because clearly it is a service now provided and it will be cheaper than those which will otherwise obtain?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As regards the parliamentary aspect, I wish to point out the following in case what I call the Mishcon doctrine should be thought to have been adopted by default,

59
that is if Second Reading has been given to a measure, the principle enshrined in the main provision cannot be discussed in Committee.
In many cases—and this is not one—there is a convention whereby noble Lords automatically do not dispute Second Reading. But even where that does not apply it all depends on the time given on Second Reading and in Committee. Advisedly I did not speak on Second Reading because over 40 noble Lords had put down their names and only one day was allowed for the debate. However, that cannot properly preclude me from putting forward my view on the principle enshrined in one of the main provisions which animates the Bill. I hope that we shall not be told that in no circumstances may Second Reading speeches be made in Committee. It all depends on the circumstances.
A few days ago the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, twitted me amiably enough for making a speech in which I asked for more time to be given to the Bill. He said that if speeches made in Committee were short —that is, shorter than mine—we could proceed very fast. I confess that, when later in the debate the noble Lord moved a new clause, I was amused to find that he spoke for exactly twice as long as I had.
My main point is that, even if a Bill has been passed on Second Reading and according to every parliamentary principle and practice, when one of the main clauses arises in which the drive of the Bill is embodied, discussion as wide as is indicated is called for.
Lord Mishcon: I share the amusement of the Committee. However, I wish to remind the noble and learned Lord that my gentle criticism was directed towards the fact that he made a speech on the question of how long we ought to be speaking. He wanted that time to be shortened but the speech that he made on the subject was very long. The speech that I made later concerned a new clause—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It did not concern the length of time that we should be speaking. It concerned how many days should be given to Committee and the hours that Members should be compelled to sit.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not wish to reply to the amendment because I did so some time ago. In answer to my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, I intend to preserve existing rights of audience and Clause 24(2)(e), which we discussed earlier, is an example of that. I shall also take into account any others that are brought to my attention.
The Earl of Selkirk: Can my noble friend tell the Committee whether solicitor advocates will work under precisely the same discipline which exists for members of the Bar or will it be entirely different?
The Lord Chancellor: The Bill sets out a framework for determining the rules under which solicitors will operate. The full requirements of the professional body, the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor must be met before any new rights of audience can be exercised.
The Earl of Selkirk: Does the noble and learned Lord mean different rights of audience?
The Lord Chancellor: The rights of audience may well be different as between a solicitor and a barrister.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Exactly 58 minutes ago I moved the amendment and spoke to my group of eight. I said that they were poor amendments but my own and since they have been taken over by all noble Lords who have spoken to them.
I reinforce what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who always treats everybody with the greatest of ceremonious courtesy and then, like a Renaissance prince, produces from behind his back a dagger with which he stabs the person whom he was complimenting! However, some of us have had a lot of experience in Parliament and know when we are allowed to make Second Reading speeches and when we are not. As has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, Clause 24 deals with rights of audience in a Bill which contains many different provisions. Therefore, to be censured for making a speech saying that one does not think that this is a good clause seems to me to be rather hard. However, as I said, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does that with such great ceremony that I always enjoy the flash of the dagger.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that it is always disappointing to find that someone sitting within six inches has not understood what one has said. I spoke about costs. However, there are statistics which bear me out. If the noble Lord likes to examine the difference between costs in cases in county courts and magistrates' courts where a solicitor instructs a barrister and a solicitor appears himself as an advocate, he is very welcome to do so. If he did that, I do not believe he would make the same speech he made on my amendments.
Also we are not talking here about privileges and the rights of particular branches of the legal profession. I thought that I had made it clear that we are talking about my interest in the efficient and effective administration of justice. It is because I believe that what my noble and learned friend proposes will make that less effective and more costly and will not advance the interests of those who come to the courts and have to be served by the courts that I have taken the view that I have.
As regards the relationship between the professions, I see that my noble friend Lord Boardman is here. I referred to him when I moved my amendments to make it clear what I felt about his branch of the profession: namely, that I have worked closely with it, I admire it and I believe that it has played an important part in the lives of many more citizens than would a barrister. In 1975 when I was chairman of the Bar, I went with Sir Edmund Liggins, a distinguished president of the Law Society, to Bath where we issued a declaration of alliance, friendship and working together between the two

61
branches of the profession. Others came later which somewhat disrupted the spirit which had grown up between the two branches of the profession.
I believe that we have different tasks and need different skills. It is not because of any privilege for barristers—a profession from which I have retired —that I move these amendments. It is in the best interests of the administration of justice. I have seen that elsewhere where there is a combined profession the system does not work as well as it does here. For those reasons I move this amendment. I do not propose to ask leave to withdraw them but I do not propose to go into the Division Lobby in support of them.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 19, line 35, at end insert —
("( ) the Institute of Legal Executives;").
The noble Lord said: In addressing the Committee on this amendment I also seek to address it on Amendments Nos. 141ZA, 145A, 154A and 154B. By taking five amendments together, which I do not believe are controversial, I hope that we shall slightly increase the pace of our deliberations this evening.
My amendments concern the Institute of Legal Executives and are directed towards two objectives —to enable solicitors' clerks to retain their existing rights of audience (I refer the noble and learned Lord to Amendments Nos. 154A and 154B for that purpose) and to enable solicitors' clerks to gain limited increased rights of audience (I refer for that purpose to Amendments Nos. 140A and 141ZA).
I have tabled Amendment No. 145A which relates to the rights of solicitors' clerks to conduct litigation. Having further considered the Bill, I do not believe that it is necessary at this stage to consider that matter because it appears that under Clauses 25 and 30 solicitors' clerks have and will continue to have the same rights to conduct litigation within and out of solicitors' offices.
I told the Committee something about the Institute of Legal Executives last Thursday evening. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to repeat what has already been said. I merely remind the Committee that the institute is the parent body for solicitors' clerks and legal executives. There are an estimated 50,000 solicitors' clerks currently employed in the profession.
However, I do just add to my previous speech a word about the important contribution which legal executives and their forerunners, managing clerks, make to the legal process. Throughout my 25 years of practice I have had many occasions on each side of the profession to rely upon the wisdom and experience of experienced legal executives. Nor is that a new experience, because in 1901, when Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy was considering in the case of Vimbos v. Meadowcroft, which the noble and learned Lord has already cited to the Committee, the objection taken by counsel that a solicitors' clerk did
62
not have the right of audience in chambers before the High Court, he said that:
"The judge in chambers habitually hears not only counsel and the solicitors of the parties, but also any responsible representative of the solicitors sent from their office. Business could not be conducted satisfactorily unless managing clerks were allowed to represent their principals in chambers".
With that background, I identify for the Committee the current rights of audience possessed by legal executives. First, they have the right —and this is based on the authority already cited to the Committee by the noble and learned Lord —to appear in chambers in the High Court before High Court judges and masters of the High Court. That right is preserved in this Bill in Clause 24(2)(e).
Secondly, legal executives have the right to appear in open proceedings in the county court, not for opportunities of great forensic triumph but on unopposed applications for adjournments and on applications for judgment by consent. As I read this Bill, that right is also to be preserved in Clause 24(1)(b) and by the operation of Section 61 of the County Courts Act. Under that section the Lord Chancellor has the right to give directions to enable persons to have an audience in the county court. The noble and learned Lord's predecessor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, gave a direction which allowed an audience to Fellows of the Institute in those open proceedings in the county court which I have just described to the Committee.
The third right of audience of solicitors' clerks is in chambers in county courts. That right is not preserved by Section 61 of the County Courts Act, but I assume that before this Bill becomes law the noble and learned Lord will give a direction to enable solicitors' clerks to continue to have that right of audience. I should be grateful for confirmation about that matter.
A fourth area where solicitors' clerks currently have a right of audience is before a legal aid tribunal when a legal aid certificate is refused. They have certain rights of audience before other tribunals, statutory inquiries and arbitrations. Those rights are not covered by the Bill for reasons I shall outline. From now onwards all rights of audience will be determined, as stated in Clause 24, solely in accordance with the terms of Part II of the Bill. There is no special provision for these rights of audience under Clause 24(2) and there is no deeming clause for the preservation of all existing rights held by solicitors' clerks and legal executives as there are for rights of audience for the Bar under Clause 28 and for solicitors under Clause 29.
The concern arises because the definition of "courts" under Clause 81 extends to tribunals, arbitrations and statutory inquiries. It appears therefore that the rights of audience of solicitors' clerks are no longer preserved under the Bill.
The solution that I place before the Committee in Amendments Nos. 154A and 154B would require an amendment to Clause 29(1). Under that clause solicitors' rights of audience would be extended to cover existing rights of solicitors' clerks in their employment. I ask the noble and learned Lord to accept those two amendments. If there is any defect

63
in the means by which I seek to achieve that objective, I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord could accept the principle.
In proposing the amendment I have the support of the Law Society and I think, although I have not received it in writing, the support of the Bar.
The second amendment would enable legal executives to acquire modest increased rights of audience under the provisions of the Bill. That will involve the full consultation process with the advisory committee under Schedule 4. Legal executives do not anticipate seeking extensive new rights of audience; they are anxious to have rights of audience, for example, in open court before the registrar of the county court where they already have extensive experience in chambers. There are other limited rights which they would like considered under the mechanism of the advisory committee; for example, audience in open court before the county court and the magistrates' courts.
There are two alternative means of achieving the objective. The first is to enable the Institute of Legal Executives to become an authorised body, as proposed by Amendment No. 140A. For a variety of reasons I believe that that course is undesirable. Legal executives work as employees of solicitors. They have no wish to practise independently of the solicitors' practice. Many of the younger members, as I told your Lordships in Committee on Thursday evening, by means of their training and education as legal executives, progress to become fully admitted solicitors.
The alternative means of achieving the objective is under the umbrella of the Law Society so that the Law Society, under Clause 24(7), can grant rights of audience not only to its members but to its members' employees. That approach, contained within Amendment No. 141ZA, has the support of the Law Society and, I believe, of the Bar.
In relation to public interest, it is recognised that there is a need for more advocates at the lower end of the market. There is a need for more advocates, and less expensive advocates, although of good and experienced quality, to appear before the registrar in the county court. To that extent this amendment seeks to serve the public interest. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: No one who has been at the Bar has other than the greatest possible respect for managing clerks, as they were, and legal executives, as they now are. I am sure that, one way or another, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to preserve their jurisdiction. In so far as anybody wishes that jurisdiction to be widened, perhaps it is a matter that is better dealt with through the machinery that is established by the Bill.
I rise because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has stumbled, advertently or inadvertently, upon a quite astonishing drafting result —I hesitate to suggest that it is an error —if I have understood it correctly. It arises under Clause 24(2) when read with the definition of "court." The subsection states:
64
"A person shall only have a right of audience before a court in relation to any proceedings in the following cases".
Apparently "court" includes a consensual arbitration according to the definition in Clause 81(1)(c) which states that,
"an arbitrator or umpire, however appointed and whether the arbitration takes place under a reference by consent or otherwise".
It is arguable that Clause 24 prevents anyone appearing before a consensual arbitrator. I find that situation quite astonishing; I am sure that it is not intended. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or those advising him will give the matter a little consideration.
Lord Hacking: It was not an inadvertent stumble; it was something that I had identified. I am very grateful for the noble and learned Lord for joining in my concern.
Lord Mishcon: I believe that there are certain proceedings where a solicitor's clerk can attend before the Master, namely in regard to a claim for damages and the assessment of damages where the proceedings are not technically heard in chambers but in open court. That is only a procedural matter. The noble and learned Lord may care to look into that situation because of the words "in chambers in the High Court". I shall raise this matter on clause stand part. That is a present ability of the solicitor's clerk to be heard by the Master.
Lord Roskill: I should like to echo the point made by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls. I had not spotted it until the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls drew attention to it. I have always understood that anyone can appear in an arbitration, whatever their qualification. You can have a friend from down the street; you can have your neighbour. Some of us have occasionally suffered from incoherent advocates without any professional qualification appearing in arbitrations. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls would agree that the provision in Clause 24 appears to be restricted. Therefore, if this provision stands, somebody who hitherto has been entitled to appear before an arbitration, will not be entitled to do so. Like the noble and learned Lord, I cannot believe that that is the intention.
The Lord Chancellor: It is intended that all existing rights of audience should be preserved. We are not in the business of cutting any down. I shall look at the point that has been raised concerning the definition.
The general saving is intended to be effected by Clause 24(2)(ii)(b) which states:
"Where paragraph (a) does not apply but he is granted a right of audience before that court in relation to these proceedings by or under any enactment".
That general provision goes a long way towards preserving existing rights.
With regard to the point raised about chambers in the county court, my understanding is that the Institute of Legal Executives does not have rights in that regard. It is a matter of discretion for the

65
registrar or the judge. As regards legal aid tribunals and the like, there are no current restrictions so the Bill does not alter that position. With reference to new rights of audience, I suggest to the noble Lord, as my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls has suggested, that if extended rights of audience were to be granted to the Institute of Legal Executives it should be done under the machinery created under the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord has undertaken to look at the point that I have raised.
The Lord Chancellor: I dealt with that matter by saying that it is intended to preserve all existing rights of audience.
Lord Morris: I rise not least for the reason that my name is attached to this amendment. Another reason for rising is that at a late hour last week my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor accepted a suggestion concerning the Institute of Legal Executives, or managing clerks, as they were known. I referred to the interests of these members and asked for these matters to be considered between now and the next stage of the Bill. It is for that reason that I do not wish to delay the Committee in any way.
I wish to make one point. In my view there is no doubt that one of the main directions in which this Bill is going is in opening up access to the general public to greater opportunities for representations in the courts or in the conduct of litigation. It would be difficult to find a more experienced band of people than those who used to be called managing clerks. Here we have a perfect opportunity for the public to take advantage of this experience, as many solicitors and barristers who are involved in the conduct of litigation have done.
With that in mind, I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government would consider these issues important not least with regard to the ongoing success of the Crown Prosecution Service. It has a very serious problem in finding good people to act for it. If a person is a member of the Institute of Legal Executives—and I may be quite wrong here—he is qualified under the rules of that organisation in certain aspects of the criminal law. Those qualifications are totally accepted by the Law Society in terms of standards. However, the members have no rights of audience in the courts as pleaders either for the prosecution or for the defence.
We have here an opportunity for the Government to take advantage of a band of people who are qualified and who practise within the law. That is the only reason this amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hackling, whom I support. However, the hour is very late and I do not wish to pursue the issue, particularly bearing in mind the fact that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has agreed to consider these matters in the intervening period between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Hacking: Though I have the voice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and possibly that of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls against me, I rise with some concern. The noble and learned Lord said that there is no intention in this Bill to deprive any person who has existing rights of audience. I am very grateful to hear that. The noble and learned Lord then began to alarm me by saying, in the first place, that he identified the right of audience before a registrar in the county court as a discretionary right resting with the individual registrar. Therefore I understood him to say that, as presently advised, as regards this Bill he has no intention to use Section 61 of the County Courts Act which would enable that right to be established under his authority.
The Lord Chancellor: I did not say that at all. That right exists if I give a direction. As regards new rights of audience not already covered by the statute, I suggest they should be covered by the machinery in the Bill.
Lord Hacking: It is just a technical matter. My argument is that in the way the Bill is drafted certain existing rights available to the legal executive will not exist under the terms of this Bill unless they are amended in the way I suggested to the Committee. As regards the future provisions, I am urging on the Committee no course other than that legal executives should obtain increased rights of audience under the mechanism of this Bill if they so wish them.
There is difficulty, and that is why I have moved this amendment. There is not a convenient mechanism under the terms of this Bill available for members of the Institute of Legal Executives. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but as the Bill is currently drafted the only way in which the Institute of Legal Executives and its members can obtain rights of audience is through an application under Clause 24(7)(c), which states:
"any professional or other body which has been designated by Order in Council as an authorised body".
The institute would then have to go through the full process of seeking its rights under the terms of the Bill.
I have already urged on the Committee that that is not the most convenient or appropriate course because legal executives are seeking to continue to practice where they are practising now; namely, under solicitors and working in solicitors' offices. That is why I suggested the alternative and much more convenient course with the Law Society. If Members of the Committee look at subsection (7) of that clause they will find the definition of the appropriate "authorised body". If under subsection (7)(c), "appropriate authorised body", paragraph (b) was amended to include after the words "a member" the words "or an employee of a member", the Law Society would be able to obtain for legal executives, in discussion with the institute and others, further rights of audience. Without that amendment there is left a very clumsy position; namely, that the institute has to go the whole hog and seek to become an authorised body. That is undesirable.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand what the noble Lord has said and I will consider the matter further. My present view is that if Members of the Institute of Legal Executives are to obtain further rights of audience in their own right as legal executives by virtue of their qualifications, that is probably best done by their applying in the ordinary way. It is not a very big thing to do. I should have thought that was the right way to go about it. The idea that the Law Society can apply on behalf of the Institute of Legal Executives concerning a person who is one of its employees may be all right, but a question would arise concerning his rights if he left its employment. I believe that the situation may not be as straight-forward as suggested. I am certainly happy to consider the matter further.
Lord Hacking: If I have done nothing else I have here identified a problem. On the basis of the noble and learned Lord expressing a willingness to consider the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendment Nos. 141 and 141ZA not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 19, line 47, after ("it") insert—
(" "recognised body" means any body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated practices)").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
[Amendment No. 141B not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Rights to conduct litigation]:
[Amendments Nos. 142 to 147 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Authorised bodies: designation and approval of regulations and rules]:
Lord Morris Lord Morris had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 147A:
Page 21, line 33, at end insert —
("( ) An Order in Council shall not be made in pursuance of a recommendation made under subsection (2) above unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment and received an adequate reply from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Therefore I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 147A not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: This may be a convenient time to break for dinner. In moving that the House do now resume, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage does not begin before 8.5 p.m. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount how late we are expected to sit tonight. In doing so I should like to indicate the undesirability of having to discuss a Bill of this kind late at night or early in the morning. I should also point out that we spent three-quarters of an hour earlier this afternoon on a Statement.
Viscount Ullswater: I understand that lists of the amendments to be moved today are available at the door. We must see how we do during the course of the evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to
House resumed.

Code of Practice on the Implementation of the Mental Health Act 1983
7.2 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone rose to move, That the code laid before the House on 5th December be withdrawn.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship whose views are strongly supported by a parallel organisation called Rescare.
The code of practice for England and Wales is most unfortunately still not a success. It had a fairly chequered history which I shall briefly outline. The Secretary of State asked the Mental Health Act Commission to prepare a draft which was circulated for comments in December 1985. As a result of considerable and often critical response, including that from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, to this lengthy 236-page document, the Secretary of State decided to withdraw it and produce a shorter document. This 45-page revised code appeared in August 1987 and comments were invited by November 1987. Once again people complained about it. It was widely criticised, especially by the Mental Health Act Commission. It was again withdrawn.
Mr. William Bingley, the legal director of MIND, was seconded early in 1989 for six months to the Department of Health to prepare a third version, which was laid before the House of Commons in December 1989 without formal consultation. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship was asked to give its views on the draft in an ad hoc and informal way, but its concerns have not been taken on board. The Act has been in existence for six years without its much-needed code of practice to guide the professionals in its use. This code is still unnecessarily long, at 86 pages, and does not in many places accurately reflect the Act. I make a strong point of that. The Act requires the code to clarify and explain it.
The Scottish code to which I must refer has been generally welcomed throughout Scotland and in particular by the Scottish branch of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. It is much shorter, at only 24 pages, but more importantly still it takes care where relevant to quote the Scottish Act accurately.
Having dealt with that basic problem I should like to make three detailed criticisms of the code which exemplify where it is wrong and point to parts of it which clearly need to be put right. The first relates to paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 of the code which give the reasons for compulsory admission to hospital. These are stated clearly in Part I of the Scottish code. It says that a person can be detained in hospital:
"in the interests of his own health or safety or for the protection of others".
It uses the exact words of the Act. In the English code the words "health and safety" and later "health and/or safety" are used, which do not appear in the Act. I consider it extremely important that the words of the Act should not be tampered with and that the code should clarify a situation which has led to many problems, and will continue to do so unless the matter is cleared up, for England and Wales.
Many NSF members report extreme difficulty or failure in securing compulsory admission to hospital for schizophrenics who refuse treatment on a voluntary basis but are felt by their relatives or carers to need it urgently. It has seemed for some time that this partly arose from misconceptions about the Act on the part of some social workers and doctors. The parts to which I have just referred will make this worse, not better, because it will be more difficult for social workers and doctors to interpret the Act accurately. Evidence of this misconception by workers and doctors was published recently in a standard psychiatric textbook written by three psychiatrists. The NSF has had it corrected. A book written by a consultant psychiatrist made the same mistake, as did a printed summary of the main provisions of the Act published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. This mistake is to say that compulsory admission is only possible if a person is a danger to himself or others.
The NSF knows of cases where a person has never been admissible for those reasons. For example, the son of one of its members spent two-and-a-half years having bizarre fantasies after breaking down at university. Depite diagnosis of schizophrenia and efforts to admit him formally he refused to accept that he was ill. He was never a danger to himself or others. When admitted compulsorily at last in the interests of his own health he improved dramatically after treatment and was even able to work with computers.
My second point relates to paragraphs 18.23 and 18.28 which concern care for the patient detained in hospital. Those patients are detained because they are a danger to themselves: they may commit suicide; they may also be a danger to others; and they are violent because of their delusions. Moreover, in England they are often not in fact detained.
An extract from an NSF members letter illustrates that fact. It reads:
"Four or five attempts were made by us, his parents, to get our son into hospital … He eventually finished up assaulting a poor woman and was therefore committed to prison on remand. He was shuffled around Croydon, Leicester, Birmingham, Herts … and finally to Brixton … When eventually up in court in Croydon he was ordered to be detained in Warlingham Park Hospital … I knew he should have been put in a secure ward and expressed my disquiet when this was not effected … he was put in an open
70
ward. He absconded, was picked up, and again remanded for breaking terms of bail. How do the authorities expect a man to behave …when he is in effect shown an open door?"
The NSF's concern, and indeed mine, is with the emphasis in the English code which seems to be over much on the patient's freedom, despite his admission as a detained patient who may remain violent or suicidal until treatment has had time to help him. It is found that detained patients leave hospital with ease. The Scottish code, while firmly stating what are the patients' rights, is far more balanced about the need to sometimes restrict that liberty. To find reference to that one would need to turn to paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the Scottish code.
Finally, I should like to turn to paragraphs 2.27 and 2.30 of the code. There the English and Welsh code seems to be reluctant to involve the nearest relative. This particular section refers to what the nearest relative should know. The Scottish code states clearly in paragraph 1.2 that an application for admission to hospital,
"is made by a person's nearest relative or by a mental health officer".
It continues to say,
"the nearest relative will require professional guidance".
It then stipulates in paragraph 1.7 that one of the first tasks of the mental health officer,
"should be to agree with the nearest relative which of them should make the application".
The English code is quite different in saying that the approved social worker and doctor should advise the nearest relative of his right to apply, "where necessary". In a situation where relatives are usually totally ignorant about the provisions of the Act, I feel that professionals should tell them what their rights are, what they can do legally and how to do it —as the Scottish code requires.
Therefore we are left with an inadequate code. The examples I have quoted are not the only inadequacies. It is a code which is excessively biased towards what one might call the "civil liberties theme". That is not what Parliament wished to introduce when it passed the Act. Moreover, the code does not repeat the Act. Therefore it will be much better if this code could be withdrawn even at this late stage and if the Department of Health could swallow its pride and issue for England and Wales the Scottish code, suitably amended to take care of the fact that we do not have sheriffs south of the border. Of course, other small points would have to be dealt with where the provisions of the Acts may be different. But, most important, we should have a code which reflects the Act and one which explains it; but it should not be interpreted by someone who happens to be keen on civil liberties.
Therefore I hope that noble Lords will find themselves able to support my plea that this code should be withdrawn. I also hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us that there will be some give as regards amending, if not withdrawing, this code in the future. We do not have much time.
I have endeavoured to speak as rapidly as possible. I trust that I have covered the main points, and I hope that those splendid noble Lords who have put

71
their names down to speak will do so briefly. Further, I hope that those who do not take my view will not speak at all. I beg to move.
Moved, That the code laid before the House on 5th December be withdrawn. —(Lord Mottistone.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, this splendid noble Lord (if I may be allowed to creep in under that umbrella) will certainly speak briefly. Many noble Lords present in the Chamber this evening will remember the passage of the Mental Health Bill in 1982. That legislation subsequently became enacted in 1983. It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, pointed out, that it had a strong emphasis on patients' rights and on civil liberties. Moreover, bodies such as Justice were very active in promoting those aims throughout the Bill's passage. Most of us at that time felt when the Bill was enacted that we had an enlightened Act of which we could be proud. That is certainly my recollection of those days.
I was somewhat alarmed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, speak in what I thought to be slightly disparaging terms of a "civil liberties theme". However, that does not mean that I think he has not made a good point. But the scale of the problem is that of nearly 200,000 admissions in 1986—which is the last year for which figures are available—14·9 per cent., say, 15 per cent. of admissions for mentally ill patients were in the area of schizophrenia and paranoid cases —that is to say, roughly, 30,000 admissions. Over that period, only 6·8 per cent. of the admissions were compulsory. That means, if we spread it evenly across the board that possibly something in the region of 2,000 admissions were compulsory in that category. As I understand it that is the scale of the problem.
The concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in moving his Motion really seems to fall into two main categories. The first is that the code does not sufficiently emphasise what is written in the Act under Section 2(2)(b) under the title,
"Compulsory Admission to Hospital and Guardianship".
The subsection reads:
"he should be so detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view of protection of other persons".
Therefore there are three considerations —that is, his own health; his safety; or the protection of other persons. The implication behind this Motion is that health professionals are perhaps not giving enough attention to the first of those three categories—namely, the interests of his, or, by implication, her health.
The second implication that I read into the noble Lord's Motion is that the rights of relatives are not being sufficiently valued by the health professionals concerned. If we look at Section 13(4) of the Act it reads:
"It shall be the duty of a local social services authority, if so required by the nearest relative of a patient residing in their area, to direct an approved social worker as soon as practicable to take the patient's case into consideration under subsection (1) above with a view to making an application for his admission to hospital;
72
and if in any such case that approved social worker decides not to make an application he shall inform the nearest relative of his reasons in writing".
I think that I am right in saying that the relative can be one of the people who make an application with a GP for an emergency admission, in conjunction with two health professionals, one of whom must have been a psychiatrist for a longer period of time. In the noble Lord's speech and the briefing put out by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, I detect a feeling that those two rights or areas of concern of the relatives are not being properly met.
The noble Lord also suggested that the code does not properly reflect the Act. It uses the words "when necessary"; that is to say, that the relative can be informed of his or her rights "when necessary". That is presumably a subjective judgment by the social worker or the other health professionals concerned. That right should be made clearer to the relatives. There is a delicate balance to be struck. There is obviously some substance in those worries which is related partly to the nature of schizophrenia. There are many conditions of mental illness which do not normally lead to psychosis, whereas, sadly, at one time or another schizophrenia almost invariably does. The patient suffers from delusions and is divorced from reality. That often gives rise to severely aberrant behaviour against himself, herself or others. The noble Lord said that suicides are not infrequent in schizophrenia cases.
The thing about psychotic conditions, as I understand it —I hesitate to speak when noble Lords with a medical background are in the House —is that they can be successfully treated with a chemical therapy if given in time and maintained at a proper level. If action is not taken in time on the application of a concerned relative by the necessary health professionals, then the type of case mentioned by the noble Lord where the patient ends up in prison on remand is a possible outcome.
It is probably not clear at the moment which side I am coming down on. Those concerns need to be considered. I am informed that psychiatrists are often afraid to use their powers to treat patients, even when they have been detained compulsorily, in case there are later actions against them. My recollection is that there are plenty of provisions in the Act to protect patients; that is to say, the six-month safeguard of an application to the Mental Health Tribunal or a compulsory review. When the Bill was going through the House, we wrote those provisions into it, and as far as I know they still operate.
The noble Lord mentioned the Scottish code, which I am bound to say I have not read. I know that the Act is different but perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us when she replies whether there are rational grounds for the divergence between the two codes north and south of the Border.
I assume that in accordance with the normal practice of the House the noble Lord will not push this Motion to a Division. If he were to do so, I would find it difficult to support him. He has raised some queries which the Government should take seriously, with the aim of seeing whether, in this

73
extremely difficult area, the interests of the patient's health and the difficulties faced by the relatives of schizophrenic patients cannot be improved or the balance against the families and the carers perhaps to some extent redressed.
I return to where I started. The Act was a liberal and a civilising one designed to remove repressive measures from mentally ill people. That is one of its main purposes; I remain fully in support of that purpose. It would be surprising if, after several years of operation, difficulties in the administration of the Act did not emerge. It is reasonable that the Government should take on board some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord and produce a reasoned answer to them. We look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness says.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, as this is the first occasion the noble Baroness has answered from the Dispatch Box on a Motion on mental health, I should like to say how warmly I welcome her arrival in this important field of health. As the prospects seem to be that the responsibilities for treatment and after care are likely to remain fragmented between two or three central departments and a host of local authorities, it is especially fortunate that she has had distinguished service in local government and is well known for her distinguished service in co-ordinating air traffic control. Her powers will be fully exercised.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has given us this opportunity to air some of the uneasiness we feel about the omissions in the code. I, and I am sure others, are mystified as to why the points put forward by the NSF which, after all, is the recognised expert on schizophrenia, have not been taken on board by the department when they were courteously brought to its attention.
To take the noble Lord's first ground for uneasiness, it is extremely important that grounds for admission are generally recognised as the right of a sick person to be treated whether or not there is an apparent danger to himself or others. That distinction goes to the root of many of the problems involved in handling schizophrenia. There is often danger, but there is often no danger. We are dealing with a serious pathological state. The illness is the central causation of the symptoms, and it is mainly a health issue. Social aspects, however important, are secondary. So why does the code conceal from those it seeks to guide the fact that the first ground for compulsory admission to hospital is the interests of the patient's health? I cannot believe that there is a deliberate effort to conceal. If the answer is that all concerned know that well enough and know that admission is possible on grounds of health alone, it must be said that that is not true. Relatives normally have little familiarity with the terms of the Act. As the noble Lord reminded us, if those writing the textbooks sometimes do not know, how can the ordinary layman be expected to know?
In my view, the code is in most respects admirable and will be of great help. No one therefore wishes to delay its publication. Goodness knows, it has been long enough in gestation. Therefore, I wonder whether the objects of the noble Lord might be
74
achieved not by delaying publication but by circulating an accompanying brief leaflet with every copy of the code. Then the correction could be made in due course when the second edition of the code is circulated. We certainly do not wish to be obstructive but the code must not be allowed to mislead.
I have further uneasiness about it in its present excellent form. That uneasiness relates to chapter 26 on aftercare. The code quite rightly says that all those contributing to the discussion about what should be done for the patient after discharge should take into account a variety of important considerations. One paragraph dealing with issues that must be considered refers to,
"day care arrangements, appropriate accommodation, out-patient treatment…assistance in managing finances, and, if necessary, in claiming benefits".
That is just a selection of the issues that have to be considered. If there is to be the right kind of aftercare, all these issues require a great many qualified, trained staff. In previous discussions in your Lordships' House, we have expressed our dismay at the present gap between the need for trained community psychiatric nurses, for instance, and the existing provision. To some extent in this chapter the code is in danger of encouraging a complacent approach to what is likely to emerge. Resources are at the centre of the solution to the aftercare problem. We look forward to the debate which will take place before very long on the forthcoming Bill. We hope that we shall be given encouraging news about resources. We also hope that the noble Baroness will do her best to ensure that this comes about.
In the absence of such an outcome it seems to me that there is precious little possibility of the kind of aftercare to which the code looks forward. Until the resources are available and until the necessary trained and qualified aftercare staff are available I suggest that the discharge of patients should for the most part be suspended.
7.35 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness who will answer the Prayer of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He has enabled us to debate the matter this evening and I support his Motion for this code of practice to be withdrawn in order that it may be reworded. Doctors need to be given stronger and clearer powers to enable them to make sure that patients remain in hospital until reasonable time has been given both for diagnosis and for treatment.
Treatment delays always militate against recovery chances in cases of schizophrenia. There is an ambiguity about the wording of the code of practice for England and Wales and it is liable to be misinterpreted. It should be possible to retain a patient in hospital either because of the seriousness of his condition or because of the possibility of physical harm being done to himself or to others.
Withdrawal of the code of practice will enable it to be replaced by a clearer code. The giving of greater powers to retain a person in hospital should run parallel with adequate provision of nursing staff, hospital beds and aftercare treatment. A new code

75
will give more confidence to all concerned, not least to relatives, who need to rely on doctors to assume full responsibility in matters where only medicine can help and only doctors can decide.
The rights of the patient must be carefully defined so that unwarranted periods of incarceration are avoided. The claustrophobic fear arising from lengthy stays in the not altogether homely confines of hospital should be understood. Where enforced incarceration is required for the sake of treatment, there should be rules available to enforce the incarceration —not only rules, but as a last resort there should be practical ways in which to stop people from escaping as well. I remember once escaping from hospital myself, but that was my first night of freedom after three years of incarceration as a POW. It was perhaps understandable.
This Prayer concerns the English and Welsh code of practice only. I am glad to think that in this instance Scotland may have done it better and I should be happy to see the Scottish code taken as a guide.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that my name was omitted from the list of speakers in error, although perhaps I should say in defence that the error was not mine. Since noble Lords have not been given written notice that they would have to listen to me, it behoves me to be as brief as I possibly can. I shall be.
I too at the outset wish to congratulate the noble Baroness who is to reply on the subject from the Front Bench. I am sure she will make an admirable Minister but I must warn her that if she becomes too good at it, when she has mastered the subject properly the Government will move her. That always happens in our House.
The noble Earl, Lord Haig, talked about the need for doctors to have more powers. As a doctor I am a little nervous about powers. I tend to feel that doctors do not need powers if they do their job properly. However I take the point that the noble Earl made that patients are discharged from hospital who should not be discharged.
The question of powers is at the very heart of the argument we have been having. We had the same argument way back in 1982 when we debated at very great length, night after night, the Mental Health Act, the Mental Health Act Commission and so on. We then had to try to balance the civil liberties side of the question, the rights of the individual and individual freedom with medical needs. That is not an easy balance to strike.
Noble Lords are right, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in making it entirely clear that the difficulties tend to arise with patients suffering or believed to be suffering from schizophrenia. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, does and has done admirable work for some time for the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. It is therefore entirely understandable that he should raise the fellowship's present anxieties, most of which arise in that field.
It is right to say that this is a difficult area. It is not one in which there are easy solutions. However,
76
we know that schizophrenic patients have a tendency to relapse if they stop taking their medication. They have a tendency to stop taking their medication once they cease to be under medical control. That is one of the problems. In my view it would be regrettable if the code were now withdrawn after many years of compilation of evidence. We need a code.
I note that the Royal College of Psychiatrists is very anxious that the code should not be withdrawn. However, perhaps it would be appropriate to remind the Royal College that some of the difficulties have arisen because some of the members of that college have sometimes made grave errors with regard to schizophrenic patients. I raised the matter of one such patient in your Lordships' House some time ago. I mentioned the tragic case of Isabel Schwarz who was a social worker in a hospital in London murdered by a schizophrenic patient. That patient had received no supervision at all from the consultant psychiatrist under whose care he had been.
How do we draw the lines? It is difficult, but we are certainly not drawing them in the right places. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was right to highlight aftercare. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, introduced schizophrenia aftercare legislation because aftercare for schizophrenic patients is not now a reality in any sense of the word. No kind of code of practice can make it so. The aftercare that many such patients receive is the care they receive sleeping rough on the streets of London. A high proportion of the people who occupy beds in hostels for homeless people are schizophrenic patients.
I am not saying that all those patients should be rounded up and locked up in hospital, but there are many cases in which schizophrenic patients have exercised their freedom and have discharged themselves from hospital. However, no real efforts have been made to keep them under medication at a time when their health requires it. Therefore, I think it is regrettable that we have wandered away from the words in the Act in drawing up the code of practice.
I agree that the Scottish code is better. It is a much shorter code but shorter provisions are usually better. We often hear that things are done better in Scotland than here. I am not saying that we should scrap the English and Welsh code and merely adopt the Scottish one, but this debate has been useful in that it will have drawn attention to the fact that grave problems are arising and the code of practice is unclear about a number of matters.
One thing is certain in my view and that is that if all the psychiatrists, social workers and others involved with these patients interpreted the Act and the code of practice sensibly, intelligently and with great care nothing need go wrong. The code of practice cannot on its own stop things going wrong but far too many things have gone wrong and seriously wrong in recent years with regard to schizophrenic patients. The code of practice cannot stop that but thought about the code of practice and particularly re-examination of it by those who have to operate it can do nothing but good. I shall not sit

77
on the fence as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said he was, like the good old Liberal which he used to be —
Lord Kilmarnock: I came off the fence.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Lord says that he came off the fence. It would be regrettable if the code of practice were withdrawn but I think it is helpful that some of our misgivings should be ventilated. However, it would be even more helpful if some of the things that were said in your Lordships' House, not only on this occasion but in the debates that took place during the passage of the legislation of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, not so long ago, were heard and heeded by those who work in this field. If that were the case, things would be bound to improve.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I too should apologise for not having my name on the list of speakers. I should thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for showing kindness to a Bishop who has gone astray. However, I was not in time to put my name on the list.
I am in touch with this subject through being president of the Worcestershire branch of MIND. I can say that the need for a code of practice is paramount. Everyone involved in this field tells me that now is the time to have a code. I believe they are in favour of the one we have on the table. However, we must also take account of what the National Schizophrenia Fellowship is saying. I have seen all too often families almost destroyed by the problem of schizophrenia which they have to cope with by themselves. They are asking that a schizophrenic person should be put into care for his or her own benefit.
In one Salvation Army hostel in this city, out of 123 men nearly 40, that is 32 per cent., are schizophrenic patients who have discharged themselves from hospital and have gone onto the streets. Sometimes of course their parents have died and they have no home to go to. They are not on the lists of any agency and the future is extremely bleak for them. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will produce a code of practice, whether it be this one or the Scottish one, as we cannot wait any longer. The Mental Health Act was passed in 1983 and a code of practice for those working in the field is now necessary.
Further, I ask that the pleas of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship be taken seriously and that that body be reassured. I go along with those who have already said that codes of practice will be of no use at all unless there are reasonable resources of professional help for those in the community. May we have a code and may we take seriously the things which are said by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship? I go along with the code that we already have, if only the Government can reassure those who are in doubt about the schizophrenia problem.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I told my noble friend Lord Mottistone several days ago that I would
78
be speaking in this debate but I was not aware that there would be a list of speakers as on previous occasions of this kind there has not been such a list. That is why my name is not on the list.
First of all I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lady Blatch on her present position. I believe this is the first health debate to which she will reply although she has already been active at Question Time. I wish to support what my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said in raising two matters under the code of practice for England and Wales which are dealt with quite differently from the way in which the Scottish code deals with them. The Scottish code appears to be satisfactory on the reasons for compulsory admission to hospital. The Scottish code repeats exactly the words of the 1984 Scottish Act.
As regards the treatment of the nearest relative to the sufferer, in the Scottish code the nearest relative is to be given the kind of professional guidance and help which most of us believe the nearest relative should get as the relative probably does not know very much about the illness and the availability of help. On those two points my noble friend has rightly pointed out the weaknesses in the code for England and Wales.
We all have in mind —it is quite right that it should be prominent in our minds —when considering this provision that schizophrenia is a severe mental illness which is not the Jekyll and Hyde phenomenon that many think it is. Its cause is still not known and a cure has not been discovered. Much progress has, however, been made in medicine and in the treatment of the illness.
In the last Session my noble friend Lord Mottistone piloted through the Schizophrenia After-Care Bill as a Private Member's Bill. In doing so, he performed an important service in drawing attention to the problems which arise with that illness. I shall not repeat some of what I and others said at various stages of the Bill.
Schizophrenia is an illness which does not observe parliamentary orders. In particular, it strikes when people are in their teens. It very often leads to the disappearance of the young person, who may travel a long distance. Certainly the Scottish Border will not be a barrier, in one direction or the other. It also strikes when people are students and away from home. It seems wrong that there should be differences in those two important points in the codes.
I am patron of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (Scotland). I was also chairman for Scotland in 1981 of the International Year of Disabled People. We placed emphasis in the United Kingdom at that time on mental disabilities. On that occasion, I had a great deal to do in the United Kingdom and in England because, as some noble Lords will remember, the chairman for England, Sir Christopher Aston, was very ill and in hospital for much of the year. Sadly for his family and many friends, he died at the end of the year. He made a magnificent contribution as chairman for England though he himself was burdened with severe illness.
In 1981 in the United Kingdom we placed an emphasis on mental disability to draw attention to

79
it and generate greater public awareness at a time when, I am glad to say, more and more people in the country were prepared to consider mental illness for what it was, and not sweep it under the carpet. In the spirit of that year and the way it was conducted, I ask the Government to have another look at the code for England and Wales.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I also apologise for not having put my name down on the list of speakers in time. I shall be very brief. When I heard about this Motion, I spoke to my neighbour who has a schizophrenic son. She said that she would consult her son and ask what he thought of the proposal that compulsory admission should be available in the interests of the health of the schizophrenic on the application of a relation or doctor. He was in complete agreement that it should be clear that that was the right thing to do. He admitted that he had discharged himself from hospital before he should have done. This is anecdotal, but he confirmed that a friend of his in the same situation agreed.
There are only two other points I wish to make. On discharging themselves schizophrenics will almost certainly not take their medication. That is extremely important and is supposed to be put right in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, referred. When that is enacted it will be compulsory to have a nominated carer for every mental health patient. Provided that carer is qualified, I believe that he or she should also have the right to make an application for compulsory admission.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may begin, as others have done, by congratulating the noble Baroness on the first occasion on which she has replied to a debate. We always say on these occasions, "and we hope that she shall do so many times". That will depend upon what she says. Having seen the noble Baroness at work, I have great confidence that I shall want to say that.
I should also like to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The fact that I shall disagree with most of what he said should not be taken in the sense that I have not greatly appreciated the work that he does for the National Schizophrenia Fellowship or the work of the fellowship, which in many ways I greatly admire. I am looking forward to addressing one of its conferences very soon. I greatly admired the work of the noble Lord in this House when he took through as far as another place the after-care Bill. I thought that he did a very fine job of it.
I have to say also that I am afraid that I shall not be drawn into the Anglo-Scottish debate as to whether the Scottish code is better because it came first. I have not read the Scottish code and so I cannot comment on it.
To begin with, I should like to say something about the importance of the Act. I had a great interest in it, and I see two other noble Lords sitting opposite
80
who also had an interest. Back in 1973, when I was director of MIND, I put forward to the then Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph (now the noble Lord, Lord Joseph), a set of proposals to bring the 1959 Act up to date. He took action and work was started. That work was followed up by his successors, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and my friend Mrs. Barbara Castle, until I arrived on the scene in 1976. I picked up the excellent results of the work that had been done under the supervision of the previous Ministers. I then did a great deal of work on the Act. I picked up the letter that I had written to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and took my cue from what I had told him that he ought to do. We went through the process of the Act. By that time I was on the Back Benches in another place but serving on the Standing Committee.
I agree that the Act is of great importance. Of course it recognised civil liberties. It is my recollection that, as it went through the other place and this House, that it would have been extraordinary had we not given due recognition to the need to recognise the civil liberties of people with mental illness, their relatives and the community. That is what the Act tried to do. In my view, it is what the code of practice seeks to do.
We are not here to amend the Act. The Act is passed and the code of practice is its application. Anyone who wants to see a different Act will have to start the process, as I did, of persuading successive governments to change the Act. They will see how long it takes.
The code of practice is also of great urgency. The fact that it is now six years —and nearly seven years —since the Act came into law in 1983 proves that urgency. As has been said, there were two previous drafts of the code. Although I did not see either of those drafts I have discussed them with many people who did. They were very unsatisfactory and had to be withdrawn. I have been lucky enough to have sight of an earlier draft of the latest code. It is an extremely good document; I want to support it right down the line.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that it is important that we get the code of practice right. That will be accepted by all those who criticise it as well as those who support it. The first part of the code of practice, Chapter 1, reminds us that it does not impose a legal duty to comply with the code of practice, although it was the Act that determined that there should be a code of practice, but that failure to follow the code could be referred to in evidence in legal proceedings. So it is not just a piece of chatty advice on a flimsy leaflet. It is a serious set of recommendations as to how an Act passed after very great deliberation should be carried out.
The committee which was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. James Collier and the secretaryship of Mr. William Bingley —both men of very great ability whom I have had the privilege of knowing for many years, including the time when I was in the department (and that may be a criticism)—was set a daunting task. It has produced a very good document. It warmed my heart when I first had sight of it and it warms my heart now. It is

81
comprehensive and comprehensible, sensible and sensitive. I congratulate the draftsmen on the job of work that they have done.
I received, as did others, the letter from Dr. Birley, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who said:
"It is now nearly six years since the Mental Health Act received Royal Assent. The College very much supported the suggestion in 1982 that there should be a Code of Practice but very much regrets the long delay in its preparation. There have been several draft Codes and the College has commented fully on each. We could not have supported earlier drafts, but this latest Code has been revised by a Department of Health Working Party and is acceptable in its present form to the psychiatric profession. We would therefore oppose any suggestion that the code be withdrawn".
Some noble Lords have said that doctors need guidance about how they should fulfil their professional responsibilities, but the doctors are pretty skilled, although they are governed as much as anyone else by the terms of the Act. The code of practice is directed to everyone concerned —doctors, social workers, nurses, managers, patients, patients' families and all who are concerned with the welfare of patients. In that sense it must be a sensitive document.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship criticised the terms of paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 on the grounds that they do not clarify the criteria for admission under Part II of the Act concerning civil detentions. I do not think that that is justified. The paragraphs are not there to restate the law which is to be found in subsections (2) and (3) and is reflected in the standard form of admission. All use the expression "health or safety" when describing the first two grounds for detention. Given that neither the words "danger" nor "dangerous" appears in the Act, it would have been misleading to bring them into the code of practice.
It is right that we should consider what paragraph 2.6 states. I did not recognise some interpretations of it. I shall not take long, but it is an important paragraph. It states:
"In judging whether compulsory admission is appropriate, those concerned should consider not only the health and safety of the patient but also:—

—the patient's wishes and view of his own needs;

—his social and family circumstances;

—his cultural background;

—the nature of the illness/behaviour disorder;

—what may be known about the patient by his nearest relative, any other relatives or friends and professionals involved, assessing in particular how reliable this information is;

—other forms of care or treatment including, where relevant, consideration of whether the patient would be willing to accept medical treatment in hospital informally or as an out-patient;

—the needs of the patient's family or others with whom the patient lives;

—the need for others to be protected from the patient;

—the impact that compulsory admission would have on the patient's life after discharge from detention;

—the burden on those close to the patient of a decision not to admit under the Act".

That is a comprehensive list of the factors which should be taken into consideration when deciding whether compulsory admission is appropriate. I do not therefore find that the code of practice either
82
misrepresents or misunderstands or does anything but justice to the intentions of the Act.
It is clear that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship is concerned about the matter. It is not for me to give assurances. I hope that the Minister will do that. Part of my judgment as to whether I shall welcome her next time depends on whether she gives those assurances because the fellowship's anxieties should be properly considered. I imagine that it had the opportunity to submit its observations on earlier drafts seen by the drafting committee and I must suppose that not all its views were accepted.
That is also true for the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which had some criticisms. I understand that MIND has some criticisms and would like to see the code drafted in a slightly different way. Anyone who has had any experience, as many people here have, of trying to take into consideration all the different interests of professionals and pressure groups will understand that one can never find one set of words that is totally acceptable to everyone.
There is much in the code of practice which we should welcome. I found it a sensitive, clear, easy to read and easy to understand document which will meet its needs. It lives up to its intention that its presentation should be acceptable not only to its professional audience but to patients and their families, friends and supporters. It does not shrink in the introduction from stating some simple but significant basic principles which underpin the rest of the code. Those principles are important. Paragraph 1.4 states:
"it means that, when treatment or care is provided in conditions of security—"
that is what we are talking about—
"patients should be subject only to the level of security appropriate to their individual needs and only for so long as it is required".
However, those needs must be met as long as necessary. When it is essential that there should be some limitations on freedom, those limitations may be imposed provided that the interests of all concerned are respected.
The section of the code dealing with assessment emphasises the importance of collaboration between the professionals (approved social workers and doctors) involved in the Mental Health Act assessments and the importance of each profession understanding and respecting each other's professional roles and responsibilities. The code gives straightforward and practical guidance on what are recognised as difficult areas for the professionals involved in the assessment, such as the use of Mental Health Act admission to protect others —that point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone; the interests of all must be considered —the problem of the deteriorating patient and when it is possible to use compulsion, and how to handle disagreements between assessing professionals. There are many other good points that might be made.
I have read the document carefully several times and I believe that it has taken into consideration the anxieties of each group. It has been alleged that the code of practice is in some way a liberation document

83
and that it will make it more difficult for people with mental health problems to receive the care and treatment that they need. I do not believe that that is so. It will be of considerable assistance to patients and their families in ensuring that the proper care is delivered to them in a well thought out and accountable way.
I hope that the Government will not withdraw the code as they have been asked to do. It is essential that it should now be carried through as a proper and effective interpretation of the Act which was given so much consideration here and in another place and by voluntary organisations. We all have some criticisms, but I wish the document and all the mental health workers who will be guided by it well. It is a relief for me to find something on which I can genuinely congratulate the Government, as I warmly do.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may start by thanking those noble Lords who have extended their good wishes to me on my appointment. I only hope that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will still stand at the end of the debate. I thank those noble Lords who share the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Mottistone for the understanding way in which they have expressed those anxieties. Like the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I believe that the debate has been most useful.
I welcome the opportunity on behalf of the Government to respond to the concerns of my noble friend about the code of practice and propose to do so by seeking to put the points that he has raised in their full context.
We are here dealing with an issue of great importance and complexity; namely, the circumstances in which it is proper for someone to be admitted compulsorily to hospital. Depriving someone of his or her freedom is a very serious thing to do. The Mental Health Act 1983 reflects Parliament's best sense of the criteria to be satisfied and the procedures to be followed before such a step is taken.
While the Act as a whole commanded the support of Parliament, and I hope still does, there were in 1983, and still are, genuine differences of view. Some think that the 1983 Act has made it too difficult to have clearly disturbed people admitted for treatment against their will. Others think that present arrangements do not offer sufficient protection against continued compulsory detention in hospital. In the end this is very much a matter of personal judgment.
The code of practice does not of course amend the 1983 Act. Rather, its purpose is properly to reflect the Act while offering practical guidance to those who have to operate it in their daily work. I make this point because it is fundamental to how we have approached the task of drawing up the code —seeking the widest possible agreement on good practice within the terms of the Act.
Initially the task of preparing a draft was given, with its agreement, to the Mental Health Act
84
Commission, which includes representatives of all the relevant professions and informed laymen and women. The commission produced a draft which had much to commend it, but which also attracted considerable criticism. This was no reflection on the commission. Rather, it was a reflection of the sheer difficulty of producing practical guidance that was widely acceptable where there are strongly held differences of opinion.
Officials in the Department of Health studied the many comments on the Mental Health Act Commission's draft very carefully, and produced a second draft, upon which there was further widespread formal consultation. Although it is hard to sum up in a sentence reaction to this second draft, it is probably fair to say that the draft met objections to the first one by becoming more a commentary on the Act than a practical code of practice.
Ministers concluded that it would not be appropriate to lay the second draft before Parliament, and last spring decided to establish a small working group of professional people with extensive personal experience of working the Act, to consider both drafts and the comments received upon them and to produce a further draft.
That working group, chaired by Mr. James Collier, produced the draft which was laid before Parliament on 5th December. In the course of its work the group took soundings, informally, of a range of the key interests, and has produced what Ministers regard as a well balanced, potentially very useful code, entirely consistent with the Act. Although the Minister concerned, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Freeman, has thanked the members of the group personally, I should like to add my thanks and express the Government's appreciation for the hard work which has led to this draft.
Despite the fact that the code is the product of extensive consultation —two formal rounds and subsequent informal soundings over four years —and careful deliberation by people with direct, practical experience of working within the Act, it is true that there are aspects of it that some would wish to see amended. My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to some points that are of concern to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. We know that other bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists and MIND, would also prefer that some sections had been drafted differently.
The truth here is that the issues involved are such as to make it unrealistic to meet everyone's point of view to the letter. There are incompatible points of view, for example, over the extent to which wards containing detained patients should be locked. I would ask that the adequacy or otherwise of the present code is not judged by whether this or that body objects to particular phrasing or emphasis, but by whether, taken as a whole, it is felt to be a balanced and useful aid to those who have to work within the Act. I am convinced that those Members of this House who have the interest and opportunity to read the whole document will agree with us that it is. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has written to me, and I quote from the same letter as was received by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals:

85
"The Royal College of Psychiatrists has studied the code in detail and although there are some minor flaws, we do not consider that it would be beneficial, either to health professionals or to patients, to withdraw the code".
I also stress that the code is not fixed for all time. The Government have already asked the Mental Health Act Commission to advise them regularly on the operation of the code, and to propose any changes that experience shows to be desirable. Ministers will then consult on the commission's recommendations, in conformity with the Act, and if the Government judge it appropriate, they will be laid before Parliament in the form of amendments to the code.
I turn now to the specific points raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. First, there is my noble friend's point about reasons for compulsory admission. I accept that the first sentence of paragraph 2.6 could usefully have been expanded. However, the last section of that paragraph says that the applicant should judge whether the criteria stipulated in any of the admission sections of the Act are satisfied. This is reinforced in paragraph 2.18c. I hope that my noble friend will see that the code does in fact reflect the Act.
Secondly, there is the issue of care for patients detained in hospital. The noble Lord prefers the Scottish version. We believe that our draft offers much fuller practical advice to professional staff, who have the very difficult job of judging what degree of security detained patients need from time to time.
Thirdly, the noble Lord refers to what the nearest relative should know. I agree with him that the words "where necessary" in paragraphs 2.27 and 2.30 are very definitely ambiguous. They are meant to indicate that, where a nearest relative is unaware of his or her rights, professional staff should inform him. But, as the fellowship has proved, they can be read a different way. The proper meaning will be made clear in the letter that will cover the issue of the code and we shall consult on a better form of words.
I should like to suggest that my noble friend withdraws his Prayer upon the following undertaking. Ministers will ask the Mental Health Act Commission to consider in detail the points that he has raised today, and advise upon them as part of the first report on the operation of the code. Ministers will then consult upon them and, in the light of the response, judge whether or not to lay amendments before Parliament. The aim would be to complete this process within one year. Perhaps I could also say that that offer is extended to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I believe that that covers all parties in the House and of course the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
If, after advice from the commission and further consultation, Ministers decide not to seek to amend the code as the noble Lord proposes, the responsible Minister, my honourable friend in another place Mr. Freeman, will write to him and to the other noble Lords I have mentioned setting out his reasons. In any case the Minister would be happy to meet my noble friend and representatives of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship at an early date to hear their concerns at first hand. I hope that the House
86
will regard this as a positive and constructive proposal, made in good faith in response to points raised by an organisation for which we all have much respect. On that basis I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his Prayer.
In conclusion, may I emphasise the intrinsic difficulty of what lies at the heart of both the Act and the code. We must balance the rights of the individual suffering from a serious mental illness with the need to protect him or her from the consequence of that illness. Taking such a decision is extremely difficult. We believe that this code gives good, well balanced practical advice to those who have the responsibility. I therefore commend the code to the House.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend for the most admirable way in which she made the whole of her speech. I thought that for a first go at this sort of thing, with rather hardy people arguing about mental health, it was a jolly good speech.
I thank her and indeed my honourable friend the Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman, very much indeed for the many undertakings that they gave to me and indeed to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. I do not think that they could have gone any further, short of withdrawing the code and I did not expect them to do that. I am extremely sorry that some noble Lords have not read the Scottish code, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I am sure that it would do him a power of good to do so, for then he would see how much better it is than the English code.
Having said that, and having very much appreciated all the contributions that many noble Lords have made to this debate, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
8.20 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 27 [Revocation of authorised body's designation]:
[Amendments Nos. 148 and 148A not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Authorisation and Approval]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 148B:
Page 70, line 38, after ("Committee") insert (", the Lord Chancellor and each of the designated judges").
The noble and learned Lord said:
"The first bringer of unwelcome news hath but a losing office and the tongue sounds ever as a sullen bell remembered tolling a departing friend".
I am happy to tell the Committee that I bring, I hope, welcome news.
The many amendments that stand in my name relating to Schedule 4 have been drafted by those a great deal more expert than I am. That has had two distinct advantages. First, they are likely to be in

87
proper form; and, secondly, it has enabled me to continue to give such contributions as I can to the Appellate Committee where no doubt my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would wish me to concentrate the major part of my efforts.
Before dealing with these amendments, perhaps I may indicate to the Committee how I intend to go about it. I propose to deal with the philosophy behind the amendments which require both explanation and justification, having set out on page 9 for the convenience of the Committee exactly what the amendments will look like. If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to follow what one usually has in English litigation, I have a copy which shows underlined in red what I am taking out, and in black what has been put in. The net consequence of these amendments is shown from page 9 onwards of the Marshalled List. Before embarking upon that task, perhaps I may first invite the Committee's attention to what appears in paragraph 8.5 of page 28 of the White Paper. It reads as follows:
"It is necessary also to recognise the role of the judiciary in determining how work before the courts is done".
I leave out a number of unnecessary matters.
"Draft rules relating to advocacy or the conduct of litigation will, under the legislation be made by the professional body but to become effective they will require the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and each of the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. Both the Lord Chancellor and the senior judges will be required to have regard to the Advisory Committee advice. The duties of the profession, the Advisory Committee, the Lord Chancellor and of the senior judiciary are of course interrelated".
I stress this part.
"The Government envisages that this will, in practice, be reflected in the earlier stages of the preparation of drafts by the professional bodies who by a process of discussion involving all four parties".
In the debate on the Second Reading, at col. 244, of the Official Report, when my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls expressed his concern at the procedural layout in Schedule 4 whereby the senior judges —the designated judges —came in so to speak just before the curtain fell, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stated:
"I entirely agree with the view that in practice we should be able to have discussions to determine the various steps to be carried out in the same way as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, deals with solicitors' recommendations some of which require his approval only and some of which require the approval of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and of the Lord Chancellor".
It is in my submission extremely important if these principles are to work in harmony, that, to quote again the White Paper,
"in the earlier stages of the preparation of drafts by professional bodies, there should be a process of discussion involving all four parties".
The desirability of this was well reflected in the speeches in the debate on the Second Reading. I make only two quotations. The first is from my noble and learned friend Lord Alexander of Weedon at column 162 of Hansard. He said:
"This year has been an immensely sad one for those who care about the administration of justice and believe that there is much to be done to improve our law and there is much that the Government, the judiciary and the profession need to do together
88
to improve our substantive law and procedure. The division, bitterness and distrust created by the conflict over the structure of the profession need to be ended if we are to tackle the real problems that affect access to justice".
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, at cols. 233 and 234 was a little more direct. He said:
"…noble Lords—judges, members of the Bar and others—have expressed exactly the same doubts about the Bill as they expresed about the Green Paper. It is a very serious matter that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not been able to ally the fears of the senior judges about the long-term effect of his proposed measures … The noble and learned Lord appears to have embarked upon a confrontational course with the Bar and the judiciary. It is unjustified in the circumstances".
I now turn to the philosophy behind the justification for redrafting Schedule 4 in the manner that we have. There are eight points. First, the role of the senior judges is not appropriately provided for. Their concurrence should not be the last step in a procedure that has wound its way via the advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor, the advisory committee again, the Director General of Fair Trading, the Lord Chancellor again, and finally the senior judges. Taking Part I of Schedule 4 as an example, the first step should be the submission in paragraph 2 which should be to the Lord Chancellor and —I emphasise "and" —each of the senior judges. They will then send it to the advisory committee and the Director General of Fair Trading for advice. Once that advice has been received, the Lord Chancellor and —I emphasise "and"—the senior judges should then consult together —and I emphasise the word "together" —and each form a judgment whether the application meets the requirement of the statutory objective and the general principle both generally and specifically. They should then each deliver a reasoned decision.
Secondly, the present framework in Schedule 4 puts the senior judges —by that I mean the designated judges —in a purely passive role at the end of a long procedural chain. On the contrary, they should be involved throughout.
Thirdly, moreover, the senior judges and the Lord Chancellor should be able to initiate possible changes themselves. The judges as well as the Lord Chancellor will through experience and consultation with the higher judiciary, circuit judges and others, become aware of circumstances calling for change. In my respectful submission, the present framework bars any initiative by the senior judges or the Lord Chancellor, except only the part of the Lord Chancellor in the limited circumstances related to revocation under Clause 27.
Fourthly, the framework in Schedule 4 does not allow for consultation of other authorised bodies. They have a legitimate expectation that they will be consulted as to the effect of what is proposed for the particular authorised body or proposed authorised body. It is only common sense that they should be consulted. For example, if it were proposed that the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors should become an authorised body for the purpose of granting rights to conduct litigation, it would be wrong for the Law Society and the Bar Council not to be fully consulted. They may have considerable relevant observations to make and that should be provided for.
Fifthly, the framework in Schedule 4 makes no provision for the authorised body, proposed authorised body, or any other such body to have an opportunity to respond to the advice of the advisory committee and Director General of Fair Trading. Clearly that would be a step necessary in fairness to all concerned and it should be provided for.
Sixthly, the framework in Schedule 4 requires the senior judges (that is the designated judges) to give their reasons if they are against —and I emphasise the word "against" —an application but not if they are for it. Apparently that proceeds on the footing that it is only if an application is refused that any question as to the correctness of the decision can arise. Clearly that is not right. A decision to approve an application may be erroneous in law or in fact just as much as a decision to refuse an application. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor and the senior judges should be required to give reasons whichever way they may decide.
Seventhly and penultimately, the reason of the Lord Chancellor and of each of the senior judges should be available to the public on every occasion. That is rather than the framework now proposed which could only expose the senior judges to undue pressure —and I emphasise those words —by publicising only the reasons of any of them who refuse to approve an application (see Schedule 4, paragraph 5(10)).
Eighthly and lastly, at present there is no provision in Schedule 4 to enable the designated judges to take the initiative to put in train the procedure to review existing rights to grant rights of audience. That is an omission and Schedule 4 should be amended accordingly.
The Committee will appreciate that in no way have I sought to produce amendments that can be said to prejudice what the Lord Chancellor desires by way of proper consultation. On Second Reading I expressed my views about the undesirability of the whole of this legislation and I do not seek to repeat any part of those submissions. In the spirit which my noble and learned friend Lord Alexander of Weedon stressed on Thursday, I have endeavoured to put forward proposals to try to ensure that what is proposed by the Government works better.
On previous occasions the Lord Chancellor has emphasised —and I have quoted him —that no harm is ever done by consulting the people who have wisdom to provide. In the amendments I have sought to provide what the White Paper suggested; that is bringing in the judiciary, which, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, has a vital role to play at an earlier and more effective stage and making the consultation open, friendly, harmonious and in a manner designed to achieve sensible results rather than the confrontational system which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, understandably thought existed as Schedule 4. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: These are full amendments and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for the way in which he has set out their result on page 9 of the Marshalled List.
90
There is little between us. As I have already made clear, it was always my intention that the judges and myself would be involved at any appropriate stage. I have sought to model the provision on the arrangements which were made in the statute of the solicitors' branch of the profession for approval by the Master of the Rolls in some cases and by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and myself in relation to others. I anticipate that, as it was in those cases, so it should be in this machinery; that without any risk to their ultimate judgment judges should be able to participate in discussion of such matters.
I also believe it to be right that their formal decision should be the ultimate stage in the process. That is to say, unless their consent is obtained the regulations will not become effective. That is right but it does not mean that their views will not become involved in the formation of the arrangements at an earlier stage. Therefore, we can readily accept most of the proposals put forward by my noble and learned friend.
However, it is unwise to include formal requirements for consultation with authorised bodies. It is right that in many cases that would be appropriate, but by no means would the consultation be restricted to the authorised bodies. Consultations that the advisory committee might undertake in respect of such matters should be far-reaching. To include existing authorised bodies as having a stuatutory right to be consulted while excluding others would not be an improvement. It would tend towards the confrontational arrangement which it is my noble and learned friend's objective to eliminate.
I believe that in formulating proposals in that area the advisory committee would be right to take account of the views of all those who have interests as members of authorised bodies but also the views of others. The result is likely to be more satisfactory. That is the main distinction between my noble and learned friend's proposals and what I believe to be right.
As regards the response to the advice of the advisory committee and the Director General of Fair Trading, of course the intention would be that the advisory committee's advice would be available to the professional body involved in making the application and that would be generally available. The intention is that the advisory committee should come to its views in a way which is presented to the public.
I am perfectly content to accept the view that the judges should give their reasons, whichever way they may decide, and that those views should be available to the public on any occasion.
It was also my intention that, in common with others, the judges could initiate moves to make changes, but I am perfectly content to make that a formal part of the arrangements. Therefore, although I find it unacceptable that there should be a legal obligation to consult the authorised bodies without mentioning anyone else, most of the other proposals are acceptable. I believe that what must happen is that the advisory committee must have a full chance to consider the matter and come to a conclusion on

91
it, taking the benefit of every shade of opinion and view which it considers to be appropriate. I hope that in the light of that response my noble and learned friend will allow me to consider these matters further.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has an opportunity 0to respond, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the response given by my noble and learned friend. It is sometimes suggested that the judges are not innovative or that they are not critical of counsel. That has not been my experience at the Bar. I very much welcome that the judges, who have so often taken the lead in procedural reforms, will be in a position under the suggestion accepted by my noble and learned friend both to take the initiative in putting forward proposals and to be consulted at an early stage. I believe that that is the way in which effective progress in the administration of justice has traditionally been made; that is, by regular consultation between the Lord Chancellor's Department and judges. I am very glad that my noble and learned friend believes it desirable to continue in that way.
I accept totally what he says about the possible lack of necessity to provide for specific consultations with the authorised bodies. Since the rights of their members are affected, it may in any event be necessary to consult them as a matter of natural justice. Be that as it may, from the spirit in which this answer has been given on the consultation procedure I believe it is clear that my noble and learned friend has in mind that their views should be taken into account.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This is an immensely complicated schedule and Members of the Committee will be very much indebted for the exemplary clarity of my noble and learned friends Lord Ackner and the Lord Chancellor in explaining where their difference lies. As I understand it, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor only demurred on one point; namely, that although he thought it right that the authorised bodies should be consulted, he did not think it right that they should be the only bodies necessarily to be consulted.
I did not understand that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner had proposed expressly any exclusions. If he did, that is a matter which can easily be put right on Report, his amendments being accepted as a whole.
However, it may be that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had in mind the doctrine of construction generally expressed in the Latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Again, if that is what he fears as applicable, I am by no means sure that that would be applicable. That is a matter which every day the draftsman excludes by saying, "Without prejudice to any other consultation which might be deemed to be desirable". Therefore, at present, having listened with admiration to the explanation of my two noble and learned friends, I
92
do not see why the Lord Chancellor does not accept these amendments as a whole.
Lord Hooson: I should also like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his reaction to these amendments, which is very reassuring. However, as I understand his response he was only concerned that Amendment No. 148M was too restrictive and that he did not believe he should be restricted only to consult the authorised bodies because he might want to go outside that.
It seems to me that he could accept that amendment and bring a further amendment to it which should read something like, "The Lord Chancellor shall also send copies of the regulations and rules and of the statement of proposed rights to every existing authorised body and such other bodies as he deems it expedient to send them to", or something along those lines. He would not then be restricted but nevertheless he would fulfil the purpose which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has in mind; namely, that there should be consultations with the authorised bodies. I well understand the reaction of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he does not want to be restricted to merely consulting those bodies.
Lord Renton: I too should like to show my appreciation of the open-mindedness on this matter of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. When he says that he does not go along with the idea of consultation with authorised bodies, I assume that he refers to the new subsection (2A) which is to be seen on page 10 of the Marshalled List. That is very simple and clear in its terms and does not impose much of an obligation upon anybody. However, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said, it might be a matter of natural justice to allow those authorised bodies to be told what is happening. It is analogous with the rule of natural justice,audi alteram parte. I should have thought that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would lose nothing and might gain a great deal in the working of the machinery if he were to accept this proposal for consultation.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps the Committee will agree with me that it would be economical of time if I were to speak to my Amendments Nos. 148T to 148Y without moving them at this stage because those amendments concern the very provisions which we are talking about in Schedule 4.
Perhaps I may say at once that I have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others who spoke after him. We all take for granted, as I am sure we should, that the amendments have been put forward in thoroughly good faith and that when the judges are being consulted on the question of the rules and regulations and any alterations to them we can count on the fact that they have accepted the spirit and objects of this Bill and that in no sense at all, because this phrase has been used in the media and elsewhere, will there be any question of endeavouring to sabotage —I do not use the word, but others have used it —the whole purpose of this Bill.

93
It is in that sense that we are all listening to these suggestions. We wish to be sure that the spirit in which the judges carry out their work will be consistent with the spirit of the Bill.
Having said that, I should like to turn to the spirit of the amendments which stand in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Goodman and Lord Allen of Abbeydale. If any of those noble Lords take the view that I am not expressing what they would like to express in support of this amendment, I know that the opportunity will be granted to them to say so.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to those noble Lords who supported him. I looked round anxiously to see where they were so that we could hear what they wanted to say.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is here.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is here. I am sure that when the other noble Lords have read what I have had to say regarding the amendment, they will have an opportunity at another stage of the Bill to express a view, if it happens to be contrary to mine.
What was my anxiety behind these amendments? It was an anxiety that I have heard expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. I am reminded of his name only because he has just made his helpful intervention in regard to my absent friends. That anxiety has been expressed by other noble Lords. We know the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We have every respect for him and we have every faith in him. Who knows what may arise in the future under the guise of the Lord Chancellor, wearing his noble robes? We felt that a spirit of caution ought to be present in our deliberations when we envisaged some eccentric Lord Chancellor who might not be doing what we should like him to do.
Eccentricity does not only lie with future imagined Lord Chancellors; it can also —dare I say it? —arise in respect of a designated judge. It is possible to assume such a state of affairs. This point is followed through in the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Any one designated judge, leaving aside the Lord Chancellor, in his eccentricity, as it might exist, has the power under the Bill to say: the principle of the Bill has not been observed; the application is refused. He has the power to say that he disagrees with the application to amend the rules. Noble Lords will observe from the wording of the amendment and the Bill that that is the power of veto which is given to any one designated judge.
My amendment is a probing one dealing with this question: in those circumstances, would consultation be more appropriate? The Lord Chancellor makes his decision after receiving the opinion of each of the designated judges. However, I do not stand rigidly behind consultation. The purpose of my probing amendment was to voice to the Committee the view that under the Bill it should be a majority decision that counts with the Lord Chancellor without giving
94
an individual veto. If the noble and learned Lord would kindly consider the situation that he may be faced with in future years —that every one of the designated judges has to agree one way or the other —he may find that there is wisdom, if I may humbly say so, in an amendment which provides that the majority decision of the designated judges ought to count with him.
If the noble and learned Lord feels that after receiving the opinion of each one of them and then altering the word "decisions" to "opinions" this is a good amendment, I shall be happy, as I am sure will the noble Lords whose names appear with mine on this amendment. However, if that does not find favour with the noble and learned Lord and Members of the Committee, then I respectfully suggest that we should come forward at Report stage with a provision that it should be the majority. We would then avoid the unhealthy spectacle of either judicial review upon the judgment of one of the designated judges, or a situation where the eccentricity or obdurate attitude of one of the designated judges upsets the whole applecart.
It was for that reason that I put down the amendments. I hope that the Committee feels that it was sensible of me to rise when I did in order to voice those opinions. I shall take a certain course, which I hope will be an abbreviated way of dealing with the matter, when these amendments are reached.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble Lord spoke of the possibility of there being an eccentric designated judge. What would happen if there were an eccentric Lord Chancellor?
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I thought that it was the policy of the party to which the noble Lord belongs to abolish the House of Lords. Presumably he would abolish the Lord Chancellor also. There would then be a great deal of eccentricities for which the noble Lord would have to provide.
Lord Mishcon: This is not the only time when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, not in a ceremonial way but in another way, has voiced an opinion which is not necessarily the correct one. My party has adumbrated its policy of reforming the House of Lords. Whether all of us agree with the announcement of the policy is another matter. I hope that in any such reformation the dignified role of Lord Chancellor would play a part.
Lord Hooson: As I understand it, as all of the designated judges in a few years' time will be solicitors in any event, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggests that one of them might be eccentric.
It is much more important that the status and authority of future designated judges should not be undermined, whether they have a background of being solicitors or barristers. It must be right that if the designated judge is wrong in his decision he can be challenged by way of judicial review. In practice the truth of the matter is that they would be so careful in their decisions that they would come to a

95
judicial decision on what is required in the circumstances. I think the noble Lord should withdraw this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I have not moved the amendment; therefore it is difficult for me to withdraw it. However, I should like to be permitted the courtesy of answering immediately.
If the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, thinks that I have not met an eccentric solicitor in my professional career, he is wrong. I regard anyone who disagrees with the point of view that I put forward on behalf of my client as being eminently eccentric.
To deal with the matter seriously, as I know the noble Lord did, are we going to face a situation where the remedy, says the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is to go by way of judicial review because one judge has differed from all of the others? I shall not repeat my speech. I hope that it will be deemed to be good and sensible legislation policy to provide that a majority of the judges would carry sway if, as I say, the Committee does not like the idea of the consultation process.
9 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I shall not take up the valuable time of the Committee by dealing with such of the media who may have used the word "sabotage". They are irresponsible and do not deserve any comment.
The High Court judges and the Court of Appeal, after deliberation, published a long document setting out their reactions to the Green Paper. Interestingly enough, the media did not criticise any of the essential principles which were adumbrated. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seems to have somewhat changed course. There is no reference to majority or minority; there is reference to opinion. That really means you can consult but you can then ignore. That is what taking account of an opinion means.
I remind my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor of what happened as recently as last Thursday during the Committee stage. At col. 1235 of the Official Report the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, quoted this passage from the judges' written response:
"It is of fundamental importance that the existing degree of separation of powers and functions of the Judiciary from those of Parliament and the Government, evolved gradually over the centuries, should be maintained. The independence of the Judiciary and of advocates is perhaps more important now than ever, because one of the great constitutional tasks of the courts today is to control misuse of power by Government Ministers and departments. The Government is proposing that in future the Lord Chancellor should make the final decision on standards of education and training for advocates, prescribe the principles to be embodied in codes of conduct for advocates, and be empowered to make decisions on rights of audience in the High Court and the Court of Appeal by means of subordinate legislation".
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in replying to that quotation, said at col. 1239:
"However, I should like to say that my noble friend Lord Rippon, in reading from the comments of the judges on the Green Papers, is dealing with the system that was proposed in those Green Papers, which I have modified fundamentally in order to
96
take account of those very criticisms. The Lord Chancellor no longer has the final decision in any of these matters. In this case the balance is that the professions must propose—so far as concerns the Law Society and the Bar as their respective governing bodies—and approval is required not only from the Lord Chancellor but from all heads of division".
That was the considered reply last Thursday. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can be relied upon to be consistent.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, means by the eccentric judges. When I started in practice one of the qualities that many of the judges had was eccentricity; it was part of their character. But we are now so leavened into a mould of similarity that eccentricity no longer exists. If the noble Lord meant by eccentricity irrationality, then he should say so. He avoided the word irrationality because, as the able lawyer he is, we all know that irrationality is one of the classic grounds for judicial review. No one would know that better than even an eccentric head of a division.
Finally, I refer to the question raised by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as the one reservation that he had. In my address to the Committee I said that these bodies may or might have a legitimate expectation. That is a phrase that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will recall, I believe I am right in saying, from the GCHQ case involving judicial review. If there is a legitimate expectation, then it has to be reasonably complied with. It was in order to ensure that a schedule was not produced which itself could be attacked as being irrational by not allowing a legitimate expectation, that I specifically used those terms.
I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his willingness to consider the matter. Perhaps he might consider that aspect, too. We shall then have an opportunity at Report stage to see how the new Schedule 4 reads. For the moment I am quite happy to withdraw my amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: Before my noble and learned friend sits down what I have to say may help because I have not responded to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. I want to adhere absolutely to the policy set out on this matter in the White Paper. In the light of what my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has proposed, all I am considering is whether any improvement can be made to the machinery for achieving what is required in order to enable the judges to participate informally as well as, ultimately, formally. I have explained my situation in that regard.
As regards consent, I have given the matter as much consideration as I am capable of doing. I came to the conclusion that it was right to require the consent of each head of division. I came to that conclusion for this reason: originally I had said in the Green Papers that the Lord Chancellor would consult the senior judiciary. I had in mind that, in my experience, the Lord Chancellor would be very likely to go along with the views of the senior judiciary in seeking to deal with these matters. He might well influence these views in discussion with them.

97
It appeared from the consultation that many, including my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and others, were afraid that whatever I might do, the Lord Chancellor as such might not do the same. Therefore if was thought wise to have an express requirement of concurrence from the senior judiciary on the lines of what the Law Society had been familiar with for many years in their training and conduct regulations. But in this case where the right of audience is in question I had in mind that each of the heads of division has a distinct responsibility. I have mentioned them before; the Lord Chief Justice for the Queen's Bench Division, the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal; the Master of the Rolls for the Civil Divison of the Court of Appeal; the President for the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor for the Chancery Division, making up in total the High Court. I felt that each distinct part of the court might have a distinct aspect to consider. Therefore I believe it is right to require that for rules to become effective they should have the concurrence of each of the heads of division, which is in accordance with what I proposed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has pointed out, the law is not powerless to deal at least with irrationality. Notwithstanding what my noble and learned friend said about the complete elimination of eccentricity in the judges of the present day, I do not believe that the law necessarily completely does that by its available procedures. I am open to further instruction from my noble and learned friend on that point as the Bill proceeds. But at least on the question of the rationality of the judgment, there is available legal remedy.
I should not like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to feel that I would consider in any favourable way what he proposed as I did not reach my present conclusion in the White Paper without a great deal of consideration. On the other matters, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. We have dealt only with the principle of the matter here in order to focus on the detailed matters that we shall want to consider.
Lord Ackner: I beg leave to whitdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 148C to 148P not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 148Q:
Page 72, line 12, leave out ("42") and insert ("41").
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 148ZP. There are typographical errors in the Bill. The investigations made by the Director General of Fair Trading will be made under Clause 41 and not under Clause 42. These amendments correct identical typographical errors. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I did not understand my noble and learned friend. He said that he was speaking to Amendment No. 148Q. I thought he said Amendment No. 148P. Either I misheard or it was a slip of the tongue.
The Lord Chancellor: It was Amendment No. 148ZP. That is what I hope I said; that is certainly what I intended to say.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 148R and 148S not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 148T:
Page 72, line 36, leave out ("or any") and insert ("after receiving the opinion of each").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 148T to 148Y. I should rather like to consider the courteous words which the noble and learned Lord addressed me on these matters. For the time being I shall not move the amendments.
[Amendment No. 148T not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 148U to 148ZN not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 148ZP:
Page 74, line 39, leave out ("42") and insert ("41").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the amendment to which I spoke on the last occasion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 148ZQ:
Page 74, line 39, at end insert —
("Opportunity, for applicant to comment on advice of Advisory Committee and the Director
10A. When he has received the advice of the Advisory Committee and that of the Director, the Lord Chancellor shall afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity to comment on that advice.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall not move Amendments Nos. 148ZQ to 148ZZC. I hope that the Chief Whip will give us some credit for this effort.
[Amendment No. 148ZQ not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 148ZR to 148ZZC not moved.]
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [The General Council of the Bar]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 22, line 23, at end insert ("and the word "barristers" shall include barristers holding judicial office").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 155, 203 and 204. I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak to all four amendments. These are all probing amendments which are designed to seek clarification. They are concerned with the qualifications for judicial office and the interchangeability of judicial office. At present such qualification is that the person concerned is a barrister or a solicitor of so many years' standing. On appointment he will remain a barrister or solicitor and therefore eligible for other appointments requiring similar qualifications.
Under the provisions of Clause 50 and Schedule 7 to the Bill, the qualification for judicial office is

99
an advocacy qualification of so many years. For example, if after the Bill is enacted a barrister or solicitor becomes a district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division or a Supreme Court master, he will have done so by virtue of a seven-year general qualification. His deemed rights of audience under Clauses 28 and 29 will count towards that qualification.
However, if after a few years such a person wishes to become, say, a district judge elsewhere, the same seven-year qualification would be needed. The question arises, therefore, whether he still has that qualification and the necessary eligibility. This is not entirely clear, especially since Clause 50(4) refers to,
"a person who, for the time being has that qualification".
Let us suppose alternatively that the same person wishes to stay as a district judge of the principal registry or a master but also wishes to become a recorder or assistant recorder which requires a 10-year qualification. If he had not attained that eligibility by the time of his original appointment on the strength of a seven-year qualification, is it then too late? On the other hand, if he had a 10-year period under his belt when first appointed, does he still retain that qualification? I think that the provisions contained in Clause 50(5) mean that he does, but it is not entirely clear because subsection (5) does not refer back to subsection (4)(b); it refers only to subsection (4)(a).
The third question concerns the position of present office holders and those who may be appointed before this Bill takes effect. These people are no longer in practice. However, do they have advocacy rights for the purposes of other appointments in the future? I assume that the provisions of the Bill are intended to allow flexibility as regards appointments and that the intention is not to cut office holders off from future moves and changes. If that is correct, then these amendments merely seek to clarify the position. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall look carefully at the three cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The intention is that one does not lose the qualification by virtue of a judicial appointment. Accordingly, from the point of view of further judicial appointment, the qualification remains.
There are other problems in this connection and I was not certain whether the noble Lord intended to raise them. I refer to what should happen to someone ceasing to hold judicial office. I had not in fact intended to address that issue in the Bill. At this stage the matter is dealt with purely on the basis of qualifications. If that accords with what the noble Lord has in mind, then my intention is in accordance with his request. However, I shall check the position to ensure that that is so.
Lord Meston: I am most grateful for that indication as regards the intention in this respect. This was only a small probing amendment dealing with a technical point. I am pleased that it has been
100
received in that spirit. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149A not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 149B:
Page 22, line 32, leave out from ("audience") to end of line 35.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 149C. These are probing amendments because, quite frankly, it does not seem to me that subsection (2)(c) and subsection (3) of Clause 28 are as clear in their effect as they might be. There is in particular some concern as to their effect on the existing position with regard to the rights of audience of barristers. Paragraph 3.10 of the White Paper states: "Primary legislation should recognise" —I take it that it should be expressly recognized—
"that any person called to the Bar by one of the Inns of Court … in accordance with the regulations on education and training will have rights of audience which can be exercised in all courts and appropriate tribunals when pupillage is complete".
That is the present state of affairs so far as the Bar is concerned. It ensures that people are not inflicted upon the courts, or upon their clients for that matter, unless and until they are properly trained.
Perhaps my noble and learned friend will look at the wording of the parts of Clause 28 that I have mentioned and confirm that nothing in Clause 28 would effect a departure from the existing practice which I have described. I am sure that he does not wish to put back the clock, but we must ensure that in this part of the Bill there is no intention to do so and it will not have that effect.
As I say, this is a probing amendment but it is an important point. I look forward to hearing what my noble and learned friend has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I support Amendments Nos. 149B and 149C because Clause 28(1) ensures that the Bar Council's regulations and rules are deemed approved. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that was the promise contained in paragraph 3.10 of the White Paper, reiterated in paragraph 11.4, which reads:
"As has already been made clear, the Bar's and the Law Society's current rules and codes will remain in force when the legislation proposed in this White Paper is implemented until either professional body chooses to amend them".
It is worth mentioning that the concerns dealt with in the amendments are those which might affect the Law Society in relation to Clause 29.
However, Clause 28, subsections (1) and (2)(a) and (b) suffice to give effect to the promise contained in the White Paper. Subsections (2)(c) and (3), which the amendments seek to delete, seem to qualify the promise and create an uncertainty because they raise the prospect of the Bar Council's current regulations being struck down by the Lord Chancellor and the powers that are to be.
As I have said, the White Paper, by contrast, contemplated only the striking down or disapproval of later changes to now existing regulations. The Bill seems to go back on that by deeming approved only those current regulations and rules which would be

101
approved by the mechanism of the Bill. It is by no means easy to understand how it will be determined for the purposes of Clause 28(2)(c) whether regulations would have been approved, if they had been submitted, under a mechanism which does not exist. There are moments when I think that I understand how the provisions work but they do not last. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Lord Byron: Perhaps I may associate myself with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Meston. Amendment No. 155C standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is the exact corollary so far as the rights of audience of solicitors are concerned. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, but it seems that the equivalent provisions under Clause 29(2)(c) and (3) throw considerable doubt on the existing position. I therefore wish to associate myself with what has been said.
The Lord Chancellor: The regime proposed in the White Paper was that the existing regulations would stand. I shall take the Bar as an example although the same would apply to solicitors. Regarding rights of audience, the regulations would continue to apply and new regulations would require the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges.
When we came to draft the Bill, there appeared to be advantages from the point of view of the profession in having a deemed approval regarding existing rules. That is new, something that makes the whole code consistent. But if that was to be done I thought it wise to leave open the possibility that some rules might, for some reason, require alteration. If so, it would have no effect on anything that happened.
Let me take the education aspect of the regulations for the Bar as an example. If somebody were called and had obtained a right of audience already, any change in the regulations would not affect him: it would only affect people called thereafter. Conduct regulations would require to be approved by the Bar and would bind anyone then at the Bar from the time when they were approved onwards. The purpose of
102
the provision is to give a deemed approval, subject to the possibility that some existing rules might require to be reconsidered. The purpose of Clause 28(3) and (4) is to provide machinery for that consideration. The purpose of subsection (5) is to preserve anything already done against any effect that might arise from the deemed approval.
In other words, this is a refinement of the White Paper policy to spread back the approval because that might well be appropriate. I hope that this explanation makes clear to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, what we have in mind. Of course the same applies to the Law Society.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his explanation, so far as I have been able to understand it. Speaking for myself, I should want to consider it carefully between now and Report stage. He claims that Clause 28 is a refinement of the clear terms of the White Paper. I must confess that I regard it more as an obfuscation. Let us consider the matter in the light of his debate. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149C not moved.]
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 150:
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("Lord Chancellor") and insert ("Lord Chief Justice").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment together with Amendments Nos. 151 to 154 and 156 to 161 inclusive, as well as Amendments Nos. 162 to 167 inclusive, are consequential upon the amendment which I moved on Thursday. I argued then that there is no place for a Minister in the guidance, education, training or conduct of an independent legal profession. I spoke to all those amendments at that time and I shall return to the subject later on Amendment No. 168.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 151 to 154 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 29 [The Law Society: rights of audience]:
[Amendments Nos. 154A to 155 not moved.]
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 155A:
Page 23, line 22, at end insert —
("(aa) to have granted to solicitors rights of audience in all interlocutory proceedings in the Supreme Court;").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 155A concerns Clause 29 which is the deeming clause for existing rights of audience possessed by members of the Law Society. The proposal here is that there should be deemed also to solicitors a right of audience in all interlocutory proceedings in the High Court.
As the Committee will be aware, most interlocutory proceedings in the High Court are conducted in chambers. That is largely the practice except in the Chancery Division where motions are held in open court. Representations have been made to the Supreme Court Procedure Committee concerning some of these interlocutory applications suggesting that they should be heard not in chambers but in open court. I understand that representations have been made concerning for example applications for an injunction with the proposal that those applications should be heard not in chambers but in open court.
The Committee will also be aware that members on my side of the profession regularly appear in interlocutory matters in the High Court of Justice and therefore have full experience in that type of forensic work. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the rules committee, if it thinks it right to do so, without being troubled over the rights of audience issue, to change the rules so that some proceedings that are currently held in chambers in the High Court, for example injunction applications, should now be heard in open court and no longer in chambers. That is the basis upon which this amendment has been tabled. It seeks to give freedom to the Supreme Court Procedure Committee and not to delay everything upon the rather lengthy procedure which would clearly have to be gone through for solicitors to have a general right of audience in the High Court as opposed to the limited right of audience which they already exercise in chambers and which they may now require in open court. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I have only one comment to make on this matter. It was said yesterday and has been repeated today that the advisory committee has been set up to deal with the extensions, if any and whenever, in rights of audience. We sought in relation to the cab rank principle, which is a point of constitutional importance, to have that enacted. However, it was not passed. We have sought in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service to get that on the statute book. However, it was not passed because the advisory committee again is meant to be there to deal with those matters. This kind of small alteration does not in my respectful submission
104
justify inclusion in the statute. It is very much a matter on which I respectfully think the advisory committee should grind its teeth, assuming it has any.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: While not adopting the phraseology of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, I believe that the matter needs to be looked at very carefully in detail. I should have thought that the advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges were the people to do that. I say that for this reason. Solicitors do not have rights of audience in all interlocutory proceedings in the Supreme Court. So far as I am aware they certainly have no rights of audience in the Court of Appeal in relation to interlocutory proceedings.
Furthermore, interlocutory proceedings has a quite different meaning in the Court of Appeal from its meaning in the High Court as a result of orders made under Section 60 of the Supreme Court Act. As I mentioned earlier in the Committee proceedings, that section consists of a general rule and no fewer than 40 exceptions.
I subscribe entirely to the policy of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that no one should lose existing rights of audience. However, I fear that as worded the amendment may not have that effect. Whether it erodes existing rights or adds to them I know not. However, I do know that it requires a great deal of study to find out what the effect of the amendment would be. Therefore, I hope that it will not be pressed.
The Lord Chancellor: I have little doubt that the two amendments, if passed, would constitute an enlargement of the existing rights of audience of solicitors. The Lord Chancellor is nothing if not consistent. I firmly believe that this is a matter for the advisory committee to consider. The effect on the Crown Court could be quite considerable, even in terms of volume. Both are matters for the advisory committee to consider and for the machinery that we have set up.
I should like to comment in passing that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred to a number of things that were said yesterday. The proceedings in this Bill must have given the impression that the weekend was very short.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will feel able to withdraw the amendments on the understanding that these are matters to be dealt with by the machinery that we seek to set up.
Lord Ackner: I apologise for the disorientation. For 48 hours over the weekend we had no power.
Lord Coleraine: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, comes to his decision about the amendment, perhaps I may speak briefly to the subsequent amendment. It has already been answered by my noble and learned friend and I have

105
taken careful note of the points made by the noble and learned Lord. I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord will look at this as well as the first amendment. However, I should like to explain to the Committee what the Law Society has in mind in supporting the deemed extension of rights of audience into the Crown Court in all cases of guilty pleas and other cases not heard on indictment.
Such cases would not require special training for solicitors, who have considerable experience of all those matters arising out of their work in magistrates' courts. There would be no question but that further training would be needed for solicitors who wished to deal with matters in the Crown Court on indictment. However, it is thought that for the cases mentioned in the amendment to have to set up special training which would only apply to solicitors who already had the training would be superfluous.
In the Green Paper the Government specifically indicated that they proposed an immediate extension of solicitors' audience rights to include guilty pleas in Crown Courts. I am not at all clear why my noble and learned friend had changed his mind when it came to the White Paper and those proposals had been dropped. It may be that he felt that it was more suitable for them to be dealt with in other ways.
Solicitors conducting the vast majority of advocacy in magistrates' courts presenting guilty pleas both for the defence and the prosecution would be doing exactly the same work if allowed to do the work in the Crown Court. On the prosecution side, it can hardly be said that the presentation of facts on a guilty plea calls for great advocacy skills. There are not inconsiderable savings of public money to be made in that area if, for example, the Crown Prosecution Service, which conducts the vast majority of Crown Court cases, has the flexibility to use its solicitor or barrister prosecutors to present guilty pleas before the Crown Court.
Apart from that, if and when that facility is allowed, it will enable clients in the large bulk of Crown Court cases to select the lawyer whom they have come to know to take the case through to the finish because in the large bulk of cases there is a guilty plea. It would add to client choice and would potentially allow significant savings to the public purse, both on the defence or legal aid side and on the prosecution side.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I had not intended to intervene on the amendment. I was however a little surprised when I heard my noble friend Lord Coleraine say that training in advocacy in the magistrates' courts was necessarily adequate for conducting a plea in mitigation in respect of some of the most serious criminal offences which might carry a period of imprisonment of up to life.
When I started at the Bar I felt content to cut my teeth on pleas of mitigation in careless driving cases. I should not have wished to do so in cases of manslaughter or serious crimes such as rape which might involve a long period of custody for my client. I respectfully suggest that this is an issue which, not
106
only on grounds of consistency but on the basis of the principle of sensible evolution, should be left for the advisory committee.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I intend to say something about the matter at this stage because the words that have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, illustrate the extraordinary propaganda about rights of audience. The idea that a plea of guilty in a Crown Court is a matter with which anyone can deal and which does not, as the noble Lord said, require any special training, is a concept of advocacy which shows that a great deal of the debate is based on total ignorance. The idea that handling a plea of guilty and dealing with a person who may or may not plead guilty is a matter of total simplicity with which any qualified person may deal shows such ignorance of what advocacy is all about that one can hardly believe what one hears during the debates on the Bill or reads in the propaganda about advocacy. I have received more today from the Law Society.
Dealing with the possibility of a plea of guilty is one of the most onerous and important duties that an advocate may have. The question of advising a person as to whether he should concede a case or whether he should accept a situation in which he may go to prison for a long time is a matter of great importance and responsibility. So many matters arise that disinterested advice to such a person is crucial. The idea that anyone may provide that is so outrageous that it should involve the committee considering the matter. When faced with the question of a plea, what would be the likely outcome and the likely penalty? Is the plea justified in the law affecting the charge? What about the alleged confession? Should one accept the alleged confession or should one go into court and spend three or four days trying to establish that the confession was falsely obtained?
I have often seen a Guildford Four situation arise in magistrates' courts. It is sometimes unbelievable to see the way in which confessions are accepted in magistrates' courts because two or three policemen say that that is what happened. The advice given to that person is, "Oh well, it's no good disputing a confession because there are four policemen who all say it was made." Having to decide whether or not to accept that situation depends on experience, courage, thought and a whole series of questions which are of crucial importance in advocacy.
The simple and easy way is to tell the client, "Well, there is the evidence. I'm telling you that there is no answer to the case." It requires a great deal of backbone and courage to go into court and spend many hours disputing such a matter, no doubt to the disapproval of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips.
All kinds of questions arise about the bad character of the client. If he attacks the police his bad character will be put into the case and all his convictions produced. Is that the right thing to do? Is it worth taking the risk? Those matters are of vital importance.

107
There is the legitimate question of plea bargaining, which is the legitimate approach to the prosecution to decide whether a plea can be accepted on one or another ground. It may mean going to see the judge in chambers to discuss such matters. It may save the court weeks of trial but these matters must be handled with tremendous responsibility and care.
Finally, when sentence has been passed, that is not the end of the matter. One has then to consider whether there should be an appeal against the sentence. That requires experience of the Court of Appeal and the considerations that it will take into account. An opinion will have to be written as to whether one should proceed with the appeal to the Court of Appeal. Those are matters of tremendous responsibility. They require great care and experience.
When I hear mentioned, as I have just now, the idea that one does not require any special training for these matters, I sometimes despair about the questions which are discussed in this Committee. There are a great many people who are not versed in the law and who simply listen to the propaganda that is pushed out to the effect that anybody can do this or that. It is said that lawyers should not be allowed to do this. Qualified barristers should not be messing about in courts of criminal law. What are they doing in magistrates' courts? What are they doing spending all that time in the Crown Courts? Queen's Counsel ought to be in the Court of Appeal dealing in commercial matters and in high intellectual matters where their qualifications are justified. The whole spirit of this Bill is to clear the criminal court of barristers and qualified advocates and to let the matter be dealt with on legal aid by some advocate, quietly and briefly trained to do a job, as the Bill states, in a specific court using his specific qualifications. He can deal with pleas of guilty. He can do that in the magistrates' court. He can do a trial in the criminal court. That is a concept of justice that I shall continue to resist. I sincerely hope that this amendment will not be given the slightest consideration.
Lord Ackner: I agree that one of the greatest tests of the ordinary non-specialised advocate is the plea in mitigation. When I was a pupil my pupil master told me that what I should try to do was to indicate in the most tactful way to the judge how he should deal with my client and then make it impossible for him to do anything else. If that does not take skill, it is difficult to know what does.
In my pursuit of moderation, as requested by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I shall refer to two quotations from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor which he made in an interview in December 1977 in the barristers' magazine,Counsel.
"The client comes in off the street to seek the help of a solicitor. His whole life in the sense of his reputation and freedom may depend on the skill of the advocate. It could be a mistake to put the decision whether to do the case oneself or pass it on to a barrister into the hands of those with first access to the consumer".
The other quotation is this:
"A trained advocate hits the point very quickly. It is not easy to do. Some quite distinguished solicitors take part in committal proceedings and receive wonderful client reaction without actually achieving very much in their client's interest".
108
I wonder to whom he was referring.
"The client wants the best advocacy going, and if the solicitor fancies himself as an advocate, he may not be the best person to judge his own skills against those of his colleagues. It is a crucially important decision for his client".
Another quotation reads as follows:
"The idea that a potential litigant may choose to have his case in the Superior Courts conducted by a solicitor no doubt carries a superficial and populist appeal. But, as I have said, the choice of the advocate best equipped to conduct the particular business of a litigant can only be an informed choice. Uninformed choice is no choice at all. Members of the public are in no position to know, without professional advice, which advocate should be instructed or to know whether his own solicitor, even if he is one of those who have a right of audience in a particular Court, is best equipped to act as his advocate in his particular proceedings".
That was not from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor but from the memorandum submitted to my noble and learned friend by none other than the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General, who is the equivalent of our Lord Chief Justice south of the Border. It just shows what wisdom exists up north. I hope that it will continue to pervade in this sense down south.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for introducing a lighter note provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. If the lay client wants to learn whether he has an arguable case for appeal against sentence, far and away the cheapest opinion he can obtain is by making an application in person for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. It will cost him infinitely more to get an opinion from leading counsel.
Lord Mishcon: If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, from the height of the eloquence and advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and the model of moderation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, perhaps I may try to bring the Committee down to what I believe from my experience really happens.
Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have said should make the Committee beg the Lord Chancellor to remove from solicitors the right of advocacy in county courts and indeed in magistrates' courts where they conduct cases in full. They cross-examine, make submissions, advise on pleas, and are responsible for the liberty of the subject when they are acting for a client. I fail to find reality in what I was told took place. Shall I be forgiven for saying this, because I have such admiration for members of the Bar? That is not said lightly, insincerely or cheaply. But if one phones chambers on behalf of a client and says, "All I have is a plea in mitigation; the facts are obvious; the client agrees; there is a plea of guilty", the clerk will immediately choose the most junior member of chambers on the basis that it is only a plea in mitigation even if it is in the Crown Court. That is the case in nine out of 10 examples.
I am not arguing that the solicitor is superior to counsel. However, one normally finds that the person who has grown up with the case and has taken instructions ought, from the point of view of benefit to the client, to ensure that the client does not have to pay too much if legal aid has not been

109
granted, or that legal aid funds are made available for worthy objects. One hopes for the expansion of legal aid into those worthy objects which might be a saving. If the client wants his solicitor to conduct a plea in mitigation in the Crown Court he should be allowed to have him.
As has already been said, if the client desires to instruct counsel, counsel will be instructed. If the solicitor does not feel able to conduct the matter properly, counsel will be instructed by the solicitor. However, to bar a solicitor from making a plea in mitigation in a normal case —and I entirely accept from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that there are important abnormal cases—which would go to the Crown Court is an absurdity. To bar him from saying that his client has a completely good character; that certain circumstances should be brought before the court explaining why he committed the crime; that he is married and has two children and that his employment is whatever it is —to say that such matters cannot be advanced in any circumstances by a solicitor on a plea of guilty in a Crown Court is an absurdity.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Members of the Committee have heard a most important and informative speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, seconded by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, did not put forward the point which was sought to be answered by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He was concerned to demonstrate the intense importance to the liberty of the subject and the enormous difficulties in what was dismissed as something of apparently no moment at all.
I do not desire to go over what they said but I venture to submit that it is a disgrace to have such an important pronouncement made to the Committee at this hour of night, in all the conditions which are unconducive to the publicising of those views and to a meagre Committee. The noble Lord the Leader of the House has been good enough to be present and I beg him to bear that in mind.
Lord Hooson: I did not intend to intervene in the debate but I believe that this is a matter which should be left to the new machinery. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to his experience. I also have experience because before 1972 I was chairman at a quarter sessions where solicitors had an unlimited right of audience. During my time there not one of them exercised that right.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, knows the quarter sessions about which I am talking. I am also right in saying that since 1972 there has been a limited right of audience to solicitors in the Crown Court at Caernarfon, which is on the same circuit. I have no recollection of a solicitor taking advantage of that right. No doubt there are cases about which I have not known and in which such a right has been exercised. However, in almost every case, in the interests of their clients, solicitors have taken the same view that has been expressed so eloquently in the debate tonight.
10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not wish to rise again other than to take up one very short point; namely, that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that it was one of the purposes of this Bill to take counsel altogether out of the criminal courts. That is wrong. There is no foundation in this Bill for that allegation.
Lord Morris: As a non-lawyer, I intervene in this very polite but somewhat unseemly punch up between the two branches of the profession. I follow on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I understand that solicitors have a right of audience in the county court which they very rarely take up. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whether my belief has any foundation in fact. That is relevant. If one is looking for an extension of rights of audience, then one should consider what is the practice as to the taking up of the rights of audience which already exist.
Lord Mishcon: I answer that very briefly by saying that my experience over the years is that the county courts are full of solicitors who exercise their rights of audience. That is true of all the metropolitan county courts; and I should have thought, from what I hear from my colleagues, that is also true of the county courts in the provinces.
Lord Morris: I ask the noble Lord to inquire as to the position in, for example, the Liverpool County Court where I understand that that is not the case at all.
Lord Hacking: Although I have been responsible for the renewed discussions during the past 30 minutes on the rights of audience issue, I suggest to the Committee that that has been thoroughly over-discussed in this Chamber and it is not reflecting much credit on either side of the profession by the continuation of the discussion because the only consequence is a polarisation of views and the taking of extreme examples. Both branches of the legal profession understand its traditions and duties. When members of my side of the legal profession make a decision as to whether to conduct advocacy themselves in courts in which they have an audience or whether they instruct counsel, that is made responsibly according to what is in the best interests of the client and what is in the best interests of justice.
There are pleas of guilty which are moderately elementary to conduct. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, I never found careless driving cases very easy, and I believe that I only won one such case of the many which I conducted in the magistrates' court. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, did not say they were easy to conduct, but he reminded the Committee of his early days at the Bar and I remember mine. He said that with confidence one could accept that sort of case but would be hesitant about taking on a much more serious plea

111
in mitigation in what was then the Assize Court or the Quarter Sessions. In those days, as now, all other things being equal, the advocate with the right experience and responsibility is the advocate who conducts that plea in mitigation.
I bear responsibility for the renewed debate during the past 32 minutes on the rights of audience issue because I have tabled two amendments. I thought that they were modest and did not attack any vital issues regarding rights of audience. Certainly, I thought that Amendment No. 155A was wholly modest and sensible and would facilitate the work of the Supreme Court Procedure Committee. Therefore, I found the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls somewhat disappointing although he accepted the basis on which we should promote this matter; namely, that rights of audience which currently exist should not be taken away.
That is not to say that there is not a problem about definition or that this amendment could not be improved. It is a sensible amendment. In the interests of justice, if it is right that injunction proceedings should be taken in open court rather than in chambers, and solicitors already have the right to conduct those proceedings, it seems sensible in the interests of justice that they should continue to conduct matters in which they have regular experience when the forum is changed from chambers to open court.
Having been responsible for re-introducing the subject of rights of audience, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 155B to 161A not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [The Law Society: rights to conduct litigation]:
[Amendments Nos. 162 to 167 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 167A:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Judges' recommendations concerning regulations and rules of authorised bodies.
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor or, acting jointly, the designated judges, may at any time make to the General Council of the Bar, the Law Society or any other authorised body such recommendations (including recommendations for additions, omissions and other changes) as they think appropriate concerning any aspect of that body's qualification regulations and rules of conduct and practice, whether or not relating to advocacy or the conduct of litigation.
(2) Any body to which a recommendation under this section is made shall have regard to it.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a very short and modest amendment. It proposes that the designated judges should be able actively to initiate the process of change and, where appropriate, make alterations to existing regulations and rules. I hope that this is an example of another proposal made by me which is wholly non-contentious. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: May I say how sensible this amendment is.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall take this amendment into account and I hope to give effect to the principle of it.
Lord Ackner: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 167ZA:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Commencement of rights of audience and of rights to conduct litigation.
.—(1) On entry of the name of a solicitor on the roll kept by the Law Society under section 6 of the Solicitors Act 1974 or the restoration of the name of a solicitor, such a solicitor shall be deemed to have been granted by the Law Society the rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as solicitors) immediately before 7th December 1989.
(2) Upon recognition of a body corporate by the Council of the Law Society pursuant to rules made under section 9(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, that body corporate shall be deemed to have been granted by the Law Society the rights to conduct litigation exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as solicitors) immediately before 7th December 1989").
The noble Lord said: I can deal with this amendment very briefly. It would ensure that solicitors admitted after 7th December 1989 automatically acquire solicitors' existing rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation and that solicitors' incorporated practices recognised after 7th December 1989 automatically acquire solicitors' rights to conduct litigation. I understand that there is some doubt in certain quarters whether these rights are preserved by Clause 29. This amendment would put the matter beyond dispute. It is supported by the Law Society and I trust that it is acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Amendments Nos. 167ZA and 167ZB are the same. I am not sure that it is necessary for primary legislation to set down for all time the method by which solicitors acquire rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation or to make a statement of the extent of those rights. That is something that is more appropriate to the rules of the profession body concerned, in this case the Law Society.
I find subsection (2) more difficult. Although it is the name of the firm of solicitors which appears upon the writ when a solicitor from that firm is conducting litigation on behalf of a client, it is not the firm to which the right is granted but the individual solicitors. Similarly, if a solicitors' incorporated practice were conducting litigation, it would be the name of the incorporated practice which appeared on the court documents. This would not, however, imply that any right had been granted to the company but rather to its individual solicitor directors. That is the way in which I understand the matter. There may be some technical issue which has not been completely focused. At the present moment I have some difficulty with the question. I shall be happy to consider the issue further if the noble Lord has further points to put to me.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: As this is the last amendment dealing with solicitors requiring rights of audience, can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee what are his intentions as regards his powers under the Supreme Court Act 1981? At the moment it does not appear that that Act is to be repealed because it does not appear in the relevant clause of the Bill. He has the power at any time to direct that solicitors may appear and have rights of audience in the Crown Court. I raised this matter in connection with a previous amendment but I did not ask the noble and learned Lord to reply to it.
The Lord Chancellor: I should have said something about it. My understanding is that it is a rather specialised provision which has been given effect, for example, in the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred. When one reads the section as a whole one does not regard it as doing other than recognising that in some places the old Quarter Session rights should be recognised if there is a scarcity of counsel. I personally had to exercise that right in the very limited circumstances when the Crown Court moved from Bodmin to Truro. The old rule, so far as Bodmin was concerned, was transferred to Truro. That is the scope of the section as I understand it.
At one stage, in the course of the various applications made to me since I became Lord Chancellor, one suggestion was that that section could be used to obviate the present debate. I resisted that rather strongly. That is my view of the scope of the section. The machinery here is intended to deal with matters generally and not specific locations. I do not believe that the two are in any way inconsistent, the one with the other.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I am sorry to press the noble and learned Lord. I understand and totally accept that the noble and learned Lord would not use the powers under the section to do what he has suggested, which is to give rights of audience at the Crown Court to solicitors. Will he agree that the power is there in the hands of anyone who may succeed him in his great office? The simple terms of the section are that the Lord Chancellor may at any time direct that solicitors may appear, conduct, defend and address the court in any proceedings in the Crown Court. Will the noble and learned Lord agree that, whatever his own intentions are, that section gives the power?
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that there is more to the section than just that. I have not got it in front of me at the present moment. My reading of it suggests that it can only be used in relation to special situations. That is the understanding I had of it.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Approximately once a month I sign a list of names, the magic of which is that they eo instante come on the roll of solicitors. What troubles me about subsection (1) of either amendment is that my successor in 10 or 20 years' time—assuming that the statute is still on the statute book —will be granting new solicitors the rights of audience enjoyed by solicitors immediately
114
before 7th December 1989. That seems a total irrelevance. They probably will have much extended rights of audience in general. In some respects it may be that they would be less than the rights effective on 7th December 1989. I cannot see that it matters what the rights of solicitors were on 7th December 1989. What matters is the rights of solicitors at the moment they join the roll.
Lord Prys-Davies: I have listened carefully to the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls. There is, no less, concern at the Law Society as to the rights of solicitors who qualify after the Bill becomes law. Clearly, the Law Society will have to consider carefully the advice that has been delivered in reply to the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 167ZB not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Clause 31 [The Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board]:
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 25, line 18, leave out ("Lord Chancellor") and insert ("Master of the Rolls").
The noble and learned Lord said: We now come to Clauses 31 to 38, which deal with conveyancing, a matter dear and close to the heart of the solicitors' branch of the profession. I have no doubt that from now on there will be total and utter harmony so that barristers and solicitors in both branches of the profession will be able to gambol through the clauses hand in hand. The only person who may not be able to do so is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as I seek to remove him from his control and domination of this area of legal services and substitute for him a judge.
I should like, if I may, to speak to Amendment No. 169 which with Amendment No. 168 refers to the conveyancing board; to Amendments Nos. 171, 172 and 172A in Schedule 5, which deals with the membership of the conveyancing board; to Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 in Clause 34, which deals with the provision of conveyancing services; to Amendment No. 177 in Clause 36, which deals with the revocation and suspension of conveyancing; to Amendment No. 178 in Clause 38, which deals with regulations with regard to conduct, and to Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 which deal with the Conveyancing Appeal Tribunals.
Under my amendments the Master of the Rolls would be substituted for the Lord Chancellor in regard to the exercise of the powers being taken in all these matters. Conveyancing is a purely legal matter. It is probably the most important legal transaction that a member of the public will ever enter into. It is of enormous importance. It deals with the transfer, acquisition or sale of the single greatest asset of most people. In my view it is lunacy not to use a solicitor to conduct that form of transaction. I cannot understand why anyone would

115
want to do anything else. But it is purely a matter of the legal profession carrying out a commercial transaction.
What on earth is the point of suddenly introducing the Government into this area? Why do we need a Minister on this board to deal with these matters? The Government are again seeking powers to dominate an independent legal profession. Is there anywhere else in the civilised world where a member of the Executive, a person who sits in the Cabinet, is given powers over the exercise of how one sells or transfers one's house? What is the purpose of this provision? What reason is there for it?
Parliament does not interfere with the decisions of judges and does not interfere with the Director of Public Prosecutions in his decisions whether or not to prosecute. It either accepts the decision of a judge or of the Director of Public Prosecutions or it removes him. Parliament does not have to approve and should not express approval or disapproval of how judges conduct their business. Moreover, it should not, through a Minister, take powers to control or supervise this perfectly ordinary legal practice.
We are storing up for ourselves much danger —I am sure that my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lord Coleraine will well appreciate this fact —if we take in a Cabinet Minister to assist us in the practice of legal services. However, it is a little more than that; it is a matter of principle. My party, the Tory Party, has always been pragmatic in matters of policy —that is, the old Tory Party used to be —but never over matters of the balance of the constitution and the sharing of the balance of power.
I beg the Committee not to allow this issue to slip through at this time of night when there are only a smattering of Members present. Here we are again glibly handing the matter over and saying, "Well, it will be perfectly all right". The Minister will say, "I will look after the matter; of course it will be dealt with by those professional bodies. I am there, and I am taking these powers just to see that it is all right".
In my submission that cannot be right. We should not slide into indifference because a particular Cabinet has made a particular decision and because a particular draftsman is now interfering with the main and most important business which a citizen has to undertake as regards the transfer of any legal rights. I know that it is more a matter for my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lord Coleraine who are in that branch of the profession. Of course they know much more about conveyancing than I do. However, I know that whatever happens it would be sensible not to go to any of these new creatures which have been created. One should go straight to a solicitor to sell or buy a house.
I know that we have said this before. Moreover, in the years to follow there may be a different Cabinet, an abolished House of Lords or a reformed House of Lords—whatever the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has in mind. We do not know what this Chamber will look like when it is reformed, who will be the Minister or what type of Minister will be here, or indeed what kind of people will be sitting in this place. Are we really going to accept that a Cabinet
116
Minister should be involved in controlling the independent legal profession in such a matter as the sale or purchase of a house?
I think that all Members of the Committee should now join together in harmony in asking my noble and learned friend gracefully to withdraw and to let a judge have this position. I suggest that the Master of the Rolls should take over these duties, duties with which he is fully conversant and which comply with other aspects of his duties as regards the solicitors' branch of the profession. I beg to move.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: For the reasons I supported my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson in respect of Clause 16, I also support him on this occasion. At that time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained that it was difficult to substitute the Lord Chief Justice because, as he said again this afternoon, various heads of division have various responsibilities. Therefore, it is logical in respect of this clause that the Master of the Rolls should be the substitute for the Lord Chancellor.
I think it is important that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has this difficult and sometimes delicate balance to keep between being the head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet, should stand away as far as he can from interfering with the legal profession. I refer to both sides of it in that respect because I regard them as being of equal importance.
For my part I would welcome an amendment in Dod whereby solicitors were moved up from number 194 to 192 in the order of precedence and that they should be allowed to call themselves esquire. I believe that we are now in danger in this Bill as regards some of the matters of causing a further division betweeen the Law Society and the Bar Council; that is, between barristers and solicitors. This is most unfortunate and we should not allow it to happen. We should recognise that both parts of the legal profession have their role to play. Solicitors certainly have a role to play in conveyancing. Moreover, if I am ever involved in a transfer of a house, either buying or selling, I shall go to a solicitor. However, that is my personal view.
Once again of course we have one of these nominated boards with all its members, including the chairman, to be chosen by the Lord Chancellor. The chairman may be anyone. He may be a judge, but he does not have to be. That is the pattern that runs right through one Act of Parliament after another. The Government are to nominate all the members to boards set up under the Bill —the advisory committee and this board. They did it in relation to the health service and the water authorities. It is a dangerous pattern, and one that we should not support.
Those doubts are ones that I have expressed not only in relation to this Bill but to many other measures which have come before Parliament in recent years. I recall that Lord Radcliffe in the Reith lectures on the problems of power said that of course one way to defend the rule of law, although it was not one that he recommended, was to rely upon a

117
sufficient number of bald-headed men on top of a Clapham omnibus to turn up to see that everything was all right. I do not believe that that is good enough.
Clause 32 provides that one of the board's functions shall be to develop competition. The proposals are anti-competitive. That is a concern which has been expressed by many bodies, including the CBI. There is none of the protections against predatory pricing which were announced in the White Paper.
I accept that the purpose of the Bill is to do something that is for the benefit of the consumer; it is not just for the benefit of solicitors. I regard the proposal to allow conveyancing by banks, building societies and other institutions to be thoroughly objectionable. I agree with the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, in the debate on the Green Papers when he said that that proposal,
"would not lead to competition, but would promote a captive market for those large institutions. In addition, it could well lead to the demise of many high street solicitors, to the detriment of the ordinary citizens of this country".
The public's only protection will be the requirement that the conveyancing work would have to be carried out in compliance with a statutory code of conduct. I am not all that enamoured by a reliance upon codes of conduct. The Committee may again agree that my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chievely was equally right when he said in the debate on the Green Papers:
"I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls that too much emphasis is placed upon codes of conduct. No one ever created high standards of conduct by writing words down on a piece of paper". —[Official Report, 7/4/89; col. 1410.]
It is the practice that matters and the training that people receive from those with whom they work when they are young pupils or young solicitors. That is what creates the code of conduct. Many people have never looked at the code of conduct. They have learned from practice what is the right thing to do and how to behave.
Generally, as I understand it, solicitors may not act for both the vendor and the purchaser; but it is now proposed that a single financial institution, as I understand it, may, first, act as agent for the vendor to sell the house; secondly, act as the vendor's solicitor; thirdly, act as the purchaser's mortgagee; fourthly, sell the purchaser a life insurance policy; and, finally, act as the purchaser's solicitor. He will no doubt charge all the fees. It will not necessarily be any cheaper. It may not be as safe as the present practice.
The proposal will involve no fewer than four actual or potential conflicts of interest. The only solicitor involved in the transaction is employed by the estate agent, the mortgagee and the life insurance salesman. Of course —this is a point made to me by a firm of solicitors and not the Bar Council —it can be said that there will be Chinese Walls. The City, as my noble friend Lord Boardman will know, is full of Chinese Walls, some of them made of rice paper. Others have grapevines growing round them, but few have any degree of solidity. I hope that this is
118
not a Second Reading speech, but in a sense it is better to make one speech on the matter. As my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson said, conveyancing is of major importance to the consumer. It is the most important transaction most people ever carry out.
One of the difficulties of the Bill is that it tries to do so many things at once. It deserves most careful attention from us all. The Confederation of British Industry and many other organisations have expressed concern about the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, especially their effect in the high street and upon provincial firms of solicitors whose continued existence may be threatened. I do not believe that that is in the public interest.
Of course, it is not surprising that this is happening because there is a pattern. As I said the other day, the lawyers attend proceedings on this Bill; for the most part, the City people come to the financial services Bills; the local government people come to the local government Bills. It is not always possible to observe the way in which, under Bill after Bill, it is the little man who is threatened, all in favour of the larger institution —whether it be the bank, the large firms of solicitors or in due course possibly the very large, powerful sets of barristers' chambers. The Financial Services Act has hit the small stockbroker. The new business rate is hitting the small business. We are now going to hit the small country solicitor, just as the health service legislation is directed for the moment against the small country doctor.
It seems to me that the whole basis of my noble and learned friend's case time after time in this Bill is designed to help the consumer or the client of the legal services. I do not believe that the provisions in this part of the Bill will be of any benefit to the consumer. Today I received a very interesting letter from the president of the Glasgow Bar Association asking me to support its amendments. He states:
"We totally reject the sections of the Bill relating to conveyancing … as being unnecessary. The public's interests are paramount to us".
He says that the system there, which is different from that of England, is,
"reliable, expeditious, cost effective, flexible and above all gives adequate protection to the public and separate independent advice".
That is what I think we should retain in England. Of course, until recently I should have hesitated to make any pronouncements upon the law in Scotland, but I think it is rather ossified now to believe that one cannot express a view on somebody else's law, even if one is not familiar with it.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Boardman: I shall not attempt to follow my noble friend Lord Rippon in his wider comments on the impact that some of these clauses are likely to have on competition, conflicts of interest and the like. I am heartened to believe that perhaps we shall find ourselves in agreement at a later stage in the Bill, in the same way that I happen to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson.

119
On the very narrow point about "Master of the Rolls" replacing "Lord Chancellor" for the purposes of this clause, I find myself sadly in disagreement with both my noble friends. I do not feel strongly on the matter. It is not as much of a constitutional point as was the replacement of "Lord Chancellor" with "Lord Chief Justice" in an earlier part of the Bill. It seems to me that with the role that is cast for the Lord Chancellor in this clause and from there on, it is appropriate that the matter should be for a member of the Executive rather than a member of the judiciary.
If we examine Clause 31 and the following clauses where this point is evoked, so many of the roles and duties cast upon the Lord Chancellor are essentially of an executive character. For instance,
"The Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants";
"Any sums required by the Lord Chancellor for making grants … shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament",
and so on. I feel in this case that it is quite appropriate that the amendment should not be agreed to. The Master of the Rolls in his judicial capacity is one thing; the Lord Chancellor in this case, with a very heavy executive responsibility, is the right person to shoulder these responsibilities in this part of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I wish to add briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, has said. I shall not repeat anything he has said, much of which I agree with. I also agree heartily with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said. However, I wonder whether the argument that the noble Lords advanced, namely that the purchase and sale of a home are possibly the most important acts that a member of the public in many cases indulges in, is not the very reason why a Minister of an elected government, in safeguarding the public, should not make the appointment in this case rather than a judge. I say that with all due respect to judges.
The Lord Chancellor: As regards legislation on this topic, the present position is that authorised practitioners, as provided in the 1986 Act, are to be certified or authorised by the Lord Chancellor individually. I am furthering the policy that my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell and my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham proposed by distancing myself somewhat from the approval of practitioners.
On the appointment of members of the board, I believe that constitutionally it is right that these appointments should be made by someone who has answerability to Parliament so that any appointments can be challenged as regards their suitability through the developed methods of parliamentary scrutiny. That would not be appropriate for a judge in the position of the Master of the Rolls. While from my own personal point of view I should be delighted to have responsibilities in other quarters than my own, as a matter of constitutional propriety I believe it is right that the Lord Chancellor should make these appointments. He has to have regard to the various interests that
120
are described. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble and learned friend will feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I still fail to see why an independent legal profession has to have a Minister so closely involved not only with the rights of audience and the advisory council but also with the conveyancing board. However, I have done my best for that other branch of the profession which I admire so greatly. I was even going to move an amendment to remove the word "barrister" in Clause 33(3)(a) and leave the matter of conveyancing only to a:
"solicitor, notary or licensed conveyancer".
I do not think that that matter is the duty of a clerk or a barrister. Different skills and a different ability are involved. However, my gift horse was turned down by my noble friend Lord Boardman. So if the solicitors are satisfied with that position, then so be it.
However, with great respect to my noble and learned friend I do not understand the constitutional importance of having a Minister involved in this matter when across the length and breadth of Europe legal services are at last becoming independent. They are throwing out the authority of ministers and government and declaring that they will conduct their business with people appointed by them and in accordance with their own standards. The legal profession in such countries has become independent. In no other country in the world is a government so much involved in the legal services provided in a state. If one went to America and suggested that a secretary of a state or the whole federation should be involved in who should be allowed to practise in the American courts or how American lawyers should carry out conveyancing on a house one would be turned upon. That would also be the case anywhere else in the world. However, we say that this provision is constitutionally important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to suggest that the House do now resume. At this stage I need say no more than that it is highly undesirable that an important Bill such as this, a Bill in which presumably the Government have confidence, should be discussed in a meagre Committee at this hour of night, and later.
We lost an hour of the Committee proceedings. We lost three-quarters of an hour on the Statement and another quarter of an hour because of the business during the dinner hour over-running. Therefore, with confidence, it being past the normal hour for rising, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
Lord Belstead: I realise that the hour is getting later. As the Committee will know from the list of amendments that we placed at the doors, we had

121
intended to go a very long way tonight. However, the Government have been proposing through the usual channels to go so far as Amendment No. 177C. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will feel that that is reasonable and will allow us to make some inroads into conveyancing. That is the only comment that I ought to make on the noble and learned Lord's Motion.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very grateful at least for that mercy. However, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say how many more Committee days we shall have? At the moment we have only one more day, Thursday.
Lord Belstead: We have Thursday and also next Monday.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: We cannot possibly deal with the remainder of the Bill properly unless we have more days in Committee. The noble Lord the Leader of the House has very properly not sought to attain the quite unrealisable and unrealistic target that was set. However, having rightly curtailed the business today, he must see that if this Chamber is to do its job within its proper scope another day is required for the Committee stage.
I remind the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, that when I first raised the question of the business in this Committee he said the matter would be kept under review, and that there was no definite allotment of Committee days. I understood that in saying that the matter would be kept under review he meant that if it turned out that more days were required they would be vouchsafed. More days are required.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say that this is a Bill which can only be dealt with properly by Parliament in this Chamber. It is the kind of Bill on which this Chamber has the particular expertise and the ability to deal with it properly. If I may say so from my experience of another place, that could never be done there. It can be done here. It is one of the great reasons for the existence of this Chamber—before we are reformed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as he is so determined to do—that only this Chamber can deal properly with such Bills.
Therefore I ask the business managers to be a little more gracious. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House is trying to be as kind as he can, but I hope that he will realise that we are not making Second Reading speeches or being difficult. We are trying to turn this Bill into what we sincerely believe to be a good Bill. We believe that that is also in the interests of this Chamber.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I have not made myself clear, in which case that is my fault. We are today on the fourth day in Committee on the Bill which was the original number of days in Committee proposed by the Government through the usual channels. Realising that the Bill had got off to quite
122
an intense and not very quick start, we then proposed an extra day. That will be Thursday of this week. When I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that Monday of next week has now been proposed by the Government, I should point out that that is yet another day which would make six days in all.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It is entirely my fault. A sixth day is now proposed and, that being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert ("and
(c) ensuring that no member or members of the Board shall be nominated by the Law Society or the Society of Licensed Conveyancers.").
The noble Earl said: As I indicated in my speech on Second Reading, the creation of authorised practitioners with machinery and regulations to match has now brought into being two separate systems of conveyancing. The intention is expressed that competition between them is a desirable aim, although in speaking to the previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, seemed to express his doubts on that matter.
In effect that means that the two systems will need to compete with each other on level terms. That objective cannot be sustained if influential personnel from one of the previous existing systems —in practice either the Law Society or the Society of Licensed Conveyancers —may become members of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board which effectively sets the ground rules for the new authorised system. It would be intolerable if such influential persons who overwhelmingly represent the established system were appointed to the strategic position of being able to interfere with the working rules of their principal competitor.
I appreciate that some may argue that the boards should have a knowledgeable and balanced representation and that widening the conveyancing systems and services might adversely affect the business of provincial solicitors, but that is what competition is all about, not a cosy monopoly. Is it right to include representatives of one faction to control the activities of their compeititors? Competition must both be achieved and be seen to be achieved.
As it stands, the clause must be defective in that respect. Equity demands that safeguards outlined in the amendment be put in place and that the consumer-client benefits from demonstrably fair competition. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: By virtue of Clause 31 the membership of the board will be balanced and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must have regard to appointing persons with experience in or knowledge of the provision of conveyancing services and the financial arrangements associated with conveyancing.
It appears to me that the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, went far beyond even the wording of his amendment because his amendment seeks to

123
ensure that no member shall be nominated by the Law Society or the Society of Licensed Conveyancers. That amendment is misconceived because there is no power in the Bill for the Law Society or the Society of Licensed Conveyancers to nominate any person for membership of the board. I should have thought that a wise solicitor or licensed conveyancer would be very well qualified for membership of the board.
The Bill does not provide that a member of the Law Society or a member of the Society of Licensed Conveyancers shall be appointed, but I believe that it would be inappropriate to accept this or any amendment that would prohibit any solicitor or licensed conveyancer from being appointed to the board if the Lord Chancellor considered that the appointment was appropriate.
Lord Boardman: I believe that this amendment would seriously restrict the choice of quality candidates and exclude those who have valuable experience in this field. It will be the duty of the authorised conveyancing practitioners to help develop competition in the provision of conveyancing services. Industry in particular, as expressed through the CBI, is gravely concerned that one of the effects of these proposals will be to reduce the legal advice available in the High Street to the medium and small sized businesses. It believes that it is essential that on this board there should be sufficient experienced advice to enable some of the practices that might otherwise operate to adverse effect on the local solicitors' firms—predatory pricing, tying arrangements and the like —to be avoided. It believes it essential that there should be experienced and wise advice on this board to enable some of these practices to be monitored and avoided. It would certainly oppose this amendment.
Lord Evans of Claughton: The hour is late, as we have heard a number of noble Lords say very recently. All that I need to say is that I am entirely opposed to this amendment, which I believe is mischievous. Conveyancing in this country has been done for generations by solicitors and recently by solicitors and licensed conveyancers. To exclude the nomination of people from the professional bodies dealing with those experts would be totally absurd. Quite frankly, I believe that the amendment is mischievous and unhelpful.
The Lord Chancellor: As I have already explained, one of the purposes of this measure is that the Lord Chancellor should appoint people having regard to the considerations which are mentioned in this clause of the Bill. There is no proposal that any body should nominate the members except the Lord Chancellor. I have no intention whatever of appointing people who might be thought to be or might consider themselves to be delegates of anybody else.
However, I think that it is unwise to restrict the freedom of choice of quality candidates for this board except by reference to the kind of considerations which are mentioned in the clause. I hope that on the assurance that the Bill does not contain any power for the Law Society or the Society
124
of Licensed Conveyancers to nominate members of the board, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, will feel that he should not press this amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend how far the word "conveyancing" goes. What is it proposed to include in that? For instance, is there an element of negotiation, is there an element of testing of prices or is this purely the writing of a document on which a complete decision has already been made? Is there a definition or is it left vague for the conveyancers to make up their minds?
The Lord Chancellor: The present law restricts the right to do conveyancing. It is on that monopoly that this provision operates.
I do not have the full facts relevant to this amendment in front of me at this moment, but my understanding is that the drawing of deeds which effect the transfer of property for reward would be the essential idea of conveyancing for this purpose. Anyway, I can assure my noble friend that these clauses will operate on the present conveyancing monopoly.
The Earl of Shannon: My proposed amendment does not seem to have attracted much support. It was not my intention to be mischievous or to try to wreck anything. I appreciate that my amendment may be incorrect in suggesting that there may be some form of nomination included by those two bodies. However, it seems a little odd that members of one faction should be allowed to monitor and write the rules for the operations of their competitors. It does not seem to me to be exactly fair; nor will it be seen to be fair by anyone else.
I agree that it would restrict the Lord Chancellor's catchment of suitable members for his board. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 25, line 34, leave out ("employees") and insert ("staff").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment. The word "staff' appears to be preferable to the word "employees". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [The Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board]:
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 171:
Page 77, line 5, leave out ("Lord Chancellor") and insert ("Master of the Rolls").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 171, 172 and 172A. Indeed, I have spoken generally to all the amendments up to and including Amendment No. 177. I do not seek to move the amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 171 to 172A not moved.]
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Functions of the Board and financial provisions]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester)The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): If Amendment No. 172ZA is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 172ZB.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 172ZA:
Page 25, line 44, leave out paragraph (a) and insert —
("(a) to promote high standards of integrity and fair dealing in the provision of conveyancing services;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to achieve two things: to remove the existing paragraph (a) and to replace it with the new paragraph (a) which is set out in the amendment.
Clause 32(1)(a) is a surprising clause. We find it a strange clause because the duty to develop a conveyancing service is already provided for in the statutory objective in Clause 14(1) which the Committee discussed for some hours last week.
Moreover, the proposed rules of the board and the proposed regulations of the Lord Chancellor will have to be sent to the Director General of Fair Trading, who will express his views to whether or not they restrict or prevent competition. On top of that, there is a right of appeal against a decision of the board to the appeals tribunal. We therefore ask this question. Why does the Bill not rely on the general framework of Clause 14, underpinned by the jurisdiction of the Director General of Fair Trading and the right of appeal?
The answer is to be found in the Notes on Clauses. We are told that the introduction of Clause 32(1)(a) will ensure that the board will not unnecessarily refuse authorisation or impose unreasonable conditions. There is a right of appeal to the appeals tribunal if an applicant believes that his application has been refused unnecessarily or if the board has established unreasonable conditions. Therefore, the purpose of the subsection is to introduce on the face of the Bill a slant or bias in favour of competition. We note that the reference is to competition and not to fair competition.
We believe that the clause is unnecessary and that the primary duty of the board should be to promote high standards of integrity and fair dealing in the provision of conveyancing services. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Before dealing with the detail of the amendment I wish to point out that Clause 32(1)(b) imposes on the board the duty:
"to supervise the activities of authorised practitioners in connection with the provision by them of conveyancing services".
Further, subsection (2) provides that:
"In discharging the duty imposed on it by subsection (1)(b) the Board shall, in particular, make arrangements designed to enable it to ascertain whether authorised practitioners are complying with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor under section 37".
Those two duties —that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and that referred to by me —are designed to go together.
The purpose of the clauses relating to conveyancing in this part of the Bill is to give the client the choice of a new kind of conveyancing
126
service to be provided by authorised practitioners. The board must remember that one of the reasons that it exists is to help in realising that choice. When deciding what kind of rules to make and whether to authorise applicants, it should bear in mind that it is there in part to help ensure that the client gets his choice. I do not think that the Bill is improved by relieving the board of that duty.
Of course this is only one side of the coin. The client needs to have confidence in authorised practitioners and to be able to rely on them performing their tasks to an appropriate standard. That is already provided for in substance by the other side of the board's duty —that of supervising the provision of conveyancing services by authorised practitioners. That will primarily be done by the enforcement of the regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor. That mechanism provides a place for Parliament in maintaining standards which I think is essential.
I trust that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will feel that the regulations which the Lord Chancellor makes and in which the parliamentary process is involved will have the effect of providing the framework which the board will have to operate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Boardman: I hope that my noble and learned friend will look at the matter further. It has the ring of seeking to develop competition and of encouraging cut-throat competition which does not necessarily go with the highest standards of integrity and fair dealing. I am mindful that in the provisions covering the Securities and Investments Board, which is similar in its intentions, it is not charged with such duty. Its main task is to make regulations which must promote high standards of integrity and fair dealing in the conduct of the investment business.
In an area where there must be a danger of introducing practices of which the Committee may not approve —and I am sure that we shall hear more about that matter later —we should write into the Bill the requirements for those high standards of integrity. I hope that my noble and learned friend will look at the matter further before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I should like to add my plea to that of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. I have practised as a conveyancer for nearly 40 years, not in the City of London but in the high street where conveyancing is the life-blood of the profession. I assure Members of the Committee, particularly those who live in the rarefied atmosphere of the High Court or the City of London, that there are already unfair practices brought about by the fierce competition for work to which some solicitors and licensed conveyancers are willing to reduce themselves.
I add that unless some steps are taken to ensure that unfair competition is as far as possible removed, the practices which would ensue in order to drum up business would rebound, in the end, to the disadvantage of the person buying a house. That is the biggest transaction undertaken in most people's

127
lives. If they come from a humble background, £20,000 for a terrace house in the North of England is a lot of money. I deal with that sort of convenyancing. If they live in other parts of the country, £100,000 or £200,000 or more can be a lot of money. Quite frankly, I believe that the provisions in this Bill will encourage the drumming up and seeking of business by the promotion of collection of commissions and every other practice which is so reprehensible to a member of the profession, rather than to a person engaged in other occupations. That will become more and more prevalent.
I am sad, from the bottom of my heart, that we are discussing a matter which is probably more important to the ordinary citizen in this part of the Bill at this time of night when we have spent so many hours discussing much more esoteric subjects in the early part of this Bill. This is the part which affects the average man in the street. This matter is being discussed at ten minutes past eleven and it will receive scant consideration. I feel very deeply that we are in danger of doing a permanent injury to an extremely important part of a service given to the public and to the legal profession of which I have been honoured to be a member, with great feelings of loyalty, for nearly 40 years. I believe that it is terribly sad that this matter is being swept through at this time of night. I support the noble Lord's amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I rise again because I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, that I do not regard this as a matter to be swept along. I regard it as very important and I listened with great care to what he said and to what my noble friend Lord Boardman and others said because I agree that this matter affects ordinary people. I started off my life in the law dealing with conveyancing transactions for people who were even more ordinary than those described by the noble Lord in his submissions, at least if the price of the houses is anything to go by.
However, I remind the Committee, because it is relevant to what I said earlier, that Clause 37 states:
"The Lord Chancellor may by regulation make such provision as he considers expedient with a view to securing —

(a) that authorised pracititioners maintain satisfactory standards of competence and conduct in connection with the provision by them of conveyancing services; and

(b) that the interests of their clients are satisfactorily protected".

I take that very broadly to mean that that does not confine the regulations in any way but requires that they secure that the interests of clients are satisfactorily protected. The noble Lord will know that in the original Green Paper I proposed some protective regulations. In the White Paper I have elaborated upon them. The matter is not yet concluded. I am willing to listen to any suggestions about what is required in the interests of satisfactory protection of the client. I believe that that is an extremely important matter. The problems that the noble Lord has referred to in connection with dealings in the high street and other places require to be carefully scrutinised. The noble Lord will know that consideration is being given to that situation in
128
relation to estate agents by my right honourable friend and honourable friends in the Department of Trade and Industry and by the Director General of Fair Trading.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am extremely grateful for the support which this amendment has received. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, in particular has expressed the deep anxiety that exists in relation to this clause. We fully support paragraph (b) to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Our amendment fits in which paragraph (b). It does not detract from it but merely establishes that priority should be given to the maintenance of standards of integrity and fair dealing between the parties.
We are concerned that the clause should give prominence to the need to develop competition. The forces of the market will ensure competition. In free competition, the conveyancing board should be in business to promote standards of integrity and fair dealing. That should be at the top of its list of priorities.
I cannot take the matter any further this evening but we may well return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. I72ZB not moved.]
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 26, line 3, at end insert —
("(c) to promote and develop the efficient provision in respect of conveyancing services by authorised practitioners.")
The noble Earl said: This is only a probing amendment. It seeks to gain certain assurances about the nature of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board and its work. Very welcome to those who have read this clause is the statement in subsection (1)(a) that the board will seek to develop competition. I should like to take this point further and ensure that the board has a positive and innovating role in developing conveyancing services.
My amendment states in a direct way that the board should seek to develop new procedures in conveyancing as far as the authorised sector of house transfer is concerned. That is something that is needed more than ever. Until recently the function of breaking new ground and moving the frontier of conveyancing practices belonged to the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission, which I understand has now been abolished.
It may be that this amendment is quite unnecessary and that competition, as mentioned in Clause 32(1)(a), includes the innovating role which I have attempted to describe. I wish to be persuaded. Promoting competition does not necessarily mean changing time-honoured rituals. It could mean the creation of two sets of time-honoured rituals to compete with each other in the same old way. I hope that this amendment might avoid that. I remind the Committee that the conveyancing system in this country is the subject of a continual chorus of consumer complaint. Only in recent years has it tried to come to terms with modern consumer society. Even now the system tends to meander along its way like a country omnibus.
This amendment would assist in finding ways to make house transfer more expeditious, inexpensive and less of a trauma than it has been for far too long. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: This clause is in Part II of the Bill and the general objective of this part is described in Clause 14(1) which has been amended. However, in this aspect the clause remains as it was.
"The general objective of this Part is the development of legal services in England and Wales (and in particular the development of advocacy, litigation, conveyancing and probate services) by making provision for new ways of providing such services and a wider choice of persons providing them".
Then words are added.
What the noble Earl has in mind is there in the general objective of Clause 14 which applies to the whole part including this. The object of this particular provision is to make it clear that the board has the job of developing competition in the provision of conveyancing services under that general objective. As regards standards, as I say, these are to be set by regulations which will be subject to parliamentary procedure. The board will have the responsibility of making sure that the authorised practitioners obey these regulations. The Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board in the clauses to which I have referred, appears to give the kind of direction that the noble Earl wishes to see received. In the light of that explanation, the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Shannon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They were just the assurances that I was hoping for. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 26, line 17, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving this amendment I also speak to Amendment No. 173B. Both amendments deal with a similar matter. The first requires rather than empowers the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to publish any report made to him by the board on a matter referred to it under subsection (4). The second amendment would require the board to send to the noble and learned Lord any rules and directions that it publishes. It is in the public interest that reports of the ACPB should be made available to the general public, and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should have a complete picture of all the directives and rules made by the board.
As matters stand, he has to approve the rules under Clause 34(4). I believe that he will welcome with delight these amendments and have them incorporated in the Bill. In such a mood of confidence, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord has also referred to Amendment No. 173B, and I shall try to deal with both. As regards Amendment No. 173A, the noble Lord wishes to put an obligation on the Lord Chancellor to publish what is in the board's report. That is my understanding of the first amendment. I question whether that is wise. It is right that the Lord Chancellor should have a discretion to publish what the board may say but to have an obligation to do so might not be wise. For example, the board might refer to the Lord Chancellor the result of some form of preliminary investigation or something of that kind. The result might well require further substantiation.
In some cases we have seen quite serious consequences coming from the publication of a report. I do not envisage this happening very often but the possibility of something of this kind happening and the report containing information which would require further investigation might make it difficult to accept an amendment that imposes an absolute duty on the Lord Chancellor to publish all reports made to him.
Amendment No. 173B is unnecessary. All rules made by the board apart from those dealing with fees are subject to the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. It is therefore unnecessary to send him a copy. It is not appropriate for the board to be required to send copies of its rules on the raising of fees to the Lord Chancellor. The board is to be self-financing, and a statutory provision could be interpreted as giving rise to a presumption that the Lord Chancellor has a supervisory duty in what is entirely a matter between the board and authorised practitioners. Should it come to the Lord Chancellor's attention, by whatever means, that the board is failing it its duties in respect of these rules, it is open to him to give the board a direction under Clause 32(7). It is always open to the Lord Chancellor to obtain a copy of the board's rules —and it is open to the board to send them to him voluntarily, which is the likely course. The imposition of unnecessary duties by statute is to be avoided. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to have unnecessary duties enshrined in statute. Directions by the board could be effective only if their breach gave rise to disciplinary action leading to suspension or revocation. Although the board is allowed to make rules governing revocation or suspension, these are subject to the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and he would therefore see them in any event. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the points raised by his amendments are adequately covered.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I moved the amendment in an attempt to be helpful and encourage openness of decision-making. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said, and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173E not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Provision of conveyancing services by authorised practitioners]:
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 173C:
Page 27, line 2, at end insert ("provided that in the cases of paragraphs (b) and (c) above any act done in connection with the provision of conveyancing services shall be done by persons with such qualifications and under such supervision as shall be prescribed by the regulations referred to in section 37 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The White Paper made clear the Government's intention that conveyancing work should be undertaken by properly qualified and supervised persons. A principle of this importance should appear in the Bill and should not be left to subordinate legislation to be made under Clause 37.
Section 22 of the Solicitors Act already prohibits unqualified persons from doing certain conveyancing acts. Clause 33(1) provides that Section 22 shall not apply to conveyancing acts done by the staff of an authorised practitioner. The amendment would provide that such unqualified staff were exempt from the Section 22 offence only if they were properly supervised as prescribed by regulations made under Clause 37.
I do not think that there is any need for me once again to rehearse the points I made earlier regarding how important the transaction of buying or selling a house can be in the life of the average man and woman or, indeed, in a more general way how important are conveyancing transactions of a commercial and more general kind. Therefore, this sort of limitation on those who can undertake conveyancing unsupervised should be in the interests of what the Government want in the legislation and also in accordance with the spirit of the Bill as debated in this Committee so far. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether it would again be economical as regards time if I were to speak now to Amendment No. 173D, although I shall obviously not move it at this stage. I wish to do so because it has exactly the same object as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, except that it provides that this supervision necessity for unqualified staff should be in primary legislation as it is in regard to solicitors and licensed conveyancers.
With the leave of the Committee I should like to quote Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred. It is a short section but it is quite clear and it is contained in primary legislation. Subsection (2A) provides that the unqualified staff of a solicitor may only do acts protected by Section 22 if the act is done,
"at the direction and under the supervision of another person and,

(a) that other person was at the time his employer, a partner of his employer or a fellow employee; and

(b) the act could have been done by that other person for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under this section."

Again the noble Lord, Lord Evans, quite rightly quoted from the White Paper. However, paragraph 3.7 of the Green Paper Conveyancing by Authorised Practitioners states that authorised practitioners would be required to employ,
132
"a sufficient number of solicitors or licensed conveyancers … to provide or supervise the provision of the conveyancing services".
The Green Paper had such a provision in mind. It is a statutory obligation on solicitors and licensed conveyancers and it should therefore be in primary legislation so as to cover this situation.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may deal with these two amendments at the same time. My intention is that the regulations should deal with this matter by specifying the nature of the supervision that should be required. I believe that that is the wisest course to take in this situation. The Green Paper referred to this provision and the White Paper developed it in quite considerable detail. I believe that the White Paper proposal is an effective method of securing supervision by a properly qualified person.
I can well understand that the situation is one of importance and therefore I have provided that these regulations —that is, those proposed under Clause 37 —should be supervised under Clause 32(2)(b). However, I can see that if by chance there was a failure to comply with these there may well be a problem. Therefore, I shall consider further the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. That may be the best way forward as it would have the effect of ensuring that the authorised practitioner who disobeyed or neglected these two branches—namely, paragraphs (b) and (c) —would expose himself to the criminal sanctions under Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
If the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Mishcon, are prepared to leave the matter with me, I am prepared to consider further whether an added incentive, as it were, to the authorised practitioners to ensure that they obey the regulations with regard to supervision would be appropriate.
I believe that the regulation-making system is the better one to ensure the standard of supervision. Supervision is, as we know, something that can vary in standard. It is important to be able to specify the standard to some extent. As I said, I developed that proposal between the Green Papers and the White Paper. It may be possible to develop it still further. It is an important matter and it would be wise to have power to specify it closely. I shall consider adding the sanction suggested in the amendment.
11.30 p.m
Lord Evans of Claughton: In the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said, it gives me considerable pleasure to withdraw the amendment to enable him to reconsider the matter. It shows that it is worth staying up late occasionally. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 173D:
Page 27, line 2, at end insert —
("( ) Subsection (I) shall only apply

(a) in the case of an act done by an officer or employee of a body corporate, where the act was done at the direction and under the supervision of another person who was at the time an officer or employee of that body; or

133

(b) in the case of an act done by a member or employee of an unincorporated association, where the act was done at the direction and under the supervision of another person who was at the time his partner, his employer, a partner or his employer or a fellow employee; and

(c) apart from this section, the act could have been done by the other person for or in expectation of fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under the said section 22.").

The noble Lord said: I have already sopoken to the amendment and I shall not inflict a further speech on the Committee. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can consider whether, as the primary legislation deals with the two other branches involved with conveyancing, it would be consistent to deal with this matter by primary legislation. He said that he will consider the whole question, and in the light of the speeches made I am prepared to leave it at that and I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 173E is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 173F to 174 inclusive.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 173E:
Page 27, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether the Committee is prepared to smile at this time of night. I can only remind the Committee of what happened in court one day when, after a long submission by one counsel, the learned judge turned to the other counsel and said. "Now, what do you think of Mr. Brown's submission?"; to which the reply was, "I thought it was dreadful"; and the counsel sat down. In the same way, I wish to be brief and say that subsections (2) and (3), which I ask to be deleted as a result of the amendment, are in the view of the Law Society and the practitioners dreadful, which is why we want to omit them.
Having used those strong words, I should explain why that is so. The amendment would allow the professions to continue to regulate their members' employment by conveyancing institutions and would allow professional rules to govern those who act as their agents. Unless the amendment is made the professions will lose that right. The subsections strike at the ability of the Law Society, the Bar and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers to regulate the affairs of their members who are employed or retained by authorised practitioners. I feel that I need say no more at this stage and at this time of night to show how objectionable —if I may use that term —the Law Society and the practitioners (I imagine I speak for the Bar Council too) regard those subsections.
Lord Renton: I understood that we were going no further than this tonight. I should have thought that we had achieved a great deal today. I know that one or two of the debates have been unexpectedly long; but nevertheless we have covered a great deal of ground and dealt with many amendments. I should have thought that we would do much better to come back to this important matter fresher and at a more reasonable hour on some other day.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure whether there is some misunderstanding about this amendment. I rely upon the standard of competence and conduct of the professions —that is to say, the solicitor branch, the barrister branch and the licensed conveyancer branch —to ensure proper standards in the performance of these conveyancing services. There is no intention whatsoever of depriving the Law Society, the Bar Council or the Society of Licensed Conveyancers of making rules about the standard of professional conduct. All that the provisions do that the amendment seeks to delete is to ensure that the scheme can operate, making use of solicitors, for example, either as employees or as agents of the building societies to provide the services.
I do not think that the provisions can reasonably be construed as having any other effect. I, with my advisers, will certainly look further to see whether that is so and whether we can make it clear that far from abolishing the right of the Law Society to make effective rules of conduct and competence, I wish to rely on them. I shall seek advice on whether there is any chance that what we have drafted unnecessarily damages that.
On the other hand, I wish it to be made clear that none of the professional bodies can make a rule which would prevent their members from giving these services to authorised practitioners. That is the very heart of the scheme. I do not believe that it would be right to allow the heart to be torn out of the scheme. However, it is right that the professional bodies should continue to regulate the standards of conduct. That is what I rely on. There may be some misunderstanding between us, but my intention is as I have said. I believe that the clause as drafted gives effect to that. If it does not, after taking advice I shall seek to improve it further.
Lord Templeman: While I accept all that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor says, perhaps I may ask him to consider this point. As a result of the debate on the Green Paper, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has introduced a number of safeguards. They will prevent the evil arising of an estate agent acting on behalf of vendor and purchaser and will prevent multidisciplinary partnerships being exploited so that building societies and insurance companies collect commission from all kinds of operations, to the detriment of the purchaser.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider, in the context of this subsection, the possibility of a cosy arrangement between an estate agent and a building society or insurance company. In a fairly large town they might employ just one firm of solicitors as agents. They will obey the law but not until it is passed. All the building societies and insurance companies will go on with all the practices which we attack so strongly in the Green Paper and which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor announced his intention of curbing. They will continue to do so until the law is passed restraining them.

135
I have had to wait four days to make this speech, so perhaps I may implore the noble and learned Lord to ensure that in all the safeguards which he is introducing in the Bill, proper safeguards will prevent the kind of abuse to which reference was made on all sides of the House with regard to conveyancing in the debate on the Green Paper. Will the noble and learned Lord assume that people will do their best to get out of it? The cosy arrangement between any of these institutions and one firm of solicitors could destroy the whole element of competition. It would mean that the high street solicitor would not be able to compete in the locality because all the work would go to one firm of solicitors.
The Law Society should have power to say that it will not tolerate that practice, and that if it finds that happening it should be able to tell the firm of solicitors concerned that it must not act for a particular building society, insurance company or estate agent in a town unless they agree that their conveyancing work shall not be limited only to that firm of solicitors but shall be spread out. It may be difficult to ensure that that happens, but I wish to impress on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, even at this late hour, that there may be some potential evil here. One does not wish to inhibit the Law Society from saying whether its own members are operating fairly between the rules.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies to that point, I wish to refer to another issue as the noble and learned Lord may wish to reply to them together. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that the purpose of subsection (2) was to make sure that no branch of the legal profession, or I suppose licensed conveyancers, made a rule preventing a barrister, for example, from acting as an employee of an authorised practitioner or acting on his behalf; in other words, facilitating the provision of conveyancing services by an authorised practitioner. I have just been having a word with the chairman of the Bar on this matter and I understand that what is troubling the Bar is something quite different. The Bar wishes to be maintained as a referral profession; that is a profession which does not accept instructions other than through another professional, whereas it would appear that subsection (2)(a) as drafted would prevent it prohibiting a member of the Bar, perhaps in private practice, from carrying out conveyancing direct for members of the public with all kinds of complications in relation to the insurance cover provided by the Bar and in relation to accounts. Perhaps I only speak for myself but I believe most members of the Bar are quite incapable of keeping accounts which would satisfy the client account rules of the Law Society. Indeed it would be necessary to have client accounts and other horrors with which the Bar is wholly unfamiliar.
Lord Renton: The noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls referred to a point which arises in my Amendment No. 173F. It might save time if I were to refer to that now. I shall do so very briefly,
136
as I always do. I have never spoken for longer than two minutes on any amendment to this Bill. If the Chief Whip has his watch he can time me now. The point is that, as the noble and learned Lord has said, unless we have Amendment No. 173F, or something to like effect, it will mean that members of the Bar who carry out conveyancing —among my friends in Lincoln's Inn there are quite a number —could be approached direct by members of the public instead of in accordance with the practice which has always prevailed; namely, being approached by a solicitor. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will agree that this matter should be put right. The best way of putting it right is by accepting Amendment No. 173F.
Lord Mishcon: I wish to give some examples of how misleading this subsection is at the moment. It speaks clearly about there being no ability of the Law Society or the Bar Council to prevent their members from being employed by authorised conveyancers. With that object the Law Society and, I am sure, the Bar Council, would have no quarrel, if it were clearly pointed out that this is the limit of what is desired. However, the language is not so clear.
I should like to draw to the attention of the noble and learned Lord that the Law Society, for example, needs to ensure that its members are subject to its general regulatory powers such as those which ensure that undertakings given by solicitors can be relied on absolutely. It also needs to be able to regulate the extent to which authorised practitioners can provide services through private practitioners. In particular, it needs to ensure that no confusion can arise between the wholly independent service now available from private practitioners and the more limited service to be provided by authorised practitioners.
I cite those two examples so that the noble and learned Lord, in his courtesy, can consider them as well as the other speeches that have been made regarding the amendment. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord has as a specific object keeping the clause in clear language so that we may know exactly what it means.
11.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention of the clause is to make it possible for a solicitor in private practice to provide conveyancing services for the clients of a building society. That is the purpose of paragraph (c). Paragraph (b) makes it possible for a member of the Law Society, for example, to be an employee of an authorised practititioner. I believe that the two paragraphs are necessary if the scheme is to be fully effective.
I agree entirely that the Law Society, for example, should have power to control completely the way in which those services are given, in the sense of providing the proper standard of professional service under those arrangements. I should think that, for example, a solicitor in private practice who provided conveyancing services for the clients of a building society should be capable of explaining fully to the client at the personal interview which I have

137
stipulated should be offered what services he was prepared to offer and the conditions under which those services were offered.
I entirely see the point that was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman. That is one of the objectives of having the board seek to develop competition in the provision of conveyancing services. I believe that the board is the best body to have such responsibilities. Those responsibilities would operate on the building society in the example that my noble and learned friend quoted. The last thing I want to do is to limit or inhibit competition or to allow authorised practitioners to develop systems under which they would be able improperly to limit competition.
My noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls also made a point which I should like further to consider. It is not clear to me what problem arises so far as concerns the Bar. I can see that there may be a difficulty in some circumstances if a practitioner gives services only on referral and is a member of the practising Bar in that sense. I can see no reason why a member of the Bar should not be employed by an authorised practititoner if he wants to take up such employment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I explained that paragraph (a) was the problem.
The Lord Chancellor: I see that. That is an aspect of the matter which I would want to consider further but the regulations could cope with that. I do not believe that it is necessary to take paragraph (a) out, but I shall certainly look further at the matter. That also deals with the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: The comments of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor deal partly with that point, but if noble Lords look at the place at which I propose that the words,
"except the General Council of the Bar",
should be inserted, they will see that the proposal covers each of the three circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).
In view of what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said about wanting to consider the question of the employee of an authorised practitioner and in view of the possibility, which I must confess that I had not contemplated, that an independent barrister could give up being such and become an employee of an authorised practitioner who is not a barrister, perhaps I should take my amendment away and we should consider that proposal.
However, I should have to come back on Report and point out that in order to cover the circumstances of the independent practitioner some words must be inserted which would ensure that the present rules with regard to independent practitioners are not altered. There should not be direct access to the lay clerk. Barristers are neither trained nor organised to work directly with lay clerks, handling money, for example. They have always
138
acted through solicitors and that should remain the position. I shall not move my amendment tonight, but I ask my noble and learned friend to consider the matter further. It must be dealt with somehow.
The Lord Chancellor: I intended to say that I would consider that point. I believe that it is capable of being dealt with.
Lord Mishcon: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 173F to 174 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Authorisation of practitioners]:
[Amendment No. 174ZA not moved.]
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 27, line 29, after ("date") insert ("and be for such period").
The noble Lord said: This simple amendment seeks to concentrate the minds of practitioners since, as the Bill stands at present, authorisation would be indefinite. I seek to substitute a limited period. The amendment should be supported because, clearly, authorised practitioners, like other human beings, are likely to improve their services if they have to apply for a fresh authorisation periodically and are not allowed an indeterminate period without any interruption. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I find it difficult to accept the principle of the amendment. The board is to be given a full range of powers to deal with any authorised practitioner whose performance does not come up the mark. We are to discuss the powers that it would have to look at what practitioners have been up to. Against that background I see no reason why the board and practitioners should be put to inconvenience and expense where there is no reason to doubt their competence. Where there is, a power to impose conditions to my mind is a more direct and effective way of dealing with any problems.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this is a very effective system for making sure that if anything is wrong the authorised practitioner's standing can be immediately affected. But a periodical renewal, as it were, of his authority seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic in effect. Such effect, I am sure, is one of the last things that the noble Lord would wish to introduce into the system.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I am very willing to accept the advice so robustly put to me by the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 175A:
Page 27, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 178A

139
and 178B. I shall explain the position very quickly. Under subsection (6) of Clause 34 there is the indication that the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board may make, but does not have to make, rules prescribing the form in which applications from those wishing to become authorised practitioners may be made. In my view that is too permissive a power. My amendment seeks to make it mandatory.
I believe that there is a public interest point here which demands that the rules be very clearly set out and that the board receive all the information that it needs to judge whether an applicant is a fit person for authorisation purposes. That is the purpose behind Amendment No. 175A.
I turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 178A and 178B which concern a related principle. Clause 37 deals with the regulations that will be required to regulate the competence and conduct of practitioners. I believe that a strong regulatory framework is required, particularly in view of the expanded categories of people who will be involved.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will give me a very plausible explanation. But as a layman, treading I suspect on rather thin legal ice, it seems to me that the word "may" is not strong enough. I declare such interest as I have as a chartered surveyor and therefore someone who to some extent is involved, at any rate by professional label, with the conveyancing process, although I myself do not become directly involved with it. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment seeks to amend subsection (6) of Clause 34, which provides that the board, when making rules in respect of an application for authorisation under subsection (4), may in particular make provision as to the form in which any application must be made and for the furnishing by applicants of information required by the board in connection with their application. The amendment makes it mandatory rather than discretionary for the board to make such particular rules.
The aim of the subsection is to give guidance as to the matters which the board should consider when making rules. The form of the application and required supporting information are inevitably matters that the board will wish to consider; but given the possible variation in the classes of applicant, it is not appropriate for the board to be under a duty to make rules covering specific items.
Apart from anything else, an obligation which states "shall" instead of "may" would not be complete without some time limit. I believe that the noble Lord should have in mind that the board will require to have the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor to the rules that it would make.
I believe that if one were to make some part of the obligation mandatory, it would be right to do so for the whole lot. If one does so, the whole arrangement is inflexible and unwise. I believe that the board might wish to make new rules from time to time in the light of practice as matters develop. A mandatory system does not properly take account of that. The idea of "may" is to give the board power
140
and one expects the board to use these powers in the furtherance of the duties placed upon it in the opening words of Clause 32 which we looked at.
I hope in the light of that explanation the noble Earl may feel as a layman that I have given not just a plausible explanation but one that satisfies him.
The Earl of Lytton: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and apologise for the incompleteness of the amendments that I have moved. My power of parliamentary drafting is not as good as perhaps it should be. However, I should like to consider the explanation that the noble and learned Lord has given. It seems entirely plausible and proper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12 midnight
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 175ZA:
Page 28, line 4, after ("arising") insert ("and in particular complies with any indemnity rules made under section (Rules concerning indemnity), so far as applicable.")
The noble Lord said: My only consolation in moving this important amendment at this hour would be to hear the noble and learned Lord say either that he accepts the amendment, or that he accepts the spirit of it, or that he will favourably consider it.
With the leave of the Committee I speak also to Amendments Nos. 175ZB and 180D.
As noble Lords will see, this is the important amendment dealing with rules concerning indemnity which the lord Chancellor should make in respect of civil liability incurred by authorised practitioners in the course of their providing conveyancing services. It is therefore a very necessary protection for the public.
I have referred to the Green Paper. In paragraph 3.10 it was stated that an authorised practitioner will be required to have adequate professional indemnity insurance or other appropriate arrangements to meet claims arising out of conveyancing services. But Clause 34(7)(b) does not refer to insurance. It simply requires an applicant to ensure that,
"satisfactory arrangements are at all times in force for covering adequately the risk of any claim made against the applicant in connection with the provision of conveyancing services provided by the applicant, however arising".
One has only to look at the indemnity requirements contained in other statutes to see that that is very wibbly-wobbly. Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 had detailed provisions in regard to licensed conveyancers and requiring them to be insured. Section 53 of the Financial Services Act 1986 has similar insurance requirements in respect of persons authorised to carry out investment business. As everyone knows, Section 37 of the Solicitors Act 1974 is specific in containing insurance requirements in respect of solicitors.
This amendment is based very much on all those provisions. The proposed amendment enables the Lord Chancellor to exempt certain authorised practitioners from the indemnity rules. It may very well be that the Lord Chancellor will take the view

141
that very big banks, building societies and insurance companies have such large financial resources from which to meet claims for liability that it would not be necessary or appropriate for him to require them to be insured. The Lord Chancellor can take that matter into account when making his rules. However, there will be many other authorised practitioners who will be individuals, partnerships or smaller companies. In those cases members of the public must be properly protected by rules requiring authorised practitioners to be insured. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As I have already said, I fully support the idea that by one means or another clients must be protected. That, I believe, is achieved in two ways. First, under Clause 34(7)(b), to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred, it is a prerequisite for authorisation that an authorised practitioner must have satisfactory arrangements in force for covering adequately the risk of any claim. The board shall authorise a person to provide those services if it is of the opinion that the applicant will comply with the requirements mentioned in subsection (7). In other words, it must see that satisfactory arrangements are in place for a particular practitioner to be authorised. That means that, generally speaking, the practitioner must be insured.
For those acts that cannot properly be covered by insurance —namely, dishonesty —the Government have tabled amendments enabling the board to establish a compensation fund. It is unnecessary and over-regulatory to require it to set up an indemnity fund in addition. The noble Lord recognised that there may be exceptions to what he has in mind. It is right that what is to be insured is set out together with the manner in which it is secured, provided that sufficient powers exist to enable that properly to be done in all cases and that that is the best way forward. Therefore, I believe that our suggestions deal effectively with the problem raised by the noble Lord and with the minimum of unnecessary detail.
Lord Mishcon: I have heard what the noble and learned Lord said, as have other Members of the Committee. He has recognised the fact that it is an important matter. I believe that in protecting the public it will be of great help to him if the matter is made clear in the primary legislation. That was the reason for my detailed amendment containing the clause which I proposed should be inserted if it was agreed.
In view of the importance of the matter, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will consider it most carefully. Upon that understanding, which I believe I have, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 175ZB not moved.]
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 175ZC:
Page 28, line 12, at end insert—
("(f) submits reports at regular intervals from an independent accountant in a form to be prescribed by the Board that the accounts of the authorised practitioner are being kept in a proper manner and in accordance with the regulations laid down under subsection (1)(f) of section 37.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to provide protection for the consumer similar to that which already exists for solicitors and licensed conveyancers. It would require authorised practitioners to submit a regular accountant's form certifying that the practitioner's accounts are being properly kept.
Rather cruelly, the Law Society has said that it prefers Amendment No. 180E tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Prys-Davies. However, undaunted by my professional body's preference, I put forward my amendment on the grounds that we shall deal with it this evening and God knows when we shall reach Amendment No. 180E.
The principle enunciated is plain: that the consumer deserves at least equal protection to that which he now receives in relation to his transactions with solicitors and licensed conveyancers and that accountant's certificates must be produced at regular intervals. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand the aim of the noble Lord. The amendment, if accepted, would compel continuing financial surveillance by the board of authorised practitioner accounts and the handling of their clients' money in a way similar to that in which the Law Society requires annual certificates from auditors that solicitors have complied with its clients' accounts rules. To the extent that this kind of surveillance is needed, the existing powers already set out in the Bill are adequate to allow regulations to impose the necessary requirements.
In general, however, the board will receive information from the conveyancing ombudsman and may also obtain it in certain circumstances from other regulatory bodies (for example, the Building Societies Commission or the Office of Fair Trading) which will enable them to fulfil their regulatory role. I believe that this will provide adequate protection for the client while not imposing an unnecessary burden on authorised practitioners. Requiring authorised practitioners to produce their accounts in such a way as to enable financial monitoring by the board could entail expenditure of considerable time and expense which would have to be passed on to the client. It should not therefore be imposed unless it can be fully justified.
I believe that the general regulations to which I have referred are sufficient to ensure what is required without imposing unnecessary burdens. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that that is the best way to meet his very understandable concern.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I am not completely happy with the assurance given to me by the noble and learned Lord. However, I should obviously like time to consider this matter between now and the later stages of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 175B:
Page 28, line 18, leave out ("or").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment I also speak to Amendment No. 175C which relates to this. This is a probing amendment to seek an assurance regarding the categories of persons who may be considered appropriate for authorisation by the board.
In this instance, reference is made at subsection (8) to a bank, a building society and an insurance company in particular. It seems to me that there are other professions which could also be considered appropriate and which perhaps should stand to be judged for their appropriateness in exactly the same way as those named groups of bodies by virtue of the fact that they are professional bodies.
I believe that my professional body, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, might be among those which should be considered appropriate, although I would not in any way wish to prejudge the matter. I do not believe that the institution has expressed a particular preference one way or the other. Therefore, it may well be that the noble and learned Lord will advise that this matter is already dealt with and that it is subservient to the general principles outlined in the Bill. The purpose behind the amendment is to seek clarification as to those which are likely to be considered appropriate for the provision of conveyancing services.
I believe that that very much follows on the principles enunciated in the White Paper and in particular the concept of recognising professional bodies and other organisations for that purpose. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I take also Amendment No. 175C to which the noble Earl has spoken. I regret that I cannot accept these amendments. If one looks at Clause 34 one sees that the board is to consider whether the applicant's business is being, and is likely to continue to be, carried on by fit and proper persons, or, in the case of an individual, whether he is a fit and proper person. The board can therefore recognise people who are fit and proper persons without any further ado.
On the other hand, we have directed attention to the fact that some possible applicants are already subject to prudential regulations under other statutory provisions. Where that situation applies, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), the board can have regard to the fact that it is so authorised in determining whether the board is satisfied, as mentioned in subsection 1(a). It is not bound by that. In other words, if one finds a bank authorised by the Bank of England to operate deposit-taking business, it may be safe to conclude that those involved are fit and proper persons to provide conveyancing, subject to the other safeguards. To add the words,
"a member of a professional body recognised for this purpose by the Secretary of State"
would be to introduce unnecessarily another Minister into the arrangement. We try to leave this to the board. The board would make up its own mind whether the particular business was carried on by fit and proper persons. If they were members of a recognised professional body, that would be a
144
factor to be taken into account by the board in considering their application. Accordingly, I do not believe that this amendment would advance matters beyond the limits provided for in the clause.
I hope that the noble Earl finds that response satisfactory.
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Lytton: I fully appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said. His knowledge of the matter is incomparably greater than mine in regard to the correct way in which these things should be dealt with. He answered my question in the sense that he accepts that a member of a professional body will not necessarily be excluded from being considered a fit and proper person. That was the point behind the amendment. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 175C to 176A not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 176ZA:
Page 28, line 26, at end insert—
("(10) The Board shall establish and maintain a register of authorised practitioners, which shall be available for inspection by any person without charge.
(11) The Board shall enter the name of any person authorised to provide conveyancing services and any conditions to which his authorisation is subject in the register of authorised practitioners.
(12) Where the Board suspends or revokes a person's authorisation it shall amend the register accordingly.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment would require the conveyancing board to keep a register of authorised practitioners which could be inspected by members of the public free of charge. There is no duty under the Bill for the board to establish such a register. We believe, and the Law Society believes, that this omission should be put right. It is important that members of the public should be able to check whether or not a particular person or body is an authorised practitioner and whether the authorisation is subject to any conditions.
There are similar provisions concerning a register being available for inspection by the public in the Solicitors Act 1974 in relation to solicitors and in the Administration of Justice Act 1985 in relation to licensed conveyancers. The noble and learned Lord will know that there are similar provisions in regard to conveyancing practitioners in Scotland in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. I trust that the amendment will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Schedule 2, paragraph 5, gives the board the general power to regulate its own arrangements. It will be open to the board to establish such a register. It may well consider that in order to function effectively it will need to establish a register of those bodies or individuals that it has authorised. However, the noble Lord has drawn my attention to a number of similar situations in which a statutory duty is imposed to keep such a register. I am therefore happy to consider favourably I believe in this case this particular amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am very grateful for that response. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Revocation and suspension of authorisation]:
[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 29, line 37, at end insert—
("(5) The powers conferred by Part II of Schedule (Intervention in Authorised Practitioner's Practice) below shall be exercisable by the Board in the circumstances specified in Part I of that Schedule, whether or not the Board has suspended or revoked the practitioner's authorisation.").
The noble Lord said: The attitude of the noble and learned Lord has encouraged me with hope as regards this amendment. It is part of a series of amendments which are there to protect the public. Therefore, I know that that will have the very ardent consideration of the noble and learned Lord if there be merit in the amendment. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 184A.
The purpose of the amendments is to enable the board to intervene in an authorised practitioner's practice where that intervention is necessary in order to safeguard a client's money or interests. At the moment the only provision that comes anywhere near that is Clause 34(7)(d), which provides that an applicant must have,
"in force satisfactory arrangements to protect the applicant's clients in the event of the applicant ceasing to provide conveyancing services".
The matter is left there.
That is not what the Green Paper said. At paragraph 3.14 the Green Paper states:
"An authorised practitioner may cease, or go out of business for any number of reasons including death, illness, disciplinary action or bankruptcy. In the case of solicitors and licensed conveyancers who cease practice, there are statutory provisions whereby clients' money is protected, and professional colleagues"—
I underline those words —
"may intervene in the practice in order to return papers to the clients. Very often the intervening colleague is willing to take over the file of any client prepared to instruct him. Similar arrangements will be required in the case of authorised practitioners so that clients are properly protected".
Exactly as the Green Paper states, as regards solicitors there is the provision in Section 35 of and Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 where the Law Society is specifically given powers to intervene in a solicitor's practice in certain cricumstances where client's money and affairs have to be safeguarded.
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers is covered by Section 31 of and Schedule 5 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 which gives similar powers to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. My noble friend quoted the Financial Services Act 1986. The noble and learned Lord said that he had noted that there were similar statutory provisions. He said that it may be a good idea to
146
look at them and give favourable consideration to including a similar statutory provision.
Even in the Financial Services Act 1986, Sections 64 to 71 give powers by way of detailed provisions concerning powers of intervention. This is a necessary safeguard for the public and I trust that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The powers the Bill confers on the board are aimed to enable it to perform its duties of authorising and supervising practitioners in a way that is light and flexible as well as effective. Under Clause 32(1)(b) the board has a general duty to supervise the activities of authorised practitioners, and by Clause 32(2) the board will make arrangements designed to enable it to ascertain whether authorised practitioners are complying with the regulations which the Lord Chancellor will make if Parliament so decides. Further, under Clause 36(3)(d) the board may make rules concerning transitional arrangements for dealing with any work in hand should an authorised practitioner's authorisation be revoked or suspended. Those would vary according to the circumstances.
I consider these clauses and the other relevant clauses in the Bill give sufficient control to the board without attempting to give it the full panoply of intervention powers of a professional body, a role that is unnecessary and unsuitable for this body. I remind the Committee that the board will be regulating a wide range of practitioners, from large financial institutions to small firms. We must design its duties and its powers to reflect that and the fact that it will be supervising only one, and perhaps a comparatively small, aspect of many practitioners' businesses. Those are likely to be subject to detailed regulation in those other areas. We must provide adequate safeguards and avoid overlapping and conflicting sets of rules or regulatory overkill that will deter the large business and overburden the small one.
I have certainly heard it said, whether correctly or not, that some aspects of the Financial Services Act may sometimes do something of that kind. I cannot comment on that but I have heard it said. We must be careful to achieve the correct safeguard without unnecessary overburden. I hope the noble Lord may feel that that is a reasonable position for me to take in relation to the point on which his amendments focus.
Lord Mishcon: I must confess to be unhappy with the noble and learned Lord's reply, but obviously at this hour of the night it would be foolish to continue the debate. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 177B:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board to be able to require provision of redress in respect of inadequate professional services.
—(1) Where the Board are satisfied that the services provided by an authorised practitioner were in any respect not of the quality that could reasonably have been expected of it or him the Board may, if it thinks fit, do one or more of the following things, namely,—

(a) determine that the costs to which the authorised practitioner shall be entitled in respect of those services shall be limited to such amount as may be specified in their determination and direct the authorised practitioner to comply or secure compliance, with such of the requirements set out in subsection (2) below as appear to it to be necessary to give effect to its determination;

(b) direct the authorised practitioner to secure the rectification, at the expense of the practitioner of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the services as the Board may specify;

(c) direct the authorised practitioner to take, at the expense of the practitioner, such other action in the interests of the client as the Board may specify;

(d) direct the authorised practitioner to pay compensation of up to £1,000.

(2) The requirements referred to in subsection (1)(a) are —

(a) to refund, whether in whole or to any specified extent, any amount already paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the costs of the authorised practitioner in connection with the services; and

(b) to waive, whether wholly or to any specified extent, the right to recover those costs.")

The noble Lord said: I hope to be more fortunate with this amendment, which again seeks to protect the public. Its effect would be to enable the board to require an authorised practitioner to provide redress to a client in respect of inadequate professional services. I shall, if I may, cite what happens elsewhere. All other legislation affecting providers of conveyancing services enables the appropriate regulatory body to deal with complaints of inadequate professional services, to which we have referred in past debates as shoddy work.
In each case the regulatory body may, where it is satisfied that the conveyancing practitioner has provided inadequate professional services, direct the practitioner to reduce his bill, even to nothing, or to take rectifying action. Such powers are given to the Law Society by the Solicitors Act 1974 and to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers by Section 26 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. And even in the noble and learned Lord's native Scotland, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by the House at the moment, gives similar powers to the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board. It would be a little odd if a client could secure redress for shoddy work if he had instructed a solicitor or licensed conveyancer but could not do so if he had instructed an authorised practitioner. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: It is appropriate in this arrangement for the ombudsman to have the kind of powers that are here in question. We have endeavoured to provide in the new Schedule 6A an amendment to deal with this matter. My Amendment No. 186YA provides the opening to it. There is then a schedule of detailed powers for the ombudsman.
148
I believe that this is the proper way of dealing with the matter in this case. I know that the noble Lord may not have had much opportunity as yet to consider my amendment as it has not been moved, but I believe that what is proposed there is appropriate and will deal with the same point he raised.
Lord Mishcon: I cannot help thinking that the ombudsman could in fact deal with all manner of complaints, including those against solicitors and licensed conveyancers. However, it is deemed necessary to have a statutory provision specially providing for such a situation. If I may say so with the greatest respect, I am somewhat surprised that the noble and learned Lord has not sought to introduce this clear power for the board which would have precisely the same effect and ensure an analogous and tidy situation.
However, the noble and learned Lord has given his reply and I must therefore consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 177C:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board to be able to call for practitioners' files to aid investigation
. —(1) Where the Board are satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating:

(a) any allegation that an authorised practitioner has failed to comply with any condition to which his authorisation was subject; or

(b) has failed to comply with any rules or regulations made under this Part; or

(c) any complaint made to the Board about an authorised practitioner; or

(d) any allegation that an authorised practitioner has provided inadequate professional services, the Board may give notice to the authorised practitioner to whom the allegation or complaint relates, or to his firm, requiring the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Board, at a time and place to be fixed by the board, of all documents in the possession of the authorised practitioner or his firm in connection with the matters to which the allegation or complaint relates (whether or not they relate also to other matters).

(2) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (12) of paragraph 9 of Schedule (Intervention in authorised practitioner's practice), together with paragraphs 11 and 12 of that Schedule, shall apply in relation to the powers conferred on the Board by subsection (1) as they apply in relation to the powers conferred on the Board by sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9, and accordingly in those provisions —

(a) any reference to a person appointed, or to a requirement, under that sub-paragraph shall be construed as including a reference to a person appointed, or to a requirement, under subsection (1); and

(b) any reference to any such documents as are mentioned in that sub-paragraph shall be construed as including a reference to any such documents as are mentioned in subsection (1)").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to give the conveyancing board the power to call for an authorised practitioner's files for the purpose of investigating allegations or complaints in respect of that authorised practitioner. The powers are similar to those given to the Law Society by Section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 and to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers by

149
Section 31(2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. It seems to me that the conveyancing board should not be denied that power especially in the circumstances—namely, those mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) —referred to in the amendment. I trust, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord can see his way clear to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This board is not intended to be a mirror of the Law Society with its detailed powers; it is under a statutory duty to make rules providing for the circumstances in which it may suspend or revoke authorisation. It may well be —and, this is a point of the amendment which I should like to consider further—that the board should have specific statutory powers to call for an authorised practitioner's documents in order properly to carry out its supervisory and disciplinary functions. With the noble Lord's agreement, I intend to look into the matter and return to it at a later stage.
However, I should point out that because of the particular circumstances with which we are dealing I am really aiming at something a good deal less than the full panoply of powers which, for example, the Law Society has. I hope in the light of that explanation, and upon the understanding that I shall look further at the question of specific powers to call for an authorised practitioner's documents, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I also hope that the noble Lord will feel that it was well worth waiting until this time of night to hear that response. I think that we are nearing the end of today's proceedings.
Lord Prys-Davies: My patience has indeed been rewarded. I am especially grateful for the noble and learned Lord's response. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before one o'clock.

  EC DEVELOPMENTS: SIX-MONTHLY WHITE PAPER
  EC DEVELOPMENTS: SIX-MONTHLY WHITE PAPER
  EC: CULTURAL COMPETENCE
  EC: CULTURAL COMPETENCE
  PAYMENTS INTO COURT
  PAYMENTS INTO COURT
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
  DR. KALMIN SIDDIQUE
  DR. KALMIN SIDDIQUE
  LISTED BUILDINGS: ENGLISH HERITAGE ADVICE
  LISTED BUILDINGS: ENGLISH HERITAGE ADVICE
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: INNER CITY SSAs
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: INNER CITY SSAs
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION PROGRAMME
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION PROGRAMME
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
  FETAL TISSUE: THERAPEUTIC USE
  FETAL TISSUE: THERAPEUTIC USE
  TRIDENT D5 PURCHASE
  TRIDENT D5 PURCHASE
  BBC: ADVERTISING GUIDELINES
  BBC: ADVERTISING GUIDELINES
  ECONOMIC LEAGUE
  ECONOMIC LEAGUE
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACTS: EXCLUSION ORDERS
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACTS: EXCLUSION ORDERS
  PROBATION SERVICE REORGANISATION: CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT
  PROBATION SERVICE REORGANISATION: CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT